DDD's standing infinite should not be banned.

[Flayl]

DMG: You can simply lower the infinite threshold, as I'm proposing in tournament discussion. At what % can Ike's UTilt kill Wario with perfect DI?

Also empty infinites fall under the definition of stalling, there is no need to ban this infinite in particular.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

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?

While I'm really just lurking in this thread, I figured I'd point something out. Squirtle can move forward an almost-unnoticeable amount and re-grab Ness out of a grab release. It's basically as devastating (and ALMOST) as easy as Marth's (since you just have to be holding forward while attempting to re-grab), since you're not going far enough to really fall off the stage unless you're right next to the ledge when you start.

Also, Charizard moves slightly forward when he re-grabs Ness, so his isn't as troublesome (while it's still a huge pain for him), since it's not really infinite.

 

[RDK]

Big O, you're completely missing the point.

Things don't get banned because of "benefits of banning" vs. "benefits of not banning". Banning is a last resort. Unless D3 is suddenly able to use the infinite on the entire cast and shifts the metagame completely around him, sort of what like the IDC would have done to the metagame, then there's no reason to officially ban it.

Benefits have nothing to do with it. But okay, let's play your game. I could come up with millions of reasons to ban certain characters because they make the game unfair for other characters. Remember, we don't ban things to make it fair for the characters, we ban things to make it fair for the players. The solution is as easy as not picking a character with as ****ty a matchup as Donkey Kong.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Marth moves forward with his long chaingrab just like Charizard. It's still quite the long chaingrab and pretty bad for Ness.

As per stalling issues, I have a simple solution. At any time, both players should have a right to forfeit stocks. When they do this, the other player must let them go immediately, and then they run off the stage to die. That fixes literally all stalling issues from chaingrabs instantly, and it is an easy replacement for percentage limits and such that were hazy and sometimes could prevent kills (like if you are in a particular part of Luigi's Mansion where you aren't absolutely guaranteed a kill at any percent so you'd like to get them to 999%, for example).

 

[SuSa]

Big O, you're completely missing the point.

Things don't get banned because of "benefits of banning" vs. "benefits of not banning". Banning is a last resort. Unless D3 is suddenly able to use the infinite on the entire cast and shifts the metagame completely around him, sort of what like the IDC would have done to the metagame, then there's no reason to officially ban it.

Benefits have nothing to do with it. But okay, let's play your game. I could come up with millions of reasons to ban certain characters because they make the game unfair for other characters. Remember, we don't ban things to make it fair for the characters, we ban things to make it fair for the players. The solution is as easy as not picking a character with as ****ty a matchup as Donkey Kong.

Please show me your proof of this.

 

[Brinzy]

Please show me your proof that this has a worse effect than the IDC.

 

[RDK]

Please show me your proof of this.

Are you arguing that everyone being able to IDC legally in tournaments wouldn't have significantly shifted the metagame around MK?

 

[SuSa]

Are you arguing that everyone being able to IDC legally in tournaments wouldn't have significantly shifted the metagame around MK?

Yah, because you don't even have proof it's as broken as you say it is. It's all theorycraft. Which can't be trusted for anything at this caliber to be honest.

PS:
The metagame is already shifted significantly around MK anyways. It's generally the first covered, most detailed, and first learned matchup by most players.

When I picked up Snake. What did I do? Studied the MK matchup. Immediately.
When my friend picked up Falco. What did he do? Studied the MK matchup. Immediately.
In most matchup threads, what is one of the first 3 covered matchups? MK.

He's already first best in the game, that should mean there is already significant shift towards him anyways.

 

[RDK]

Yah, because you don't even have proof it's as broken as you say it is. It's all theorycraft. Which can't be trusted for anything at this caliber to be honest.

Theorycraft that has its basis in practical experience. I'll repeat the question: are you arguing that being able to Infinitely use the Dimensional Cape is not broken and would not significantly shift the metagame around MK?

PS:
The metagame is already shifted significantly around MK anyways.

Not to the extent where you have to play as him or you stand no chance of winning.

 

[DMG]

Yeah, because Humans make mistakes too even when they play with MK.

 

[professor mgw]

DDD's standing infinite takes the fun out of the game.

 

[Brinzy]

Yeah, standing infinites are so terrible because they're "infinite" and make a few matchups terrible, while the infinite dimensional cape is just theorycraft as to how bad it could be since it was banned so fast. After all, it made every matchup for non-MKs an automatic loss because the MK could get a % lead and travel from any point that he wanted and be completely unharmed, so MK truly reaches god tier in that he can never lose unless it's against another MK... but no, let's listen to you beat around things that get thrown at you with terribad logic and pretend that you're refuting something!

Yeah, because Humans make mistakes too even when they play with MK.

Very true.

So why is it that people think they can eliminate the idea of DDD making mistakes in two matchups and just say that they're never going to win but that's not enough when it comes to IDC?

 

[SuSa]

SoR, I love you.

What SoR said basically.

Using the IDC for an extensive amount of time to stall (since you can't be hit) to avoid damage, is easily bannable. It goes under "stalling" much like I can't keep infiniting you to 999%.

Also it was not proven that only MK could deal with IDC. IT HAS LAG ON IT, THAT MAKES IT PUNISHABLE

I'd argue that there is more you can do about IDC then there is about you getting infinited by DDD. But I regress.

 

[themrskills]

Marth moves forward with his long chaingrab just like Charizard. It's still quite the long chaingrab and pretty bad for Ness.

It happens to Lucas, too. How is it he is always forgotten?

 

[Spelt]

Also it was not proven that only MK could deal with IDC. IT HAS LAG ON IT, THAT MAKES IT PUNISHABLE

...If they landed right next to the opponent.
but anyone who could stall a match for 8 minutes with it wouldn't be stupid enough to do that in the first place. :/

 

[Brinzy]

It's banned solely because it promoted stalling and not because it made every character that wasn't MK nonviable?

I mean hey, you can do it at any given % and end it when you really want to. Actually, you don't even have to stall with it. All you have to do is extend it so you don't get punished and you've basically eliminated the stalling part while still retaining unrivaled safety in mobility.

"DDD's grab has lag on it, it's punishable."

 

[SuSa]

So I have an infinite that promotes stalling (to 300%) and my opponent being helpless (meaning he has NO CHANCE of punishing it, unlike how he may be able to punish IDC).

I can list of characters who could probably deal with IDC. Samus, Falco, Fox, Wolf, Snake, Pit. Pretty much all viable characters whom have a projectile, Sonic (due to speed alone)

The screen slightly follows MK, you can have a rough idea where he is.

Yah, but once he has you in the SI, it's not.

EDIT:
If I manage to hold a smashfest this weekend, I'll record a video that shows how IDC is punishable. Unless of course my testing concludes it's not. : )

 

[professor mgw]

IDC isn't like grab infintes. As long as it's not spammed i don't give.

 

[Brinzy]

Promotes stalling? You're using one of the characters that gets caught by this. DDD grabs you. You say, "I'll SD. Let me go." If they let you go, no stalling. If they don't let you go, DQ. I say that's giving you a lot if you had the misfortune or lack of sense to find yourself in this predicament.

I can list the characters that can deal with the SI. Obvious ones go to those that don't get hit by it. Some other obscure options include the rest of them by CPing a stage that discourages this type of play, such as RC, which means you are no longer risking getting "three grabs and you're out" because now they are placed at risk.

The two characters that are truly affected by it without some stupid dependence like where they are on the stage suddenly aren't brickwalled when they pick a stage to aid them with that.

Your opponent isn't helpless unless he's ********. It'd be stupid of me to challenge Falco on Japes, so how about I wait until I get somewhere that I know I have a chance at winning?

Don't bother with a video. You'd only do it to show that IDC is punishable in order to try and emphasize that Sis are nonpunishable, which is false if you simply pick a reasonable stage.

IDC isn't like grab infintes. As long as it's not spammed i don't give.

Define spamming. Actually, what are you gonna do if it's spammed in the sense that I'm thinking? How do you enforce "if, then" rules with this? It makes much more sense to ban it completely.

 

[SuSa]

"I'll forfeit my stock" "Ok" *release* *dsmashes* "WTF MAN!"

Actually, they can still have multiple instances where they can still infinite you, you'll die, and they will still live. (Especially during the top portion of the "3 phases" of RC

Your ONLY option is to switch characters.

You have to lose in the first place to CP a stage. Then you have to win 3rd match (assuming you even won second match). Which means "To avoid it, you already have to put yourself at a disadvantage once."

Also "switching characters" doesn't neccessarily put you at an advantage. If someone goes MK/Falco against me after switching from their main. I smile, giggle to myself, and hope they take me to RC/Japes so I can make a fool out of them.

You could pull the old ICCG "3 regrabs (sometimes 5 in some tourneys" rule, and bend it into "3 IDC's, 4th move cannot be down-B"

 

[Ragnar0k]

Why not ban it. It would only do good.

 

[stingers]

Why would you ban this but not IC infinites? That's so silly...

 

[SuSa]

Because if you read at all, you can get rid of Nana. What do you take away from DDD?

 

[stingers]

Why does that matter? Lol.

You can't get infinited ICs if Nana isn't there...you can't get infinited by DDD if you're grabbed over the air, hey, there you go.

Situational things shouldn't come into account.

 

[SuSa]

You can rid of Nana, you don't exactly control where you are grabbed at. (Don't give me bull**** saying you are.... otherwise Snake vs MK/Marth would be a breeze)

It's not situational, it's a god**** factor. You can physically remove the capability for the IC's to infinite by killing Nana or keeping them separated.

For DDD.... you unplug his controller if he gets a grab?

 

[stingers]

camp over the air and DDD can't infinite you. simple as that o.O

you're putting your own rules onto things...who says you have to have the ability to permanently remove something for it to be legal

 

[SuSa]

You can kill Nana. That's a limiting factor, not a situational thing.

You can physically, remove Nana from the game. Which removes the infinite

DDD's infinite is indefinite. You cannot remove it.


Wait.. will someone explain the following to me?

"We banned IDC because it promotes stalling"
"We won't ban DDD's infinite although it promotes stalling and planking to avoid being grabbed."

In a competitive scene, no matter how garbage the character - you should not have the right to say "main someone else" because of how bad the character is. However just because one effects a larger portion of the cast, should not mean that it just for a banning. (Especially since it hasn't been proven IDC effects the entire cast)

 

[stingers]

You can physically, remove Nana from the game. Which removes the infinite

DDD's infinite is indefinite. You cannot remove it.

I get that, that's all you keep saying. Why does that matter...

 

[SuSa]

Because that is the difference between the two you idiot.

Just thought that needed to be said, large and clear.

 

[stingers]

I wasn't aware, thanks. Why does that matter when it comes to banning them, should've been more clear.

 

[SuSa]

Read the past 17 pages. all 260+ responses, then you can ask me that again.

 

[stingers]

alright, read it, now explain it to me cuz i didn't see you mention it anywhere

 

[SuSa]

I'll wait for someone to come and point out to you what you missed. (Probably because of not reading it all)

 

[stingers]

nope, I read it all, explain it please @.@

 

[SuSa]

It's on the very last page.

Because you can't physically remove or stop DDD's SI.

You can stop IC's by removing Nana.
You can stop most other 0-deaths by simply finding a way to harm yourself (this includes going into blast zones for that 1% racker thing)

You can't remove DDD's.

 

[stingers]

you've said that before, I think i've already asked why that matters like 5 times now.

like, I'll be specific so you answer

WHY DOES THIS QUOTE:

"You can stop IC's by removing Nana.
You can't remove DDD's."

MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO BANNING SOMETHING

 

[SuSa]

You don't get the "can't remove" it part that separates it from the IC's infinite. Do you?

 

[RDK]

"I'll forfeit my stock" "Ok" *release* *dsmashes* "WTF MAN!"

Actually, they can still have multiple instances where they can still infinite you, you'll die, and they will still live. (Especially during the top portion of the "3 phases" of RC

Your ONLY option is to switch characters.

You have to lose in the first place to CP a stage. Then you have to win 3rd match (assuming you even won second match). Which means "To avoid it, you already have to put yourself at a disadvantage once."

Again, what is the problem here? This is basic counterpicking knowledge: don't pick ****ty characters who have a high percentage of getting ***** to hell by one or more roster members. Know your matchups and you won't have this problem.

Seriously, all they're accomplishing is being whiny about how bad their character is. Great. Cool story. Why should DK mains receive special treatment over any other character mains that get gayed by [insert tactic / move here]?

At what point does an attribute become so detrimental that it becomes too unfair to a specific character's tournament chances? I asked for some experimental data before, but nobody from pro-ban posted any.

 

[stingers]

You don't get the "can't remove" it part that separates it from the IC's infinite. Do you?

alright please can anyone else tell me if it's just me that doesn't get what susa is saying or he really does not understand what I mean when I ask him "Why does it matter that you can remove ICs infinite but not King DDD's"

 

[RDK]

you've said that before, I think i've already asked why that matters like 5 times now.

like, I'll be specific so you answer

WHY DOES THIS QUOTE:

"You can stop IC's by removing Nana.
You can't remove DDD's."

MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO BANNING SOMETHING

And even if that were true, D3's infinite can be prevented: by not being grabbed. Air camping, spacing, smart playing - any of those things can be used to prevent D3's infinite. It's the same exact thing as knocking Nana away so the IC's can't sync.

In fact, Susa, I could just use your exact logic and say just remove Dedede. See? Easy.