Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Yuna]

This is exactly why I always regret continuing these discussions.

See what stupidity does to perfectly sound minds? Their idiotic wiles have turned us against each other.

No, it was just you not reading the entire conversation and jumping to conclusions. It happens.

It doesn't have to mean we're turning against each other. Smart people on the same side do not turn against each other for trivialities such as this (I'm incidentally currently re-watching all of "Survivor: China" in one sitting (didn't see all of it the first time around, though, just the final 2 episodes), the season of many backstabs and turning-on-each-others).

I will only "turn on you" if you start being an idiot (because I'm idiot-intolerant).

 

[RDK]

No, it was just you not reading the entire conversation and jumping to conclusions. It happens.

It doesn't have to mean we're turning against each other. Smart people on the same side do not turn against each other for trivialities such as this (I'm incidentally currently re-watching all of "Survivor: China" in one sitting (didn't see all of it the first time around, though, just the final 2 episodes), the season of many backstabs and turnin-on-each-others).

I will only "turn on you" if you start being an idiot (because I'm idiot-intolerant).

I was obviously overplaying the whole turning for the sake of humor.

In any case, to avoid things like this, we should probably stop wantonly using terms like unwinnable, since they only lead to someone not reading a whole post and jumping to conclusions. In fact, I really only jumped to conclusions with Gantrain's post because at least he said in the latter part of his post that they were not virtually unwinnable.

To recap:

1. Ease of use is not an argument. Whether or not something is "easy" to do is a matter of subjectivity and has no bearing on the debate whatsoever.

2. Harmfulness to the metagame only comes into play when it overcentralizes, I.E. effects a large majority of the cast and shifts the central focus to one or several characters.

3. The matchups of the recently made **** tier vs. D3 are not 100% unwinnable. In high-level tournament play, yes, they are for all intents and purposes unwinnable. Pick someone else.

4. A simple remedy to the situation is to counterpick or just live with your horrible decision to continue to use DK in a matchup that you know full well beforehand he'll lose. This just means one less bad player for the rest of us to worry about.

 

[Yuna]

Stuff.

5. If you cannot reconcile with how Competitive gaming works, go back to Casual gaming.
6. "It's unfair!" - Life is unfair, I suggest you try to ban it.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

I maybe I'm going out on a limb and it's really not humanly possible to maintain for an extended period of time, but it does strike me as rather lazy to not learn an essentially auto-win tech just because it's difficult.

The closer to frame perfect you must be and the more frame perfect repititions are necessary the harder it is. Not that it matters; it is quite possible to simply shine someone off the edge of a stage.

Because it's a discrete enforceable way to prevent stalling while avoiding banning the technique entirely.

Stalling rules are really the only enforcable arbitrary rules because the entire point of stalling is to stall; thus if you call over a TO, they can't stall anymore.

Does pirating every single game I own constitute "hating them"?

It constitutes being a very bad person. It obviously doesn't constitute hating them, as you like their games; otherwise you wouldn't pirate them.0

DDD Cg's 7 characters infinitely without a wall.

Samus, Luigi, Mario can be infinited starting at ~ 50% when he can un-stale his grabs with a grab attack between the grab.

DK and Bowser are just plain wrecekd.

Wolf and DDD can be cg'd at the edge over ~50% when he can un-stale his grabs w/ a grab attack.

In order:

1) Mario, Samus, and Luigi have to be at very high percentages for them to be infinited.

2) Bowser isn't infinitable, but depending on where you're grabbed it doesn't really matter. Conversely, DK is infinitable.

3) Being able to infinite yourself isn't really very relevant; it makes for a stupid mirror match, but that's about it.

4) Being able to infinitely grab someone over the edge is not unique to DeDeDe.

Here's the reality: you are saying you want to ban DeDeDe entirely from tournament play. Grab counting is completely unenforcable, so the ONLY possibility is to ban DeDeDe from tournament play entirely.

But why has to even exist such a matchup in the first place?

Because that's how the game is programmed. Its as simple as that.

Unless Nintendo releases an official and universal patch fixing the issue, that's how it has to be.

I already said if you don't care about it and if you only see it from the "competitive" mindset there is no real reason to ban it (other than maybe to make more players happy, and thus increasing the community and characters, of course, that's not a good enough reason to ban it for you guys).

We don't care about scrubs. Tournaments are for competitive play, plain and simple; they aren't for scrubs but for competitive players.

If a scrub wants to play in a tournament, that's fine, but he's on OUR turf.

What does constitue a ban? Something that infinities a huge portion of the characters that see a lot of competitive play, esp anyone who would otherwise have an advantage on the infiniter, thus eliminating that characters only weakness, and 100% dominating the competitive scene. If DDD infinitied MK, snake, DDD, falco, G&W, wario, and lucario, that'd easily be enough to ban the infinite.

Please stop talking about things you don't understand.

If you swapped DK, Bowser, Luigi, Mario, Samus, and Wolf for MK, Snake, Falco, G&W, Wario, and Lucario in terms of characters he could pull this off on, it wouldn't be any more disruptive to competitive play. Not at all, really. It'd decrease the prevalence of those characters and increase the prevalence of characters who are good against good old Triple De. It wouldn't negatively impact the competitive scene at all, and it could well have a positive impact.

The problem with this argument is that it's not just a bad match-up. It's a type of match-up that makes at least 2 characters literally non-viable in tournaments. Thus, Brawl has now 33 characters (excluding transformation characters, of course). Are you happy with that?

No it doesn't. Nothing is "non-viable" about them. You just have to not be stupid about when you play them.

Non-viable is Mewtwo from Melee. DK is far, far more viable a character than Mewtwo ever was.

And sadly, no, DK is not viable because as soon as you choose DK in a tournament, your opponent can choose DDD.

Top sign you might not be a competitive player: You believe this to be true.

You can't always do this because you don't always pick second. One pick is blind, and you have at least one round every match where you're picking second (unless you win both games, but if that's the case, its kind of hard to complain, isn't it?).

You cannot always pick DeDeDe because you don't always choose after the other player. Its just that simple. Thus DK is always usable in the game after you've lost unless they pick DeDeDe preemptively, in which case you should have a secondary who is strong against DeDeDe and a lot of practice for the matchup to punish them heavily for doing that.

The point is that you have never presented an alternative criteria that is not either overbroad or justifies creation of other ad hoc criteria on an arbitrary basis.

Until that's done, overcentralization stands.

Overcentralization is an arbitrary metric. So by your own argument, it cannot be used.

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

Because he's a scrub, like everyone else arguing for the ban. Its just that simple, really.

This is the fundamental difference between the two sides, and why the people who want the ban will never admit they're wrong - they don't even understand what they're talking about on the most basic level.

Thus this argument is over, as the scrubs have nothing useful to contribute to the competitive Smash community, and they won't until they stop being scrubs. Its fine to be a scrub, but don't expect to play competitive matches if you are one.

The end.

 

[Brinzy]

Its fine to be a scrub, but don't expect to play competitive matches if you are one.

This isn't really a true statement. You can have scrubbish qualities and still be a good competitive smasher. See: Ken not using items to his advantage.

 

[Zankoku]

Ken not using items to his advantage - is this his decision due to not wanting to use items (scrub "honor") or actually just not being as familiar with them (inexperience)?

 

[RDK]

This isn't really a true statement. You can have scrubbish qualities and still be a good competitive smasher. See: Ken not using items to his advantage.

Are you talking about Evo? Because you truly are lost if you think that that was anywhere near a decent competitive tournament.

5. If you cannot reconcile with how Competitive gaming works, go back to Casual gaming.
6. "It's unfair!" - Life is unfair, I suggest you try to ban it.

Some kid's gonna go home and slit his wrists now.

That, or they're gonna make a thread in the PRoom whining for a ban on living. Communist *******s.

 

[Brinzy]

Ken not using items to his advantage - is this his decision due to not wanting to use items (scrub "honor") or actually just not being as familiar with them (inexperience)?

To be honest, I do not know. If it was the latter only, then I stand corrected. If it was the former, then that is the point I'm making.

I'm sure that the latter applies, but if he ever did not want to use them, then that's just scrub "honor" as well. My main point is that scrub honor can apply even if you're a good player.

Are you talking about Evo? Because you truly are lost if you think that that was anywhere near a decent competitive tournament.

Who cares if it was decent or indecent? Personally I do NOT think it was, but that's certainly far from what I'm saying.

 

[Zankoku]

I remember Ken countering getting KO'd by a bat by respawning and using it himself for a similar KO; as well as missing with Critical Hit multiple times. I don't think he ever blatantly avoided item use.

 

[Brinzy]

Then bad example on my behalf.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

This isn't really a true statement. You can have scrubbish qualities and still be a good competitive smasher. See: Ken not using items to his advantage.

I said not to expect to, not that you cannot.

The competitive community in Smash is far scrubbier than it should be. You can see this in many ways, particularly in which stages are automatically on and which are not, and what attributes they choose for those stages.

Some kid's gonna go home and slit his wrists now.

There's always the hope.

 

[da K.I.D.]

this entire page has nothign to do with D3.
lol

 

[Brinzy]

You make great observations. Teach me sometime.

Anyway, is this thread done with yet?

 

[Titanium Dragon]

Luigi Player hasn't compared us to Hilter or Nazis yet, so it can't be.

 

[Zankoku]

He oughta break the mold and compare you to Stalin. We don't see enough Stalin comparisons these days.

 

[bobson]

Luigi Player... just shut up. I'm not saying this to be mean, I'm saying it as advice. You're the worst pro-ban debater I've seen in this thread, and that's saying something. You're doing far more harm to your point than good.

Here's the reality: you are saying you want to ban DeDeDe entirely from tournament play. Grab counting is completely unenforcable, so the ONLY possibility is to ban DeDeDe from tournament play entirely.

"King Dedede must dash before regrabbing." If we can enforce bans on the IDC, we can enforce bans on this. Enforcement is the least of the issues with banning it.

 

[da K.I.D.]

now i wish I lived somewhere where this wasnt banned...

(lol namedropping)
Xiivi xiivi xiivi
any chance we can get this unbannedfor our tourney coming up?

if I want to place, ill need the free wins lol

 

[Brinzy]

What, steaking's not good enough?

 

[ArcPoint]

When an infinite is performed, how is that a competitive game? The other player has NO other options, what makes that a fighting game now? In my book that's just a single player game with one player timing buttons over and over. I think that anything that puts a player in a position where it is equivalent to unplugging the controller should be banned.

 

[XxBlackxX]

When an infinite is performed, how is that a competitive game? The other player has NO other options, what makes that a fighting game now? In my book that's just a single player game with one player timing buttons over and over. I think that anything that puts a player in a position where it is equivalent to unplugging the controller should be banned.

the game as a WHOLE is still competitive. the infinites don't over-centralize or break the game as a WHOLE. the matchup is ALMOST UNWINNABLE, but so what? **** like that happens in competitive games, deal with it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Well, I am really sure that many people play the game because of the characters. I didn't say the competitive players do... but overall the Casual gamers probably play it because of them. Why would they else play it? It's not "cool" or anything.

Again, I'll point out with sweeping statements like that, you need proof.


Again, your area is probably the exception even for casual players, every causal player I've encountered is more interested in smash because of the entire screen randomly spontaneously combusting.

Also were you people here when Brawl was announced? The characterboards were the biggest part by far and everyone wanted their favourite character in the game. They play a big roll, at least for some people.

Just because people care about their main doesn't mean it's the reason why people play.

Regardless, it's also an efficiency thing, once you've chosen your main, why spend most of your time learning strategies for other characters? If I wanna improve my Marth the Marth boards are gonna be a lot more useful to me then the falcon boards.

Just because it isn't like that for you 5 guys doesn't mean it is like that for everyone else.

Again, we're not saying it is, we're pointing out that to make assertions like this, you need statistical proof since there are obvious counter-examples.

We're not asserting it's true, we're merely challenging you for proof while pointing out our observations of the community.

The Ness boards at least like their character really much. I'm sure this is the same for some other boards, and most Brawl-newcomers are casual gamers which also like to play as the characters they like.

Just because they like to play as a character doesn't mean that's why they play the game.

I can not believe that it is not like that...

Then you're just being blind. It's not even that you're necessarily wrong, that you refuse to consider that you MIGHT be wrong is what makes you blind.


Simply put, your smash culture is probably very different from ours due to how small it is.

Anyway:

DK vs D3 would not be that bad for DK if the infinite was banned. Nobody said anything else.

But with the infinite it is impossible for DK.
And yeah DK isn't my main, and? Does that mean I never play him? He's one of my secondaries.

I hate it when people say stuff like "this isn't unwinable" and probably never even played the matchup (I did).
You guys have no idea how bad the match is. It is 0:100 for a reason.

You're totally missing the point. People understand the concept but are pissed at you for your poor understanding of mathmatics and probability. There is no such thing as an unwinnable match-up, unless there's a way to make you unable to move or attack regardless of your actions (without being invincible).

DDD has to land a grab to do that, therefore it's not unwinnable.


It's irrelevant to the debate, because pragmatically speaking it's the same thing, it's more along the same vein as your misuse of "giltch" and "bug", it's impossible to have a logical discussion with somebody unless the words mean the same thing. When somebody refuses to use the proper meaning of words, well you true debating with somebody where true can randomly equal false or true, see how far that gets you.

Use the correct vocabulary, then we can discuss the topic.

I suggest "utterly unreasonably hard" as a substitute for "impossible" and "unwinnable". Same point put across, without the defiance of the basic concepts of math and probability.

Okay, I still think most players play it because of the characters. If you want to change that you'd have to show me facs (a poll or something). But it doesn't matter anyway.

*sigh*

You don't decide that something is true until presented with evidence to the contrary, you assume "no effect" and then attempt to disprove it using evidence.

Note, while we suggest that there is anecdotal evidence that our smash scenes are very different, we do not present our conclusions as general fact, because we don't have hard evidence. You can do the same, but it's easy to derive our results from simple cultural differences which you obviously DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

So, the burden of proof is on you, the null is no effect. Please, present some actual evidence, which you have failed to do for every point you EVER made.

And I don't really care if you think I'm good or bad at smash. I know that I'm good. I also played it nearly non-stop a few months (well, a few stops like sleeping/girlfriend/etc.).
I'm sure my Brawl playtime is much more than from most people (of course for people who got the game earlier than the EU release this might not be the case).

*bolding added

Girlfriend?!

We know that competitive gamers can't have girlfriends, therefore you're lying about either being good, having a girlfriend, or both. Probably both.



Just kidding, sorry, couldn't resist.

We also don't have many Brawl players here sadly, but Serpit is here, and he's pretty good/known.
If I tell you I mostly play online you'll probably just say "lol, online". But it's the best thing I can do right now (it's better than nothing).
Online I'd be top 2 from germany too. Of course I know online doesn't have to mean anything though.

But it's true. Lag/latency drastically changes the game AND it's variable, so the lack of a consistent standard means that it means nothing.

Which quite the mystery considering how the game was designed in the first place.

What?! I don't get my name bolded and in large green font just because I pay attention to peoples' responses and are logical? It's not fair! J/k

Regardless, yeah, I know what you mean. I'm hoping this means nintendo is trending back towards paying attention to the competitive player as well in this series. Granted, I have one issue with this, pointlessly difficult "tech skill" ATs which could just as easily be accomplished in an easier manner and are just barriers to depth (L-canceling vs. Auto L-canceling is a prime example of this, there's no reason not to L cancel so adding it as a tech vs making it just happen doesn't hurt the depth at all).

He's wrong on many things concerning Austria's smash scene. I still want any kind of proof that he's in any way anywhere near being the best player in Austria.

I want proof for just about every statement he's made. None yet.

Apparently, he doesn't travel. So all Austrian tournaments must, somehow, be held in his city.

Well, that I could believe, if you're good enough, people will come to play you. Also, if you're in a good area, you'll eventually get a chance to be in a tournament with everyone of note. Think NYC.

But, proof.

Are you saying that he's strawmanning himself?

Pretty much.



Really, it's more being intellectually dishonest and trying to prove us "wrong" by making us appear to have disagreed with an argument that we never disagreed with by subtly changing your argument and not acknowledging the subtle change.

So, really it's explicitly strawmanning himself, implicitly strawmanning us, and it's also a Red Herring fallacy. Lol, going for a record it seems.

Only if they're arrogant, delusional, illogical and ignorant to the ways of the world... and assume they know everything about cultures they have never encountered or studied.

Not really true. It's amazing how much people take for granted until they encounter cultures where it's simply not true.


But, refusing to see that "yes, some cultures may be different", when presented with significant evidence to the contrary, yes, that fits what you said.

anyone else notice yuna put the names of his characters up to tertiary (lol?) using their japanese, i think, (lol???) names

Yes, most people noticed it immediately, filed it away as irrelevant and left it alone. Way to state the obvious.

You guys are feeding into their ridiculous misinformed opinions.

Yes, for all intents and purposes in high-level play, DK vs. D3 and MK vs. Falcon are unwinnable. But the matchups themselves are not 100%, virtually impossible.

That's even worse than if you unplugged the other guy's controller, because you could still beat him to the SD. He would have to automatically lose at the beginning of every match for it to be literally unwinnable.

Not true, match-ups are at the top of the metagame, so unplugging the other guy's controller is an unwinnable match-up.

Basically, it would be unwinnable (at least on the stages that do not prevent this), if DK started every stock grabbed by DDD. Or something similar where if DDD doesn't make a mistake on something humanly possible and no input from the other player can mess it up then it's literally unwinnable.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

When an infinite is performed, how is that a competitive game? The other player has NO other options, what makes that a fighting game now? In my book that's just a single player game with one player timing buttons over and over. I think that anything that puts a player in a position where it is equivalent to unplugging the controller should be banned.

Your opinion is without value.

Why?

While infinites are bad game design, the reality is that a ban on them is completely meaningless and unenforcable.

Moreover, its not "not a competitive game". There's a lot more to the game than just getting infinited to death; you have to grab them, they have to be playing the wrong character, ect.

DeDeDe can only do it against a couple of characters (DK and himself) unconditionally, and the rest are conditional, ranging from "meaningless infinite" (Samus, Mario, Luigi require them to be at such high percentages a grab from many characters would kill them anyway, so it doesn't matter), to "meaningful but avoidable" (Wolf getting grabbed on the edge), to "often possible but not always" (Bowser can be chaingrabbed to death). And doing it to himself is pretty meaningless as it is even; both sides can do it, and while it makes the DeDeDe mirror stupid, it doesn't cause balance issues.

So we're looking at this really just causing DK and Bowser major problems, and the others some problems but they're much more avoidable. And the reality is, this is fine. They're just two choices, and you can choose not to play those characters when your opponent is playing DeDeDe. You can do this once per match, minimum, and with blind first picks you can do it as much as twice as long as you don't do it every match (to prevent scouting; if you randomly choose whether or not to pick DK on the blind or your anti-DeDeDe character, you can very much mess up people who choose to CP DeDeDe).

Melee had things like this in it, and they weren't banned, and with good reason - they shouldn't be.

To advocate a ban on this is to advocate banning DeDeDe entirely. No, don't argue, you're wrong. That's what you're saying. There is no "banning infinite". There is banning DeDeDe. And there is no reason to do that.

 

[Nybb]

If someone told me ten years ago that in the future, my most frequent source of rage would be the opinions of anonymous American 16-year-olds on a worldwide communication network, I think I would have laughed.

Oh, to be young again.

 

[RDK]

Not true, match-ups are at the top of the metagame, so unplugging the other guy's controller is an unwinnable match-up.

Basically, it would be unwinnable (at least on the stages that do not prevent this), if DK started every stock grabbed by DDD. Or something similar where if DDD doesn't make a mistake on something humanly possible and no input from the other player can mess it up then it's literally unwinnable.

No, it's not virtually unwinnable because despite him having his controller unplugged I could still shave off all my stocks by SD'ing while he just stands there.

It's not physically impossible, just incredibly impractical.

 

[adumbrodeus]

No, it's not virtually unwinnable because despite him having his controller unplugged I could still shave off all my stocks by SD'ing while he just stands there.

It's not physically impossible, just incredibly impractical.

But if you SD, then you're not playing at the top of the metagame, and match-ups are at the top of the metagame. A match-up is literally impossible if the other character will win regardless of any input of an opponent at any time, if the player of that character has sufficient tech skill and the tech is humanly possible. Since we're talking about "unwinnable match-ups", all that's required is that it's impossible to lose if playing at the top of the metagame.


Of course an impossible match-up is different from it being "impossible to lose", because "impossible to lose" doesn't take into account the top of the metagame. In that case your opponent has to automatically die in the beginning of the match before it's possible for you to SD.


Point: I figure that we both have the concepts that we're discussing, we're just discussing what term applies to what, which is ultimately inconsequential.

If someone told me ten years ago that in the future, my most frequent source of rage would be the opinions of anonymous American 16-year-olds on a worldwide communication network, I think I would have laughed.

Oh, to be young again.

Lol, don't take it as rage, just learn to pity them.

Or you know, just not let it get to you. Emotional control is useful.

 

[highandmightyjoe]

Which was a point I made earlier in response to people claiming that it was "impossible to main DK", or that he could never win a tournament because of this. This tactic does not break DK as a character as much as people seem to think for several reasons. Firstly, as you seem to agree with me, not everyone goes DDD against DK. They should sure, and in theory DK should get destroyed at tournaments because everyone can just go DDD and get a free match, but in practice this doesn't happen.

The other aspects have all been pretty well covered. DK should have a counter for DDD, moving stages like RC limit the usage of the infinite, etc.

That some people don't choose D3 against a DK is their fault. But the thing is it is always possible that the enemy just decides to get a 100 % win and choose Dedede.

It doesn't happen always because not everyone goes Dedede, but some people do it and it makes it really really risky. Of course DK should have a counter for D3. Nearly every character needs some secondaries to make matchups easier, but it is still possible for them to win, otherwise everyone and I mean EVERYONE would only play Meta Knight. Yeah you could choose those sucky stages... >_> great, I could maybe use DK on 1 stage in the game (and only if I lose so I can CP), I'm so happy now.

But DK is a really good character and underrated from most people. He could stand his own, but this infinite kills him and makes him a risky choice. The only time to choose DK would be if you already lost and couterpick.

"Oh, it's just a bad match-up. They exist in Brawl. Get over it."

The problem with this argument is that it's not just a bad match-up. It's a type of match-up that makes at least 2 characters literally non-viable in tournaments. Thus, Brawl has now 33 characters (excluding transformation characters, of course). Are you happy with that?

I'm late responding cause my computer crashed. Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that DK is in fact still a tournament viable character. He is in C rank in terms of tournament results, and has good matchups against a large bulk of the cast.

Now, it seems to be an argument of the pro ban side that we should ban this tactic so that characters who are otherwise unviable can stand a chance. Not only has this been pointed out as not being a suitable criteria for a ban, but my point was that even if it where the criteria, this does not meet with it. He is already viable. It has been argued before that "we are not in the business of saving single characters", but in fact this goes farther than that, it is asking us to take an already good character and alter the rules of the game to make him even better, which is utterly ridiculous.

Also, someone asked me earlier about how often I get my DK countered by an infinite using DDD. In my past two tournaments I have not been countered by an infinite using DDD for even one match. I was also watching the other DK's matches and they didn't get CP'd either. It may just be my region, but this just doesn't happen often, at least at the tournaments I'm at.

Not that that really should matter to the issue at hand, someone just asked me so I answered.

The SBR holds almost no power anymore. Rulesets vary incredibly from region to region. Texas had MK banned, NY bans D3's infinite, the SE prefers a different stage set than Socal. No one is listening to them. If the SBR bans the infinite, then it will remain banned in the NE and will remain unbanned in other areas.

This we can agree on, at least to a certain degree, but the recommended ruleset is still important. Without a general guideline, the rules from region to region would likely be even more varied than they already are.

He oughta break the mold and compare you to Stalin. We don't see enough Stalin comparisons these days.

I love your new avatar.

 

[cj.Shark]

ok reading this thread made me think about previous experiences.
the question is. should the people who make rules opt for a fair game? in which they drastically decide to remove unfair options out of a game? If money is involved and its a play 2 win should the host cater to the players needs or does the player simply adapt?
because of that i bring up the subject of the holy mother of competitive gaming. Starcraft.
in one of the recent OSLs heavy maps favoring protoss and zerg were created. infact 3 of the 4 maps favored protoss or zerg when facing a terran. there was not a single map that favored terran over any other race. the maps also did not affect protoss vs zerg very much at all(but heavily vs terrans). because of this out of the pools only 3 terrans made it into a 16 man tournement. thoose 3 were known for their skill so it is not surprising. What was surprising is that Terran the most popular race by far was the smallest group for the first time. Normally it goes Terran-zerg-protoss in terms of sheer number of players.
The terran players that were in the pools had the fallowing options
A) counterpick This is stupid because they are at the status of "progamers" if order to play one race effectivly they must devote thousands and thousands of hours to that one race. learning a second race and your doomed to enter dead last in every tournement.
b) win fromfar superior skill- hey 3 terrans could do it. Granted they are the best players and/or played ****ty opponents but meh good job
in the end KESPA (the rule makers) decided to alter one of the maps so it could not be exploited (by zerg vs terran) during the tourney. however the damage had already been done and amazingly enough
the finals ended up being protoss vs protoss (due to the lack of terrans to take em out) for the first time in years.

The point?
Unfair explotable maps is just like d3's infinite.
for instance protosses(people who dont main a character infinitable) wont complain about Bluestorm in which zerg ***** terrans on. why? because it only benefits them taking out good terran players and giving a chance of more protoss players into the brackets
and Terrans (people getting infinited) being butthurt about losing the chance to win tens of thousands of dollars.
and Zergs (dededes) who defend themselves by pointing out that the protoss(other characters with CG's exikachu vs fox) also have a huge advantage map (katrina) so they basically divert the problem.

I know im not making much sence but.. im kind of dizzy right now

 

[gantrain05]

cj.shark i totally understand your comparison, i've been playing competetive starcraft since '99, i can relate to this lol, although i don't know if many smashers play sc, it actually is a pretty good comparison.

 

[Luigi player]

Yuna:

See the matchups like a dice (you know the one with the dots you use for board games).

If you'd have one with 5 sides that have 6 dots and one side with 1 dot.

It is unlikely it will happen, but every now and then it can happen. And it will happen if a chance is there. Otherwise the matchup would have to be 100:0.

If Dedede could chaingrab DK to ~80 % I wouldn't say anything, because DK would still have a chance. Maybe it would be 80:20. A chance you can make up for with player skill.

It just sucks if worse players can beat you just because they choose Dedede. This doesn't happen if the matchup is just "very bad", because you still have a chance and if you're good enough you still win.

Theoretically DK should still always lose against the Dedede player if the infinite would be banned, if both players are equally skilled (because it would be about 60:40), but the DK still has a chance to win. It might not happen often that he wins and he'd win less often than the Dedede, but it can happen.

If someone mains DK he would of course need a secondary for Dedede, but if it does happen that you have to face a Dedede and have already chosen DK (double blind pick, your enemy chooses D3 when you picked DK in a set but won the previous game) you should still have a chance to win, which DK doesn't have.

It does not happen that the character with the advantage in the matchup will always win.
Even if it is 70:30. Yes, it's unlikely, but it can happen. You can make up for everything with mindgames in Brawl. That's why it is different from Melee. In Melee you have combos. If you don't have the technical skill you'll get *****. If you have a bad character with not many combos it is likely you will get ***** too. In Brawl you mostly need knowledge of the game and mindgames. The captain Falcon can still win if his mindgames are really really good.
Every player could fall for them. Even the top level players. (Note: I'm not saying Melee doesn't need mindgames, but in Brawl their effects are bigger because you can use them all the time, because there aren't too many combos)

In the matchup DK vs Dedede you just can't win. Dedede just has better options, and if he grabs you just once you're dead. You can't make up for it with your next stocks, because he will just grab you again and you'll be dead again. You can also not make up for it with mindgames, it is just impossible, unless the Dedede sucks.

The Fox vs Pikachu is different. First, it is much harder for Pikachu to grab Fox, second Fox will not lose for sure when he got grabbed. Fox obviously has a big disadvantage, but it is still possible that the Fox can outplay Pikachu. Maybe the matchup is 90:10. You see the difference? 90:10. Fox could win. Yes, even if both players are about equal. Otherwise the matchup ratios wouldn't be written like this. Matchup ratios take into account that both players are about equal. Fox has a chance. Fox could win. It is not likely and will happen maybe once every 50 fights or something, but it is possible.

If a Falco fights against a Diddy and both players have about equal skill, the Diddy can still win. The Falco could win more often if both are about equally good, but the Diddy can still win. That is why people play other characters. If matchups makes you losing 100 % you would not see too many players choosing anyone other than Meta Knight. Meta Knight will not always win, even if both players are about equally good. There are always mindgames.

Nothing in Brawl is as bad as: you hit one move (doesn't matter where on the stage or what % your opponent has) and he is dead. That is why it should be banned.

It is
1. impossible
2. impossible
3. impossible
4. impossible

Nothing is impossible in any ****ing other (normal) fighting game.

In Melee is is also possible to win with whatever the worst character is (Pichu, Kirby, Bowser?) against a Shiek.

It is ****ing unlikely and might only happen once in 10000 fights, I KNOW THAT, but it is possible.

If a Pichu is really really good he can also beat worse Shieks. DK has absolutely NO CHANCE to win, if the Dedede is at least decent.


Also, no players in the whole world will have the exact same skill level.

It might be really really near together like
100.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000129384
and
100.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000129385

BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

No humans are exactly the same.

There are always better players and worse players then them.

Thus it would be possible to even be the best player and win every tourney with DK (theoretically it is possible, of course practically it should not happen, but he would still win the majority).

Thus matchups aren't the only diciding factor of who will win, if there is a chance.


DK has no chance.



What would you prefer:

1) Nobody plays DK anymore because of the infinite (thus you couldn't use it anyway)
2) The infinite will get banned and we will have one more character

I choose the second.
All anti-ban people seemingly don't care and choose the first...

It juse makes sense to ban it. It will help the game.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

>_> You know, there's more to the Pikachu/Fox match-up than just the CG right? Hell, the boards have the matchup rated at "LOL" for a reason. Pika outcamps, outprioritizes, and (potentially) outplays Fox at every turn. Your only hope in that match-up is that the Pika player isn't that great and doesn't know what a QAC is. Oh, and MAYBE drop-shielded Up-Smash if the Pikachu holds still.

But it still is possible to win, because you have two ****ing options: Get ridiculously good as said character so that you can push your own personal skill-ceiling to its utmost or swallow your "I <3 my main" crap to counterpick with another character that you are at least COMFORTABLE with and stands a better chance. It's not just you winning as the character, it is YOU winning as the PLAYER that matters.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Redthorn21]

What would you prefer:

1) Nobody plays DK anymore because of the infinite (thus you couldn't use it anyway)
2) The infinite will get banned and we will have one more character

I choose the second.
All anti-ban people seemingly don't care and choose the first...

It juse makes sense to ban it. It will help the game.

I would have to agree. As long as any character has a infinate move on another it should be banned. Well giving that the moves is as easy to pull of a as a grab.

 

[cutter]

Nothing in Brawl is as bad as: you hit one move (doesn't matter where on the stage or what % your opponent has) and he is dead. That is why it should be banned.

Ban Ice Climbers' infinites then? One grab = stock loss, just like D3's infinites.

It is
1. impossible
2. impossible
3. impossible
4. impossible

No it is NOT impossible. You cannot say it is impossible because DKs HAVE beaten DDDs. Is the matchup ridiculously hard for DK? Of course. It's probably like a 5-95 matchup. Impossible? Hell no. That would be a 100-0 matchup which is just as bad as immediately disconnecting your controller and immediately forfeiting the match.

 

[dainbramage]

Ban Ice Climbers' infinites then? One grab = stock loss, just like D3's infinites.

Also; everyone's CG's that end in spikes; falco's can be SDI'd on-stage (or teched), but bowser and yoshi at the very least have guaranteed kills against several characters. G&W's bucket with a powerful projectile. Judgement - you might just hit a 9. Peach might pull out a stitchface. Ganon's reverse aerial warlock punch will kill lightweights at zero. Ike's nearly-fully-charged eruption can do the same..


In order of likely to absurdly unlikely. Ban them all, luigi?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Also; everyone's CG's that end in spikes; falco's can be SDI'd on-stage (or teched), but bowser and yoshi at the very least have guaranteed kills. G&W's bucket with a powerful projectile. Judgement - you might just hit a 9. Peach might pull out a stitchface. Ganon's reverse aerial warlock punch will kill lightweights at zero. Ike's nearly-fully-charged eruption can do the same. Et cetera.

Here we gooooooooo~

And before anybody says, "Well it's hard to land a grab as the ICs." Newsflash: It can be difficult for the DDD in question to land a grab as well, providing the person knows how to space.

But I digress.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Redthorn21]

Ban Ice Climbers' infinites then? One grab = stock loss, just like D3's infinites.



No it is NOT impossible. You cannot say it is impossible because DKs HAVE beaten DDDs. Is the matchup ridiculously hard for DK? Of course. It's probably like a 5-95 matchup. Impossible? Hell no. That would be a 100-0 matchup which is just as bad as immediately disconnecting your controller and immediately forfeiting the match.

Sure it is not "impossible" but the odds are terrible. If you have a D3 player who knows what they are doing and will use the infinate in a match agianst a DK player the DK player is ****ed. Yes it is not impossible for the DK player to win but as long as the infinate is legal DK players (not that the infinate only affects DK) are going to be terrible agianst D3 overall. Which would lead to even less character varitiy in competitive play and Donkey kong would be a rare and near hopeless sight. But without the infinate this makes the match better letting DK players have a much better chance of winning.

The whole reason i am so agianst the infinates is that they simply take away from the game. Well ones as simple to pull off as this one anyway. They make the competitive brawl scene even blander. Why should a DK player who would of gone on to win several titles not get to because of a INFINATE easy to preform move.

 

[Luigi player]

Also; everyone's CG's that end in spikes; falco's can be SDI'd on-stage (or teched), but bowser and yoshi at the very least have guaranteed kills against several characters. G&W's bucket with a powerful projectile. Judgement - you might just hit a 9. Peach might pull out a stitchface. Ganon's reverse aerial warlock punch will kill lightweights at zero. Ike's nearly-fully-charged eruption can do the same..


In order of likely to absurdly unlikely. Ban them all, luigi?

That is not the same. You can avoid all that. DK can't avoid D3s grab. And Falcos GC doesn't work on all %. You can try to avoid getting grabbed.

Yeah you could get a 9. But does it always happen? No. D3s infinite always happens if he grabs you.

GaW can't use his bucket if the enemy doesn't use projectiles at him.

You can avoid Ganons reverse aerial warlock punch.

Don't compare a grab infinite with some attacks that take a minute to happen and are easily seen.


How often does something like that happen? An Ike hitting with a fully charge B or a Ganondorf with a reverse aerial punch?

Exactly.

How often does it happen that a Dedede grabs you?

Did you guys even ever played against D3? How often did you get grabbed? DK is one of the easiest characters to grab with Dedede.

Btw, you shouldn't compare attacks with grabs. Avoiding a grab is much more difficult, especially because you can't just hold your shield up. You can only roll away, spot dodge or stay in the air (you have to land sometime though).


ICs: They can't grab you (you can avoid the grab). D3 can't not grab DK (you can't avoid it).


And also that it was just an oversight from the programmers does help to ban it.
Why?

Because it is really really unfair and shuts down one character (and others have a really really bad matchup against D3).

Yuna compared it to the RAR. Does it destroy characters? No. Does it make the game better? Yes.

You can't say Dededes infinite is good for the game, it obviously is not.

 

[SCOTU]

People seem to be missing the point that EVEN IF DDD CAN 0-death you off of a grab, IT DOES NOT MAKE THAT CHARACTER UNPLAYABLE.

for instance, DK is still very viable as a counterpick character against MK/ Snake.

 

[Fletch]

The same stupid arguments have been posted and disproved a million times in this thread. Pro-ban has lost, you have no good arguments.

 

[Vulcan55]

They lost before the thread started.
Also, lol @ "You can avoid all that. DK can't avoid D3s grab."
*Superlol*

 

[Luigi player]

They lost before the thread started.
Also, lol @ "You can avoid all that. DK can't avoid D3s grab."
*Superlol*

You obvously have no idea of D3s grab and those attacks if you say lol to that.


Why do we have to have a character to be only used to CP if we could just ban the infinite?


What if you never lose? You could never play the character.