Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Brinzy]

By the way, nice edit:

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

Good for you for having your own opinions, but the fact of the matter is that if you're going to state your opinion on something and then provide your own personal reasoning, you're immediately subjecting it to criticism from those who also want to state their opinions. You can't go, "This is my opinion! This is what I think, so I can't be wrong and therefore nobody can say anything about it!" while trying to set a standard for the people who want to reply to you. That's hypocritical.

 

[adumbrodeus]

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".

No it's not.

The two are fundamentally different objections, one is an objection to what is fundamentally infinite stalling, the other is an objection to decreased tournament diversity.


TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

 

[beamswordsman]

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".

Techniques require some amount of skill, glitches are easy to do and usually break games anyway..

 

[M15t3R E]

No it's not.

The two are fundamentally different objections, one is an objection to what is fundamentally infinite stalling, the other is an objection to decreased tournament diversity.


TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

What in the world does that have to do with infinite stalling?

Techniques require some amount of skill, glitches are easy to do and usually break games anyway..

I thought the anti-ban side already stated level of skill required was irrelevant.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Techniques require some amount of skill, glitches are easy to do and usually break games anyway..

i know you are anti-ban, but ease of use is NOT a good argument.

also @mister e

of course they are different, i would repeat what i said again, but adum said it pretty well and i see no point in repeating.

What in the world does that have to do with infinite stalling?

you really have no idea what we are saying do you? if you take a character out of the field of play, you CANNOT DO ANYTHING TO THAT CHARACTER so it's infinite stalling.

 

[M15t3R E]

i know you are anti-ban, but ease of use is NOT a good argument.

also @mister e

of course they are different, i would repeat what i said again, but adum said it pretty well and i see no point in repeating.



you really have no idea what we are saying do you? if you take a character out of the field of play, you CANNOT DO ANYTHING TO THAT CHARACTER so it's infinite stalling.

I was assuming if such a glitch occurred, the match would be ended immediately, not continued to allow the stalling.

 

[Brinzy]

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".

Glitches can be used and not be up for a ban if they don't break the game. (See: wavedashing) Anyone can wavedash, but you can be punished for it with basic procedure and it isn't integral for winning (or rather, it's not so good that you can beat a person who wavedashes while not wavedashing as well).

However, glitches that stall, can't be used by both players, or over-centralize the game (like, for example, in one of the Street Fighter games, you could cancel the roll and perform a super attack while retaining invincibility - this could be abused by anyone and made the game ridiculous) are not allowed because you move from just the match-up to the whole game itself and there is no way to combat/avoid it.

If DDD infinited everyone, it would be banned because there would be no viable way around it. DDD only does it to a select few, and it can be easily taken care of (COUNTERPICK).

So basically, this "glitch" in question isn't affecting everyone. It's affecting a few characters, and anyone who uses DDD against DK can do it. Not worth banning.

I'm too tired to make this argument stronger, but whatever.

I was assuming if such a glitch occurred, the match would be ended immediately, not continued to allow the stalling.

.... Um ... yeah? The match is gonna end because it's a glitch that can lead to stalling, so instead of sitting there and trying to give the person five seconds to return and do some complicated reffing, why not just stop it? What you're saying makes sense, though it leads to the same conclusion.

 

[beamswordsman]

I thought the anti-ban side already stated level of skill required was irrelevant.

Okay, I screwed up. But the second part of that is still valid.

 

[Yuna]

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.

But it has nothing to do with what I said. Yet you insist it does.

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".

I've said it, adumbrodeus has said it. We've said it, together, at least 4 times by now. This is not about preventing characters from appearing in tournaments at all! You misread me deliberately the first time and have since ignored me whenever I've elaborated.

It is not about that at all. Read my lips:
Removing either player from the playing field makes it physically impossible to continue the match. This is not removing characters from tournaments, this is rendering the game unplayable!

Is cannot be possible for a supposed speaker of English as their first language to misread me the way you do time and time again! You are doing it on purpose just to strawman your way out of the fact that you are losing this argument (if not the war, then at least the ridiculous claim that I ever claimed that removing a character from tournaments = Warranted for a ban).

 

[adumbrodeus]

What in the world does that have to do with infinite stalling?

If the character completely vanishes from the field during gameplay, then it's an infinite stall. The game cannot continue.

I thought the anti-ban side already stated level of skill required was irrelevant.

IF humanly possible, otherwise yeah.

I was assuming if such a glitch occurred, the match would be ended immediately, not continued to allow the stalling.

Yes, because such things are banned, for the exact same reason infinite stalls are banned.

And that was what Yuna was talking about.

 

[M15t3R E]

Every time someone says "counterpick", what pops into my mind is "damaged competition due to less diversity".

Competition is hurt if you are forced to counterpick due to an unwinnable match-up.
We can easily "fix" that with an easy ban.

We should at least limit the infinite by a large amount.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Every time someone says "counterpick", what pops into my mind is "damaged competition due to less diversity".

Competition is hurt if you are forced to counterpick due to an unwinnable match-up.
We can easily "fix" that with an easy ban.

We should at least limit the infinite by a large amount.

Not true, often it limits fundamentally overpowering characters from dominating the metagame. DK is powerful enough that it's a legitimate possibility.


Now if only we could find something like this for MK...

 

[beamswordsman]

Every time someone says "counterpick", what pops into my mind is "damaged competition due to less diversity".

Competition is hurt if you are forced to counterpick due to an unwinnable match-up.
We can easily "fix" that with an easy ban.

We should at least limit the infinite by a large amount.

Ease doesn't matter....( I suck, yeah...)

But using only one character is setting yourself up to get ***** by someone who counters you.That's why people use secondaries.

 

[Yuna]

Every time someone says "counterpick", what pops into my mind is "damaged competition due to less diversity".

Competition is hurt if you are forced to counterpick due to an unwinnable match-up.
We can easily "fix" that with an easy ban.

I suggest you crusade for the banning of things to alleviate Fox vs. Pikachu and MK vs. CF as well then. Also, please address my previous post, which you probably missed because we posted almost at the same time.

This is merely a friendly reminder.

 

[M15t3R E]

I suggest you crusade for the banning of things to alleviate Fox vs. Pikachu and MK vs. CF as well then. Also, please address my previous post, which you probably missed because we posted almost at the same time.

This is merely a friendly reminder.

Spoiler

I'm not walking away from your latest post. ****, give me time to respond:

MK vs. Falcon, no. Falcon suffers in the match-up against MK for the same reason he suffers in every match-up. No priority.

Pikachu vs. Fox is a better argument. Still, it looks like absolutely nothing in comparison to D3 vs. DK or D3 vs. Bowser.

Both sides are disagreeing on the most bare-bones of arguments. It appears impossible for us to see eye to eye.

We should at least agree that the infinite should be severely limited.

 

[Yuna]

Both sides are disagreeing on the most bare-bones of arguments. It appears impossible for us to see eye to eye.

Don't walk away from my latest post (and adumbrodeus' addressing the same thing). Admit you were wrong!

We should at least agree that the infinite should be severely limited.

No. Why should we?

And are you saying we should severely limit all longer chaingrabs and combos in the game?

 

[Brinzy]

Every time someone says "counterpick", what pops into my mind is "damaged competition due to less diversity".

Then you probably need to abandon Competitive gaming. When you compete, you play to win. You don't play so you can have every race, gender, sexuality, religion, language, and country represented.

Competition is hurt if you are forced to counterpick due to an unwinnable match-up.
We can easily "fix" that with an easy ban.

This has been disproved time and time again over the lifespan of Competitive gaming. Competition blossoms when you have to counterpick, because otherwise everyone who just picks anyone without trying to pick a counter will be picked off by the people who just happen to pick the ones best suited for that situation. There are some matches where you don't need to counterpick to win, assuming you are skilled enough to win. For the most part, however, if you refuse to counterpick when you're put into a bad position and if you don't have the skill to win, well, you've just been knocked out. There goes your diversity. (This will pretty much be the case for a large chunk of players who play significantly disadvantageous fights, because they probably do not possess a skill level so high that it surpasses a great player who uses a great character.)

Fixing one single bad match-up just because it is oh-so-different (when it isn't) from the rest of the ones that are highly improbable to win for the underdog is stupid and unwarranted.

We should at least limit the infinite by a large amount.

∞ doesn't have a limit. It's either there or it's not.

EDIT: If you're talking about the damage ceiling, then ok, but anything else is a no.

 

[adumbrodeus]

No. Why should we?

And are you saying we should severely limit all longer chaingrabs and combos in the game?

I think he means the damage ceiling, we both agree that at least having that to prevent infinite stalling is good.

 

[Yuna]

Pikachu vs. Fox is a better argument. Still, it looks like absolutely nothing in comparison to D3 vs. DK or D3 vs. Bowser.

They are both unwinnable match-ups. Banning the chaingrab would make the match-up more winnable. Yay.

 

[M15t3R E]

They are both unwinnable match-ups. Banning the chaingrab would make the match-up more winnable. Yay.

Here's what I posted when the Pika vs. Fox match-up was first brought up: I wouldn't lose any sleep over Pika's CG vs. Fox being banned.

Then you probably need to abandon Competitive gaming. When you compete, you play to win. You don't play so you can have every race, gender, sexuality, religion, language, and country represented.

That is completely irrelevant. Why did you even mention those things? You are a ridiculous debater.
If your side's argument is that when you play a game, you play with what's been given to you, then you'll want DK and Bowser in the game as well.

This has been disproved time and time again over the lifespan of Competitive gaming. Competition blossoms when you have to counterpick, because otherwise everyone who just picks anyone without trying to pick a counter will be picked off by the people who just happen to pick the ones best suited for that situation. There are some matches where you don't need to counterpick to win, assuming you are skilled enough to win. For the most part, however, if you refuse to counterpick when you're put into a bad position and if you don't have the skill to win, well, you've just been knocked out. There goes your diversity. (This will pretty much be the case for a large chunk of players who play significantly disadvantageous fights, because they probably do not possess a skill level so high that it surpasses a great player who uses a great character.)

Fixing one single bad match-up just because it is oh-so-different from the rest of the ones that are highly improbable to win for the underdog (when it isn't) is stupid and unwarranted.

Melee was so much less about counter-picking and it was a better game in terms of competitive play.

∞ doesn't have a limit. It's either there or it's not.

There can be a damage ceiling. That has already been suggested by members of the anti-ban side. Look it up.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Melee was so much less about counter-picking and it was a better game in terms of competitive play.

Only at the lower levels of play, counter-picking is more signifigant in melee, with all the top characters having competitively viable counters. Granted, the counters are weaker, but still, that fact is very significant.

Vs. this game where you can go straight MK and never have a disadvantage.

Characters need to have counters, otherwise they become too dominating.

 

[Brinzy]

That is completely irrelevant. Why did you even mention those things? You are a ridiculous debater.

Try not to take that as a literal statement. You don't ban for diversity. That's the end point.

If your side's argument is that when you play a game, you play with what's been given to you, then you'll want DK and Bowser in the game as well.

My side argument is that when you play to win, you give yourself the highest chances in order to win. You don't play with every single character just because you are able to select every single character. I could not care less if DK and Bowser were removed from the tournament scene because I do not see them as useful for me at all (except when it comes to having a decent/good match-up, but that's irrelevant). You're given something and you play with what you want. If you want to win, you don't play with everything; you play with the best.

Melee was so much less about counter-picking and it was a better game in terms of competitive play.

Melee also had glitches. You're not complaining about those glitches, apparently, but this is aside from the point.

Once again, you do not NEED to counterpick in every situation, but counterpicking existed in Melee as it does in every other fighting game. Bowser would probably still want to CP against Sheik, as Mewtwo would CP against Marth. I dunno why you think counterpicking makes a game bad.

There can be a damage ceiling. That has already been suggested by members of the anti-ban side. Look it up.

Edited that in the first message.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Melee also had glitches. You're not complaining about those glitches, apparently, but this is aside from the point.

Once again, you do not NEED to counterpick in every situation, but counterpicking existed in Melee as it does in every other fighting game. Bowser would probably still want to CP against Sheik, as Mewtwo would CP against Marth. I dunno why you think counterpicking makes a game bad.

And don't forget that Marth would PROBABLY wanna counterpick against Sheik.

3s are NOT fun match-ups, ICs and Space animals are a good (if difficult) choice. Mirror match is also reasonable.

 

[XxBlackxX]

yes, a damage limit to prevent stalling IS reasonable, but don't we already have that? it's at 300%.

 

[M15t3R E]

It's set at 300%, but I feel 150% is enough.

I believe 300% is not strict enough, because with DDD's infinite 300% means they can still stall for around a minute and 15 seconds.

 

[1048576]

Well, you can just request that the D3 releases you if you agree to suicide. Most players wouldn't, though, because there's a small chance the D3 messes up.

 

[adumbrodeus]

It's set at 300%, but I feel 150% is enough.

I believe 300% is not strict enough, because with DDD's infinite 300% means they can still stall for around a minute and 15 seconds.

If he can kill regardless of percent, DIing, and starting position at 150, fine. Heck, I'd be willing to accept the rest of the Infinitable cast having 150, if we keep 300 for Luigi (who can't be dashgrab chain-grabbed) if necessary to allow an auto-death.

Yes, if they want to go for the inferior option, they should be able to, even though bair already kills at that percent.


Regardless, as long as the match is progressing, it's not a banworthy stall. If DDD is building an opponent up to kill percentages, it's treated like any other combo. Only AFTER kill percents does it become banworthy stalling because there is no longer any match progression.

Well, you can just request that the D3 releases you if you agree to suicide. Most players wouldn't, though, because there's a small chance the D3 messes up.

Suicide vs. losing the match due to infinite stall?

Pretty easy option, make it more strategic, you suicide earlier, it's much easier to come back.


Edit:

Forgot this.

Here's what I posted when the Pika vs. Fox match-up was first brought up: I wouldn't lose any sleep over Pika's CG vs. Fox being banned.

And this isn't a slippery slope why?

 

[Vulcan55]

And this isn't a slippery slope why?

Cuz he said so.

 

[da K.I.D.]

why isnt the cap set at 450%?

or whenever D3s f-tilt kills?

im setting up for f-tilt to kill and 300% isnt enough, the cap need to be higher.

 

[Brinzy]

B-throw? U-throw?

 

[ADHD]

It shouldn't be banned for commical reasons.

 

[GofG]

It shouldn't be banned for commical reasons.

I am in concurrence.

 

[WastingPenguins]

lolol guys the Pika vs. Fox chaingrab situation is similar enough to the DK vs. D3 infinite situation to warrant direct comparison.

...yeah, no. How many times do these false comparisons have to be refuted before people understand.

 

[XxBlackxX]

lolol guys the Pika vs. Fox chaingrab situation is similar enough to the DK vs. D3 infinite situation to warrant direct comparison.

...yeah, no. How many times do these false comparisons have to be refuted before people understand.

it doesn't matter whether they are similar or different or w/e.

the fact is, the infinites don't fit criteria for a ban because they don't over-centralize or break the game as a whole, they don't add randomness, and they don't prevent competition, so there's no reason to ban them.

 

[adumbrodeus]

lolol guys the Pika vs. Fox chaingrab situation is similar enough to the DK vs. D3 infinite situation to warrant direct comparison.

...yeah, no. How many times do these false comparisons have to be refuted before people understand.

They're both absolutely horrible match-ups where you can pick the character with no previously experience and obliterate the opponent even if they are far better then you.

They're both match-ups where less then 1% of people playing the countered character will win.


Sure, there's differences, but practically speaking, the effects are almost indistinguishable, and if you're banning based on practicality, you need a practical line to draw, or they're both bannable.

 

[AlphaZealot]

They're both absolutely horrible match-ups where you can pick the character with no previously experience and obliterate the opponent even if they are far better then you.

False.

---

The argument "there are no negatives" is completely false, I don't know why it keeps coming up all over the place. There are negatives. You are weakening one character in favor of another. If that is the mentality, then lets apply it to every match up (or even just the lopsided ones-Diddy can no longer use bananas against Captain Falco). We are playing a fighting game. Fighting games have tiers. Some characters just suck. Either switch characters (and use DK as a secondary) or get really freaking good.

If you ban Diddy Kong from using bananas you make probably an equal number of characters (if not more) viable as you would if you banned D3's CG, the difference is that the CG doesn't look as cool.

 

[XxBlackxX]

False.

---

The argument "there are no negatives" is completely false, I don't know why it keeps coming up all over the place. There are negatives. You are weakening one character in favor of another. If that is the mentality, then lets apply it to every match up (or even just the lopsided ones-Diddy can no longer use bananas against Captain Falco). We are playing a fighting game. Fighting games have tiers. Some characters just suck. Either switch characters (and use DK as a secondary) or get really freaking good.

If you ban Diddy Kong from using bananas you make probably an equal number of characters (if not more) viable as you would if you banned D3's CG, the difference is that the CG doesn't look as cool.

QFT.

but you DO know that adum is anti-ban right....?

 

[M15t3R E]

False.

---

The argument "there are no negatives" is completely false, I don't know why it keeps coming up all over the place. There are negatives. You are weakening one character in favor of another. If that is the mentality, then lets apply it to every match up (or even just the lopsided ones-Diddy can no longer use bananas against Captain Falco). We are playing a fighting game. Fighting games have tiers. Some characters just suck. Either switch characters (and use DK as a secondary) or get really freaking good.

If you ban Diddy Kong from using bananas you make probably an equal number of characters (if not more) viable as you would if you banned D3's CG, the difference is that the CG doesn't look as cool.

It's not really weakening DDD. He has the advantage vs. DK and Bowser even without his infinite.

And why mention Diddy's bananas? Without Diddy's bananas, he's probably not even high tier. DDD without his infinite, would still make him top tier.

 

[XxBlackxX]

It's not really weakening DDD. He has the advantage vs. DK and Bowser even without his infinite.

And why mention Diddy's bananas? Without Diddy's bananas, he's probably not even high tier. DDD without his infinite, would still make him top tier.

does it matter what D3 would be without infinites? stop bringing up points that don't matter.
look, i will say it again: If this tactic warranted a ban because it over-centralized/broke the game as a whole, then we will ban it, even if without it D3 will be worse than falcon.(untrue in this case of course, but just a scenario)
but the infinite ISN'T banworthy, it doesn't over-centralize, or break the game.

 

[M15t3R E]

does it matter what D3 would be without infinites? stop bringing up points that don't matter.
look, i will say it again: If this tactic warranted a ban because it over-centralized/broke the game as a whole, then we will ban it, even if without it D3 will be worse than falcon.(untrue in this case of course, but just a scenario)
but the infinite ISN'T banworthy, it doesn't over-centralize, or break the game.

Then AZ's points don't matter as well. I was simply replying to AZ's post. How about you ask him why he made that post in the first place instead of replying to it with "QFT"?