Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Winston]

tech chase G&W dthrow > 9 is amazing, don't get me wrong. But because the 9 is "lucky" doesn't remove any competitiveness, because they used the attack to gain some benefit, and they did (unless they got a 1). However, they know the odds of any outcome, and balance it against the benefits.

If you've ever played any Fire Emblem game, you'd realize that randomness isn't anti-strategy/ comeptitve. That game is fully based around random numbers, but it has strict rules that you can determine the odds of any given outcome. (i.e. you have a HIT of 100, they have an AVOID of 1, you have a 99.99% chance of hitting them in FE 6+).

Randomness doesn't inherently weaken the strategy element of a game. It often strengthens it by increasing the amount of information that must be assessed.

However, any significant random element in a game is pretty much inherently anti-competitive, assuming we're going off the "competitiveness = how directly skill advantage correlates with winning." In a game like FE where the battle system is based off of rolling dice, the strategy that has the highest EV very well could still have you lose a key battle based on pure luck, despite the fact that you identified the correct strategy.

Same thing with the G&W example. Maybe the player assessed that gambling on the 9 rather than going for a safer attack was indeed the plan that would give them the biggest chance of winning. If the 9 hits, they win, otherwise, they are disadvantaged. Having the game's outcome come down to the random number generated is still anti-competitive.

This post was pretty long and it basically talks about the same thing three times, but in case it isn't clear, the point I'm trying to make is the distinction between having randomness not detract from strategy vs having randomness not detract from competitiveness.

 

[adumbrodeus]

adum.

dont patronise me, I could argue your side just as good or even better than you can.. and the fact that I am fully aware of both sides means that my opinion is just as valid as yours, it sounds like you are saying you are right because you are smarter than me...


get that mess outta here.

I never said that...

Your post was about understanding, and I do understand your side's viewpoint and motivations behind it. It was a counter to your specific argument.

having all the information doesnt mean jack if you still cant come up to the proper conclusion.

Again, understanding was the point, not information itself. You can't effectively devil's advocate unless you understand a side.

 

[Brinzy]

No dude, Holy War is definitely ****. Nobody actually plays that game for ranks though, having to level crappy units for a good exp rank is very balls.

Holy War is my absolute favorite FE game, but I'm currently on Chapter 3 trying to do a ranked run. I completely flunked Chapter 2. I'm also recording all of my data so the next time, I'll know where and how to improve.

At least I got Diadora/Dierdre (however you know her) to level 30 before she got yanked up. Cuan and Ethlin are almost done, too. Lex, Sigurd, Ira, Holyn, Levin, and anyone who uses a staff won't have a problem. It's basically the rest of them that I have to work a little harder for in a rushed environment, and I've basically given up on Arden and Deu. Also, I noted something (to myself):

[FONT=&quot]"You need 1000 level ups. Omitting Sylvia, Lynn, and Diadora, you have a grand total of 1029 levels that you can obtain. This is including Arden, Deu, and Patty hitting 30. You should be able to compensate for Arden not hitting[/FONT] 30 with Sylvia’s levels, and Deu + Patty together should be compensated for by Lynn + Diadora."
Diadora hitting 30 was a blessing because this can completely nullify 27 levels from the dreaded three (Arden and the thieves). It basically means that Arden's levels are extra credit, since both of them come at level 3. Deu is at a pathetic level 5. So far, this sets me back 25 levels; counting Slyvia's gained levels brings it up to only 21 levels missing, but that's still quite a lot. I'm trying to get him a few more levels, but I'm mainly focusing on him now.

As for Lynn... well, she's not gonna exist. The subs are better because the healer gets Elite, so there we go. The main problem for me is getting things done on time with Arden and Deu lagging behind. If I can get that down though, I'll be gold.

Yeah, I know, completely off topic and all, but I haven't spoken to anyone about my attempt to A-rank this thing.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Holy War is my absolute favorite FE game, but I'm currently on Chapter 3 trying to do a ranked run. I completely flunked Chapter 2. I'm also recording all of my data so the next time, I'll know where and how to improve.

At least I got Diadora/Dierdre (however you know her) to level 30 before she got yanked up. Cuan and Ethlin are almost done, too. Lex, Sigurd, Ira, Holyn, Levin, and anyone who uses a staff won't have a problem. It's basically the rest of them that I have to work a little harder for in a rushed environment, and I've basically given up on Arden and Deu. Also, I noted something (to myself):

[FONT=&quot]"You need 1000 level ups. Omitting Sylvia, Lynn, and Diadora, you have a grand total of 1029 levels that you can obtain. This is including Arden, Deu, and Patty hitting 30. You should be able to compensate for Arden not hitting[/FONT] 30 with Sylvia’s levels, and Deu + Patty together should be compensated for by Lynn + Diadora."
Diadora hitting 30 was a blessing because this can completely nullify 27 levels from the dreaded three (Arden and the thieves). It basically means that Arden's levels are extra credit, since both of them come at level 3. Deu is at a pathetic level 5. So far, this sets me back 25 levels; counting Slyvia's gained levels brings it up to only 21 levels missing, but that's still quite a lot. I'm trying to get him a few more levels, but I'm mainly focusing on him now.

As for Lynn... well, she's not gonna exist. The subs are better because the healer gets Elite, so there we go. The main problem for me is getting things done on time with Arden and Deu lagging behind. If I can get that down though, I'll be gold.

Yeah, I know, completely off topic and all, but I haven't spoken to anyone about my attempt to A-rank this thing.

Wait... we're discussing FE now?

FE 4 (aka, Holy War), yes. Best game EVER!

End of story.

 

[dainbramage]

It is ridiculous what people compare Dededes infinite to.

Seriously? Diddys bananas?

1. Every character can use them against Diddy (DK can't use an infinite against D3)
2. It doesn't create 100:0 matcups (not even 90:10) (DK vs D3 is 100:0)
3. They are no infinite that work at every % and guarantee a kill (D3s grab -> -1 stock)

I hate it when people then come up with: 1 revers aerial punch from Ganondorf is also -1 stock.
It is not only because of 0-death that always works. It is everything together.
-> 100:0 matchup, really easy to do, programmer oversight that should've never been in the game, a grab is probably the easiest thing Dedede can "hit" you with, it works all the time, it is a guaranteed KO (if you don't mess up)

It looks so stupid if people compare it to Ganons blabla. Who get's hit by that? That's a thing that happens much less than GaWs 9. It only happens if you aren't concentrating enough. You can shield it so ****ing easily. How often does it happen? And how often does Dedede get a grab? (I'd say the could happen once every 1000 matches, at best. And D3 grabs every character at least 5 times per stock)

IC don't match all those things. It is really hard to grab someone, and that makes a big difference (like everyone always says). I hope everyone agrees that if IC would have better grabrange (and also no Nana to rely on) it should be banned.

Well that's the case with D3. Just because it doesn't work on all characters... this is so stupid.

You can also not compare it to Fox vs Pikachu.
It is considered 90:10, which is really bad, but not that bad, it is NOT an infinite, it doesn't work at all percents, it doesn't guarantee a KO, it is harder to land.

Now if D3s grab would work up to 80 % it would still be bad for DK, but it would actually still be possible to win. If D3 wouldn't have that good grab range (like Pikachu or ICs) it would be easy to avoid since DK has really good range. DK can't do anything that can't get punished with a grab because the grabrange is so good.

A small step chaingrab would still be bad, but MUCH better than this, because DK could try to stay at the edge. Or near it. Or he could go on platforms.


-> this post does not necessary say "I want it banned". This post just says that all comparisons to it are stupid.

I came up with stupid examples because you said (paraphrasing, as I can't be bothered finding the exact quote) "any one move that results in losing a stock should be banned." It's obviously ridiculous to ban the things I mentioned, hence showing why your reasoning was ridiculous.

If DK just stands at the edge, DDD will throw waddle dees at him until he leaves the edge, where he can then be small-step CG'd. That wouldn't help the matchup at all.

 

[rehab]

Holy War is my absolute favorite FE game, but I'm currently on Chapter 3 trying to do a ranked run. I completely flunked Chapter 2. I'm also recording all of my data so the next time, I'll know where and how to improve.

At least I got Diadora/Dierdre (however you know her) to level 30 before she got yanked up. Cuan and Ethlin are almost done, too. Lex, Sigurd, Ira, Holyn, Levin, and anyone who uses a staff won't have a problem. It's basically the rest of them that I have to work a little harder for in a rushed environment, and I've basically given up on Arden and Deu. Also, I noted something (to myself):

[FONT=&quot]"You need 1000 level ups. Omitting Sylvia, Lynn, and Diadora, you have a grand total of 1029 levels that you can obtain. This is including Arden, Deu, and Patty hitting 30. You should be able to compensate for Arden not hitting[/FONT] 30 with Sylvia’s levels, and Deu + Patty together should be compensated for by Lynn + Diadora."
Diadora hitting 30 was a blessing because this can completely nullify 27 levels from the dreaded three (Arden and the thieves). It basically means that Arden's levels are extra credit, since both of them come at level 3. Deu is at a pathetic level 5. So far, this sets me back 25 levels; counting Slyvia's gained levels brings it up to only 21 levels missing, but that's still quite a lot. I'm trying to get him a few more levels, but I'm mainly focusing on him now.

As for Lynn... well, she's not gonna exist. The subs are better because the healer gets Elite, so there we go. The main problem for me is getting things done on time with Arden and Deu lagging behind. If I can get that down though, I'll be gold.

Yeah, I know, completely off topic and all, but I haven't spoken to anyone about my attempt to A-rank this thing.

Holy crap, you got Deirdre to level 30?

My god. That is some amazing dedication, even if your time rank ends up bad. Good freaking luck with that.

FE 4 (aka, Holy War), yes. Best game EVER!

True facts

 

[Brinzy]

Yeah, I left her in the base, gave her Warp, lucked out a bit and got her up to... I dunno, like the fifth or sixth arena fight, and spammed Warp. Once I hit Sylvia with Return from Ethlin, I was turning out 130 exp per turn. It didn't take terribly long, but I wanted to get it done before Chapter 3, because I currently have Edin/Aideen/Adean/the blonde priestess with the Bargain Ring and the Elite Ring, and I spammed the staff to level 20 and should have her up to level 30 soon (one use = a level, yay), and I'm also spamming Ethlin for 70 exp a turn. I need to get her to level 30. She's currently 21, but she leaves after this, so yeah.

Anyway, staff abuse is the greatest thing ever. I just need to abuse this for Claude and I'm good as far as the staff users go. Those foot units, on the other hand...

...... Oh, and I loves me some Lex. <3 Been playing this game for years and he's still my favorite unit for the most part, for fanboy reasons.

EDIT: Also, Deirdre does not promote. :/

 

[TheUmbreonMonarchy]

learn the definition of "anti-competitive".

Anti competitive means that it takes a focus off of winning with skill and knowledge and strategy/thinking.

Randomness isn't intrinsically anti-competitive. No matter how much a g&w spams side b, he isn't going to win because he gets lucky 9's. It's still not that good of an attack.

Oh really now?

My bad. The definition I remembered was wrong.

---

I lol at the FE dicussion.

 

[Luigi player]

no one cares if without it, DK would be good or not. a lot of characters in brawl are partially unviable and suffer from horrible matchups, what makes DK so special that we need to give him handicaps? and it doesn't matter if it's an oversight or not, it's IN THE GAME so DEAL WITH IT.

I care (and nearly everyone else who's playing as those characters).
Because it is an oversight and his matchup is soo bad and he gets infinited?

Well then you can't say ban MKs dair is the same thing as the oversight that isn't even a move.

yes, the IC's infinites are very hard to set-up, blah ,blah. this has to do with what? just because D3's are easier doesn't make them more banworthy.

If ICs infinite was easier to set up they would be banned.

DK is unviable. **** like that happens in competitive games.DEAL WITH IT. we don't ban arbitrarily to make more characteres viable.

Yeah but he would be viable without this. You can't say you don't care about any character since if there would be more things like this we'd only have very few characters viable and everyone would play them which would make the game really boring and everything would always be the same.
There has to be as much diversity as possible to make the game more entertaining and long living as possible.

what? in what way is the infinite an "unintended" move? also, yes, at the highest level of play, this is gonna be unwinnable for DK. deal with it.

Do you want to tell me that the game designers wanted that Dedede has a really easy infinite on DK? If they'd knew it worked they would take it out asap.
Yes it is, because of the infinite.

Remember what I said? Nobody has the exact same skill level as someone else. I don't know why everyone is too stupid to understand that.

Does everyone agree that M2K and Azen are at about the same skill level? They're probably two of if not the best 2 smashers right now. So, does it mean Azen would never win with Lucario against M2Ks MK? No, even though the matchup is written as 65:35 MKs advantage in the MK matchup thread. What does this show us? Yeah you could say the matchup ratio is wrong... or is it just maybe still possible to win if you have enough mindgames? Everyone makes mistakes (and that is why it is still somewhat important if it is easy to do or not, because if it is easy you won't make many mistakes, if it is hard you will make mistakes much easier).

If the best player would main DK he could still win against everyone, unless someone just uses D3. Worse players could always beat him with the infinite. It is a nearly 100 % guaranteed loss, that's why it is so bad.

guess, what? a "good" DK will NEVER play this matchup in the first place. he should know that he has to CP or pick a different main. CP is PART of competitive gaming. DEAL WITH IT. so what if "good" players don't need the infinite? that's not why we ban things either. you really need to understand more about competitive gaming before posting random stuff like this.

Nobody knows who the enemy is choosing. What matters is if it happens that both characters are facing each other. And that it is as good as an auto-win.

The problems is that everyone can just pick up D3 and win vs any good DK easily. Thus everyone could just pick D3 and that makes DK unviable. DK would be very viable if it wasn't for the infinite. Ganondorf still wouldn't be very viable even if we'd ban Shieks ftilt (which is still a stupid comparison, because it is a whole move, it is not an infinite, etc.), so it wouldn't make much of a/if any difference.

CPing should never be a 100 % win or loss, because if it was, the first match would be the only one that matters and would say who will win, and the person who counterpicks would always win. Thus the winner of the first match would always win.

I already said it has more reasons and not just one.

I came up with stupid examples because you said (paraphrasing, as I can't be bothered finding the exact quote) "any one move that results in losing a stock should be banned." It's obviously ridiculous to ban the things I mentioned, hence showing why your reasoning was ridiculous.

If DK just stands at the edge, DDD will throw waddle dees at him until he leaves the edge, where he can then be small-step CG'd. That wouldn't help the matchup at all.

I never said "every move that is a 0-death should be banned".

If D3 would have to make small steps DK could always get on platforms to be save. And DK could also try to make the first damage so he's leading and D3 will have to approach DK, since his waddle dees etc. are very easy to avoid.

 

[IrArby]

The tier list for this game is a mess because the game is so matchup specific the tier list doesn't seem to do it justice since DK gets his *** kicked by D3 while being one of the few chars to do well against MK. If you want you medium high ranked char to be viable all the time your playing the wrong game. Melee isn't fullproof on this point either. Sure ICs infinte would be banned if they were less situational but thats because they work on EVERYONE not just DK.
Obviously the game designers didn't intend for the infinite but the game designers and Sakurai, by all accounts, intended for us to use 4 people free for all with items for Fun to play and nothing else. This argument isn't relavent.

So what if most people who pick up D3 will be able to beat a great DK. Are they able to easily beat out great MKs, Snakes, Falcos, Marths, R.O.B.s, etc? I thought not. Believe it or not most people DO NOT play DK. Its not ****** anyone else and its egocentric to try and change the rules to make your character better.

To clarify Azen and M2K are not the same skill level. This game isn't a clear demonstration of player skill. If it were you wouldn't be aruging for the ability of any given D3 to **** a great DK. If you ever get good at something that has a good amount of depth say a game, a sport, or maybe an instrument, you realize that once you reach a certain point people are neither by any common consensus definition better or worse but different. M2K and Azen are very different but if its any consolation M2K almost always beat Azen in Melee which is perhaps a better example of a skilled game (no noobs chaingrabbing pros to death at least).

If D3 is the end all be that stops you and everyone from winning this would be a problem. If you could pick no one else but DK and D3 had no real counters than this would over centralize the game and be ban worthy. Neither is the case. I repeat, Brawl is a game very centered around matchups and not tiers. DK is still a good overall character with this ban.

It seems to me that you want to play a game that is based entirely on skill but your playing a game that is less dependent on skill than almost any competitive fighting game. You cannot have both.

If I really haven't said anything new here I apologize to RDK, Yuna, and the whole intelligent lot of AntiBan peoples who have already said what I said.

 

[gantrain05]

i think DK is still a viable tourney character even with the infinite, one bad matchup =/= unviable character.

 

[IrArby]

i think DK is still a viable tourney character even with the infinite, one bad matchup =/= unviable character.

Word. Thats the point. Pro Ban people can't understand this for some reason. I think part of the problem is a 40 to 60 matchup in Melee to the average person wasn't an overly one-sided matchup. To pros is made a huge difference not because the advantageous character could instantly kill them after a mistake or CG them to 300% but because they could limit thier options and essentially trap them into a KO/Edgeguard.

Only, in Brawl, the gap between pros and ameteurs is much smaller thus the reality of a 60 to 40 matchup hits home to a lot more people than before. Additionally, the mathcups are less skilled based thus, the ability to make headway and win a disadvantegous mathcup is less plausible. Essentiallty, a Melee pro could own another Melee pro with a 60 to 40 advantage through pressuring, trapping, comboing, and edgeguarding near equivalent to getting owned in a Brawl 60 to 40 matchup. However, the Brawl instance is slightly more obvious and, as I said, more people are able to see it firsthand because of the diminshed skill gap.

Thats my 5am thoughts/theory anyway. Maybe I'll read this again tommorow and think its all rubbish.

 

[Luigi player]

It seems to me that you want to play a game that is based entirely on skill but your playing a game that is less dependent on skill than almost any competitive fighting game. You cannot have both.

Skill is still the most diciding factor though. Any matchup will not determine the winner 100 %. The worst matchup is DK vs D3... because of the infinite. In every other matchup you need more mindgames etc. to win the match.
I don't think any of those other fighting games really show skill. You just memorize every possible combo and that's it. Of course you have to choose which one is the best to do at every point during the fight though.

Brawl shows much more skill than many other games. You don't have to really know the game that much, you mostly fight with your mind. In most other games you learn the game and then you're good at it. In Brawl it actually shows knowledge, wisdom and mindgaming, which is much more skill than some button combinations. <- imo
(and I'm not talking about Melee here)

 

[gantrain05]

yes DK vs DDD is bad, but i really don't think its "the worst matchup" in brawl, ZSS basically has a 0-death combo on fox, and all thats needed to start it is a Dsmash, pika can CG him to 90%, falcon gets completely destroyed by MK, there are so many other matchups that are just as bad if not worse than DK vs DDD, try playing ganon vs ice climbers someday, see how painful that is. maybe try mario vs G&W, mario doesn't have a single attack that can compete in priority with 90% of G&W's moveset, thats not reason enough to ban 90% of G&W's moveset. i agree that an infinite CG is a stupid thing, and that it should be banned, but repeatedly bringing up ONE specific matchup and saying how impossible it is just isn't reason enough for a ban.

 

[ook]

Alright, I just thought of this while I was in the bathroom at 4:00 AM (the time and place where most people do their thinking), and this is the way I see it. I haven't read all 332 pages of this thread, so excuse me if this has been brought up before, but everyone seems to be talking about character matchups lol.




Take the stages: Bridge of Eldin, and Yoshi's Island (Pipes)

These two stages are banned by almost all tournaments (I realize pipes isn't banned in the SBR list, but nobody follows that nowadays anyway). AFAIK, a major reason for that, if not THE reason, is that DDD can chaingrab you from nearly anywhere on the stage and kill you with one grab.


Now, DDD's chaingrab doesn't work on everybody, so you could just counterpick someone who doesn't get CG'd. But obviously that didn't matter enough, because those stages are banned.





If you think about it, those are pretty much in the same situation as the infinite.

Bridge of Eldin
- Problem: DDD can kill some characters with one grab from anywhere on the stage
- Result: BANNED

Yoshi's Island Pipes
- Problem: DDD can kill some characters with one grab from anywhere on the stage
- Result: BANNED

Dthrow Infinite
- Problem: DDD can kill some characters with one grab from anywhere on the stage
- Result: NOT BANNED



That doesn't make sense to me. If you're gonna ban one, you gotta ban 'em all (pokemon!)


Thanks for reading my 4:00 AM rant. Maybe I over-simplified things (there are other minor reasons for banning those stages) but the jist of it is there

****ing penguin

 

[Brinzy]

The best answer I have for that is the infinite affects 2 characters while DDD can chaingrab over half the cast. That's a pretty significant difference in my opinion. DDD should be having a massive advantage over anyone that gets chainthrowed by him on Bridge of Eldin. That basically makes him the only sensible character to use on that stage, along with a few counterpicks.

With the infinite... the most sensible thing is to not use DK/Bowser against him and that's it.

 

[ook]

edit: nvm this post for now lol <----

 

[Luigi player]

Yeah those stages aren't only banned because of Dedede... there are other chaingrabs/grab releases that would always lead to death on bridge of eldin.

Your examples are okay though, but nobody of the anti-bans care about anything. As long as it doesn't work on 50 %+ of the cast.

 

[1048576]

What you ran out of ideas so you're resorting to insults?

We've covered over-centralizing. Stop pretending it's some radical hypothesis.

 

[Luigi player]

Well what can I say if people always say that if you face an about even opponent the matchup will always decide the outcome.

That is not how it is. Nothing is set in stone. It get's annoying if people deny facs.

No humans are exactly the same or have the exact same skill level. Also nobody is perfect, that means everyone can make mistakes so the disadvantaged character can win.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Well what can I say if people always say that if you face an about even opponent the matchup will always decide the outcome.

no, you just need to learn reading comprehension. yes, i said the MATCHUP (which is at the highest level of play) the DK will never beat a D3 that uses infinites. impossible matchups=/= physically impossible. sure, the DK can win if the D3 makes stupid mistakes, HOWEVER the matchup is still near unwinnable because matchups refer to the highest levels of play. sure everyone is human, they'll make mistakes, but not so many or so crucial an error to let the DK win. sure, it's possible, but not plausible at the highest level of play.

That is not how it is. Nothing is set in stone. It get's annoying if people deny facs.

it's gets annoying if people can't spell "facts".

No humans are exactly the same or have the exact same skill level. Also nobody is perfect, that means everyone can make mistakes so the disadvantaged character can win.

again, yes, it's PHYSICALLY possible, but not very plausible at the highest levels of play.


______


what does all this have to do with banning the infinites anyway?
you still haven't answered why they should be banned even though they don't fit the criteria that consitutes a ban in competitive gaming.

 

[Xyro77]

You're quite possibly the biggest idiot yet to stumble on this thread, and that's saying something because Xyro, da K.I.D., and Luigi Player haven't said one intelligent word since first posting.

ive said alot of intelligent things but its just drop in a sea or morons.....

 

[1048576]

Case in point...

 

[da K.I.D.]

just because you think somebody is incorrect with their opinion doesnt mean that they arent intelligent.

you should stop generalising.

 

[Xyro77]

just because you think somebody is incorrect with their opinion doesnt mean that they arent intelligent.

you should stop generalising.

Thanks for the back up but these kids are 06-08 members....they dont know much. And then you have the liberal dem yuna......where can i start with him?


They dont get that DDD still has a MASSIVE advantage(70-30 or even 80-20) on those 6 even without the ICG. They just want to make it a n00b proof matchup by allowing a tech that a 6 year old can do. In other words, they want to PREVENT the 6 from ever having a CHANCE(slight as it may be) of winning the match up.

They dont get that some people actually WANT to help the community and increase thier characters place on the tier list. People such as bum/neo/dire/gimpy/chu(yes ICs were once low tier) all got recognized by thier low tier and not there other characters. By allowing this broken trash in brawl, people LIKE them(bum/xyro/ mr.3000/deva) will never bring thier chars up the tier list in this game. But hey, you guys dont get that.

They dont get that placing top 4 is nearly impossible with top 6 (when tourneys have mass amounts of pro entrants) so they consider them unviable. This is not melee(sadly), so the standards should be a tad bit different(placing top 9 with low tier is still amazing) they dont get that.

__________________________________________________________________________________________


Over all, they just want you to "deal with it" and just CP more.....and sadly the game will grow at a MUCH more slow pace. That is why you must take it apon yourself and do the correct thing by getting rid of the BROKEN things(at your events and in your area) because the SBR is completly terrible when it comes to doing what is right.

 

[da K.I.D.]

it doesnt help that brawl has such a horrible connotation, and people seem to think that its so easy, and that its at the same time, impossible to hit your opponent more than 2 times in a row.

now i get what people mean when they say the brawl community is bad...

 

[XxBlackxX]

ive said alot of intelligent things but its just drop in a sea or morons.....

when did i ever say that?

stop misquoting please >_>

@dakid

no, just because they have different opinions DOESN'T mean they're morons, BUT if they randomly say their opinions, self-righteously, adamantly believe it's right, and offer absolutle no back-up for their opinions whatsoever, and then call the other side morons.......then they are morons.

@xyro's 2nd post

it still doesn't fit the criteria for a ban. bringing up join dates in this? okay, other than smash, which is rather full of scrubs and ban-happy, what other competitive fighting games have you played and for how long? (rethorical, what i mean is join dates don't matter as much as what the people are acutally saying)
anyways, to reply to your point, it doesn't matter if it's impossible or not. it still doesn't over-centralize or break the game as a whole, nor does it prevent competition altogether. yes, impossible matchups happen in fighting games, deal with it, but of course if you've really been in competitive gaming communities for as long you say, you would already know that >_>.
we don't ban things to let chars have a chance to raise up in tiers. if the chars suck (not saying the affected chars suck, just as an example), their mains deal with it. that's how it works in every other competitive game.
also, yes it's "broken" but only in these matchups, it does NOT break the game as a whole. so they don't need to be banned. we don't ban things to help character or character diversity or all that ****.

EDIT: im not discouraging top players trying to bring their characters up through the tier lists, but for them to complain to remove their char's toughest matchup when the ban isn't warranted...well...that's kinda dumb.

 

[Xyro77]

@xyro's 2nd post

it still doesn't fit the criteria for a ban. bringing up join dates in this? okay, other than smash, which is rather full of scrubs and ban-happy, what other competitive fighting games have you played and for how long?
anyways, to reply to your point, it doesn't matter if it's impossible or not. it still doesn't over-centralize or break the game as a whole, nor does it prevent competition altogether. yes, impossible matchups happen in fighting games, deal with it, but of course if you've really been in competitive gaming communities for as long you say, you would already know that >_>.
we don't ban things to let chars have a chance to raise up in tiers. if the chars suck (not saying the affected chars suck, just as an example), their mains deal with it. that's how it works in every other competitive game.
also, yes it's "broken" but only in these matchups, it does NOT break the game as a whole. so they don't need to be banned. we don't ban things to help character or character diversity or all that ****.

You are using criteria that works on other games. Smash(all 3 games) are different than ANY OTHER fighting game therfore it needs to have a different criteria. I for one recommend we use COMMON SENSE....but obviously this thread doesnt have it.

Im not asking for the ban to be activated so samus can climb the ladder. Its still a MEGA MEGA hard match-up to win....however, it would be POSSIBLE for her to win if the tech is banned. if the tech is left legal....there is no hope of winning.......the only thing left would be a lucky trip on ddd so i could get a KO.

Seriously, think about it. ddd still has a great advantage its just if u ban the ICG you get a 80-20 instead of a 100-0 or 90-10.

and by allowing broken things to be legal you are making it more difficult for the trashy chars to ge better and indirectly making people go to top tiers just to deal with dumb stuff like the ICG.


PS: when i say "YOU" i dont really mean YOU.

 

[1048576]

You can break out until 130

You probably still won't see it.

What is your common sense? Making DK/D3 better than Pika/Fox for no reason other than D3's combo is a little better?

 

[gantrain05]

You can break out until 130

You probably still won't see it.

you can still small step chain grab to increase percentage until that 130.

 

[XxBlackxX]

You are using criteria that works on other games. Smash(all 3 games) are different than ANY OTHER fighting game therfore it needs to have a different criteria. I for one recommend we use COMMON SENSE....but obviously this thread doesnt have it.

Im not asking for the ban to be activated so samus can climb the ladder. Its still a MEGA MEGA hard match-up to win....however, it would be POSSIBLE for her to win if the tech is banned. if the tech is left legal....there is no hope of winning.......the only thing left would be a lucky trip on ddd so i could get a KO.

why indeed does smash need to be different? why indeed should we fix what's not broken?
yes, so what if the match is impossible to win? the affected characters just can't beat D3, that's all. all it does is make the affected chars semi-unviable (they are still viable, just need to be played with secondaries or only as CPs) and make that particular matchup impossible. the ruleset of competitive games is supposed to ban the LEAST things possible while keeping the game as a WHOLE competitive playable. why do the anti-ban people think we should stick to this? because it WORKED and WORKED WELL in the past. ****ty matchups and "unviable" characters happened, but yet the metagame as a whole continued to be healthy...

 

[Xyro77]

You can break out until 130

You probably still won't see it.

What is your common sense? Making DK/D3 better than Pika/Fox for no reason other than D3's combo is a little better?

im not arguing fox/pika thing. if they want it fixed they need to fight for it.

and yes i understand that you COULD break out of it before 130% but be realistic, 9 out of 10 times it doesnt happen. In fact 9 out of 10 people cant do it on command no matter who grabs who. If it wernt true this thread wouldnt have been made.

its like saying foxs wave shine against walls(melee) shouldnt be banned be banned because once hu upsmashes you can tech...........honestly, 99% of people cant tech that.


be realistic

 

[da K.I.D.]

why indeed does smash need to be different? why indeed should we fix what's not broken?

also, yes it's "broken" but...

you contradict yourself a lot...

 

[XxBlackxX]

you contradict yourself a lot...

lern2readingcomprehension >_>

did you even READ the thing i wrote, instead of picking off random bits and saying i contradict myself?

because i made it CLEAR that the first sentence referred to "fixing" the criteria used in other competitive games. (because xyro suggested we shouldn't use the ban criteria used in other games)

and the 2nd sentence talked about how they "break" individual matchups. NOT the whole game, and just because i KNEW some ****** was gonna pull something like this, i even wrote, this breaks matchups, but not the whole game, which is what the critieria is for banning.

EDIT: seriously, if you have nothing to add, you need stop thinking you're a smart*** and shut the **** up. it's people like you that makes me think the pro-ban people are all scrubs >_>

 

[Xyro77]

why indeed does smash need to be different? why indeed should we fix what's not broken?
yes, so what if the match is impossible to win? the affected characters just can't beat D3, that's all. all it does is make the affected chars semi-unviable (they are still viable, just need to be played with secondaries or only as CPs) and make that particular matchup impossible. the ruleset of competitive games is supposed to ban the LEAST things possible while keeping the game as a WHOLE competitive playable. why do the anti-ban people think we should stick to this? because it WORKED and WORKED WELL in the past. ****ty matchups and "unviable" characters happened, but yet the metagame as a whole continued to be healthy...

People like you are unhealthy to the community. Your type of thinking helps tournament variety go down to what happened in melee(only 5 characters show up to tournaments).

All im for is giving ****ty characters a chance while not changing the match up. and banning the ICG does not make the matchup in favor of samus.

 

[XxBlackxX]

People like you are unhealthy to the community. Your type of thinking helps tournament variety go down to what happened in melee(only 5 characters show up to tournaments).

All im for is giving ****ty characters a chance while not changing the match up. and banning the ICG does not make the matchup in favor of samus.

why indeed should we give them a "chance" if the tactic is not banworthy?
you haven't answered my point. why SHOULDN'T brawl used the same criteria used in melee and other fighting games when it was proven to work?

 

[bobson]

and yes i understand that you COULD break out of it before 130% but be realistic, 9 out of 10 times it doesnt happen. In fact 9 out of 10 people cant do it on command no matter who grabs who. If it wernt true this thread wouldnt have been made.

I can break out of it consistently under 90% and I have the tech skill of an asparagus. I can't even pull off Metaknight's glidetoss consistently. If I can do it until around 90, anyone who enters a tournament should be able to.

 

[meta master]

point being, infinites are just plain cheap. goto a tournament play a character and lost because you got stuck in a infinite over and over.

 

[camzaman]

The tactic IS banworthy, it's so frustrating that people in the community are debating this when the ban has no downside. Anti-infinite ban people should start practicing their debating and rhetoric skills in another thread...

 

[gantrain05]

why indeed should we give them a "chance" if the tactic is not banworthy?
you haven't answered my point. why SHOULDN'T brawl used the same criteria used in melee and other fighting games when it was proven to work?

jesus man, seriously, "why should we give them a chance if the tactic isn't banworthy?" dude, xyro hit it right on the nose, even WITHOUT the cheapass infinite cg, DDD STILL has a heavy advantage on all of those characters, and being as many stages were banned simply due to the fact that DDD could infinite against a wall, or CG off the side of the stage, why allow an infinite chaingrab to remain like his? all its doing is making the barrier between viable and unviable characters larger and overcentralizing the metagame even moreso than it is now. Sure its not overcentralized to the point of only MK vs MK, but its getting to the point where there are less and less viable characters.