Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Yuna]

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?

Yes, game makers re-balance games all the time when producing sequels and remakes. And?!

 

[DerpDaBerp]

Fine. You create Brawl- where you ban one jillion things 'til everything is 50/50.

Well, its not that there's an obsession for balance, just that a singular glaring issue is sought to be fixed.

Have fun, you Republican-voting, McCain-loving (to the end), "Sarah Palin isn't unfit for office":ing, "Pokémon Trainer will most probably become an MK counter!":ing, "Captain Falcon is as viable as anyone else!":ing... man, you.

lol on the republican comparison

 

[XxBlackxX]

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?

because like i've explained more than twice now, banning is fundamentally different from patching.
banning is a last resort. patching is when developers wanna do whatever the hell they want to improve their game.

 

[M15t3R E]

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.

Nothing holds a candle to what DDD's infinite can do. Especially after the new SBR reformation, I believe we have a very responsible SBR. If DDD's infinite does become banned, I don't think the SBR will allow anything else to be banned.

Yes, game makers re-balance games all the time when producing sequels and remakes. And?!

So, what are you saying? That we should just wait until SSB4?

because like i've explained more than twice now, banning is fundamentally different from patching.
banning is a last resort. patching is when developers wanna do whatever the hell they want to improve their game.

And we're not allowed to do whatever the hell we want to improve the game?
As far as I'm concerned, we have at least as much a right as the developers do. We are the audience. We are who are supposed to be entertained by the game. Therefore, we know best what needs to be changed.

 

[ArcPoint]

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.

The stage as a WHOLE is still competitive. You still have options. If the minigames were in a set pattern, it's completely competitive. If you get hit with a thing that sends you offscreen during a minigame? Don't get hit. Minigames give an opponent an advantage? Don't lose the minigames. If nothing were random about the stage, it SHOULD be competitive.

@XxBlackxX Mister E's argument is that banning and patching accomplish the same thing, his argument is not whether or not banning and patching are different (I don't think? I could be wrong, that's what I interpreted)

 

[XxBlackxX]

Nothing holds a candle to what DDD's infinite can do. Especially after the new SBR reformation, I believe we have a very responsible SBR. If DDD's infinite does become banned, I don't think the SBR will allow anything else to be banned.

with a "responsible" SBR, this would never be banned in the first place.

also:

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.... <.<

so what? the matchup is unwinnable (not really, but even if it was), DEAL WITH IT. it still doesn't over-centralize or break the game as a whole.

So, what are you saying? That we should just wait until SSB4?

i believe he's saying that we take the game sakurai gives us, then only ban the things that need to be banned.

 

[Twilght Link]

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.

Okay okay yeesh. And i am a competitive player thank you very much. Perhaps not the best but im still a competitive player. Cant i just have my own opinions? There's no need to get insulting. And as for nobody caring about the D3 vs DK matchup, im sure that this topic would not still be going on without people actually caring. Perhaps you've already heard what ive said hundreds of times in this thread. I dont care because IMO (see i how i emphasis that i have an opinion) this gives D3 the closest thing to an auto-win there is possible. In competitive levels, is it not the best player that should win? Why is it that someone can win against even the best DK with this infinite as D3? Answer me that buddy. Answer me why is it that people keep spouting on about Brawl's balance issues and yet they cant even look into banning this one thing just so that, even if by just a little, the game becomes more balanced. Until then DEAL WITH MY SCRUBBISH RANTS.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Okay okay yeesh. And i am a competitive player thank you very much. Perhaps not the best but im still a competitive player. Cant i just have my own opinions? There's no need to get insulting. And as for nobody caring about the D3 vs DK matchup, im sure that this topic would not still be going on without people actually caring. Perhaps you've already heard what ive said hundreds of times in this thread. I dont care because IMO (see i how i emphasis that i have an opinion) this gives D3 the closest thing to an auto-win there is possible. In competitive levels, is it not the best player that should win? Why is it that someone can win against even the best DK with this infinite as D3? Answer me that buddy. Answer me why is it that people keep spouting on about Brawl's balance issues and yet they cant even look into banning this one thing just so that, even if by just a little, the game becomes more balanced. Until then DEAL WITH MY SCRUBBISH RANTS.

why? because the infinite makes the matchup unwinnable. so what? DEAL WITH IT.
we don't ban things to balance the game either.

 

[Yuna]

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)?

This is not what you said.

You said that "Removes a character from the (meta)game" is acceptable as a criteria for banning and that I said that that it was, not that I'd said something similar to it. Now you're just backtracking and trying to strawman your way out of this.

The stage as a WHOLE is still competitive. You still have options. If the minigames were in a set pattern, it's completely competitive. If you get hit with a thing that sends you offscreen during a minigame? Don't get hit. Minigames give an opponent an advantage? Don't lose the minigames. If nothing were random about the stage, it SHOULD be competitive.

No, it is not.

(Yes, that is all I will say)

 

[beamswordsman]

Nothing holds a candle to what DDD's infinite can do. Especially after the new SBR reformation, I believe we have a very responsible SBR. If DDD's infinite does become banned, I don't think the SBR will allow anything else to be banned.

If this gets banned, all I see is more people complaining about how un-even match-ups should be fixed. A never ending crusade to make the game 'perfect' when it's humanly impossible. Thats why I voted no.

 

[M15t3R E]

Okay okay yeesh. And i am a competitive player thank you very much. Perhaps not the best but im still a competitive player. Cant i just have my own opinions? There's no need to get insulting. And as for nobody caring about the D3 vs DK matchup, im sure that this topic would not still be going on without people actually caring. Perhaps you've already heard what ive said hundreds of times in this thread. I dont care because IMO (see i how i emphasis that i have an opinion) this gives D3 the closest thing to an auto-win there is possible. In competitive levels, is it not the best player that should win? Why is it that someone can win against even the best DK with this infinite as D3? Answer me that buddy. Answer me why is it that people keep spouting on about Brawl's balance issues and yet they cant even look into banning this one thing just so that, even if by just a little, the game becomes more balanced. Until then DEAL WITH MY SCRUBBISH RANTS.

Problem is, they don't care about helping Brawl to reach its competitive potential. So they don't care if Brawl can be a better game. They don't care if Brawl is seriously flawed, competition-wise, and can easily be fixed.

They only care if the game is unplayable at competitive levels...

This is not what you said.

You said that "Removes a character from the (meta)game" is acceptable as a criteria for banning and that I said that that it was, not that I'd said something similar to it. Now you're just backtracking and trying to strawman your way out of this.

I said "that's what Yuna said. Argue with him", because I felt that our points were synonymous, although worded differently.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Problem is, they don't care about helping Brawl to reach its competitive potential. So they don't care if Brawl can be a better game. They don't care if Brawl is seriously flawed, competition-wise, and can easily be fixed.

They only care if the game is unplayable at competitive levels...

we don't ban things to do any of the things you've said.
and yes, we only ban it if :
1. add randomness/luck
2.over-centralizes/break the game as a whole

are the most important criteria.

 

[Hive]

If this gets banned, all I see is more people complaining about how un-even match-ups should be fixed. A never ending crusade to make the game 'perfect' when it's humanly impossible. Thats why I voted no.

if that happened I think most people would vote "no" as well ^^
however I really don't think anyone is really going to try to "fix" every matchup/etc... lol that might be sort of an exaggeration...
even if someone suggested it do you really think it wouldn't be met with anything but outstanding disapproval?

 

[DerpDaBerp]

In competitive levels, is it not the best player that should win?

Only in a ditto match really

Why is it that someone can win against even the best DK with this infinite as D3? Answer me that buddy. Answer me why is it that people keep spouting on about Brawl's balance issues and yet they cant even look into banning this one thing just so that, even if by just a little, the game becomes more balanced. Until then DEAL WITH MY SCRUBBISH RANTS.

Because a game with somewhat unbalanced variety > a game full of 50:50's

 

[XxBlackxX]

if that happened I think most people would vote "no" as well ^^
however I really don't think anyone is really going to try to "fix" every matchup/etc... lol that might be sort of an exaggeration...
even if someone suggested it do you really think it wouldn't be met with anything but outstanding disapproval?

.....do you think the pro-ban arguments have been met with anything but disapproval to the people who have beeen part of competitive gaming communities and know what they're talking about?

EDIT: for the last time, unless you can prove that over-centralization is worse than whatever criteria you guys impose, we're sticking with over-centralization because you guys have burden of proof.

 

[M15t3R E]

we don't ban things to do any of the things you've said.
and yes, we only ban it if :
1. add randomness/luck
2.over-centralizes/break the game as a whole

are the most important criteria.

Don't you want the game to be as good as it can be? I guess not. Quite sad.

.....do you think the pro-ban arguments have been met with anything but disapproval to the people who have beeen part of competitive gaming communities and know what they're talking about?

EDIT: for the last time, unless you can prove that over-centralization is worse than whatever criteria you guys impose, we're sticking with over-centralization because you guys have burden of proof.

I'm sorry, what? Umbreon has been a competitive gamer for 6 years and he feels DDD's infinite needs to be banned. Same with SP. Get a new argument.

 

[beamswordsman]

Problem is, they don't care about helping Brawl to reach its competitive potential. So they don't care if Brawl can be a better game. They don't care if Brawl is seriously flawed, competition-wise, and can easily be fixed.

They only care if the game is unplayable at competitive levels...

I kinda get it, you want people to work hard for their victory, right?

 

[XxBlackxX]

Don't you want the game to be as good as it can be? I guess not.

it doesn't matter, as what happens to the game after this ban is theorycrafting. maybe more ban topics will come up, maybe not. maybe DK will be viable.

who gives a ****? we care about what happens NOW, and what's happening is that the infinites don't over-centralize or break the game as a whole, thereofore brawl is still competitive playable as a whole, so no ban.

I'm sorry, what? Umbreon has been a competitive gamer for 6 years and he feels DDD's infinite needs to be banned. Same with SP. Get a new argument.

guess you didn't detect sarcasm. well, it's not part of my argument. it never was. my main argument is that it doesn't fit the criteria.

 

[adumbrodeus]

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?

Check my post above, it absolutely DOES NOT produce the same effect.

Patching and banning are fundamentally different, which is the reason why Sirlin patched something he would not ban.


Patching is the same as game standards, there's no min threshold required to choose or not choose to change something, prior to looking at cost-benefit, every option is fundamentally equally valid, even cosmetic ones.

I'm sorry, what? Umbreon has been a competitive gamer for 6 years and he feels DDD's infinite needs to be banned. Same with SP. Get a new argument.

IN SMASH, our community is relatively speaking, ban-happy.

Try SRK.

 

[Yuna]

I said "that's what Yuna said. Argue with him", because I felt that our points were synonymous, although worded differently.

This clashes with what you just said, where you said that you thought our points were very similar, but not synonymous.

 

[Hive]

.....do you think the pro-ban arguments have been met with anything but disapproval to the people who have beeen part of competitive gaming communities and know what they're talking about?

lol no black your assumption is stupid.
you have no idea what the thoughts of of people in the competitive gaming communities as a whole are, and I doubt you have any sort of qualifications to speak vox populi for them, to think they all agree with everything the anti-ban is saying is ridiculous. You are only using like 3 people in this thread as reference for that, and assuming anyone who disagrees with you must not be part of a comp. gaming comm.

thinking that the brawl community is going to "try to ban every technique, or balance every matchup if ddds infinite cg is banned" is a blatant exaggeration, and you know it. It only shows that people here are more committed to using confirmation biases than actually applying the same logic to the bad arguments in their own sides as well as the other side.

 

[CRASHiC]

God Sbr Do Something So We Can Get Back To Dissing Metaknight Please
This Thread Is A Butthurt

 

[M15t3R E]

This clashes with what you just said, where you said that you thought our points were very similar, but not synonymous.

I never said that. Check my previous posts. I called our points "synonymous" in two different posts, yet never used the word "similar". Don't put words in my mouth. Thanks.

Check my post above, it absolutely DOES NOT produce the same effect.

Patching and banning are fundamentally different, which is the reason why Sirlin patched something he would not ban.


Patching is the same as game standards, there's no min threshold required to choose or not choose to change something, prior to looking at cost-benefit, every option is fundamentally equally valid, even cosmetic ones.



IN SMASH, our community is relatively speaking, ban-happy.

Try SRK.

If a patch gave DK and Bowser the ability to DI out of DDD's infinite after a certain percentage, it would be the same as a TO declaring you are not allowed to use DDD's infinite past that percentage. Same ****.

 

[XxBlackxX]

lol no black your assumption is stupid.
you have no idea what the thoughts of of people in the competitive gaming communities as a whole are, and I doubt you have any sort of qualifications to speak vox populi for them, to think they all agree with everything the anti-ban is saying is ridiculous. You are only using like 3 people in this thread as reference for that, and assuming anyone who disagrees with you must not be part of a comp. gaming comm.

thinking that the brawl community is going to "try to ban every technique, or balance every matchup if ddds infinite cg is banned" is a blatant exaggeration, and you know it. It only shows that people here are more committed to using confirmation biases than actually applying the same logic to the bad arguments in their own sides as well as the other side.

GUESS YOU DIDN'T DETECT THE SARCASM >_> anyways, i never used it as back-up for my argument, which brings up, you guys haven't countered my argument.
also, adum is right... you guys would be laughed at for proposing this kinda stuff in SRK.

it doesn't matter whether this leads to people wanting to ban everyone except falcon or not, what matters is that this doesn't fit the criteria.

on the topic of testing my qualifications, what are yours huh? other than smash >_>
ive been part of competitive SF games, MvC games, GG games and that's just fighting. i've been playing alot of halo, cod, competitively, though that's irrrelevant. also MTG lol.

 

[Yuna]

I never said that. Check my previous posts. I called our points "synonymous" in two different posts, yet never used the word "similar". Don't put words in my mouth. Thanks.

Your wording (the word "synonymous") aside implied you thought they were similar. Then it's just you not being able to differentiate between two things being similar from them being synonymous.

Because "Removes one or both characters from the field of play (the stage)" is in no way synonymous to "Removes a character from the metagame!".

 

[TheUmbreonMonarchy]

Don't you want the game to be as good as it can be? I guess not. Quite sad.

Sorry to say, but that's not a valid argument for banning something, at all. In competition, no-one cares if someone else wants "the game to be as good as it can be." The game will become as good as it can be when it becomes as good as it can be. It will become that at its own pace. If anything, the D3 infinite hardly affects the metagame of Luigi, Mario, Samus, DK, Bowser.

 

[beamswordsman]

I guess both sides could give other reasons besides:

Anti-ban reasons:
It doesen't break the (meta)game as a whole.
Character bias towards affected characters.
Slippery slope.

Pro-ban reasons:
It destroys the affected characters.
It's not fair to those characters.
It would be beneficial/easy to ban.

Thats a decent summary for people that don't want to read 100+ pages.

 

[M15t3R E]

Your wording (the word "synonymous") aside implied you thought they were similar. Then it's just you not being able to differentiate between two things being similar from them being synonymous.

Because "Removes one or both characters from the field of play (the stage)" is in no way synonymous to "Removes a character from the metagame!".

I think you're splitting hairs here.
What does that matter? Removing a character from the field of play and removing a character from the metagame accomplishes the same thing. Either way, you're not going to see that character in tournaments.

 

[Yuna]

What does that matter? Removing a character from the field of play and removing a character from the metagame accomplishes the same thing.

This is you refusing to listen. I've told you the following at least twice already.

A glitch (or move) which removes either you or the opponent from the field, i.e. makes it impossible for them to continue playing the match, no matter what, ends the match right then, right there. There are games where there are glitches which will remove one or both opponents from the stage.

This is not in any way the same thing as rendering a character unviable.

 

[XxBlackxX]

I think you're splitting hairs here.
What does that matter? Removing a character from the field of play and removing a character from the metagame accomplishes the same thing. Either way, you're not going to see that character in tournaments.

you guys are both ****ing splitting hairs here.
okay, you purposely misunderstood yuna's original statement, so you are wrong, he is right, okay?end of the technalities, please.

and removing a character from field=PHYSICALLY impossible to win, thus prevents competition
removing a character from metagame=just one more unviable character. deal with it.

 

[DerpDaBerp]

There seems to be a pattern here:

Anti-ban people:
They concern themselves with accepting the game that has been given to them. They see intererence with rules (like banning) as virtually always a negative thing (apart from obvious things like banning smash balls) and for any change to be made it needs to be respectful to the system they were presented with in the first place, thus an emphasis on "DEALING WITH" problems

Pro-ban people:
They concern themselves with the experience, believing that it should be good for everyone (for DK players by banning this move, for a lot of the cast by banning MK, and such). They cancern themselves with idealism in the sense that the best way to play this game is when things are as fair as possible for all players (i.e. DK being more valuable than a single technique). They see the ability to improve the game (say, via banning something) as a valuable tool, not a *******ization.

(If I've misinterpreted anyone's group, I apologize
this is IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO)

The reason I post this is just to say to make sure you keep in mind what the other side is arguing for.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I guess both sides could give other reasons besides:

Anti-ban reasons:
It doesen't break the (meta)game as a whole.
Character bias towards affected characters.
Slippery slope.

Pro-ban reasons:
It destroys the affected characters.
It's not fair to those characters.
It would be beneficial/easy to ban.

Thats a decent summary for people that don't want to read 100+ pages.

You forgot Reductio Ad Absurdum, which was the primary argument.


Granted, a few people used slippery slope, but the only time it was used in a major way was, when?

When we were talking about the fact that certain regions and TOs banned ALL infinites and ALL DDD's chaingrabs (and I believe all chaingrabs, but I don't remember). In that case, experimental evidence substantiated it, remember the argument form is only fallicious if the link is unsubstantiated.


Most of the time, Reductio Ad Absurdum was used, which is applying the same logic to a different situation, which IS NOT a logical fallacy at all. It's in fact, one of the cornerstones of logic.


So, yeah, substituted "Reductio Ad Absurdum" in for "Slippery Slope", slippery slope was barely used.

 

[XxBlackxX]

There seems to be a pattern here:

Anti-ban people:
They concern themselves with accepting the game that has been given to them. They see intererence with rules (like banning) as virtually always a negative thing (apart from obvious things like banning smash balls) and for any change to be made it needs to be respectful to the system they were presented with in the first place, thus an emphasis on "DEALING WITH" problems

Pro-ban people:
They concern themselves with the experience, believing that it should be good for everyone (for DK players by banning this move, for a lot of the cast by banning MK, and such). They cancern themselves with idealism in the sense that the best way to play this game is when things are as fair as possible for all players (i.e. DK being more valuable than a single technique). They see the ability to improve the game (say, via banning something) as a valuable tool, not a *******ization.

(If I've misinterpreted anyone's group, I apologize
this is IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO)

The reason I post this is just to say to make sure you keep in mind what the other side is arguing for.

just to point out, the anti-ban doesn't necessarily hate all bans or anything ridiculous like that. we just believe that a ban is only warranted when it fits the criteria, which is when it over-centralizes or break the game as a whole. the infinites don't therefore we are against the ban. it's NOT because we think ALL bans are unneccessary, but UNWARRANTED bans are unnecessary.

 

[M15t3R E]

you guys are both ****ing splitting hairs here.
okay, you purposely misunderstood yuna's original statement, so you are wrong, he is right, okay?end of the technalities, please.

and removing a character from field=PHYSICALLY impossible to win, thus prevents competition
removing a character from metagame=just one more unviable character. deal with it.

I don't see how the end result is any different. So what if they are two different concepts when it is the same in the end?

Let me break it down for you.

Removing a character (physically) from the field of play= that character will not be seen in tournaments.
Removing a character from the metagame= that character will not be seen in tournaments.

 

[Yuna]

I don't see how the end result is any different. So what if it is two different concepts when it is the same in the end?

Then you lack logic. Or just reading comprehension. One thing makes it physically impossible to continue the match. The other merely renders a character helpless and ends in, at worst, the loss of a stock.

 

[DerpDaBerp]

just to point out, the anti-ban doesn't necessarily hate all bans or anything ridiculous like that. we just believe that a ban is only warranted when it fits the criteria, which is when it over-centralizes or break the game as a whole. the infinites don't therefore we are against the ban. it's NOT because we think ALL bans are unneccessary, but UNWARRANTED bans are unnecessary.

That's why I said virtually in italics

No use arguing with me, I'm leaning towards anti-ban

So yeah, otherwise our comments pretty much agree

 

[beamswordsman]

Ignore this.

 

[XxBlackxX]

I don't see how the end result is any different. So what if they are two different concepts when it is the same in the end?

Let me break it down for you.

Removing a character (physically) from the field of play= that character will not be seen in tournaments.
Removing a character from the metagame= that character will not be seen in tournaments.

using a glitch to remove a character physically=prevents competition, as it is PHYSICALLY impossible to do anything
a unviable character=an unviable character, he is usable but will not win anything unless you CP alot. this doesn't hurt or prevent competition in the game as a whole, because the player could chose a different character, or if he choses the character, he will still be COMPETING with the opponent, no matter the odds. at worst, he loses a stock.

That's why I said virtually in italics

No use arguing with me, I'm leaning towards anti-ban

So yeah, otherwise our comments pretty much agree

i didn't really argue with you. it was more of an add-on or a clarification.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I don't see how the end result is any different. So what if they are two different concepts when it is the same in the end?

Let me break it down for you.

Removing a character (physically) from the field of play= that character will not be seen in tournaments.
Removing a character from the metagame= that character will not be seen in tournaments.

Ummm...


WHAT THE HECK?!


Dude, COME ON!


He's talking about a glitch where, in-game, the character disapears from the playing field.


It's not similar AT ALL to removing characters from the metagame. It has nothing to do with with tournament diversity, and everything to do with preventing the game from continuing.

Same ban criteria as infinite stalls.



Generally I'm nice, but the two are NOTHING alike.

 

[M15t3R E]

All I'm saying is if you don't want those characters to be removed from play, you'll hate both glitches that remove characters from play and also techniques that remove them from the metagame.

It is an inconsistency in logic to say "I don't want a glitch to prevent these characters from appearing in tournaments, but if a technique produces the same result, it's fine".