Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[M15t3R E]

the over-centralization i mentioned applied to over-centralization of the whole game. no one cares about the anti-character over-centralization. (falco's CG->spike over-centralizes, anti-ike/link/other chars, or it did. pika as a char over-centralizes anti-fox. tornado over-centralizes anti-character strats as well. your point?)


THEY CANNOT COEXIST AND YOU HAVEN PROVEN ANYTHING.

EDIT: and please don't give: "nothing over-centralizes anti-char strats AS MUCH as infinites >_>"
seriously. i am asking ANY PRO-BAN PERSON TO COME UP WITH WHY THEIR CRITERIA IS BETTER THEN OVER-CENTRALIZATION.

No anti-character strategies are as devastating as DDD's infinite.
And I still do not see why those criteria cannot exist.

We have a chance to help the infinited characters quite easily, which would accomplish nothing but adding to the competitiveness of the game.
So why are characters like DK in the game at all?

 

[Yuna]

Does it over-centralize the anti-character strategies for certain characters to the extent of easily making them non-viable? Yes.

But we don't agree with that.

"It's just one technique which renders a character unviable!" - Yes, and?

What if it's two techniques? What if it's two different characters with just one technique each against one single character? Why should we draw this very arbitrary line at "One technique!" instead of, say, "Two!"? What you do not realize is that you're just giving us a random (arbitrary) criteria without justfying it properly, telling us why it's OK.

You're just saying "Here's my criteria. And it's good because if diversifies the metagame!".

 

[cutter]

LOL

let's ban Goblin Sharpshooter in MTG because he makes Elves a completely unviable deck

Spoiler

/sarcasm

You pro-ban people would be laughed out of every competitive gaming community for trying to ban something like this for the ridiculous reasons you want it for.

 

[RDK]

No anti-character strategies are as devastating as DDD's infinite.
And I still do not see why those criteria cannot exist.

We have a chance to help the infinited characters quite easily.
So why are characters like DK in the game at all?

Try actually defining what other criteria there is for banning besides overcentralization. Then maybe we'll get somewhere.

As amusing as it is to watch Yuna destroy you with ridiculously long walls-of-text, this debate is getting nowhere. Actually, it never even started, because the pro-ban side's arguments were nonsensical to begin with.

 

[M15t3R E]

But we don't agree with that.

"It's just one technique which renders a character unviable!" - Yes, and?

What if it's two techniques? What if it's two different characters with just one technique each against one single character? Why should we draw this very arbitrary line at "One technique!" instead of, say, "Two!"? What you do not realize is that you're just giving us a random (arbitrary) criteria without justfying it properly, telling us why it's OK.

You're just saying "Here's my criteria. And it's good because if diversifies the metagame!".

And what two, or three techniques for that matter, are you referring to?
There is nothing like DDD's infinite.

 

[GofG]

Yuna, I think that our goal should be to get people to understand that D3 vs DK is almost the same thing as Pikachu vs Fox. Clearly that is the difference between pro-ban and anti-ban.

 

[M15t3R E]

Try actually defining what other criteria there is for banning besides overcentralization. Then maybe we'll get somewhere.

As amusing as it is to watch Yuna destroy you with ridiculously long walls-of-text, this debate is getting nowhere. Actually, it never even started, because the pro-ban side's arguments were nonsensical to begin with.

You don't pay attention. I have defined the other criteria several times already. Check my previous posts. It's about making characters literally non-viable in tournaments, thus reducing the competitive potential for this game.
And Yuna destroyed me? Sir, that is completely subjective.
So is your statement that the pro-ban arguments were always non-sensical. I think YOU are being non-sensical, but these arguments (not debates anymore) are getting nowhere. On that I can agree, and I hope we can also agree to disagree..

 

[Yuna]

And what two, or three techniques for that matter, are you referring to?
There is nothing like DDD's infinite.

That was not the question. The question is: Why just one? Why that number?

You're just making up arbitrary reasons to justify banning this, without logic, without justification. You just want it gone so you're trying to make up criteria that fit only this one thing.

I'm asking you to employ critical (and logical) thinking and tell us how this isn't arbitrary, why this is warranted, why the criteria should be as you suggest they be for logical and practical reasons.

What if tomorrow we found a character being rendered unviable by two or two techniques? Ban then? Deal with it then? Unban this?

We need objective, justified, warranted and vetted criteria to set precedents and to be logical and thought out. Not random made-up-on-the-spot arbitrary reasoning.

 

[da K.I.D.]

@Gofg
i think you should do that...

I also think that that is horribly horribly misguided and wrong

@yuna

I dont think there is one set of criteria that everybody can agree upon to make that kind of system work, which is why we end up arguing things as we should. on a case by case basis.

 

[XxBlackxX]

No anti-character strategies are as devastating as DDD's infinite.
And I still do not see why those criteria cannot exist.

We have a chance to help the infinited characters quite easily, which would accomplish nothing but adding to the competitiveness of the game.
So why are characters like DK in the game at all?

because sakurai put him in the game....? why should we help DK with his worst matchup when the ban isn't WARRANTED?

they cant co-exist beause over-centralization of the WHOLE game will probably conflict with over-centralization of anti-char strats. obviously.

 

[GofG]

Yuna, the problem as I see it is that they think that Fox vs Pikachu is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from DK vs D3. Explain to them that they are wrong please! <3

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, the problem as I see it is that they think that Fox vs Pikachu is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from DK vs D3. Explain to them that they are wrong please! <3

Why? They haven't gotten it so far. When idiots refuse to see reason despite it being used to slap them senseless, I declare them lost causes (at the very least for that one issue) and move on.

Ignorance is OK. Willful ignorance and refusal to see the truth is stupidity. Truly stupid people are lost causes and will eventually be weeded out by society, anyway.

 

[da K.I.D.]

the two matchup ARE entirely different.

and thats the truth.

and seeing how you are willfully not believing this truth, by your definition, that makes you stupid

 

[cutter]

Maybe I should be a bit more serious

There's a card in MTG called Goblin Sharpshooter that single handedly makes Elves an unviable competitive deck. Sharpshooter BY HIMSELF mows down armies of Elves over and over and over again because of how he works. Elves have 0 ways of stopping Sharpshooter because green cannot kill grounded creatures at all. It's basically a matter of getting a Goblin Matron, tutoring for the Sharpshooter and you will almost never lose to Elves.

Other than that, Sharpshooter does not overcentralize the game at all; he does not even come REMOTELY close to doing that. There is NEVER any talk about banning Sharpshooter because even though he makes Elves useless, he doesn't break the game in the slightest.

This is exactly the same situation with nightmare matchups such as D3/DK and Pika/Fox.

 

[GofG]

but...

but... you are Yuna!

You can convince anyone of anything... *sniff*

 

[Yuna]

the two matchup ARE entirely different.

Different, yes. Entirely different in their nature? No.

 

[XxBlackxX]

the two matchup ARE entirely different.

whether or not they're different doesn't matter. neither over-centralizes the game nor breaks it as a whole. therefore, neither should be banned.
and with that, im off for the night.

 

[RDK]

Yuna, the problem as I see it is that they think that Fox vs Pikachu is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from DK vs D3. Explain to them that they are wrong please! <3

@Gofg
i think you should do that...

I also think that that is horribly horribly misguided and wrong

@yuna

I dont think there is one set of criteria that everybody can agree upon to make that kind of system work, which is why we end up arguing things as we should. on a case by case basis.

Yuna, I think that our goal should be to get people to understand that D3 vs DK is almost the same thing as Pikachu vs Fox. Clearly that is the difference between pro-ban and anti-ban.

GAH, THEY DON'T LISTEN TO REASON.

I'm seriously considering internet seppuku.

 

[da K.I.D.]

once you get past the chaingrab, they are very different matches

RDK please do us all that favor...

p.s. i love how good black has gotten at strawmanning me...
seeing as thats not the point i was trying to make at all.

 

[GofG]

RDK, if you come to Brolove tomorrow, I will brolove you. You are one of my favorite posters.

You too, Yuna! Find a flight to RDU International in North Carolina :D

 

[M15t3R E]

Yuna, I do not main nor second any of the affected characters.
And as a matter of fact, even most DDD users want it banned.

Whether it's one, two, three, or more techniques that make a character non-viable it's the same thing. If it renders the majority of the cast non-viable, I'm sure you'd agree to ban it.
If it makes few characters non-viable, ban it too.
The point is having more characters viable will only help the competitiveness of any fighter game.

So, let me ask your side a similar question. What's the difference between a couple characters or the majority of characters being rendered non-viable? If your principles remain constant, you'd agree that it's not right for ANY characters to be rendered completely non-viable. It hurts the game's competitive potential absolutely needlessly. How many characters are affected is irrelevant.

but...

but... you are Yuna!

You can convince anyone of anything... *sniff*

That's a laugh!

 

[GofG]

Mr. E, do you want to ban Pikachu's chaingrab on Fox?

 

[Yuna]

Stuff.

Let's go with more fighting game-based arguments.

In Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen EX, Sasori suffers a fatal flaw in design which makes him the only character who can get infinited whenever he lands on the ground after being hit. What does this flaw do? It allows for Naruto and Deidara to both 100%-death him. All they have to do is hit him, wait for him to land (and since tech rolls can now be interrupted) and infinite away.

It renders him unviable, especially since Naruto is Top Tier-level, anyway, so it's not like he won't run into Naruto often enough.

However, NGNTEX is a ****ty game. But things like these exist, match-ups where a single move/tactic can render a character unviable. I just don't play enough games on such a deep level I'd know about them (because most of the time, I only care about the match-ups of my own character(s)).

And nobody's banned them before.

 

[M15t3R E]

Mr. E, do you want to ban Pikachu's chaingrab on Fox?

Why? Pikachu's d-throw chaingrab only works on Fox to 72%.
Pikachu has chaingrabs vs. many characters up to 60%.
Sorry, but it's not the same thing as the infinite.

 

[cutter]

I find most DDD users who want the infinites banned are simply being handcuffed by their own morals thinking the infinites are "gay/stupid/unfair".

 

[adumbrodeus]

Yuna, the problem as I see it is that they think that Fox vs Pikachu is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from DK vs D3. Explain to them that they are wrong please! <3

But! The are entirely different, can't you see, they're entirely different!

Why? Because I say so, and I can't possibly be wrong right?

the two matchup ARE entirely different.

and thats the truth.

and seeing how you are willfully not believing this truth, by your definition, that makes you stupid

But understand our stance. You're asking us to ban for a practical reason, yet while the match-ups are different, the practical effect is the same. You see one or two pikachus losing to one or two foxes, and one or two DDDs losing to one or two DKs. The difference is a tiny theoretical difference, and if you're asking us to ban for practical reasons a practical line has to be drawn.


Oh, just for clarifacation, a little while after pikachu was brought up in this debate, I picked up pikachu with literally no previous competitive expirience with that character (minus watching a video), and proceeded to 3-stock a person with considerable fox expirience that I acknowledge as a better overall player then me.

I also learned the chaingrab in-match. Unfortunately, I failed at the QAC infinite, but whatever, the match wasn't even funny, it was just ridiculous.

 

[da K.I.D.]

its funny, its like you guys have a system.

yuna makes these longwinded posts arguing every statement someody makes, and when ever somebody defends said individual points, black starts popin off his mouth about how the rebuttal has nothing to do with the general idea as a whole.

i didnt notice it before since its very sneaky... but thats really not the right way to go about things.

@adum, i wish you could come here and try that on me.

 

[GofG]

Yuna, stop ignoring me... I thought we had some sort of special connection!!! </3

Also, Mr. Ed, Yuna convinced me to stop being mean to squirrels, without even trying. I think that means a lot!

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, I do not main nor second any of the affected characters.

Why is this relevant?!

And as a matter of fact, even most DDD users want it banned.

O RLY? What do you have to support this blatant non-fact?

Whether it's one, two, three, or more techniques that make a character non-viable it's the same thing. If it renders the majority of the cast non-viable, I'm sure you'd agree to ban it.

This does not render the majority of the cast unviable.

If it makes few characters non-viable, ban it too.

No. We never do this. We never ban things because they render but a few characters non-viable.

The point is having more characters viable will only help the competitiveness of any fighter game.

At the cost of banning things, at the cost of artifically re-arranging the match-ups, rewriting the game in our own image on a deeper level than just making it functional for no reason than arbitrary ones. Because we apparently wouldn't go as far as to 50-50 all match-ups, we'd only ban catastrophically bad ones, despite this making no sense because then we'd have to properly define what qualifies as "catastrophically bad".

So, let me ask your side a similar question. What's the difference between a couple characters or the majority of characters being rendered non-viable?

One makes the game unplayable. The other makes only those characters unviable.

If your principles remain constant, you'd agree that it's not right for ANY characters to be rendered completely non-viable.

No I wouldn't. This is Competitive gaming. This is life. Life isn't fair. I suggest you try to ban it.

I also noticed how none of this had anything to do what I asked you to do:
Explain why your criteria are objective, valid, not arbitrary, stands up in "court", won't set a dangerous/bad/plain stupid precedent etc., etc., etc. You just tried to strawman everything by arguing entirely different things, as if I wouldn't notice.

And most of your "facts" are just plain wrong. The rest is almost 100% personal opinion.

Unlike other posters, I will not let you get away with **** like this. Try harder or don't try at all. Also, I suggest you attempt to ban life. It'd be amusing to me.

Yuna, stop ignoring me... I thought we had some sort of special connection!!! </3

Also, Mr. Ed, Yuna convinced me to stop being mean to squirrels, without even trying. I think that means a lot!

I've already tried doing what you suggested I try. It didn't work. I tried doing it in a jillion different and colorful ways. I'd just be repeating myself if I tried again (at least against the same people). I'm not insane.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Maybe I should be a bit more serious

There's a card in MTG called Goblin Sharpshooter that single handedly makes Elves an unviable competitive deck. Sharpshooter BY HIMSELF mows down armies of Elves over and over and over again because of how he works. Elves have 0 ways of stopping Sharpshooter because green cannot kill grounded creatures at all. It's basically a matter of getting a Goblin Matron, tutoring for the Sharpshooter and you will almost never lose to Elves.

Other than that, Sharpshooter does not overcentralize the game at all; he does not even come REMOTELY close to doing that. There is NEVER any talk about banning Sharpshooter because even though he makes Elves useless, he doesn't break the game in the slightest.

This is exactly the same situation with nightmare matchups such as D3/DK and Pika/Fox.

They're wonderful anti-weenie cards, I splash them into every red deck I can, and guess what? I find myself losing to elves... never.

its funny, its like you guys have a system.

yuna makes these longwinded posts arguing every statement someody makes, and when ever somebody defends said individual points, black starts popin off his mouth about how the rebuttal has nothing to do with the general idea as a whole.

i didnt notice it before since its very sneaky... but thats really not the right way to go about things.

But we do, as of right now, the standard is 50% of the cast plus 1.

I suggested that we as a community should consider revising this in my previous thread, but as of current, the standard for overcentralization is 50% of the cast plus 1.

 

[Yuna]

its funny, its like you guys have a system.

yuna makes these longwinded posts arguing every statement someody makes, and when ever somebody defends said individual points, black starts popin off his mouth about how the rebuttal has nothing to do with the general idea as a whole.

i didnt notice it before since its very sneaky... but thats really not the right way to go about things.

We don't have a system. I mostly never read his posts. I have no reason to.

I cannot be held responsible for what other people do (if he indeed does do it).

once you get past the chaingrab, they are very different matches

I'm sorry, since when was "my side" not arguing that the chaingrab was what made the two match-ups similar?!
How about you actually reply to the post where I replied to you, complete with Giant Green Letters to make sure you'd see it? If you did miss it (somehow), then whatever. If you're just pretending, then you should know better as I, unlike less, um, ruthless debaters, won't let you get away with stuff like that.

But we do, as of right now, the standard is 50% of the cast plus 1.

I suggested that we as a community should consider revising this in my previous thread, but as of current, the standard for overcentralization is 50% of the cast plus 1.

I'd say that that's the minimum requirement. 51% is not automatically over-centralization.

 

[M15t3R E]

Yuna, take a look at this to get an idea of how the DDD users feel.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=208999&page=3

Most of what your side is saying is personal opinion too. That's why this arguing is getting us nowhere. Both sides are convinced of our own opinions.

Btw Yuna, you are definitely a "ruthless debater".

 

[GofG]

It's now that I realize that you know more about Brawl that I do. It's hard to debate about what should happen in Brawl when you don't know very much about it!

I mostly hear stuff from SoVA about what Brawl is like.

 

[Luigi player]

Luigi Player

If you're good enough and your opponents are bad enough. Nobody cares if someone clearly leagues better than someone else can beat them. We only care about what happens when people of equal skill play each other.

Nobody is equally skilled than anybody else.

Then why are you arguing that the Competitive community should ban it in Competitive Smash?

To make more characters viable.

You think =/= It's a fact

I guess.

I think Sarah Palin isn't fit to mother her children... oh wait. Anyway, you can think whatever you want, just don't argue your theories (with zero proof, BTW) as fact. A quick survey in this thread alone shows that the vast majority of Competitive gamers started playing Smash Competitively because they liked the game, not because their favorite character was in it.

Yeah but how did they come to the game? Also, I never said that I only talk about competitive players, but I'm sure many of them do care about their characters.

If nobody would care about characters we'd only see Meta Knights probably.
Less than 50 % of our community play Meta Knight, so it means they like the other characters.

If I said "favourite characters" I meant "characters they like". It doesn't have to be their favourite, but they know and like them.

My favourite character was always Sonic and I still played Smash 64 and Melee. Why? Because I happen to also like the Mario series!

I could care less what Casual gamers do, their reasons for playing Smash. It has no bearing on Competitive gaming, which is what this thread happens to be about, which brings me back to:
Why are you advocating we ban it in Competitive gaming if you yourself admit to there being no real reason to ban it (in Competitive gaming)?

I didn't start this debate. I always hated the infinite, but I didn't start saying "we have to ban it!".
But other people did, and I support it. Yes, I'm biased. But I'd also want it banned of I didn't play DK. Why? Because the matchup is that impossible. If the reason the matchup is that bad would be just because the character is really THAT bad, he wouldn't be played anyway. If any character has totally unwinable matchups he also wouldn't be against other characters, because the game programmers can't make a character THAT bad. Unless he can't move or can't attack or something.

This is just a stupid bug in the game, and we should ban it to help those characters and to remove an error the programmers didn't notice.

This =/= Their favorite character was in it.


The scenes which carried over from Smash 64, both Casual and Competitive were actually quite tiny. The vast majority of the influx of gamers Melee brought to the Competitive Smash scene started playing the game due to the game play, not because their favorite character was in it.

Where is the proof? Every Melee played always said, that there are MUCH more Casual players than competitive players. About 95 % or something. They're the minority.
Most people play the game, because of the characters.
And those people changed from casual to competitive and still want to use their character, or else NOBODY would play Ness, Sonic, or any character that is lower on the tier list than high.
Why is your main Zelda anyway? She isn't even high tier, from what you say you wouldn't win anything with her. Is that so? Why don't you switch characters? Do you like Zelda or what?

We like games with game play we find enjoyable. I just happen to find Melee and Brawl (to a much lesser extent) enjoyable.

Yes, I didn't say everyone. Some people just like the game, although I still don't get why some people play Smash. I thought every non-Nintendo player thinks it's just for kiddies.
Most Nintendo players are "fanboys". "Cool" people play PS2 or XBOX360 games.

Wanting it =/= Wanting to ban things to achieve it
People want it =/= It is warranted

I know. But this thing is just a stupid bug.

And nobody cares what the masses want. If we cared about what the masses wanted, Meta Knight would be banned, Final Smashes would probably be tourney legal and we'd (possibly) all be camping it out on Hyrule Temple.

So you just let those characters die because of a bug we could just ban?

I'm sorry, I was not aware of the DK couldn't move in his match-up against D3.

DK cannot move after he got grabbed.

How many times must we tell you that it is irrelevant that the IC infinites are harder to perform on a technical level? The only thing that matters is if it is humanly possible to master how to do consistently, which it clearly is.

Nobody will master anything 100 %. Nobody will master D3s infinite on DK 100 %.
There are still IC mains like Hylian and Lain and probably others who are still messing up grabs. No IC main at this time can do it that good to never make mistakes (I know that because humans aren't perfect, so that's you ****ing proof if you want to ask for it again).

If one grab from every IC player there is (because if it would be really easy there will be many people playing them) = death, then it would be banned. It would over-centralise the game. It just means: Choose IC and get a 3 grabs and you win, or choose someone else and try to avoid the grab.

You can't tell me it would not be like that. If it was as easy as Dededes infinite, there would nearly only be IC players and their grab would be banned (or the whole ICs, if they are "smart" people).

And I was not aware of that DK had no way of moving or doing anything against D3, that D3 had automatic grabs which cannot possibly be avoided.

It's an impossible match-up, but you're just exaggerating.

Yes I am exaggerating a bit when I say DK can't do ANYTHING. But it's just that DK will get probably 3 stocked from any good Dedede player. It doesn't matter how good the DK is, because avoiding the grab is impossible, unless you just kill yourself the whole time/the grab button from your opponent doesn't work, or some other stuff that doesn't happen.

Smart people do not ban techniques. Smart people ban characters. Because techniques are just a part of characters. To ban a technique is to say "It's not OK to be 'too good'... but if it's just certain aspects of the character, we're gonna ban those instead of the character, drawing arbitrary lines and instituting arbitrary bans to re-balance the game in our own image". If a character is too good, remove him from play.

So you're for the MK ban? What about his IDC technique? From what you say, MK should be banned, and not the IDC.

I'm sorry, were you not the one who accused us of being egoistical? In the past few sentences, I've seen the word "I" used several times. It's all just your subjective, egoistical and biased desires.

I would also want to ban it if I didn't play DK. Fox can avoid Pikachus grab more easily and Fox actually has a chance to win. Do you think Anther could beat every Fox player on earth every time? The Fox has still a chance and could win. His matchup sucks, but he could still win.
DK can not win against the best Dedede. It is impossible. DK should be 3 or at least 2 stocked every time. There is no way he can win.

Yes, and? In the eyes of Competitive gaming, we could care less if someone who is tons better than someone else can beat someone. The match-up is still horrible.

But not impossible.

We don't care if the world's best Captain Falcon can beat a mediocre to bad Meta Knight. We only care if people of roughly equal skill playing as CF and MK have even games. They don't. We do not base our bans on whether someone several tiers better than someone else in terms of skill can beat someone of lower skill.

So you say the best CF in the world will never ever be able to beat a good Meta Knight? No human is perfect, CF still has a chance.

If a match-up is impossible, it is impossible.

DK vs D3 is the only matchup that is impossible.

BS logic. So if an infinite existed for an already unviable character and it rendered that match-up just as bad as these match-ups, you would not want to ban them, since the character would be unviable, anyway? An arbitrary and totally unfair threshold. "If you're unviable anyway, you're screwed. If you aren't, we'll ban things to make you viable!".

No character can be that unviable. And if people would want it banned, then why not ban it?
Nobody would care anyway, since the unviable character couldn't do anything even if there wasn't the infinite.

They aren't that bad? Samus isn't that bad?

Samus isn't the best character, but she isn't that bad. She also still has a chance to win. And that's the big deal.

Yes, because obviously, if the world's best Samus can beat mediocre Meta Knights in smaller tournaments, it matters.

So you're 100 % sure that the best Samus in the world will not be able to beat good Meta Knights? If yes, then you just think wrong.

He specifically says it's in the same ballpark, which it is.

Nope.

But you have yet to tell us why this matters. Where is this arbitrary threshold for how bad it has to be for you to think bans are warranted? What makes it so that Fox vs. Pikachu warrants no bans, yet DK vs. D3 warrants a ban? No, "It's not as bad" is not a valid argument.

Tell us exactly what makes it not warranted just because it happens to not be as bad. How is one "bad" enough while another isn't?

Because it is impossible. Fox can still win against Pikachu.

With infinites, the rules of Competitive Brawl state that around 300% or so, you have to end it. It will most probably end with the KO of your opponent, thus giving them control back.

Why not just ban infinites altogether? I do understand that ICs have a really hard time grabbing. That's why I don't think it should get banned, because you can avoid it and they are still beatable.

You can not avoid a grab with DK from D3.

Why is it a stupid rule? It's a rule to prevent people from continuing all infinites past 300%, which includes wall-infinites, laser locks, jab locks, Wolf's Nair lock, IC's infinites, grab break release chains and so on and so on.

If you ban the infinite then you will never get to the point where something like that happens.
Although I have nothing against the rule, if there's an eception for DK and the others, because the other infinites are really situational, and there isn't really a true infinite, unless there's a wall (not counting ICs).
The only stage with walls that is allowed is Corneria. On every other stage with walls, the stage is moving anyway, or in the case of Green Greens, you can destroy the wall, or move to the other side with SDI while in a jab lock or laser lock or any other lock.

It's pronounce "Competitive gaming". If it's not your cup of tea, go back to Casual gaming.

Because I like playing competitive means I can't ban a bug that makes a character unviable? Meh, not a good reason for me.



Btw, you think if something takes up to 75 % it is ban-able?

So you think if "only" 28 from 38 are affected the "whatever" should not be banned?

Wow.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Most of what your side is saying is personal opinion too

Ah, but here's the difference, we are arguing based on an established standard that has been proven to work.


You on the other hand, are arguing based on a personal dislike of the technique and trying to create a standard to justify that.

Furthermore, we have given objective logic explaining why every standard you have suggested to justify this would be disastrous if accepted.


You tell me, what's the more logical approach?

 

[M15t3R E]

It's now that I realize that you know more about Brawl that I do. It's hard to debate about what should happen in Brawl when you don't know very much about it!

I mostly hear stuff from SoVA about what Brawl is like.

No matter what someone feels about DDD's infinite, it bears no indication to the extent of their knowledge of the game overall.
So please, if you just attacked me in the way I think you did, just know that you fail at arguing.

 

[GofG]

Stop calling it a bug. The game physics are functioning exactly as the developers intended them to.

 

[cutter]

Again, D3 users are just handcuffed by their own morals when it comes to the infinite because they think it's stupid/********/gay/dumb.

Also, where's CO18? He was the most vocal about banning the infinites. Now he's nowhere to be found. LMFAO.

 

[M15t3R E]

Ah, but here's the difference, we are arguing based on an established standard that has been proven to work.


You on the other hand, are arguing based on a personal dislike of the technique and trying to create a standard to justify that.

Furthermore, we have given objective logic explaining why every standard you have suggested to justify this would be disastrous if accepted.


You tell me, what's the more logical approach?

Don't be so assured of yourselves. The SBR will look at the argument from more angles than any individual one of us can comprehend.

I took a hiatus from this debate for a reason. We are at a wall here. We're getting nowhere, awaiting the SBR's next action.

Last thing I'll say is look at the poll.

I have a tournament tomorrow afternoon. G'night.

 

[RDK]

Stop calling it a bug. The game physics are functioning exactly as the developers intended them to.

As to this, Mister E if you really think it's a "glitch" then you don't really know what constitutes a "glitch".

Creator's intent is a ridiculous argument. Everything humanly possible in the game is for all intents and purposes how it should be played--to its extent. If you want to experience creator's intent, go watch a movie.