Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Xyro77]

...........i actually read every post for five pages(since my last post).

im going to never post here again. there are too many people who are stupid and lost sight of what smash is about.

they dont use common sense or think realistic.

IM just gonna recommend that each and ever one of you who use those 6(not 2) and do not wish to have broken techs mess up your match..........just hold your own events or ask your TO to ban it. MOST of them are intelligent and will listen.

 

[Yuna]

So tell me what chaingrabs are 0-death and what locks are too.

Pikachu's chaingrab on Fox is practically 0-death. He only needs a little bit more % to die on most stages. I believe he actually dies on some stages. The same goes for Sheik's F-tilt lock into sweetspotted Usmash (if sweetspotted, that is).

But why stop at actual 0-death (especially when D3's infinite doesn't always guarantee 0-death)? Why make the arbitrary threshold actual 0-death when there are so many combos and locks which are almost 0 to almost death? What difference does it make if it requires a little more damage to kill for them? They're almost as bad.

Why is the difference so large this needs a ban while those other things do not? What right do you have to tell the victims of those techniques to just suck it up and lose, yet ban things to alleviate DK's and Bowser's match-ups?

Grab release infinites? Don't they end at the edge?

They are infinite because they do not.

im going to never post here again. there are too many people who are stupid and lost sight of what smash is about.

And what is Smash all about? Maximizing "fun" and "fairness", with all characters viable?

Smash has never been about that. Did you even play Melee?

 

[Ballistaboy]

After reading more and more posts I wish I could take my vote and put it to anti-ban.

Play to Win in competitive situations is what matters and it shouldn't be banned for them, If you and your friends wanna ban it at your house then do it.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Why not? If it affects all characters, it's actually more over-centralizing, has a greater impact on the metagame and the greater picture, thus banning it is more warranted than banning something which is character-specific.

WTF?!
how does the fact that everyone can do it, make it more over centralising, please explain your logic further.

D3 doesn't make DK unviable, it just gives him one more bad matchup. Fox/Pika, Fox/ZSS, CF/MK, D3/Olimar (I don't really know about that one; I just assume it's easy sauce for Olimar), etc...

Get that mess outta here!!

EDIT xyro is right, people get lost in their arguments and forget about what the point of this whole thing is.

yuna, do you get payed to play video games? because for 97% of people video games are played to have fun, not for for money or anything else like that

 

[Yuna]

WTF?!
how does the fact that everyone can do it, make it more over centralising, please explain your logic further.

Because the becomes more focused on using this one tech, thus the entire metagame becomes more over-centralized around it?

Get that mess outta here!!

CF/MK, Pika/Fox. Refute that.

 

[Blad01]

CF/MK, Pika/Fox. Refute that.

We can't do anything to balance this match-up a bit more.

We can for the DDD standing infinite.

And yes, let's ban things in order to balance the game, or at least get rid of 10:90 match-ups based on one single move.

 

[IrArby]

I would recommend that everyone of you who uses the 6(not 2) have alternate characters as thats not exactly difficult. The game is about matchups not tiers and certainly not about fair play for all characters. Smash is a community brought together through competition. Your supposed brand of common sense and thinking realistic(ally) aren't the end all be all means by which we make decesions. What we take to be common sense isn't hung up on ethical issues meant to make exceptions for a couple characters in a game with well over thirty characters total.

daKId: It doesn't matter if 97% of the people who play video games do it for fun as the majority of this site or at least this thread, is directed towards tournament goers who are there to win. They find fun in the challenge of good competition.

And before you say, "but beating a DK with D3 is no challenge at all" or "beating a D3 as DK is an almost impossible challenge" please realize that mastering another character is part of the competitve challenge that people enjoy. If more DK players truly enjoy that challenge than they'd do better in tournaments for it.

Furthermore, Xyro is wrong as are you for misinterpreting her. Xyro said we've lost sight of what SMASH is about not what our arguments are about as you said. Both of you are trying to play the ethical card here and really Xyro just echoed your earlier "common sence" post anyway, along with some teen angst neiter of which are relative to the topic.

 

[Yuna]

We can't do anything to balance this match-up a bit more.

Why couldn't we?

Ban the chaingrab, ban edgeguarding against Captain Falcon, ban certain of Meta Knight's moves, ban certain of Pikachu's moves. At the very least ban Pikachu's chainrgab on Fox using the inane logic "Ban anythin gas long as it makes the match-up more even".

 

[Brinzy]

Get that mess outta here!!

Why would you link one fight where DDD won against Olimar (on a CP) and not link the fight after that where Olimar came back and won? I don't know enough about that match-up to make any comments, though.

Reflex > Desu ... or maybe not really that much. Decent refutation. (EDIT: Actually no, I take that back. Reflex is at a much higher level of play than Desu.)

That ZSS was throwing her armor pieces off the stage... and was not a high level player.

Anyway, I'd rather see Snakeee's ZSS or Claw's ZSS vs. a high level Fox, as well as Reflex's CF vs. a top MK.

EDIT xyro is right, people get lost in their arguments and forget about what the point of this whole thing is.

yuna, do you get payed to play video games? because for 97% of people video games are played to have fun, not for for money or anything else like that

OK? There's nothing wrong with playing games for fun. Some people have fun competing. Others have fun while earning money. I don't see why this really matters.

 

[da K.I.D.]

yuna about CF MK check all the links, theres one in there.

i couldnt find any pika fox, but i know that any scrub pika that steps to me will get fox *****.

 

[da K.I.D.]

and i thought banning in terms of overcentralising was based on overcentralisation of characters...

 

[Brinzy]

Techniques that over-centralize can be banned.

Not linking him because he's "OMG Sirlin" but because that's where it's best explained about how a technique warranted a ban. Check under "Street Fighter, Again!" That's a good example of a technique that over-centralized.

 

[Yuna]

yuna, do you get payed to play video games? because for 97% of people video games are played to have fun, not for for money or anything else like that

I'm sorry, this has what to do with what? If people want to have "fun and maximize it, they are free to do so... in Casual play. Competitive play is about competing, playing for money.

yuna about CF MK check all the links, theres one in there.

Who the hell is Desu? Does he even come close to playing at the highest level? I stopped watching after he made mistake upon mistake upon mistake and then lost a stock at friggin 42% due to CF's Dair, which I'm pretty sure isn't strong enough to outright KO at 42%.

i couldnt find any pika fox, but i know that any scrub pika that steps to me will get fox *****.

Nobody cares about scrub Pikas. And you do not play at the highest possible level.

and i thought banning in terms of overcentralising was based on overcentralisation of characters...

Final Smashes, not items in general.

 

[Flayl]

Amazing how anti-ban people are still using the ******** Pikachu VS Fox argument.

Please, every time you see an anti-banner say something incredibly stupid like pika/fox shiek/gannon mk/bottom just ignore it.

 

[Yuna]

Please, every time you see an anti-banner say something incredibly stupid like pika/fox shiek/gannon mk/bottom just ignore it.

Because obviously, if you have no counter-argument to it, it must be ********!

 

[Blad01]

Why couldn't we?

Ban the chaingrab, ban edgeguarding against Captain Falcon, ban certain of Meta Knight's moves, ban certain of Pikachu's moves. At the very least ban Pikachu's chainrgab on Fox using the inane logic "Ban anythin gas long as it makes the match-up more even".

No, because banning Pikachu's chaingrab would have downside on others match-ups. Banning Edgeguarding is dumb as you may know.
Banning DDD Standing Infinite is all right.

 

[IrArby]

So how about we revote now since everyones had they're say. We'll make a new thread and Yuna can write one half of the OP for the Anti-bans and whoever wants to can write another half for the Pro-bans. Then we'll put it to a vote again. I would strongly recommend anyone who's new to the thread to read through both arguments befor voting.

Then again voting doesn't matter as its not for us to decide but I'd like to think we'll have some influence.





@Flayl: And your revolutionary arguments would be . . . ?

 

[Yuna]

No, because banning Pikachu's chaingrab would have downside on others match-ups.

So is banning D3's standing infinite since it'll have a huge downside on his match-up against Luigi, who cannot be running chaingrabbed, at all.

Banning Edgeguarding is dumb as you may know.

And so is banning this.

 

[Fletch]

So how about we revote now since everyones had they're say. We'll make a new thread and Yuna can write one half of the OP for the Anti-bans and whoever wants to can write another half for the Pro-bans. Then we'll put it to a vote again. I would strongly recommend anyone who's new to the thread to read through both arguments befor voting.

Would you be willing to do this Yuna? I'd be interested to see what the pro-ban side would put up to go against this since they never seem to refute anything, but rather just call things "gay" or "********".

Amazing how anti-ban people are still using the ******** Pikachu VS Fox argument.

Please, every time you see an anti-banner say something incredibly stupid like pika/fox shiek/gannon mk/bottom just ignore it.

There's an example, again against an argument by the anti-ban side that has had no refutation.

 

[Yuna]

Would you be willing to do this Yuna? I'd be interested to see what the pro-ban side would put up to go against this since they never seem to refute anything, but rather just call things "gay" or "********".

Sure, why not. But I don't want to do it alone. After all, I am only one man. It should be a group effort. People can write out their arguments and then I (and a few others) will pick and choose the best ones and compile and compile a complete and comprehensive list.

The pro-ban side can do whatever they want, choose only one Chosen One or turn it into a group effort of their own.

 

[IrArby]

I'd be more than willing to submit anything I said or write more for the Anti-Ban side, assuming everyone finds it suitable. However, I'm about to leave for work and won't be able to contribute anything else until later tonight.

These easiest place to start is with the Pro Bans intial arguments for banning and starting the discussion. Then present our counter arguments and so forth. I'd be happy to help and PM anything to Yuna. I'll probably be back on the boards around 10-11pm Eastern Standard Time. I'll check back with the thread to see what you all have decided.

Overall, I think this will be a better more final conclusion where as Yuna's original "Is Brawl more Balanced than Melee thread ended less conclusively. I mean we sorta know who won but there was nothing final.

 

[RDK]

No, because banning Pikachu's chaingrab would have downside on others match-ups. Banning Edgeguarding is dumb as you may know.
Banning DDD Standing Infinite is all right.

No it's not; the very act of banning one of D3's move automatically means it has a downside. It effects his matchup, no matter how small the effect might be. The only problem is it gives DK a huge boost.

So tell me this: why do the D3 mains have to suffer while the DK mains get an enormous boost from the ban? Just because D3 happens to be a good character, and D3 mains used good judgment in using him against DK? So you're telling me players should be punished for using sound judgment? That's honestly what you believe?

At this point, even though you think you're arguing for a more balanced and fair game, you're actually destroying competition by making it even more impossible for people to make good decisions based on knowledge of the game.

Honestly, you guys are like religious people. You pull the craziest **** arguments out and expect people to actually take you seriously.

And Xryo, I've come to the conclusion that not only do you have zero decent experience with generic fighters, but you probably have no true experience with Melee either, because if you think Melee was about maximizing fun and fixing character matchups, you're just ********.

 

[Yuna]

I'd be more than willing to submit anything I said or write more for the Anti-Ban side, assuming everyone finds it suitable. However, I'm about to leave for work and won't be able to contribute anything else until later tonight.

This will not be done overnight. It'll take at least a few days, so don't sweat it.

These easiest place to start is with the Pro Bans intial arguments for banning and starting the discussion. Then present our counter arguments and so forth. I'd be happy to help and PM anything to Yuna. I'll probably be back on the boards around 10-11pm Eastern Standard Time. I'll check back with the thread to see what you all have decided.

Anyone who wishes to contribute can PM me. Anyone can contribute. You do not have to ask me whether or not you're allowed to contribute with arguments (several people have). I'm not an elitist "Only these people can contribute"-person. Keep in mind, though, that we'll sort out the invalid ones and rewrite many arguments and merge them together with similar ones. The only thing you need to ask about is whether or not you'll be allowed to help out with the editing process.

Anyone who wishes to help me sort out which arguments should be used in the final thread should also PM me.

I've also got my eye on a few people for the "jury", such as adumbrodeus and Successor of Raphael (please do not take offense if your name was not just mentioned). You guys up for it?

 

[XxBlackxX]

No, because banning Pikachu's chaingrab would have downside on others match-ups. Banning Edgeguarding is dumb as you may know.
Banning DDD Standing Infinite is all right.

that's completely subjective and you know it. why do YOU get to decide that banning pika's CG has "too many downsides" but banning the infinites doesn't? by your logic, they should all be banned.

 

[Ballin brian]

i think its shouldnt be banned becuase once your at a high percent you di out of it so its not that bad but the ice climbers chain grab that should be banned i heard the limit of chain grabs the ice climbers can do in a tournament is 4

 

[Brinzy]

I've also got my eye on a few people for the "jury", such as adumbrodeus and Successor of Raphael (please do not take offense if your name was not just mentioned). You guys up for it?

Sure thing. I'm completely down for this.

 

[Hive]

So how about we revote now since everyones had they're say. We'll make a new thread and Yuna can write one half of the OP for the Anti-bans and whoever wants to can write another half for the Pro-bans. Then we'll put it to a vote again. I would strongly recommend anyone who's new to the thread to read through both arguments befor voting.

Then again voting doesn't matter as its not for us to decide but I'd like to think we'll have some influence.





@Flayl: And your revolutionary arguments would be . . . ?

this is a bad idea imo... people are already tired of the ddd debate and chances are it will be ruled on within the next two days as the poll comes out anyways, halting this sort of discussion... the last thing people need is another cg/poll thread imo....
even if yuna and any of the pro-ban people (are there any who still even concern themselves with this thread anymore?) made arguments I don't think it would be anything new.. just really the arguments that have already been said and in turn would only spark the same arguments following them...
I mean no offense its just I don't think it would be helpful is all...

I think more than anything what this thread has really come down to now is both the pro and anti ban side just strawmanning each other the whole time, and making random assumptions and exaggerations on ban criteria.... what we really need is the sbr just to finally say something on the matter.

 

[Brinzy]

You think both sides are just strawmanning each other, and you also think that it would be a bad idea to remake the poll and to create concrete arguments? That would be getting somewhere, not just some cycle that you're talking about.

 

[Yuna]

what we really need is the sbr just to finally say something on the matter.

AFAIK, there has never been a serious debate about whether or not this should be banned in the SBR (as in a "It looks like it could very well be banned" kind of debate) and the vast majority if not all SBR people I've seen speak of the subject in this thread (and elsewhere) are against banning it.

It's pretty safe to assume they're not going to "rule" on it as they don't see the need to. It's such a non-issue they're not even considering it. If the SBR says nothing on the issue, let's assume they're not for banning it.

 

[Hive]

it wouln't create concrete arguments at all though... it would just spark the same arguments...
people won't see the thread as an answer i don't think though... it will just be seen as another cg thread, and attract the same people.

also, and no offense, I don't think you or adumbrodeus would be good judges either.... it has nothing to do with how well you are at understanding the arguments though.... I just think it would be better to have judges coming from an outside perspective and who could interpret both the arguments in the thread without possible preexisting biases from this thread...

 

[Hive]

AFAIK, there has never been a serious debate about whether or not this should be banned in the SBR (as in a "It looks like it could very well be banned" kind of debate) and the vast majority if not all SBR people I've seen speak of the subject in this thread (and elsewhere) are against banning it.

It's pretty safe to assume they're not going to "rule" on it as they don't see the need to. It's such a non-issue they're not even considering it. If the SBR says nothing on the issue, let's assume they're not for banning it.

kwl, i don't care if the sbr is for or against a ban, only that they are going to say something about it...
personally I want it banned, but more than that I want it to be ruled upon.
I'm sure the issue must have come up though by now in the sbr...
its not a non-issue though... obviously it is as seen by how many people have responded to it.
I think its pretty obvious its an issue with a lot of people.

edit: sorry for double post... ; ; I thought someone would have responded in between

 

[Yuna]

also, and no offense, I don't think you or adumbrodeus would be good judges either.... it has nothing to do with how well you are at understanding the arguments though.... I just think it would be better to have judges coming from an outside perspective and who could interpret both the arguments in the thread without possible preexisting biases from this thread...

Why would we let "outside perspective people" (i.e., "unbiased people who have not yet taken a stance"?) waltz in and make our arguments for us? This is a "battle" between the pro- and anti-ban sides. Of course the most qualified people for the job would be, you know, the pro- and anti-ban people.

I'm sure the issue must have come up though by now in the sbr...

I never claimed differently.

its not a non-issue though... obviously it is as seen by how many people have responded to it.

A non-issue to the SBR.

 

[Hive]

we would want outside people to be judges because the point of the thread as stated is to reach out to otherwise uninformed or people still deciding so it would be key to have people who would be from that same perspective.
i think raphael and adumbrodeus though already have thoughts on the subject though don't they? You'd want a judge who would be able to see both sides from a fresh perspective. its the same qualities you'd want for any judge.

if you just wanted people who have already taken a heavy stance to argue though, well, there is already a pretty large thread for this... :D

 

[Yuna]

we would want outside people to be judges because the point of the thread as stated is to reach out to otherwise uninformed or people still deciding so it would be key to have people who would be from that same perspective.

But they have no/little/maybe just a bit insight into our side, what we know, what we think, why we think the way we do, our arguments, etc., etc. They wouldn't know what constitutes a good or valid argument!

i think raphael and adumbrodeus though already have thoughts on the subject though don't they? You'd want a judge who would be able to see both sides from a fresh perspective. its the same qualities you'd want for any judge.

We're not judging which side is "right", we're merely going to be constructing a bunch of arguments to throw at the pro-ban side to represent our views. Our judges do not need to be unbiased.

 

[Brinzy]

it wouln't create concrete arguments at all though... it would just spark the same arguments...
people won't see the thread as an answer i don't think though... it will just be seen as another cg thread, and attract the same people.

It's possible that the same people would show up. However, the point of the new thread would be to have the anti-ban side refine our arguments as much as we can in order to clearly lay out why we do not believe King Dedede's infinite should be banned so the pro-ban side, if they really believed that it should be banned, would not have to look any further than the first post to understand the exact argument that we're making here. It would also be a reference point to address what has been refuted and what still needs to be refuted.

If the pro-ban side can successfully refute most of it with valid examples and ideas, then maybe we could get to a new point in the discussion to truly bring this to an end instead of just brushing it under the rug. If they cannot, then the anti-ban's side will prove to have the stronger argument for now and the infinite will see more reason to stay unbanned than to be banned. If we all simply "ignored" this thread and went on about our business... the infinite will still not be banned. If the pro-ban side wants to see this thing banned, it'll have to work with this. The pro-ban side lacks the luxury to just ignore this.

also, and no offense, I don't think you or adumbrodeus would be good judges either.... it has nothing to do with how well you are at understanding the arguments though.... I just think it would be better to have judges coming from an outside perspective and who could interpret both the arguments in the thread without possible preexisting biases from this thread...

We would probably be the jury of our side.

 

[Hive]

lol so basically you guys are just compiling arguments exclusively one-sided for a thread?? lol that would solve nothing, and finding judges that already agree with you would solve nothing except for finding confirmation biases that probably aren't appreciated outside of your perspective

actually i think successor of raphael should make the anti-ban side though if there is a thread... he is good at answering concerns patiently and on topic. I enjoy hearing his responses...

however I think the thread will have a biased direction in favor of anti-ban, and probably will end up in the same discussion. As with all arguments it will just end up with people trying to assume which ban criteria to use and exaggerating the effects of the ban and how many people it effects (its not 2). I'd be against it if the pro-ban side proposed the same thing too.

 

[Yuna]

lol so basically you guys are just compiling arguments exclusively one-sided for a thread?

Are you even reading what we're saying or are you just ignoring certain parts of our posts in order to "refute" them better?! (Ah, the irony, the one complaining about strawmanning is strawmanning)

We're going to compile an extensive list of arguments so that people won't have to read 300+ pages of text to get the gist of things. All they'll have to do is read the OP. They can then proceed to take a stance (if they are undecided) or try to refute the opposing side's arguments (if they wish to).

This thread would be a place for both sides to debate.

All of this without having to sift through countless pages of posts first. It'd be a more efficient way of conducting the debate.

 

[Hive]

the op will be biased and probably won't represent all of the views that are put forth.... its bound to spark the same sort of discussion.... haven't people tried similar things before?

 

[Yuna]

the op will be biased and probably won't represent all of the views that are put forth.... its bound to spark the same sort of discussion.... haven't people tried similar things before?

It will be equally biased for both sides. The pro-ban side can present whatever they wish to present and it will be included.

 

[Hive]

it won't reach out to new people though, it will just end up with the same sort of debate from people convinced of one side or the other.
and I doubt it won't be biased... as in this thread where most of the active people are just anti-ban now.... and it is not from lack of pro-ban. people get sick of arguing the same points over and over again...