Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
I said I wanted to take a hiatus from this debate, because it has no purpose. But here you are addressing me.
Then RDK didn't know who you were talking to either.
Roughly equal skill. And you can be 100% equally skilled, it's just very, very improbable. The main point is that nobody cares if someone who is really bad loses to someone who is really good despite having a good match-up, a point which you, as usual, strawmanned.
Insufficient answer. You just said so, yourself, that the Competitive community has no reason to ban it. We do not ban things to maximize the number of viable characters, no matter how much you want this to be true.
This was not what you argued. Stop strawmanning.
Caring =/= Playing the game because they favorite character is in it.
People's favorite characters to play as, not favorite characters to have as best friends. But I still don't care enough to whine about things that are "unfair" against my characters being banned. I just switch, like any normal Competitive player.
They like his moveset.
You said "favorite characters". You said it. It is not our fault you said it. You made a mistake here. You are still wrong. I did not start playing this game Competitively or at all because I just happened to like Peach. I liked the gameplay, the game in general and Peach's moveset.
Whoopity doo. You =/= The word.
Stop spewing nonsense. It just clutters your post up and makes me wish to stop reading it.
BS reasoning. So something that's broken is not broken if it's against a character that is bad, anyway. If it's against a good character, it needs banning, if it's against a bad character, who cares? That's BS. That's telling the bad character he's screwed because he's bad anyway and the good character we'll do everything we can to help him since he's good. That's like saying "Sorry, you're poor. Nobody cares if someone stabbed you". However, you seem to think Samus is actually quite good. So your definition of "Good" is really loose.
How many times must we say this?
I'm sorry, I said I was talking about Casual players when? Casual players have no place in this debate. What they do or think is inconsequential.
Random assumptions, talking out of your behind, making **** up, stop doing it now.
Casually. And we could care less.
Many went from Casual to Competitive play, yes. But they didn't start playing the game Competively (even if they started out playing it Casually) because of the characters!
Because I like her moveset and the way she plays. I don't even play Zelda that much, like, ever.
It is not a bug. I love it how a supposed game designer can't even tell what's a glitch, a bug or an error.
We could ban one jillion things. We don't because it would not be warrantedb.
DK can move before he gets grabbed. You spoke as if he could not move altogether. And if that's the criteria, all infinites have to go.
What part of "master how to do consistently" sounded like "Will be able to do it 100% of the time" in your ears?
It is humanly possible to master it so such a level you almost never ever make a mistake. The fact that no one has yet to reach that level because of the sheer brunt of variables to memorize does not make it impossible or even that hard (if you can memorize a lot of things, that is).
No, it wouldn't.
No, it wouldn't. Because ICs have crappy grab range, crappy traction and Nana has to still be alive and desynched (unless the opponent had quite a lot of % when they got grabbed, somehow). Even if an IC were to be able to get the infinite every single time, the fact that it's so hard to initiate means that it would not over-centralize the game. IC's wouldn't be the only or even among the top characters to play as to stand even a chance at winning.
Yes, and since it's so easy to not get consistently infinited by IC's so such an extent you cannot consistently beat them with quite a few other characters, it would not be over-centralizing anything.
I just did.
No, because it is not warranted.
IDC is stalling. It is already banned under the umbrella criteria of "Stalling.
And nobody cares.
Doesn't matter. If he gets grabbed, it's almost as bad. Fox's match-up against Pikachu when the chaingrab connects is horrible. He does not stand a chance to win, unless the Fox is much better than the Pikachu and nobody cares when that happens.
Most probably.
Not to such a degree it matters in Competitive gaming.
This has never been a reason to ban anything.
Impossible indeed.
What part of "Nobody cares if the best <X player> in the world can beat mediocre to bad <Y character>!" was too Russian for you to understand? Nobody cares. It has no bearing on whether or not something should be banned.
No, it's not. It is in your eyes, but nobody really cares what you think (no really, we don't).
Why?
People want MK banned. People want Hyrule Temple unbanned. People want Smash Balls on. People want to live on the moon. People want free money. People want to marry attractive movie stars. People want to rule the world. I want certain stupid people to be sequestered into a tiny island nation and never be allowed to leave.
No. She doesn't. If you think she does, you obviously do not possess the necessary insight into how Competitive gaming works and how match-ups and fighting games in general work to participate in this debate.
Nobody cares if the best Samus in the world can beat Meta Knights that are clearly much worse than he is. We care if he can beat Meta Knight players of roughly the same level of skill as he is... and he can't. As evidenced by the fact that the best Samuses in the world are losing to Meta Knight worse than they are.
Prove it. Your assumptions mean nothing.
You're welcome to make that argument. I'll be here to shred you.
Yes you can. It's just extremely improbable. Stop talking in absolute and extreme terms.
1) Not a bug. If you call it a glitch, bug or error one more time, I swear to God, I will track you down and have whatever university which gave you your supposed degree revoke it (or if you're still studying game design, I'll have you thrown out of school).
Stop ignoring my reply to you.
Nobody cares what random no-name D3's who will probably never place at any tournament but their very local weeklies in their own basements think. We only care what the more enlightened, wise, intelligent and knowledgeable D3's (or, as I'd like to think of them, players in general since I could care less if they played D3, someone who got infinited or someone else entirely) think.
This was obvious to anyone of us with insight into Competitive gaming and logic. I mean, they didn't ban Meta Knight. Why would they possibly ban this?
Aproximately equal. In other words, "close enough that match-ups are the deciding factor.
And as we established, for general competative gaming, making one character more viable is not a valid reason to ban.
Yes, people care about their mains, nobody will disagree with you on that.
Bug and glitch are the same. Both refer to programming errors (such as stack overflows), not the game and physics working fine, but in a way that significantly disadvantages a character and may or may not have been noticed.
Again, where's your proof?
Perhaps it's something to do with your country, and I know that it has issues with distribution in Europe. But in general it's an accepted video game, for example in America you'll find it in every other dorm room/suite in your average college.
Firstly, it's not a bug. You as a game programmer should know that (though I understand that English is your second language which explains why you don't know what "bug" means).
You could easily say the same thing about MK's tornado (remember, it doesn't matter if it's a bug).
But the grab ends eventually under the standard ruleset, and then he can move again.
Yeah, humans make stupid mistakes, but in general, for IC mains, grab=death.
Again I'll point out that I three-stocked a superior fox player after picking up Pikachu on a whim and learning the chaingrab mid-match (did it perfectly the first time). I'd just seen a video, otherwise I've had basically no pikachu expirience.
Practically speaking, the best Captain Falcon in the world should get at least two-stocked by a person randomly picking up MK on a whim.
There are plenty of other match-ups with the same practical result as the DDD v. DK match-up.
Appeal to majority fallacy, just because the majority wants it doesn't mean it should happen.
So can DK against DDD.
Not a slippery slope at all[/sarcasm]
Yes you can.
And what makes that situation superior?
Not a bug.
This is not being assured of myself, this is explaining the progression of the debate, where am I incorrect?
Basically, Reflex and Magus broke out of it after a single pummel, one at 127, the other at 130+. This means that it's only an infinite against the characters that do not require a pummel to continue, aka, DDD himself and DK. Granted Bowser's small-step chaingrab doesn't require a pummel and many people equate the two because they cause a similarly bad match-up.
The title under your name says "Smash n00b" for a reason.
Enjoy your infraction.
Then why are you not asleep?
No, this is you refusing to answer valid questions. I have never answered these questions I posed. You refuse to answer them because you know you cannot.
Why should I? I asked you. You justify your position and your opinions and your arguments. Why should I ask other people to justify your stance for you?
It was hardly a wall of text. It was, what, 4 paragraphs. Why did I PM them to you? Because you had previously ignored it. And it's a common practice. I was calling you out.
Read my post again. I was not asking you why you want it banned. I didn't ask you to explain why your criteria, reasons and reasoning were valid. I asked for something else entirely, that you justify them, to explain why they aren't arbitrary and why they are fit to set a precedent.
This has nothing to do with what I asked you to do! Either do what I actually asked you to do or stop pretending like I asked you to tell me why you think it should be banned (because I didn't)!
Here's an idea!
Are you trying to say he isn't?
Then you're just a wannabe. At least my faith in the Austrian educational system has been restored (not that I ever really cared about it to begin with).
How many times must we tell you that it works just as it should? What part of it is malfunctioning?!
Tons of things are "oversights" in games if by "oversight", you mean "Things that were not foreseen by the makers", as in "Things that are used in ways the makers did not expect them to be used". This is irrelevant and has no bearing on whether or not something should be banned, however.
But the important thing is that you can avoid it.
Who the hell are these people? Random Austrian players of a lesser skill level? Nobody cares.
I never said this. What I said was that nobody cares about whether or not a match-up can be won when the gap of skill is large. We only care if it can be won if the gap of skill is quite small.
Roughly the same skill level. I have used that term several times now.
Well, I went to Target yesterday and some fuddy-duddy gave me a book about Scientology. I looked at 'em funny and walked off, dropping the book on a median strip somewhere (within plain sight of the person). I called out, "NO HARM TO GAIA!" and "In Nomine Vermiis!"
Then why is it not arbitrary? Why will it not set a bad precedent? What happens if a character gets rendered unviable by two techniques instead of just one? Answer these questions!
Which would make it a very arbitrary. The negative impact is that we're removing a piece of the metagame for no warranted reason other than an arbitrary wish to re-balance match-ups, something which is never done in Competitive gaming, which recognizes that certain match-ups are just unwinnable.
I'd prefer it if they just stopped playing the game.
No one's forcing him to stay up. He could just go to bed and reply to my posts once he'd had a good night's sleep.
Problem with that Yuna, this topic will move so fast that he wont be able to find it T.T
I guess he is better, but from what everyone says, he is much much better than anyone on the list.
Why am I a "wannabe"? I never said that I'm a game designer that makes money out of it or has studied anything.
Yeah because the game designers wanted that Dedede has a chaingrab on nearly all characters and can infinite some?
Of course not, but this thing should, because if makes something really really bad. It is an oversight that does in no way make the game better. It makes it worse, so I don't see the problem in banning it.
Wtf are you talking about? And Captain Falcon can run away from Meta Knight! Does that mean MK will never hit him because CF is faster? No.
Those are results I copied that were posted in Ankokus thread.
And I just said that the skill gap is small.
I wasn't talking about that.
Tell this the players.
You said that it is possible to have 100 % equal skill.
Well basically it's like this:
