DDD's standing infinite should not be banned.

[SuSa]

You can control whether or not other things happen to you:

1) Rid of Nana (IC's grabs)
2) Inflict damage upon yourself (every character can) --- if you say "you won't recover" that I'll bring up the argument used against me. CP A STAGE YOU CAN LOLOLOL (since everything but grab related infinites are % based, save the infinite Zamus has on ROB (which I'm pretty sure can be SDI'd against)

DK is actually being extremely hurt by DDD's infinite grab. It hurts that specific characters chances of winning, due to ONE move. That has absolutely no benefit of staying, and can easily be removed from competitive gameplay in favor of a more competitive game.

I'd rathers face a 20-80 matchup that is due to my character just being *****, rather then by character being infinited. Why? Because the infinite is theoretically (and should be) unwinnable, no matter my opponents skill or knowledge of the matchup. HOW is that seen as "competitive"?

My new view about Brawl:
Brawl doesn't have a competitive scene, it's simply a job, with suppliers.

RDK, that is about the most idiotic thing I have ever seen in this thread. If the DDD is simply playing properly, he should get the grab. Oh look, I just used theory to debunk your theory.

 

[stingers]

yo susa so you do agree that ZSS's Infinite on ROB should be banned too right

 

[SuSa]

That is not a standing infinite and I am almost positive ROB can move enough (simply hold towards the closest edge) to eventually escape it.

 

[Big O]

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.

You are completely missing my point. Come back to me when you find a character that has no "cons" to banning (or has no "pros" for staying). You may be able to list "millions" of reasons why banning character x will help characters y and z but I could list "millions" of reasons why character x is worth keeping in the game. You haven't really played my game correctly until you bring up actual examples that have no "pros" for keeping them in the game.

Your claim that banning is a last resort is not very meaningful because what qualifies as a last result situation is still up for debate.

 

[stingers]

wait

you don't care about whether it's an infinite or not

you just care if they stay still while doing them?

........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................

 

[Ragnar0k]

Any infinite that has no prerequisite like a wall or nana should be banned. Especially if it removes an otherwise viable character from the competitive scene.

 

[RDK]

RDK, that is about the most idiotic thing I have ever seen in this thread. If the DDD is simply playing properly, he should get the grab. Oh look, I just used theory to debunk your theory.

If you're playing properly, you should not get grabbed. Oh look, I just used theory to debunk your theory that debunked my theory that was originally a response to a theory you stated about what should happen concerning Dedede's infinite.

 

[Ragnar0k]

This is why we can't have nice things...

theory crafting almost never works.

 

[SuSa]

wait

you don't care about whether it's an infinite or not

you just care if they stay still while doing them?

........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................

Yea, because if you aren't staying still. It theoretically isn't an infinite. (ICCG's break this rule, but until someone does it to 999% (which I have never seen) I will assume it is not an infinite and you lose frame advantage on the throw/buffering eventually.)

 

[stingers]

Especially if it removes an otherwise viable character from the competitive scene.

That should never be a factor, EVER. You cannot discriminate between characters like that. ROB is more viable then DK is, but when have you ever heard a ROB complain about the ZSS infinite?

Any infinite that has no prerequisite like a wall or nana should be banned.

And that doesn't matter either. An infinite is an infinite is an infinite, don't discriminate just because some are more situational then others.

 

[SuSa]

If you're playing properly, you should not get grabbed. Oh look, I just used theory to debunk your theory that debunked my theory that was originally a response to a theory you stated about what should happen concerning Dedede's infinite.

If you're playing properly, you should not be hit. Oh look, I just killed the competitive scene.

(Oh, but DDD outranging Mario in every single possible way, save Mario's Fireball should mean you can easily deal damage to him and avoid him... right?)

RDK, you should stop with the theory debate before you make yourself look... wait nevermind.

 

[RDK]

You are completely missing my point. Come back to me when you find a character that has no "cons" to banning (or has no "pros" for staying). You may be able to list "millions" of reasons why banning character x will help characters y and z but I could list "millions" of reasons why character x is worth keeping in the game. You haven't really played my game correctly until you bring up actual examples that have no "pros" for keeping them in the game.

Your claim that banning is a last resort is not very meaningful because what qualifies as a last result situation is still up for debate.

You're not understanding. The point of bringing up the "millions of reasons to ban x because of y and z" was to show that it's nonsensical as a reason to ban something. We don't ban things to fix individual matchups (I.E. the pros vs. cons of banning this are _____ ); we ban things because they overcentralize the game around a single character, tactic, etc.

Oh, and Susa, the game is not overcentralized around MK as you previously stated. It's centralized around him. OC'ing would mean that you either have to play as MK or you basically lose.

Kind of like what Dedede does........except to 2 characters. Lol.

 

[stingers]

Yea, because if you aren't staying still. It theoretically isn't an infinite. (ICCG's break this rule, but until someone does it to 999% (which I have never seen) I will assume it is not an infinite and you lose frame advantage on the throw/buffering eventually.)

Alright, SuSa, can you close this thread and give yourself a stupidity infraction? I don't even think you know what you're saying anymore. You're assuming that they're moving forward in some way, which means that it should be legal, right? The ZSS infinite on ROB, the ZSS just switches back and forth repeatedly. If you can switch directions at will, then it's an infinite. Just like how Fox could drillshine infinite some characters in Melee if they were good enough.

 

[SuSa]

4 characters, get your ****ing number right man. Sheesh.

EDIT:
I can't close this thread, I don't have power here. I also cannot infract myself.

Let me test the Zamus infinite more. I still have a feeling there is SOME way to escape it that hasn't been fully looked into. (Be it properly SDI'ing or DI'ing)

 

[RDK]

If you're playing properly, you should not be hit. Oh look, I just killed the competitive scene.

(Oh, but DDD outranging Mario in every single possible way, save Mario's Fireball should mean you can easily deal damage to him and avoid him... right?)

RDK, you should stop with the theory debate before you make yourself look... wait nevermind.

Lol, what are you talking about? If I recall correctly, you were the one who started with the whole "if D3 is playing properly". The point I was trying to make was that at a fundamental level, preventing the IC's inf. and preventing D3's inf. are basically one and the same. Nana is still a part of IC's character; she's not an outside force that you can manipulate to sway the match.

Knocking her away to avoid getting grabbed is like me saying all you need to do to avoid being grabbed by Dedede is knock him away. That line of reasoning is simply ********.

 

[SuSa]

That's because DDD's grab actually outranges the character..................

Also Nana has a -6 frame delay (IIRC) meaning it is theoretically plausible (and is possible) to knock her away, unless the player shields 6 frames earlier. In which case it will reset the situation until their shield breaks or they do not approach.

DDD isn't at a -6 frame delay, and therefore can simply powershield your move and grab you.

It's entirely more plausable to knock away Nana then it is DDD, based on cold hard facts. Not theorycrafting.

 

[Brinzy]

Don't waste your time, guys.

 

[RDK]

That's because DDD's grab actually outranges the character..................

Also Nana has a -6 frame delay (IIRC) meaning it is theoretically plausible (and is possible) to knock her away, unless the player shields 6 frames earlier. In which case it will reset the situation until their shield breaks or they do not approach.

DDD isn't at a -6 frame delay, and therefore can simply powershield your move and grab you.

It's entirely more plausable to knock away Nana then it is DDD, based on cold hard facts. Not theorycrafting.

But you still technically can, which is the point.

If we're going to go by degrees, how many frames does it take before it becomes not plausible enough to knock away a character and avoid an infinite?

Don't waste your time, guys.

Don't lose heart! Face the n00bish horde!

 

[stingers]

SuSa said he was done with this thread back on page 8, it's page 15

 

[Big O]

You're not understanding. The point of bringing up the "millions of reasons to ban x because of y and z" was to show that it's nonsensical as a reason to ban something. We don't ban things to fix individual matchups (I.E. the pros vs. cons of banning this are _____ ); we ban things because they overcentralize the game around a single character, tactic, etc.

Oh, and Susa, the game is not overcentralized around MK as you previously stated. It's centralized around him. OC'ing would mean that you either have to play as MK or you basically lose.

Kind of like what Dedede does........except to 2 characters. Lol.

That is just dodging the issue. There is no reason to continue along with "we don't ban things until they overcentralize the metagame" philosophy. There is an easily fixed problem that has no real downside to fixing which is completely avoided for no reason other than sticking to some catch phrase from Sirlin.

 

[stingers]

Big O might just be the most biased person I've ever seen on Smashboards. If DDD were the one getting infinited by DK I would imagine he would be in here defending it as earnestly as he is arguing against it right now.

 

[Brinzy]

Also Big O, I'm burnt out and most of what you say I can't really respond to without keeping a pointless argument going between the two of us when we're likely understanding each other a lot more now than we would if we kept going on.

EDIT: To be fair, outside the DK board, this topic always attracts the most DK mains. I guess that's to be expected.

 

[SuSa]

But you still technically can, which is the point.

If we're going to go by degrees, how many frames does it take before it becomes not plausible enough to knock away a character and avoid an infinite?

10 frames is human reaction time. Just to put some perspective onto this.

DDD's grab is 6 frames. Same as Nana's delay in shielding. So if the IC is shielding 6 frames earlier to let her shield, couldn't the DDD... you know... grab?

SuSa said he was done with this thread back on page 8, it's page 15

OH NOES HE DIDN'T DO AS HE SAID!!!!! BECAUSE THAT NEVER HAPPENS IN LIFE!

Get the **** over it already.

That is just dodging the issue. There is no reason to continue along with "we don't ban things until they overcentralize the metagame" philosophy. There is an easily fixed problem that has no real downside to fixing which is completely avoided for no reason other than sticking to some catch phrase from Sirlin.

*applaud*

I love how communities are so against change to the point of stupidity and reasoning (that on a real competitive level and value) doesn't make too much sense.

On a side note:
IDC was banned just off theory. I'm still laughing at that.

EDIT:
Oh how easily that logic can be turned around stingers.....

 

[Big O]

Big O might just be the most biased person I've ever seen on Smashboards. If DDD were the one getting infinited by DK I would imagine he would be in here defending it as earnestly as he is arguing against it right now.

Lol wow. What makes you say that. I don't infinite mother boys with DK btw. Ask FOW if I ever did it to him at Genesis. Nice generalization man...

 

[RDK]

SuSa said he was done with this thread back on page 8, it's page 15

He actually said he was done except for 7-ish more pages of discussion. You can actually see that part of his post if you look really closely; he used size -10^28 font.

That is just dodging the issue. There is no reason to continue along with "we don't ban things until they overcentralize the metagame" philosophy. There is an easily fixed problem that has no real downside to fixing which is completely avoided for no reason other than sticking to some catch phrase from Sirlin.

Sure, and weeks or months down the line, when something even more subjective comes up, you're going to have a splendid time convincing everybody to stick to either set of principles. You know, since there will be no more objective principles, except for "let's ban this because it has no downside".

Have you ever considered the fact that maybe people don't consider DK getting shut down by D3 a "downside"? What is a pro or a con, anyway? Can you objectively define these things?

 

[stingers]

Oh how easily that logic can be turned around stingers.....

...please do. lol.

 

[Brinzy]

On a side note:
IDC was banned just off theory. I'm still laughing at that.

Host a tournament and encourage people to use it then so you can get it unbanned because you believe your eyes >>> everything.

Actually, this is stupid because IDC = stalling (according to you anyway, unless you wanna go back on that) and stalling = banned.

 

[SuSa]

Funnily enough, you believe a little bit of theorycrafting (if I theorycraft enough, IC's are undefeatable. Same with quite a few of the A+ tiers and up) >>> everything

Sadly enough, the community is just against planking so wouldn't like the rule and wouldn't likely to be attending. Which you know, is partially the reason the community is banning the standing infinite. They are against it, and would rather attend a tournament with it banned.

Funny how that works out so subjectively and nobody gives a ****.

 

[Spelt]

IDC isn't exactly stalling on it's own, it's how you use it.

 

[Big O]

Have you ever considered the fact that maybe people don't consider DK getting shut down by D3 a "downside"? What is a pro or a con, anyway? Can you objectively define these things?

I can't believe you seriously even brought this up....

Can you objectively define overcentralization and more importantly why it matters or warrants a ban? I'm sure some people are fine playing (bad pun imminent) Jamaica, no timer, Akuma only...

 

[lain]

Guys... the infinite cg isn't even that big of a ****ing deal. Jeesh.

You can't properly INFINITE Mario, Samus, or Luigi (the two not-fat ones) until you grab them and they are above ~120% because they can mash out before you do the required 2 pummels. So it essentially doesn't matter for them.

For DK and Bowser, well for 1. I don't infinite cg when I play people and 2. I never see other people do it.

Everyone makes this out to be such huge deal but the fact of the matter is that that's why the SBR says nothing about it, and why everyone bans it at their own tournies (to ensure that niche of the turnout).

 

[Brinzy]

IDC isn't exactly stalling on it's own, it's how you use it.

Pretty much what I said earlier but I had to rehash an old point of his.

Funnily enough, you believe a little bit of theorycrafting (if I theorycraft enough, IC's are undefeatable. Same with quite a few of the A+ tiers and up) >>> everything

Sadly enough, the community is just against planking so wouldn't like the rule and wouldn't likely to be attending. Which you know, is partially the reason the community is banning the standing infinite. They are against it, and would rather attend a tournament with it banned.

Funny how that works out so subjectively and nobody gives a ****.

Yeah, I do like theorycraft. Like, for example, in theory, you should never have an SI put on you. It works out to cold, hard facts too, because if you're smart, you won't have one put on you.

I like facts as well.

The community = everyone, and not everyone is against planking/standing infinites.

Funny how you only considered the community to be the majority. I guess keeping this going never does get old.

 

[RDK]

I can't believe you seriously even brought this up....

Can you objectively define overcentralization and more importantly why it matters or warrants a ban? I'm sure some people are fine playing (bad pun imminent) Jamaica, no timer, Akuma only...

Sure: overcentralization is any character, tactic, etc. that forces the metagame to revolve around itself. A good practical example is the IDC; in that case, you basically have the option of playing as MK or losing.

Items also overcentralize, or shift the entire game around them. A character that shuts down a majority of the cast (I.E., 1/2 of the roster + 1) is also overcentralizing around himself.

 

[Brinzy]

Guys... the infinite cg isn't even that big of a ****ing deal. Jeesh.

You can't properly INFINITE Mario, Samus, or Luigi (the two not-fat ones) until you grab them and they are above ~120% because they can mash out before you do the required 2 pummels. So it essentially doesn't matter for them.

For DK and Bowser, well for 1. I don't infinite cg when I play people and 2. I never see other people do it.

Everyone makes this out to be such huge deal but the fact of the matter is that that's why the SBR says nothing about it, and why everyone bans it at their own tournies (to ensure that niche of the turnout).

SHHHHH, you're posting trufax, you may hurt someone's feelings!

 

[SuSa]

Pretty much what I said earlier but I had to rehash an old point of his.




Yeah, I do like theorycraft. Like, for example, in theory, you should never have an SI put on you. It works out to cold, hard facts too, because if you're smart, you won't have one put on you.

I like facts as well.

The community = everyone, and not everyone is against planking/standing infinites.

Funny how you only considered the community to be the majority. I guess keeping this going never does get old.

I figured you may be smart enough to assume the majority.

Also, in theory, you should not never have an SI put on you because simply put, that would mean never attacking.
Ever.

Guys... the infinite cg isn't even that big of a ****ing deal. Jeesh.

You can't properly INFINITE Mario, Samus, or Luigi (the two not-fat ones) until you grab them and they are above ~120% because they can mash out before you do the required 2 pummels. So it essentially doesn't matter for them.

For DK and Bowser, well for 1. I don't infinite cg when I play people and 2. I never see other people do it.

Everyone makes this out to be such huge deal but the fact of the matter is that that's why the SBR says nothing about it, and why everyone bans it at their own tournies (to ensure that niche of the turnout).

1) Just because you don't doesn't mean you can't. (And while we are at it, you are getting grabs in. Correct? Meaning IF YOU WANTED TO, you could?
2) Just because you don't see people doing it doesn't mean people don't.

You don't ban something because you do it/don't see it done.

Also I thought it was 1 pummel every 4th grab to keep the infinite going.

 

[Brinzy]

You figured well, but on the chance that I don't pick up on it we may end up with three hours of wasted time.

In theory and in practice, you should never have an SI put on you because you shouldn't use those characters against DDD.

 

[SuSa]

I see that argument, but don't see why that means it should stay.

Now, let me get this straight; your argument is:
We shouldn't have to ban it because you shouldn't be playing the matchup. So instead of banning something (which makes the matchup playable) we are telling you "If you want to avoid it, don't play the matchup". Essentially, getting nowhere and getting nothing done?

 

[RDK]

I figured you may be smart enough to assume the majority.

Also, in theory, you should not never have an SI put on you because simply put, that would mean never attacking.
Ever.

If theorycrafting is the root of all evil, what is your alternative to it? Tournament results? What is the likelihood / number of times you get grabbed and infinited in a tourney setting?

What if this tendency changes? Does that mean it shoudn't be banned?

To be 100% honest, theories are mostly all we have to make these types of decisions; tournament results are far from reliable. They're able to be influenced by too many things that keep it them being objective. And you say "theorycrafting" like it's a bad thing. They're based on facts.

We know for a fact D3's infinite works on 2 characters. We know for a fact that the current rules on stalling allow for a 300% cap or a free walk-off. We know for a fact that D3's inf. doesn't overcentralize, while MK's IDC does. It isn't hard to deduce these things from events that have occurred in tournaments.

I see that argument, but don't see why that means it should stay.

Now, let me get this straight; your argument is:
We shouldn't have to ban it because you shouldn't be playing the matchup. So instead of banning something (which makes the matchup playable) we are telling you "If you want to avoid it, don't play the matchup". Essentially, getting nowhere and getting nothing done?

No, it's essentially counterpicking and knowing your matchups, lol. Why is it the Dedede main's fault that you picked Donkey Kong?

 

[SuSa]

There is a thing about taking theorycrafting to far. Having it be 100% theorycraft with no real basis of results.

You can fall back on theorycrafting if you can fall back onto even one reference of it happening (meaning it is possible)

How do you know for a fact? It was banned before ever getting results or proper testing. (Or at least I have seen neither, in which case someone needs to set me straight)

 

[Brinzy]

For the umpteenth time, no. My argument is that you need a set criteria to ban this, and "ban standing infinites" is not enough because you have to be able to essentially QED why standing infinites deserve a ban. Since this argument apparently does not exist, I'm currently against getting it banned.