Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Brinzy]

False. If you can choose DK, the opponent will ALWAYS be able to choose DDD in the same match.

If you lose a match, IIRC, you choose the stage, your opponent names his character, and then you name yours. That's how you can CP with DK without them using DDD. So... no, you're not always going to be walled by DDD.

Yuna said it was a good enough reason. Argue with him.
This does the same thing as the glitch, though. Bum can no longer place well in tournaments when he should be doing well, because of a **** programming oversight that gave DDD his infinite.

1) Yuna did not say that. Learn to comprehend.

2) That's too ****ing bad. Who cares why it's in? Who cares if it hurts good players like Bum? All that matters is that it's not breaking the game. Go play a different character.

 

[Yuna]

So, hindering competition doesn't matter. Only stopping competition as a whole matters, eh?

Duh!

This is the problem. We'll never see eye to eye on this.

Because you are a Scrub who thinks every character and every match-up needs to stand a fighting chance and refuse to acknowledge that Pikachu's chaingrab on Fox makes that match-up LOL and unwinnable as well.

Competitive gaming does not see eye to with you on this matter.

That IS what you just said. You need to word points better if that's not what you meant.

No, I do not. It doesn't prevent competition, it merely limits it.

DDD's infinite does effectively end the match if the DDD knows how to use it. It works the same way as a glitch, without it technically being one.

But it does not prevent competition. Just switch to a character it does not work against. It is not a universal anti-competition-button.

It is merely a tactic which breaks two match-ups. It is a hugely effective combo, much like certain locks in this game and certain combos in other games.

It does not even end the match! Stop saying this. D3 grabs, D3 infinites, D3 takes off one stock. It takes off one stock, it does not end the match. And depending on the situation, it might not even take off one stock.

There are few true combos in Brawl. DDD's infinite is not what I would call a "combo".

But that is because you do not think of chaingrabs as combos, despite them being, you know, combos.

Combo = Combination

Word your sentences better.

Improve on your English.

Limits =/= Prevents

 

[XxBlackxX]

DDD's infinite does effectively end the match if the DDD knows how to use it. It works the same way as a glitch, without it technically being one.
There are few true combos in Brawl. DDD's infinite is not what I would call a "combo".

it also works in the same way as a combo. a series of moves (in this case grabs and throws) and are inescapable, only in this case, INFINITELY inescapable.

Word your sentences better.

they were worded well. you just chose to comprehend them in a different way, a way that was advantageous to your argument.

 

[Twilght Link]

I know that this is the internet where my opinions do not matter and i will likely get shot down for this but imo it should be banned, it lets people like DK actually have a fighting chance against D3. I just cant see why people would want to keep an infinite in a game thats already unbalanced. Sure its only against 6 characters but its not like its gonna really affect D3 much to lift this infinite. The only difference is that he has to actually earn his win instead of taking off a stock with just a grab.

Consider a matchup between DK and D3. The DK player is stronger but not by a significant degree. Considering that the D3 player is still inside the playing level of the DK player, he is able to manage to grab and perform an infinite, thus taking off a stock from the DK player. The DK player eventually loses, not because he was the weaker player but because he couldnt beat a player who uses infinites. These infinites close the gaps in skill that of which seperates the better players from the others. People are always whining that brawl is unbalanced and yet they allow infinites. The fact that it only works on 6 characters is irrelevant in this debate. I shouldnt have to pick a counter to fight off this 1 character. Saying " Its your choice to put yourself at a disadvantage by picking that character" is BLASPHEME! Even in a competetive enviroment, i should be able to pick up my favorite character and win with him granted im more skilled than my opponent. I shouldnt have to pick up another character for this one pesty character.

Go ahead, blast me down with your DEAL WITH IT debate. Im subjective to my own opinions. Heck, i dont even main a charcacter D3 can infinite (or so i think) so let someone who actually knows what they're talking about shoot at me before some newby who calls me a biased idiot does

 

[Yuna]

Old, 29000 times over refuted stuff. The fact that I'm still spouting this nonsense just shows I haven't spent even 5 minutes researching this subject and/or this thread because then I'd know that this is old and already refuted 29000 times over.

Reply in quote.

 

[Brinzy]

I shouldnt have to pick up another character for this one pesty character.

Anyone not named MK (and a few others to a lesser extent) basically has to do it. DK isn't really special.

 

[XxBlackxX]

I know that this is the internet where my opinions do not matter and i will likely get shot down for this but imo it should be banned, it lets people like DK actually have a fighting chance against D3. I just cant see why people would want to keep an infinite in a game thats already unbalanced. Sure its only against 6 characters but its not like its gonna really affect D3 much to lift this infinite. The only difference is that he has to actually earn his win instead of taking off a stock with just a grab.

Consider a matchup between DK and D3. The DK player is stronger but not by a significant degree. Considering that the D3 player is still inside the playing level of the DK player, he is able to mange to grab and perform an infinite, thus taking off a stock from the DK player. The DK player eventually loses, not because he was the weaker player but because he couldnt beat a player who uses infinites. These infinites close the gaps in skill that of which seperates the better players from the others. People are always whining that brawl is unbalanced and yet they allow infinites. The fact that it only works on 6 characters is irrelevant in this debate. I shouldnt have to pick a counter to fight off this 1 character. Saying " Its your choice to put yourself at a disadvantage by picking that character" is BLASPHEME! Even in a competetive enviroment, i should be able to pick up my favorite character and win with him granted im more skilled than my opponent. I shouldnt have to pick up another character for this one pesty character.

this just sounds like a whole lotta complaining instead of actual arguments....
the game is unbalanced...Dk has no chance...bawl.......D3 doesn't earn it.......blah blah...bawl bawl.

look, no one CARES about the Dk:D3 matchup, okay? it's UNWINNABLE at the highest level of play. but does that mean it should be banned? no, it just means the matchup is unwinnable and DK is unviable against D3. DEAL WITH IT.

also, that stuff in the red proves you are not a competitive player, now stop your scrubbish thinking or get out.

 

[ArcPoint]

So something has to prevent competition in order for it to be banned?

 

[Jack Kieser]

yes that's about right. as long as the tactic doesn't make the game competitively unplayable, there no reason to ban anything.

I'd actually like to make a note on this really quick. Jam Stunna made a thread in TD on the meaning of the word "competitive"; I decided to do some research on Sirlin's site so I could be knowledgeable enough to comment, and I found something exactly relating to this notion (above).

In SSF2T, Honda had an infinite on Guile in the corner (his Ochio Throw, if I'm spelling that correctly). According to Sirlin himself, he thought that it was perfectly fine since Honda had such a hard time getting close to Guile in the first place; if a Honda could get Guile trapped in the corner, he deserved to do 100%. Well, when Sirlin balanced SSF2THDR, he removed that infinite... because, even though it wasn't gamebreaking, it was still excessive enough (in his opinion) to warrant changing.

In another SSF2THDR story, Guile (again) got owned by Vega and Dhalsim, and though it was only two characters, that severely hurt his game. To fix Guile's matchup on Dhalsim, Sirlin thought it necessary to change the hitbox of one of Dhalsim's moves (shifted the hitboxes up a little). That wasn't even a large, gamebreaking problem, either!

So, a little food for thought in terms of what we use to argue a ban. Also, all of that can be found on Sirlin's site, so don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Yuna]

So something has to prevent competition in order for it to be banned?

Did I say this? Said that "Prevents competition" is one the most important criteria, not that it was the only criteria. Not to mention the fact that I named 2 other criteria in the same breath.

 

[M15t3R E]

Why did you say I did not comprehend your statement, Yuna?
I realized you were talking about how it does not prevent competition as a whole.
If that is, in fact, what you were speaking about then I clearly did understand your point.

Oh, and thanks for calling 56% of smashers interested in this debate, a scrub.

 

[Yuna]

Random stuff.P

This was a game maker re-balancing a game. It has nothing to do with banning moves. Make makers rebalance stuff that isn't even close to being imbalanced enough to warrant a ban all the time. It is also up to the game makers' discretion to change the game, whether we like it or not. We then play the game they give us and leave it alone unless something breaks the game.

Why did you say I did not comprehend your statement, Yuna?

Because at first you insisted that limiting = preventing?

 

[XxBlackxX]

I'd actually like to make a note on this really quick. Jam Stunna made a thread in TD on the meaning of the word "competitive"; I decided to do some research on Sirlin's site so I could be knowledgeable enough to comment, and I found something exactly relating to this notion (above).

In SSF2T, Honda had an infinite on Guile in the corner (his Ochio Throw, if I'm spelling that correctly). According to Sirlin himself, he thought that it was perfectly fine since Honda had such a hard time getting close to Guile in the first place; if a Honda could get Guile trapped in the corner, he deserved to do 100%. Well, when Sirlin balanced SSF2THDR, he removed that infinite... because, even though it wasn't gamebreaking, it was still excessive enough (in his opinion) to warrant changing.

In another SSF2THDR story, Guile (again) got owned by Vega and Dhalsim, and though it was only two characters, that severely hurt his game. To fix Guile's matchup on Dhalsim, Sirlin thought it necessary to change the hitbox of one of Dhalsim's moves (shifted the hitboxes up a little). That wasn't even a large, gamebreaking problem, either!

So, a little food for thought in terms of what we use to argue a ban. Also, all of that can be found on Sirlin's site, so don't shoot the messenger.

fact is, sirlin didn't BAN these things when they were first found, did he?
no, he fixed/patched them in a later version of the game, and that is fundamentally different. a BAN is a last resort to keep the game competitively playable. a PATCH/FIX is whatever the developers want in order to improve their game.
hey, if sakurai released a brawl 2.0 without infinites (and hopfully more hitstun lol), then okay, we'll be playing without infinites. but since he hasn't there's still no reason for a ban.

 

[M15t3R E]

Because at first you insisted that limiting = preventing?

That's not what I said at all. You're the one who needs to comprehend English better.

As a matter of fact, I was pointing out the discrepancy between our arguments; you say it must prevent competition as a whole to be banned and I say it merely needs to limit it.

 

[Jack Kieser]

The fact stands that it's all re-balancing. When we ban things, we're re-balancing after the fact, but we're still re-balancing. There's really no difference, semantics aside. The operative differences are minimal.

 

[ArcPoint]

I didn't say you did say that, I just wanted to be sure, which is why I asked it, not stated it.

And Jack, as true as that is, competitive communities tend not to want to re-balance things that don't affect a large majority (Over-centralizing) the game.

 

[XxBlackxX]

The fact stands that it's all re-balancing. When we ban things, we're re-balancing after the fact, but we're still re-balancing. There's really no difference, semantics aside. The operative differences are minimal.

no, we don't ban things to re-balance the game. we ban things to keep the game competitively playable as a whole.
there are alot of differences between patch and ban
like i said, ban is a LAST RESORT, patch isn't.

 

[Jack Kieser]

no, we don't ban things to re-balance the game. we ban things to keep the game competitively playable as a whole.
there are alot of differences between patch and ban
like i said, ban is a LAST RESORT, patch isn't.

...that IS re-balancing the game. An imbalance in the way the game plays created a drop in competitiveness, and thus we did something to change that. That's re-balancing. Whether the game polices itself (patch or re-release) or we police it (ban), the effect is the same.

 

[Vulcan55]

I'd actually like to make a note on this really quick. Jam Stunna made a thread in TD on the meaning of the word "competitive"; I decided to do some research on Sirlin's site so I could be knowledgeable enough to comment, and I found something exactly relating to this notion (above).

In SSF2T, Honda had an infinite on Guile in the corner (his Ochio Throw, if I'm spelling that correctly). According to Sirlin himself, he thought that it was perfectly fine since Honda had such a hard time getting close to Guile in the first place; if a Honda could get Guile trapped in the corner, he deserved to do 100%. Well, when Sirlin balanced SSF2THDR, he removed that infinite... because, even though it wasn't gamebreaking, it was still excessive enough (in his opinion) to warrant changing.

It was removed for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that Honda now does better against fireball characters, and has an easier time getting close to those types of characters.
With those buffs and a corner trap, it would be too excessive. It hink you need to do more research before commenting on this stuff.

In another SSF2THDR story, Guile (again) got owned by Vega and Dhalsim, and though it was only two characters, that severely hurt his game. To fix Guile's matchup on Dhalsim, Sirlin thought it necessary to change the hitbox of one of Dhalsim's moves (shifted the hitboxes up a little). That wasn't even a large, gamebreaking problem, either!

So, a little food for thought in terms of what we use to argue a ban. Also, all of that can be found on Sirlin's site, so don't shoot the messenger.

We aren't making SSBB: HDR, now are we? Who cares if, when he remade the game, he balanced stuff? We don't ban things to balance a game, we ban things when they break the entire game. Did Honda's corner trap break the whole game? No, it was only one matchup. (Which was still heavily in Guile's favor, btw)

 

[ArcPoint]

@Black Last sentence is a good point.

 

[XxBlackxX]

...that IS re-balancing the game. An imbalance in the way the game plays created a drop in competitiveness, and thus we did something to change that. That's re-balancing. Whether the game polices itself (patch or re-release) or we police it (ban), the effect is the same.

okay....point taken
but what developers think might need fixes don't warrant bans.
when the game policies itself, we use bans as a LAST RESORT, developers don't/won't, it's their game and they can do whatever they want to make it better in their opinion.

also, bans are extreme, when something is SO imbalanced that it breaks the game as a whole.

 

[Yuna]

That's not what I said at all. You're the one who needs to comprehend English better.

As a matter of fact, I was pointing out the discrepancy between our arguments; you say it must prevent competition as a whole to be banned and I say it merely needs to limit it.

O RLY?

"You're saying that nothing can be even a small bit bad for competition unless it ruins the game as a whole?"
- You claim I said this, when I asked you when I'd ever said you, you refused to specify and just said "You said it" despite me having never said anything even remotely like this.

You: "But then that means he can't use DK in tournaments, which effectively REMOVES CHARACTERS FROM THE GAME. How is that not bad for competition? Yuna said it was a good enough reason."

No I didn't. I never ever said "removes characters from the game" warrants bans. I said:
"Removes characters from the field"

As in the stage. I never used the term "the game". It is further made clear by the context it is put in:
Prevents competition (freeze glitches, invisible characters, removes characters from the field, etc.). This is further made clear by the context.

I have also said, one jillion times, that "Renders a small portion of the cast unviable" doesn't warrant a ban under the ban criteria of Competitive gaming.

But of course, you just chose to ignore all of that, logic, reading comprehension and just rewrite what I said in your head.

The fact stands that it's all re-balancing. When we ban things, we're re-balancing after the fact, but we're still re-balancing. There's really no difference, semantics aside. The operative differences are minimal.

Yes, there is. One is by the game makers, another is by the players. One is because the makers just felt like it, the other is because it is a necessity for Competitive play's survival.

Sirlin changed a lot of things, including things that do not in any way break the game. Should we ban all of the things he changed in SSF2T (the original)?

 

[M15t3R E]

okay....point taken
but what developers think might need fixes don't warrant bans.
when the game policies itself, we use bans as a LAST RESORT, developers don't/won't, it's their game and they can do whatever they want to make it better in their opinion.

also, bans are extreme, when something is SO imbalanced that it breaks the game as a whole.

1. Brawl isn't a game that is policing itself.
2. Character bans are extreme. I don't feel that technique bans need to follow quite the same ban criteria as character bans.

 

[XxBlackxX]

1. Brawl isn't a game that is policing itself.
2. Character bans are extreme. I don't feel that technique bans need to follow quite the same ban criteria as character bans.

1. why not?
2. and i feel it should.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Vulcan, I can scan and e-mail you the notes I made when I printed off all 4 of Sirlin's articles on multiplayer balance. I did a LOT of research. The point stands that, according to Sirlin's own article, he implies a direct connection between ratio of competitively viable characters in a fighter and depth (and therefore competitiveness as a whole) because every competitively viable character adds to viable options. By his own implication, he asserts GG to be one of the most viable fighters due to its depth of viable options. But, if you did YOUR research, you'd have known that.

@ Yuna: Could you point me to where on the nets it is written that bans can ONLY happen when a game's competitive viability is at stake? Sure, that's when they USUALLY happen... but that's in no way a concrete requirement (that I know of). According to the community, we ban in part to increase competitiveness, and according to Mr. Play-to-Win, things like this reduce competitiveness by reducing viable options. The fact stands that if we REALLY wanted to protect competitive viability, we'd be taking a closer look. Don't worry; as soon as the holidays are over, I'll finish compiling my findings from Sirlin's site (primarily from his balance articles on MP games). Remember, all I've been doing is compiling HIS words; I, in no way, am claiming credit for any of these ideas.

 

[M15t3R E]

1. why not?
2. and i feel it should.

1. When have the developers of Brawl ever released a patch to "fix" it?
2. Again, we'll agree to disagree. And for the record, DK is effectively banned as long as tourney-goers know about DDD's infinite. We're trying to "unban" him by banning this technique, if you will. What do you love more, DK and Bowser combined, or one gay technique?

 

[Yuna]

The point stands that, according to Sirlin's own article, he implies a direct connection between ratio of competitively viable characters in a fighter and depth (and therefore competitiveness as a whole) because every competitively viable character adds to viable options. By his own implication, he asserts GG to be one of the most viable fighters due to its depth of viable options. But, if you did YOUR research, you'd have known that.

Yes, and? According to Sirlin himself, rendering characters unviable (unless it over-centralizes the game around the character) =/= Warrants a ban

 

[ArcPoint]

@Jack, I agree, having more characters does allow for more depth in a game, it'd be nice to have all characters viable but they're not =/ And the community's banning standards need something considerably bigger than 2 unviable characters to ban something.

 

[XxBlackxX]

1. When have the developers of Brawl ever released a patch to "fix" it?
2. Again, we'll agree to disagree. And for the record, DK is effectively banned as long as tourney-goers know about DDD's infinite. We're trying to "unban" him by banning this technique, if you will. What do you love more, DK and Bowser combined, or one gay technique?

1. i know that. i meant that the community is policing itself.
2. it doesn't matter what i love more lol. and he's not banned. you can still chose him. you just have to deal with D3's. (yeah, he's NOT viable and i won't argue that he is, but still, deal with it.)

@jack

i'd like to remind you one more time that sirlin PATCHED/FIXED these things to create more "depth". however before the new release he did NOT advocate a ban on them. there is a difference.

 

[M15t3R E]

Yuna, I was replying to this:

But it does not prevent competition. Just switch to a character it does not work against. It is not a universal anti-competition-button.

It is merely a tactic which breaks two match-ups. It is a hugely effective combo, much like certain locks in this game and certain combos in other games.

Your point CLEARLY was that it doesn't matter if it limits competition- it only matters if it prevents it as a whole.

And I know you were referring to characters being removed from the field. Your point was different from mine, yet synonomous. If a glitch removes characters from the field, ban it. That's your point. My point, if ANYTHING (glitch or not) removes characters from the game at all (i.e. Bum's DK had the infinite not been banned in his region), ban it also. It's the same thing. Our points, in effect, are the same.

 

[YUNq PHR3$H]

disagreeable

amazing enough, yes

-_-

orly?
lass time i checked day werent
go && check da theads man

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, I was replying to this:

Your point CLEARLY was that it doesn't matter if it limits competition- it only matters if it prevents it as a whole.

Fine. I conceede this.

And I know you were referring to characters being removed from the field.

Then why the **** did you claim that I'd ever said that "Removes characters from the game" warrants banning?!

You cannot strawman your way out of this. You made this claim. If you're now claiming that you knew all along what I really meant, then you admit to strawmanning, lying and/or making **** up.

If a glitch removes characters from the field, ban it. That's your point. My point, if ANYTHING (glitch or not) removes characters from the game at all (i.e. Bum's DK had the infinite not been banned in his region), ban it also. It's the same thing.

My point is if anything removes the players from the field, glitch or not, it should be banned, but since it's unheard of for a game to have something which isn't a glitch remove one or both competitors from the field, I tacked "glitch" on it.

Also, this is not my personal view. It is the ban criteria of the collective fighting game communities of the world.

 

[M15t3R E]

Fine. I conceede this.


Then why the **** did you claim that I'd ever said that "Removes characters from the game" warrants banning?!

You cannot strawman your way out of this. You made this claim. If you're now claiming that you knew all along what I really meant, then you admit to strawmanning, lying and/or making **** up.

Because I figured if you'd want a glitch that removes characters from the field to be banned, why would you not want any technique that removes characters from the game to be banned (i.e. DDD's infinite which removes DK and Bowser from tournaments since it renders them non-viable)?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Look, I have a party to finish setting up for. The fact is that, whether Sirlin advocated or not, when he had the control, he made changes. We may not be able to edit the disc, but according to the community itself, Dev intent is next to irrelevant anyway. We DO have the power to re-balance. Does WW over-centralize, or even randomize, the game with items off? No. Is it still banned? Yes. We ban plenty of things because we WANT to ban them, and this self-righteous BS about "over-centralization" is just another arbitrarily added excuse made up NOT to ban something. Balance is balance, viable options are viable options, and we know, for a fact, that even 2 less characters DOES = less viable options and thus less competitiveness; that's just following the logic formed by the guy half this site whacks to during every discussion like this. Anyway, I have to go get stuff to facilitate getting drunk; if you all want, read up on Sirlin's balancing MP games articles.

 

[Yuna]

Look, I have a party to finish setting up for. The fact is that, whether Sirlin advocated or not, when he had the control, he made changes.

He rebalanced the game into what he thought was a better game. He then gave the game to the community.

The communities do not re-balance the game to suit their image.

We DO have the power to re-balance.

Fine. You create Brawl- where you ban one jillion things 'til everything is 50/50. Because this is what you have to do if you are to follow Sirlin's "teachings" when it comes to rebalancing games. Because he rebalanced and changed plenty of things that did not break the game or even match-ups!

So let's rebalance the game to make every match-up as close as possible! Yay!

Does WW over-centralize, or even randomize, the game with items off? No. Is it still banned? Yes.

I'm sorry, have you played on Wario Ware? It gives you items (statuses). It is random (the games), it over-centralizes the metagame around the minigames and their rewards and also around avoiding getting screwed over by the minigames. If you've been sent flying when a minigame initiates, you will be unable to compete for the prize, thus getting screwed over by a giant something or an invincible someone or whatever.

We ban plenty of things because we WANT to ban them, and this self-righteous BS about "over-centralization" is just another arbitrarily added excuse made up NOT to ban something.

No, we do not ban things just because we want them banned. We have reasons for every ban. If you think certain stages were unfairly banned, crusade for them to be unbanned.

Balance is balance, viable options are viable options, and we know, for a fact, that even 2 less characters DOES = less viable options and thus less competitiveness

We do not ban things to maximize balance, variety or viable characters!

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'd actually like to make a note on this really quick. Jam Stunna made a thread in TD on the meaning of the word "competitive"; I decided to do some research on Sirlin's site so I could be knowledgeable enough to comment, and I found something exactly relating to this notion (above).

In SSF2T, Honda had an infinite on Guile in the corner (his Ochio Throw, if I'm spelling that correctly). According to Sirlin himself, he thought that it was perfectly fine since Honda had such a hard time getting close to Guile in the first place; if a Honda could get Guile trapped in the corner, he deserved to do 100%. Well, when Sirlin balanced SSF2THDR, he removed that infinite... because, even though it wasn't gamebreaking, it was still excessive enough (in his opinion) to warrant changing.

In another SSF2THDR story, Guile (again) got owned by Vega and Dhalsim, and though it was only two characters, that severely hurt his game. To fix Guile's matchup on Dhalsim, Sirlin thought it necessary to change the hitbox of one of Dhalsim's moves (shifted the hitboxes up a little). That wasn't even a large, gamebreaking problem, either!

So, a little food for thought in terms of what we use to argue a ban. Also, all of that can be found on Sirlin's site, so don't shoot the messenger.

True statement, however you miss the fundamental difference between banning and patching.


Banning is a blunt instrument, it doesn't have the ability to just remove the broken aspects of something, and otherwise maintain it as it is. It also robs a player of otherwise legitimate options, barring them in rules minutia. Thus, it removes the game far from game design, and is therefore a last extreme measure.

It's simply not a fine enough instrument to have everyday use.


On the other hand, patching is a very fine instrument. You can do precisely what you want, and you are never robbing a player of options. As such you can do things for even the most cosmetic of options (auto l-canceling vs. manual L-canceling for example), you can realistically do stuff that makes no difference whatsoever and it's perfectly fine. Because that's what patching is MADE FOR.


If I were patching, I would remove all infinites in this game, because regardless of balance, they're bad game design (IC's would have a deathgrab however). When necessary, I would give characters other options. I would also drastically improve other aspects of certain characters such as Falcon's range and priority, and decrease his start-ups. Ganondorf's dtilt would get IASA frames earlier and start on frame 6.

Why? Because I can do that in patching, but accomplishing the exact same net balancing effect with bans would require 50 or so bans.


It's just not worth it, which is why the ban barrier is so high, but the patch barrier is virtually non-existent.

The fact stands that it's all re-balancing. When we ban things, we're re-balancing after the fact, but we're still re-balancing. There's really no difference, semantics aside. The operative differences are minimal.

Uhhhh... no just no.

There's a MASSIVE DIFFERENCE between patching and banning.

Banning, is an indirect route to improving balance, it's very blunt and has very very wide effects. BasIt can't make the fine adjustments that are necessary to allow it to be common.


Patching on the other hand, has exactly the effect that you let it, it's perfectly direct. That's why the rules on it are "whatever the heck the creator wants them to be".


For clarity's sake, here's a metaphor.

Patching = shovel

Banning = bulldozer


So, you want to move earth, right?

Generally, the shovel is superior. Sure it takes longer, but do you really want to knock over that birdbath or that tree just to dig a little hole.

Granted, there are obviously large construction projects where ease of use trumps the shovel's ability to do fine digging, but in general, when you want to do something that doesn't effect your entire yard, you use a shovel.

And if a shovel isn't available, but a bulldozer is... you're not going to use the bulldozer just because it's the only option, right? Only if there's a really really pressing issue, and it's worth digging up your entire yard. Digging a little hole to bury a time caspule is not one of those things, in fact those things very rarely come up.

Look, I have a party to finish setting up for. The fact is that, whether Sirlin advocated or not, when he had the control, he made changes. We may not be able to edit the disc, but according to the community itself, Dev intent is next to irrelevant anyway. We DO have the power to re-balance. Does WW over-centralize, or even randomize, the game with items off? No. Is it still banned? Yes. We ban plenty of things because we WANT to ban them, and this self-righteous BS about "over-centralization" is just another arbitrarily added excuse made up NOT to ban something. Balance is balance, viable options are viable options, and we know, for a fact, that even 2 less characters DOES = less viable options and thus less competitiveness; that's just following the logic formed by the guy half this site whacks to during every discussion like this. Anyway, I have to go get stuff to facilitate getting drunk; if you all want, read up on Sirlin's balancing MP games articles.

The thing is, as far as banning goes, he had control (he was always respected in the community so his opinion had weight) and he chose not to do it.

It's only when he had the chance to rebalance via patching that he did it.

This speaks to the fundamental difference between patching and banning.

As I explained, patching is a fine instrument, banning is a blunt one, that's why he patched stuff he was unwilling to ban.


His mp-balancing articles were for game DESIGNERS btw.


BTW, have fun getting drunk tomarrow night. I know I will (yay NYC!).

 

[XxBlackxX]

Look, I have a party to finish setting up for. The fact is that, whether Sirlin advocated or not, when he had the control, he made changes. We may not be able to edit the disc, but according to the community itself, Dev intent is next to irrelevant anyway. We DO have the power to re-balance. Does WW over-centralize, or even randomize, the game with items off? No. Is it still banned? Yes. We ban plenty of things because we WANT to ban them, and this self-righteous BS about "over-centralization" is just another arbitrarily added excuse made up NOT to ban something. Balance is balance, viable options are viable options, and we know, for a fact, that even 2 less characters DOES = less viable options and thus less competitiveness; that's just following the logic formed by the guy half this site whacks to during every discussion like this. Anyway, I have to go get stuff to facilitate getting drunk; if you all want, read up on Sirlin's balancing MP games articles.

you still obviously don't UNDERSTAND sirlin, though you may have read his articles.
he wanted a better SF game, that's why he fixed/patched his games. he did NOT ban the tactic.
that's completely different and unrelated. (okay, maybe not completely, but fundamentally different, as i have already SAID twice in the last page or so)

over-centralization is arbitrary? and made up? .......yeah you obviously don't understand sirlin, or competitive gaming, for that matter.

 

[Hive]

its not just two characters that are effected from this...
having played as samus, and speaking to other top samus mains, I can assure you that this technic completely renders this matchup unviable for samus...
whether or not you believe that somehow she will be able to break out of it at ridiculous percents (debatable) and whether or not you believe somehow ddd standing infinite isn't technically an "infinite"
the damage inflicted will certainly cause samus to lose this matchup. its already a huge uphill battle with just ddds cg... however with ddds inifinte there just isn't any real chance....

as far as the other characters go I'm sure it follows similarly... but I'd ask them if there is any doubt. this technic doesn't effect just two people.... <.<

 

[M15t3R E]

As far as banning/patching is concerned, I believe Jack's point is that sirlin patched his games for the same reasons that people want to ban certain things in games such as Brawl. It produces the same results, so why not?

 

[beamswordsman]

Look, I have a party to finish setting up for. The fact is that, whether Sirlin advocated or not, when he had the control, he made changes. We may not be able to edit the disc, but according to the community itself, Dev intent is next to irrelevant anyway. We DO have the power to re-balance. Does WW over-centralize, or even randomize, the game with items off? No. Is it still banned? Yes. We ban plenty of things because we WANT to ban them, and this self-righteous BS about "over-centralization" is just another arbitrarily added excuse made up NOT to ban something. Balance is balance, viable options are viable options, and we know, for a fact, that even 2 less characters DOES = less viable options and thus less competitiveness; that's just following the logic formed by the guy half this site whacks to during every discussion like this. Anyway, I have to go get stuff to facilitate getting drunk; if you all want, read up on Sirlin's balancing MP games articles.

Yet the pro-ban side has arbitrary reasons as well. If this got banned recklessly, there would a ****load of threads about people wanting to re-balance the game in their favor. Have fun with the party.