DDD's standing infinite should not be banned.

[SuSa]

Maybe it wouldn't go in circles if you stopped for a minute to actually read your posts. How is your response to me even a response? None of what you said was even remotely intelligent.

Mario as a counter to MK? And then you ask me the difference between "Play this character or lose" and "Don't play this character because he generally sucks"? Have you ever participated in a counterpick before?

Just stop while you're ahead, you're embarrassing yourself.

I see nothing positive to:

1) The competitive scene with SI rather then without
2) Keeping the SI

Also I stated that as a "lol IDC is overcentralizing and can't be countered" if Mario capes it, MK dies. :| That seems to be a rather.. painful counter. But you know. Let's just theorycraft, never see IDC in play, and ban it. Unlike the grab being used, banned at many current tournaments, see as not helpful at all to the competitive scene (which you know, actually matters MORE THEN THE GAME ITSELF), and blah blah blah.

Stop playing ****ty characters, go Meta Knight or Snake. They can at least win.

Let's at least agree on that last part. But wait... some of you are still playing ****ty characters. Why don't you switch? It'd make sense to not have to have a secondary and up your chances of winning! That's what you are asking others to do.

 

[Sinz]

Susa, just walk away and breathe.

 

[Nanaki]

Wow, it just gets worse and worse. Are you not aware of the cap? In practice, how is his standing infinite any different than a 0-death?

I already asked this exact question. Go back a page or so and read his answer. He's said it several times.

 

[SuSa]

Maybe it wouldn't go in circles if you stopped for a minute to actually read your posts. How is your response to me even a response? None of what you said was even remotely intelligent.

Mario as a counter to MK? And then you ask me the difference between "Play this character or lose" and "Don't play this character because he generally sucks"? Have you ever participated in a counterpick before?

Just stop while you're ahead, you're embarrassing yourself.

It's not limited? Really? In what tournament is it not limited? Oh **** look, it's limited. Who cares if it can happen at 0% or 15% or 70% or 120% or whatever the hell else? It's STILL A COMBO. You have yet to deny this or even acknowledge that this has been said.

That's stupid logic you've got going about the IDC. The funny part is that you can avoid the ledge (or stay by there anyway) to avoid getting infinited, so that really didn't do **** for your argument.

And that's nice if you can avoid it and if it has some lag somewhere. The player is perfectly capable of reappearing in a safe spot. Guess what else you can avoid?

But before you hit in your automatic, redundant counter to "don't get grabbed", remember that DDD's grab also can be avoided in a number of ways and it has lag, so once again, you've failed to separate that from the IDC, and thus your whole tirade about why this is possibly worse than the IDC is fail.

Happening at 0%, 10%, 15%, 295%, 57%, 98%, 998%, 145% and the such is far different then "Happens at 0-4%, happens at 17-21%, happens at 45-47% with x move staled in the first 4 slots"

Fail to see the difference on "limits"? You can go into the blast zone and get yourself out of those %'s. Ever think of THAT solution? Wait... if you try that, you'll get edgeguarded and die anyways. However, it is a way to actually escape any chance of being 0-deathed. What do you do to the SI?

"don't get grabbed"?

Actually, no you cannot. Characters can be grabbed off the ledge, and many characters cannot plank to the level of MK. (Mario can easily be edgehogged. Samus only has 3 uses of zair to grab the ledge for safety before needing to touch on stage, DK/Luigi can't really plank. ALL CHARACTERS HAVE TO GET THE LEAD IN THE FIRST PLACE TO BE ABLE TO PLANK.

Yah, and your point being? If they do that, they aren't attacking you therefore it isn't an 0-death. Now I see it as the best teleport in the game. ^_^ It's still punishable on startup and ending. So your safespot would mean.... you repeared further from your opponent then you started at?

DDD's grab outranges.... every single thing Mario has save his projectile?

Also if we're playing "perfect theory craft here" then we shouldn't have the ledgegrab rule either. (Wait, is that even a rule by the SBR or is this just a stupid rule people agree too? If it's the latter, I should make a thread and see how people so quickly back it up) People can steal your ledge from you/hit you from your planking. It is not overcentralizing (it is not "plank or win", M2K is my evidence for this. It hasn't become a "do this or lose" situation) It's just a "gay thing" that was banned by a large part of the community for "uncompetitive reasons".

So please tell me, all who are against the banning of the SI are ALSO against the ban of planking.

EDIT:
Nanaki, I already know RDK either isn't fully reading or doesn't understand my posts. No need to tell him to go...(le gasp) read my post.

 

[Brinzy]

Stop playing ****ty characters, go Meta Knight or Snake. They can at least win.

Let's at least agree on that last part. But wait... some of you are still playing ****ty characters. Why don't you switch? It'd make sense to not have to have a secondary and up your chances of winning! That's what you are asking others to do.

lol, what a fallacious argument.

I play my duo, and then when I'm down, I play MK. At least that's what I would be doing if I were going to tournaments regularly.

Actually, let's not get onto this because it's really not making you look any better.


Also, nobody in this thread said "just play a really good character and not bother with a secondary." Learn to read and stop twisting **** up. We're saying that if you're gonna bother with a character that can't do it on his/her own, either get another character to help you out or don't complain when you lose.

Please, just, go to bed or something.

Susa, just walk away and breathe.

For everyone's sake.

 

[Xebenkeck]

[QUOTE=mariobrouser;8356526
That would be the player's fault IMO, for picking a character with that kind of weakness and knowing it could happen.


Maybe, but wouldn't that mean that you should never play those 5 characters for the chance it might happen. That is right there what people say "overcentralize the metagame" because if that is the mindset of everyone, then you completly remove 5 characters from the Metagame. Because no-one will play them for the fear of being Blind-picked.

It's overcentralizing because you are making the game more focused on the top tiers oppose to the entire cast.

EDIT: quote thing also messed up.

 

[BigDaddy4]

lol and this topic was about whether DDD's standing infinate should be banned XD

 

[Nanaki]

Also if we're playing "perfect theory craft here" then we shouldn't have the ledgegrab rule either. (Wait, is that even a rule by the SBR or is this just a stupid rule people agree too? If it's the latter, I should make a thread and see how people so quickly back it up) People can steal your ledge from you/hit you from your planking. It is not overcentralizing (it is not "plank or win", M2K is my evidence for this. It hasn't become a "do this or lose" situation)

EDIT:
Nanaki, I already know RDK either isn't fully reading or doesn't understand my posts. No need to tell him to go...(le gasp) read my post.

There's no ledgegrab limit in the SBR ruleset. That's a TO thing, I think. It really varies too, it's a weird rule. tbh, TO's just want to not have to send judges to matches to see if someone's really stalling or not.

While I'm on that topic, that's the main reason IDC is banned too, imo. Nobody wants to have to call a judge over for every MK match to see if he's stalling with it or just using it to move around safely.

Stalling is so subjective it's silly.

Edit:

It's overcentralizing because you are making the game more focused on the top tiers oppose to the entire cast.

You defined centralizing, not overcentralizing. There are still tons of viable characters without those 5. The entire cast does not have to be viable for 'overcentralizing' to not occur. See: Any other fighting game ever.

 

[SuSa]

lol, what a fallacious argument.

I play my duo, and then when I'm down, I play MK. At least that's what I would be doing if I were going to tournaments regularly.

Actually, let's not get onto this because it's really not making you look any better.


Also, nobody in this thread said "just play a really good character and not bother with a secondary." Learn to read and stop twisting **** up. We're saying that if you're gonna bother with a character that can't do it on his/her own, either get another character to help you out or don't complain when you lose.

Please, just, go to bed or something.



For everyone's sake.

Save DK (maybe Luigi?), any secondary that you are using for DDD is most likely already a better choice for a main.

Using the logic of "don't use a bad character" (which HAS been stated) it should be obvious we should all use MK or Snake. But everyone seems to deny that.

Why not use MK from the start? It'd make an obviously better choice to do so, unless your opponent happens to use a character that Sheik/Zelda have a better matchup on then MK. After all, you should be using the character that gives you the best chance in a matchup. Not try to make a matchup POSSIBLE without actually harming the metagame, or the competitive scene.

There's no ledgegrab limit in the SBR ruleset. That's a TO thing, I think. It really varies too, it's a weird rule. tbh, TO's just want to not have to send judges to matches to see if someone's really stalling or not.

While I'm on that topic, that's the main reason IDC is banned too, imo. Nobody wants to have to call a judge over for every MK match to see if he's stalling with it or just using it to move around safely.

Stalling is so subjective it's silly.

Oh good lordy..... I find that hilarious now.

 

[Tien2500]

There's no ledgegrab limit in the SBR ruleset. That's a TO thing, I think. It really varies too, it's a weird rule. tbh, TO's just want to not have to send judges to matches to see if someone's really stalling or not.

While I'm on that topic, that's the main reason IDC is banned too, imo. Nobody wants to have to call a judge over for every MK match to see if he's stalling with it or just using it to move around safely.

Stalling is so subjective it's silly.

Well it has to be subjective. If you set up an objective criteria people will find some way to stay just within the limits. There has to be some flexibility on the TO/judges part to monitor that sort of thing.

 

[SuSa]

I'm going to go make a thread about the ledge grab rule.

God**** the competitive scene makes no sense to me.

"Let's ban planking because Falco (and instert other characters here) can't beat MK"
"N00b, don't pick a character wrecked by planking. LOLOLOLOLOL"

/my argument

 

[Nanaki]

Save DK (maybe Luigi?), any secondary that you are using for DDD is most likely already a better choice for a main.

Using the logic of "don't use a bad character" (which HAS been stated) it should be obvious we should all use MK or Snake. But everyone seems to deny that.

Why not use MK from the start? It'd make an obviously better choice to do so, unless your opponent happens to use a character that Sheik/Zelda have a better matchup on then MK. After all, you should be using the character that gives you the best chance in a matchup. Not try to make a matchup POSSIBLE without actually harming the metagame, or the competitive scene.



Oh good lordy..... I find that hilarious now.

Welcome back to the MK ban debate. That's pretty much the exact pro-ban argument.

Well it has to be subjective. If you set up an objective criteria people will find some way to stay just within the limits. There has to be some flexibility on the TO/judges part to monitor that sort of thing.

I never said it had to be objective. I insinuated that judges, players, and TO's are lazy.

 

[BSP]

Isn't the game usually focused on the high/top tiers anyway?

I don't think the infinite has made anyone completely drop from the metagame. It has been around for a while, but no one has just been dropped.

 

[SuSa]

I'm anti-ban vs MK anyways, I was just saying that's what the "pick a better character" crap should make people assume. What I am saying is people don't work like that. It just doesn't happen. It's not happening (at least not on any large scale, or in a way that matters).

 

[Nanaki]

I'm going to go make a thread about the ledge grab rule.

God**** the competitive scene makes no sense to me.

"Let's ban planking because Falco (and instert other characters here) can't beat MK"
"N00b, don't pick a character wrecked by planking. LOLOLOLOLOL"

/my argument

Rules are inconsistent. SBR rules are actually the best current choice IMO, as they consistently basically say 'man up and deal with it'.

 

[SuSa]

I don't care about rules being inconsistent. I'm just wondering if people support the ledge grab rule over the SI ban. Or the same people who are fighting the SI ban support the ledge grab rule. (AKA: I hate inconsistent people)

If so, I want to LOL @ people, then continue maining Sheik/Snake who don't get super-gayed by anyone. (Sheik sorta does by Pikachu, but w/e. I can avoid it)

 

[Big O]

Metagame: People start counterpicking more and start using more characters along with their mains who have one, ONE, ONE single fight where the chance to get a complete stock removed with one mistake is there for the whole match (so they're still perfectly usable for every other matchup that the player chooses to use them in). This is exactly what 10:90 and 20:80 fights do in pretty much every game in existence. Nobody will seriously play the matches unless they are just that die hard; more will opt to find a new character so they can still compete. The minority of that group are the ones who actually quit the whole game because they have ONE fight where something like in DDD's case happens.

Quality of the competitive ruleset: As we know, you make your own rules. I could argue that leaving it unbanned would be a wake-up call for people to not play the fight anyway but I don't care. People can try and claim slippery slope here, but if you ban this, you obviously have to give a reason for it to be banned, and yes, if someone does get CG'd by Pikachu in tournament they will cry out to your decision to ban the DDD thing but not this, so you cannot separate the other CGs from this one if you're talking about banning things in tournaments.

There are no other arguments here that I can see, but "let's ban this" and trying to leave off everything else is just as bad.

Tournament attendance: Likely would improve slightly, and by slightly, I mean so little that you might not even tell the difference. A lot of the players of these characters have secondaries (possibly for this very reason but that's not important) and they still compete to this day. A lot of the people that would quit their character or this game over one horrible fight are not going to be won back by an official ban because they're either long gone or they're at tournaments that already banned the thing.

So for the most part: making it an official ban may improve the scene in a few ways but leaving it banned will force people to CP, which also improves the scene. I would like some hard data on this.




" How's that for a standard? Standard being "it has to be a ****ing standing infinite""

So hi, I went to a tournament and I got 0 -> death'd over and over by a CG, or basically a long combo, and it was allowed, but this other guy got DQ'd because he tried a standing infinite to create a 0 -> death situation. I don't get why this is; they both started and there's no way out in both situations, but just because one is "standing" and the other isn't, there's a big difference even though they accomplish the same thing. I mean, I totally don't get that, isn't there a rule against stalling, which already covers that redundant rule of "it has to be a ****ing standing infinite", since it then has to become finite and then you kill? Isn't that also a long combo? Hey wait, aren't all 0-deaths long combos? I don't understand why ban one thing and not the other!



That is why ban criteria is necessary, unless you just want to tell everyone who ever gets knocked out by this stuff, "no, that's tough look, it has to be a STANDING infinite to get them a DQ, otherwise 0-death away."

@Metagame: So promoting people CPing by letting them have free wins against otherwise viable characters is a good thing? So promoting free wins in a competition is a pro for the metagame now?


@Ruleset: Not only did you revert to talking about "if you ban this you gotta ban that" but you also say that it is better just because people won't play those MU's as often. So not playing those MU's as often is better than making those MU's competitive and relatively even (and more frequent as a side effect)?

@Attendance: The slight increase in turnout (which you admitted would occur) is more of a positive than anything no ban would accomplish. You mentioned that it is up to the TO's ultimately but it will always be up to the TO. So why resist a change to the official SBR ruleset to ban D3's infinite or standing infinites in general?

If a single broken tactic turns an otherwise competitively viable character into an unviable one and if there are no plausible benefits to leaving it in the game (unless it is too difficult/complicated to implement) it should be banned. To address D3's infinite you just make the rule say D3 must dash between regarbs after Dthrowing the opponent and you are done. Sounds like a reasonable standard for the ban on D3's infinite to me.

Whether or not it applies to other things like Pika's cg on Fox or 0 to death's in general is out of the scope of this topic (blame the OP since this thread only is for D3's standing infinites) but if it could then more characters are viable and less broken tactics and MU's exist in competitive play. Would it really be so bad if all the easily saved MU's were salvaged thanks to a few bans? We've already banned stages, IDC, stalling, etc. (for various reasons including breaking certain MU's and characters) so it isn't like we've never banned anything before. Incredibly obscure 0-death's like Ganon's aerial B-reversed warlock punches are obviously exempt the standard ban criteria I just mentioned. It isn't so much the fact that 0-death's or infinite's are bad as it is how feasible it is to pull off in the match. Ness can 0-death DK with a single Dair but that in itself clearly doesn't break the MU. If D3 had Ganon's grab range and Luigi's traction no one would care that he can infinite anyone since it could reasonably be avoided.

*Internet/smashboards has been crapping out on me since it got to page 12 so I will just have to copy paste*

RDK- Stop saying dumb and irrelevant things. We don't enforce bans to "benefit" individual matchups. Study up on your competitive gaming, son.

So when I bring up how the anti-ban side continued to say nothing but slippery slope arguements of banning x means you gotta ban y and z and when I tell them to mention some benefits to leaving D3's infinite in it is irrelevant and stupid? The "benefits" of banning D3's infinite are more than just improving hopeless MU's (like promoting more competitive MU's and fixing some of the flaws of the current CP system). So far your side hasn't exactly brought up any plausible benefits leaving his infinite unbanned would accomplish.

 

[Brinzy]

Actually, no you cannot. Characters can be grabbed off the ledge, and many characters cannot plank to the level of MK. (Mario can easily be edgehogged. Samus only has 3 uses of zair to grab the ledge for safety before needing to touch on stage, DK/Luigi can't really plank. ALL CHARACTERS HAVE TO GET THE LEAD IN THE FIRST PLACE TO BE ABLE TO PLANK.

All of the above can get a lead on DDD, and you CAN use the ledge to give yourself some form of protection. Staying on the ledge when the IDC is taking place = you're not punishing it = you're not solving the problem. Funny how you tried to get onto me about mentioning CPing because it doesn't solve the problem yet you bring that up.

Happening at 0%, 10%, 15%, 295%, 57%, 98%, 998%, 145% and the such is far different then "Happens at 0-4%, happens at 17-21%, happens at 45-47% with x move staled in the first 4 slots"

Fail to see the difference on "limits"? You can go into the blast zone and get yourself out of those %'s. Ever think of THAT solution? Wait... if you try that, you'll get edgeguarded and die anyways. However, it is a way to actually escape any chance of being 0-deathed. What do you do to the SI?

... because those are the only type of limitations that exist, nevermind the other limitations and possibilities out there that go against the DDD thing, but whaaatever.

What do you do to the SI? You get your *** on RC, Norfair, or any of your favorite IC CPs, you run the **** away until you're at a point where he'd be getting himself killed for trying this thing and you smash his ugly face in. You counterpick.

Yah, and your point being? If they do that, they aren't attacking you therefore it isn't an 0-death. Now I see it as the best teleport in the game. ^_^ It's still punishable on startup and ending. So your safespot would mean.... you repeared further from your opponent then you started at?

DDD's grab outranges.... every single thing Mario has save his projectile?

... So you have to be attacking someone in order to hold a ridiculous advantage against everyone in the game? The IDC doesn't hold a ridiculous advantage because they're not attacking you?

This is bull****. Are you tired or something? Drunk maybe?

Save DK (maybe Luigi?), any secondary that you are using for DDD is most likely already a better choice for a main.

Using the logic of "don't use a bad character" (which HAS been stated) it should be obvious we should all use MK or Snake. But everyone seems to deny that.

Why not use MK from the start? It'd make an obviously better choice to do so, unless your opponent happens to use a character that Sheik/Zelda have a better matchup on then MK. After all, you should be using the character that gives you the best chance in a matchup. Not try to make a matchup POSSIBLE without actually harming the metagame, or the competitive scene.

Because unlike many of the people in this thread and many of the people that we've been going on about, I realize that by using my favorite character in the game, I am limiting the hell out of myself. Who does this affect? Me and me only. If I'm ok with that, then there's no problem.

Just like if DK/Bowser are ok with the possibility of getting a horrendous matchup first thing, there's no problem with them on an individual level, which is what you just presented.

If I have a problem with the duo, guess what I do? I pull out MK. Do I have to? No, but I want to win and at that given point in time, I wanna use MK. If I don't want to do that? I pull out a stage and hope for the best. What do I not do? Complain that "somebody fix eeet."

Once again, get some good criteria going that wouldn't put swiss cheese to shame and I'll reconsider. Really though, I don't give that much of a ****.

 

[SuSa]

EDIT:
hold on

 

[Nanaki]

I don't care about rules being inconsistent. I'm just wondering if people support the ledge grab rule over the SI ban. Or the same people who are fighting the SI ban support the ledge grab rule. (AKA: I hate inconsistent people)

If so, I want to LOL @ people, then continue maining Sheik/Snake who don't get super-gayed by anyone. (Sheik sorta does by Pikachu, but w/e. I can avoid it)

For the first time in this thread, I 100% agree with you.

You have to either say 'The character sucks, don't play them or you'll be lamed by X" or "The character sucks when X is lame, but is otherwise good, fix it!" and do it consistently.

Doesn't D3 mess Sheik up? He can shieldgrab, like, everything she's got (except Needles).

 

[Sinz]

Its a 45-55 IIRC

But the sheik boards are stupid.

 

[Nanaki]

Its a 45-55 IIRC

But the sheik boards are stupid.

They're pretty dysfunctional. But they do some good research (some of them, at least - the ones that aren't just trying to drive escapable stuff into the ground). Jiggs boards are worse - they even admit they all hate each other and can't get along.

*Internet/smashboards has been crapping out on me since it got to page 12 so I will just have to copy paste*

L240postsperpage.

 

[Big O]

They're pretty dysfunctional. But they do some good research (some of them, at least - the ones that aren't just trying to drive escapable stuff into the ground). Jiggs boards are worse - they even admit they all hate each other and can't get along.



L240postsperpage.

Lol how exactly do I do that? It sounds a lot better than 15 per page. At least something good came out of this topic lol (aside from the clear solution to this debate).

 

[cutter]

If a single broken tactic turns an otherwise competitively viable character into an unviable one and if there are no plausible benefits to leaving it in the game (unless it is too difficult/complicated to implement) it should be banned.

Awesome! Let's ban Melee Sheik's chaingrabs then, because they fit that exact criteria! /sarcasm

 

[Big O]

I don't see a problem with that...(not to mention that is a different game entirely). PAL version ftw?

 

[Nanaki]

Lol how exactly do I do that? It sounds a lot better than 15 per page. At least something good came out of this topic lol (aside from the clear solution to this debate).

User CP -> Edit Options -> Number of Posts to Show Per Page (It's under Thread Display Options).

I hope I don't get infracted for spam on that.

 

[Brinzy]

Last one, I have a raid.

@Metagame: So promoting people CPing by letting them have free wins against otherwise viable characters is a good thing? So promoting free wins in a competition is a pro for the metagame now?

No free wins happen in normal situations if you simply don't play the character if you're not sure DDD is coming up. Nobody's promoting "CP to a free win", the promotion is to CP to a better fight. The point is that I believe people learning to use other characters/methods to get around their characters' glaring weaknesses does more for the metagame than to ban this. No doubt have I said somewhere in this thread (probably before/in that post) that banning this may be an improvement - I simply believe that this is a larger improvement, and if you can only get one improvement or the other with a decision, I choose this because I believe it's better.


@Ruleset: Not only did you revert to talking about "if you ban this you gotta ban that" but you also say that it is better just because people won't play those MU's as often. So not playing those MU's as often is better than making those MU's competitive and relatively even (and more frequent as a side effect)?

Relatively even? Those fights are even? Actually, don't even answer that because I don't care. The matchup would be played more than it is now, yes, but if more people start playing matchups that are actually even in place of the ones that people seem to want so badly, I think things just may work out better because at least now DDD has an even higher chance of losing.

And explain to me how you can separate the two. In fact, you have to effectively separate the two of those things yourself to even get started with getting a ban on this in most/all places, and so far that hasn't been solidly established, which is why we're here tonight.



@Attendance: The slight increase in turnout (which you admitted would occur) is more of a positive than anything no ban would accomplish. You mentioned that it is up to the TO's ultimately but it will always be up to the TO. So why resist a change to the official SBR ruleset to ban D3's infinite or standing infinites in general?

Why advocate for a change? I'm resisting those that advocate, while those who advocate are resisting... what again? Same ol', same ol' "host your own tournament" thing. You're not obligated to be under this at any given time. I'm not sure what you were trying to get at here because that can be said for everyone right about now.

If a single broken tactic turns an otherwise competitively viable character into an unviable one and if there are no plausible benefits to leaving it in the game (unless it is too difficult/complicated to implement) it should be banned. To address D3's infinite you just make the rule say D3 must dash between regarbs after Dthrowing the opponent and you are done. Sounds like a reasonable standard for the ban on D3's infinite to me.

I guess if viable means standalone here, then sure you can say that it's reasonable. However, if you participate in a tournament where this is allowed, you're going to have to find a way around it, and even if the SBR made this rule (which would influence other TOs), it doesn't mean anything if you're already participating in a tournament where it's legal.

This part probably sounds like a huge disagreement, but I agree with you on a certain level. I simply do not agree that those who participate in tournaments where this is legal should get much of any say when it happens to them. You can create rules to alleviate the problems you face but then you might as well 1) CP, or 2) not participate, in my opinion.

Whether or not it applies to other things like Pika's cg on Fox or 0 to death's in general is out of the scope of this topic (blame the OP since this thread only is for D3's standing infinites) but if it could then more characters are viable and less broken tactics and MU's exist in competitive play. Would it really be so bad if all the easily saved MU's were salvaged thanks to a few bans? We've already banned stages, IDC, stalling, etc. (for various reasons including breaking certain MU's and characters) so it isn't like we've never banned anything before. Incredibly obscure 0-death's like Ganon's aerial B-reversed warlock punches are obviously exempt the standard ban criteria I just mentioned. It isn't so much the fact that 0-death's or infinite's are bad as it is how feasible it is to pull off in the match. Ness can 0-death DK with a single Dair but that in itself clearly doesn't break the MU. If D3 had Ganon's grab range and Luigi's traction no one would care that he can infinite anyone since it could reasonably be avoided.

Yes, we've banned things in the past for breaking characters, but that's because while there's no arbitrary number of characters those things have to affect in order to cry broken, all of those things you've named affect EVERYONE. As I repeat, there has to be some good criteria set out in order to get the thing banned. So far, there is nothing.

As for that last part, that's a very true statement but it's also a good reason why I'm not sold on this issue. Look at Bowser and what he can do to nearly everyone. Nobody complains about this because it's Bowser. Is that how we want to base things? That's not a very good argument in my opinion because you have left every single element which makes those SIs yet all you did was make the "don't get grabbed" game easier to play, even though DDD is pretty much the same character right there.

Done now, have a good night, I'm off to entertain myself.

Forgot to repeat: if you guys can convince me (which is totally possible believe it or not), I'll agree with you. Until then, I'm going to CP.

 

[Big O]

I rearranged your paragraphs a bit to make things easier for me. I hope this won't be a problem.

No free wins happen in normal situations if you simply don't play the character if you're not sure DDD is coming up. Nobody's promoting "CP to a free win", the promotion is to CP to a better fight. The point is that I believe people learning to use other characters/methods to get around their characters' glaring weaknesses does more for the metagame than to ban this. No doubt have I said somewhere in this thread (probably before/in that post) that banning this may be an improvement - I simply believe that this is a larger improvement, and if you can only get one improvement or the other with a decision, I choose this because I believe it's better.

This part probably sounds like a huge disagreement, but I agree with you on a certain level. I simply do not agree that those who participate in tournaments where this is legal should get much of any say when it happens to them. You can create rules to alleviate the problems you face but then you might as well 1) CP, or 2) not participate, in my opinion.

It is a pretty broken aspect of the CP system when it is allowed. When getting around the characters glaring weaknesses boils down to pick someone else I think that defeats the premise of getting around a character's weaknesses.

I agree that in tourneys where this would be legal there it would be the player's fault for ever letting DK vs D3 happen since you can just avoid picking DK on their CP and in double blinds, but it is still pretty stupid imo. If I win and pick someone like DK (a viable character otherwise) I will lose in an entirely uncompetitive fashion. When an entire MU (and metagame itself vs DK) devolves to using only D3's grab with the other player standing no chance because of this, you really have to question why it is legal when there are no "pros" for keeping it in the first place.

The ban promotes both sides to take the MU seriously and I would argue that is a good thing for the metagame (and competition in general). It isn't like DK players won't CP or have secondaries even with the ban. Instead of the other player's optimum strategy being pick D3 and grab (which doesn't require much in the way of MU experience or overall player skill) they will have to actually outplay their opponent. Even if they CP his worst MU barring D3 w/infinite without a good grasp of said character or the MU they will not have an advantage or an easy time.

And explain to me how you can separate the two. In fact, you have to effectively separate the two of those things yourself to even get started with getting a ban on this in most/all places, and so far that hasn't been solidly established, which is why we're here tonight.

Yes, we've banned things in the past for breaking characters, but that's because while there's no arbitrary number of characters those things have to affect in order to cry broken, all of those things you've named affect EVERYONE. As I repeat, there has to be some good criteria set out in order to get the thing banned. So far, there is nothing.

What exactly is lacking in my example criteria? It could probably be ironed out a little more but what things can you see being ambiguous about it?

Why advocate for a change? I'm resisting those that advocate, while those who advocate are resisting... what again? Same ol', same ol' "host your own tournament" thing. You're not obligated to be under this at any given time. I'm not sure what you were trying to get at here because that can be said for everyone right about now.

I think I may have been looking to much into your earlier post when you brought that up. I assumed you were trying to downplay this entire thing by saying none of this matters to which I meant to counter with "so why are you wasting your time posting here?" Lol I was in a hurry and my internet/smashboards was crapping out so I probably wasn't too clear and messed that up. Sorry about that.

My point was that the SBR has a good amount of influence and what they support will be adopted by many TO's. I'm sure we agree that trying to convince them along with attending/hosting pro ban tourneys are ultimately the most effective ways to promote it as the standard (for the other side as well). Again sorry for the misunderstanding.

I guess if viable means standalone here, then sure you can say that it's reasonable. However, if you participate in a tournament where this is allowed, you're going to have to find a way around it, and even if the SBR made this rule (which would influence other TOs), it doesn't mean anything if you're already participating in a tournament where it's legal.

Yeah I mean standalone. I already mentioned that there is no way around this if it is legal at that certain tourney but it would be nice if I could convince TO's that the ruleset is better with the infinite banned which is why I post here. Convincing the SBR would certainly help my cause as I've said earlier.

As for that last part, that's a very true statement but it's also a good reason why I'm not sold on this issue. Look at Bowser and what he can do to nearly everyone. Nobody complains about this because it's Bowser. Is that how we want to base things? That's not a very good argument in my opinion because you have left every single element which makes those SIs yet all you did was make the "don't get grabbed" game easier to play, even though DDD is pretty much the same character right there.

Bowser doesn't really infinite anyone except maybe Wario which is so slow it could plausibly be considered stalling and more importantly doesn't really invalidate anyone to a ridiculous degree. This isn't the beginning of some witch hunt to ban edge guarding vs. Link or ban the tornado against low tiers. This is about addressing easily fixable problems that have no real reason to stay broken. Not every single infinite or 0-death breaks MU's or invalidates characters. Not all of them have to be banned. It sort of complicates things if we ever do start addressing all of the huge problems and have some kind of list of what is broken and what isn't, but in the end I feel it is worth the effort to actually address them (starting with this ban). IC's with their infinite which affects the entire cast (except themselves) still have even and disadvantaged MU's. It may be pretty bad on like Ganon, but his viability is fundamentally too poor to ever address without hacking the game or actually implementing MU specific damage handicaps which are too complicated to ever work. Taking out their cg would really hurt the viability of the IC's so taking them out wouldn't really be an easy (or good) fix either.

D3's infinite when allowed has no beneficial aspects. Taking them out does and they can be taken out in a simple manner. I just can't see why it should be left legal.

The criteria I outlined definitely applies to D3's infinite and probably can be expanded to include and fix (if it doesn't already) other obviously broken tactics if people start saying well now you have to solve y and z while not including a, b, or c. I think people many people can agree that my criteria is very reasonable and hopefully if it is found to be lacking it can still be improved upon. At the very least I can say that it is better than not addressing the problems at all which is the status quot. I know the anti-ban loves to say that now y and z have to be addressed too but what if they do get addressed? It doesn't really sound like a bad thing as much as it just sounds like it would take more work than some people are used to (or would like to go through).

Done now, have a good night, I'm off to entertain myself.

Forgot to repeat: if you guys can convince me (which is totally possible believe it or not), I'll agree with you. Until then, I'm going to CP.

Hopefully I was at least clear and reasonable in my claims if not convincing. I'd just like to say there is no reason either side has to insult the other directly based on something like this (I'm not going to point out anyone in particular here). I'd also like to say you can CP and still agree .

 

[smashkng]

What can be the solution about the discussion about banning infinites? Voting?

 

[Kinzer]

Try the tournament officials.

 

[MrEh]

I find no greater joy in life then to be infinited by Dededes.

It's the most fun part of the game for me.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

The thing is that we as a community undermine ourselves every time we ban anything. I mean, I am under no illusions here; King Dedede's infinite basically totally ruins Donkey Kong, and the very similar long chaingrab ruins Bowser. I definitely would not consider using either of them at a tournament at which the infinite is allowed unless I was quite sure the opponent wasn't using King Dedede (fake CP people by being slow on the character select screen for game 1 and only pick them on a double blind if I'm quite sure this person won't pick King Dedede, real CP them when relevant, never pick them against a CP). From a game design perspective, this chaingrab is obviously terrible for the game; I think most people find the real winning solution is just not to use Donkey Kong or Bowser and instead use characters they can always rely upon.

However, I still think the standing chaingrab should be allowed. There is definitely a "where do we draw the line?" issue. While this does totally screw over DK and Bowser, it's far from ****ing for Mario, Luigi, and Samus (wow, that word is really tame; come on smashboards censors...). By banning this, you encourage the mains of those three characters not to learn optimal mashing techniques; you're discouraging the learning of counterplay that's built into the game. We also have a variation on the standing infinite that involves small steps forward and ledge infinites that works on King Dedede himself as well as Wolf; should that be banned? In general if tactics are overpowering, there will always be people who want to ban them (see the movements to ban Meta Knight and ledgestalling, prime examples). If the people advocating those bans get treated well or, even worse, get their way, there will be even more forces pushing to ban more. The game eventually degenerates into a game of politics of who can whine the best and thus get the rules to favor them. At this stage, the game is a joke. A hard line that only bans when absolutely necessary (and maybe occasionally picks fun at people who like banning a lot, calling them scrubs etc.) is the simplest way to protect the game. I cannot say it's the only way, but other paths are certainly dangerous. I mean, smash already has to ban way more than other fighters so it's toeing a dangerous line. We really do not want to cross it; that line is the line after which smash is no longer a serious fighter. I worry that taking dangerous paths while we're already far closer to that line than other games would be is simply a path to ruination for us.

There are many other things we could ban with a similar justification to King Dedede's standing infinite. We could ban the long chaingrabs Marth and Charizard have on Ness and Lucas. When done by Marth, it's pretty much completely devastating, and it puts Ness in just about the same boat as Donkey Kong (contrary to what the peanut gallery likes to say, Ness would be 100% viable if not for this and is in general a good character... consider Lucas similar to Bowser to complete the analogy). Against Charizard it's more interesting because Pokemon Trainer cannot use just Charizard; I am quite sure Ness versus Pokemon Trainer is not a particularly unfair matchup even with this in place. How should we deal with that? We have grab release infinites on Wario in general; experience has shown them not to be character ruining for Wario at all, but they are there. How should we deal with that? Pikachu has a very obscure standing infinite on Wario and solo Ice Climber that only works on the edges of platforms; we even have that case. Speaking of Ice Climbers, their infinites are far from harmless. Sure they're fair against good characters (though they really screw with stage selection since ICs are pretty broken on Final Destination and pretty horrible on anything "non-neutral"; it's a single character argument for liberal stage rules), but they manage to claim the honor of being Ganondorf's single worst matchup because of those infinites and pretty far away from winnable for him. We also have things that are not even percentage independent but just about as devastating as these super long chaingrabs and infinites. How about what Pikachu does to Fox? How about what Sheik does to Fox? How about what Pikachu does to Sheik? Of course, Sheik could avoid that situation by transforming to Zelda! The line gets blurrier and blurrier as you realize that there is, in fact, a lot of nonsense in this game that really does hurt the viability of a lot of characters. We can try to right all the wrongs in the game by banning these things as we find them and as we define them, but we hurt the overall character of our competitive community, and we move further from the true game. It's a very sad truth in competitive fighters, but sometimes characters are really limited in utility for stupid reasons. Brawl still has a lot of characters who are overall good and either not affected by assorted abuses or not affected enough to be brought down (my count of "viable in all matchups and on all plausible legal stages, overall good enough to not hold back the user" characters is 16, your mileage may vary). Brawl doesn't need the Donkey Kongs, and while it's certainly not good that this sort of thing kills off those characters, we overall preserve the competitive integrity of the game by simply going on as things stand.

I'm sure someone will read this and think it's really inconsistent with removing all of this nonsense in Balanced Brawl, but it's a pretty different thing to make a subtly different game versus make rules for a game that already exists. When designing a game, you want to remove any element that is overall harmful to the game, assuming you can do so without causing more indirect harm elsewhere than you fix. When making rules for a game that already exists, you want to do as little as possible while still ensuring the game is a solid competitive game that fits a tournament format. I feel as though my position on this is very consistent.

 

[Luigi player]

I find no greater joy in life then to be infinited by Dededes.

It's the most fun part of the game for me.

Well, there's one good thing about getting infinited, you can do somthing else during it. Like, play some friendlies or something in the meantime.

Since you can't do anything you can pluck off your controler and play somewhere else. It could be funny to see the reactions of the people, lol, but really it doesn't make a difference if you sit there holding your controller and mashing buttons for nothing, or if you go away and do something else.

That's the difference to other 0-deahts. As Fox against Shiek you can at least try to DI out, maybe the enemy doesn't react fast enough or guesses wrong.

Ness and Lucas can mash out quickly to get to the edge faster, or wait till Marths pummel animation ends and then quickly mash buttons to maybe jump release.

I just tried grab releasing a Ness cpu with Marth. I started on one edge of FD and when I was a bit after the center Ness only had 47 % and jump released even though I mashed A. If Ness would stay in the middle he could just get about 40 % if he mashes out quickly. The more % he gets the longer he stays in the grab, but it's not a 0-death and it's no infinite unless there's a wall.

Fox vs Pika I don't know, but it's not even a 0-death. So he has more than 1 chance to do something. If he survives he's maybe at about 105 % and able to fight normally. He can camp really well with lasers and Pikachu has to appraoch. He can maybe kill with usmash (at 135 % in training mode) or fsmash (at little earlier), but those are avoidable, and Fox doesn't have to be afraid to get grabbed another time, because he can't CG him again. So if Fox shields most attacks he can avoid those kill moves and fight.


And Melee is totally different. A 0-death in Melee isn't that bad as in Brawl, because there are combos and you can rack up about 40 % with one hit (which is nearly haft a stock) with most characters.

 

[swordgard]

Awesome! Let's ban Melee Sheik's chaingrabs then, because they fit that exact criteria! /sarcasm

They really do.



EDIT: The problem here is that susa is utilitarian, only results count for him.
SBR and alot of other people believe in something such as principles towards keeping the integrity of the competitiveness of our game.

 

[SuSa]

That's because theorycraft is meaningless without the results to back it up.

Just saying.

This thread should be a DMG tip. "If you can gay your opponent, do so."

 

[DMG]

1. No I didn't name search myself.

2. Someone mentioned quite a bit earlier about Wario's standing infinites: It's true that a lot of characters can infinite him, however most of them should be banned, and I will explain again why and no it has nothing to do with me wanting Wario to gain advantages with Infinites on him removed. This is gonna sound... hypocritical coming from me, but there are stalling/timer issues involved with Standing Infinites.


Standing infinites, especially aerial grab release ones, are misunderstood by a large portion of the community. They are fairly similar to Dedede's CG on Mario, Samus, and Luigi. Dedede has to pummel to stale his grab, where as Wario's opponents have to pummel between grab releases to do any damage. Also, as many of you know, with Dedede he can't "properly" infinite Mario, Samus, and Luigi until a fairly high % because during his pummel they can mash out. The same applies for Wario, where you can't technically infinite him until a certain % because otherwise he can mash out while you pummel him, even if it is just once. Past that point, you have another higher % threshold to pass if you want to get 2 or more pummels on Wario before he can mash out.


Now, here is where things get messy. If you have ever seen a grab release infinite done on Wario, you would know that it takes a REALLY long time to accumulate damage without giving Wario a dangerous shot at getting out of it. Let's take Ike for Example. Let's say Ike grabs Wario, past 60%-70% (Not sure what the exact % is, but basically let's assume Ike Grabs Wario JUST past the "1 Pummel" mashout threshold.) Now, Ike knows he can only safely get away with one pummel if Wario is mashing like crazy. Wario knows this too however, and instead of mashing out extremely fast he just sits there or mashes a tiny bit on the first pummel and doesn't move after that. If Ike knows this and decided to pummel Wario again to rack up damage, Wario can mash out. SO... with both players understanding this... Now you have reached the point where the best option for both characters is to simply wait for a long time after the first pummel. This makes it take FOREVER to do any kind of damage whatsoever (I'm not kidding, when done properly more than 4 minutes was taken off the timer Just for Ike to take me from 70-80% to 120%. Quite Frankly, that is ********.) Also, if you are paying attention, you will notice that the pummels will stale after a certain point, usually doing only 1%-2% Max. This FURTHER prolonges how much time is wasted trying to do damage. Under the current rule, Ike would have to stop under 300% before it is considered stalling. BY THAT TIME, there will BE no time left on the clock.


Now, this next part is flat out stupid. So let's say that I get grabbed by Ike/whoever. Let's say Standing Grab Release Infinites are allowed, no rules/restrictions on them at all. Like I mentioned earlier, he could CG me until 300% if he wanted to before it was considered stalling, even though the timer would inevitably run out before that point. Now, HERE is where it is REALLY stupid. Ok so I am grabbed right, and Ike is gonna infinite me obviously. Now, let's say that while he is infiniting me, he is throwing out "blank" grabs on purpose (grabbing me while not pummeling at all. I cannot break to the ground, so I release back into the air where he can either grab and pummel me or grab me again and sit there). What do we do about those "blank" grabs? Is it ok for him to throw in a Blank Grab after he does 3 pummel Grabs, can he do Blank Grabs consecutively, is he not allowed to do them period? If he's not allowed to do them period, I would find it extremely unlikely that a judge/TO would always be around to see him throw in a few of those every so often. That or he could say he did it on accident, or that he didn't pummel because he thought I would be able to get out so he let me release into the air to give him more time the next grab to pummel.


The Infinite is long enough AS IT IS, the last thing we need is someone being able to purposefully extend it as far as they want. Overall the stalling issue when it comes to Standing Aerial Release Infinites is why I think those in particular should be removed, since when both parties do their part correctly it wastes too much time.

 

[Gea]

Yeah, you just happened to be running from other people at the time and wound up here.

 

[DMG]

Seriously though, do you know HOW HARD it is to name search myself? DMG cannot be name searched, I have to spell out the name and even then it only detects those with similar spellings (dr.mario guy will give different results than dr. mario guy or Doctor Runaway Guy or whatever lol)

 

[ook]

Try typing DMG*

with an asterisk

But you'd still probably just get a lot of people just abbreviating "damage".


I get a lot of posts by Dutch people

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Try typing DMG*

with an asterisk

But you'd still probably just get a lot of people just abbreviating "damage".


I get a lot of posts by Dutch people

lulz.

ook = too, so would be pretty funny