Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Titanium Dragon]

Thing is, its not even a great example, as A) it wasn't banned and B) Sirlin himself points out that he doesn't take the game seriously, but people who do take it seriously say the game is still good with it in.

Of course, its perfectly fair to write off such a game (as Sirlin apparently did) as being a bad game, which is really the correct thing to do. If you think the game has something broken which isn't fixable, then it should simply not be played.

 

[Toesrus]

Why should banning the infinite be such a **** problem when it only affects 6 characters?
It won't change ANYTHING vs. any of the other characters.
It's in the best interest of everyone, giving the fact that all the characters affected are mid or lower tier, except for DK.

 

[Brinzy]

Thing is, its not even a great example, as A) it wasn't banned and B) Sirlin himself points out that he doesn't take the game seriously, but people who do take it seriously say the game is still good with it in.

It not being banned =/= it wasn't warranted

Yes, it was a bad game, but for the... fourth? time now, I'm just saying that problematic techs can over-centralize.

It's in the best interest of everyone

Not DDD.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

Its not in the best interests of anyone, really. It cheapens the game, allows for cheating, is completely arbitrary, and is non-competitive.

DeDeDe does not dominate tournaments, and DK still sees fairly significant play in spite of the abominable DeDeDe matchup. Ergo, there isn't a problem.

In some ways its advantageous for DK - he's more rarely seen because of it, and thus you can pull him out and you're more likely to be able to beat down someone with him because he's a pretty good character who they're likely not to be very experienced playing against, and may well have dismissed him entirely because he loses to DeDeDe.

Guess what? When you're picking blind, or worse still, picking first, you aren't going to always play DeDeDe or WANT to play DeDeDe.

 

[Sonicdahedgie]

Why should banning the infinite be such a **** problem when it only affects 6 characters?
It won't change ANYTHING vs. any of the other characters.
It's in the best interest of everyone, giving the fact that all the characters affected are mid or lower tier, except for DK.

It only affects six characters, so it doesn't matter if you ban it, right?
Six characters that are ALREADY lower tiers.
Like you just said.

And if they're lower tiers, don't they deserve to not be gimped against SPECIFICALLY high tier character?

 

[Toesrus]

Not DDD.

Okay then.
DDD is already top tier, yet it's still in his best interest to have an INFINITE combo on 6 mid tier characters?
Brawl hardly has any combos as it is, and to have a character with an infinite combo completely destroys the balance(or what little amout of balance) of the game.

Please give a valid reason to why you are anti-ban, instead of just posting one sentance or pointing out errors in the pro-ban side's reason.

 

[Sonicdahedgie]

Successor, I think Toesrus kinda has you there. As it stands, banning it WOULD be in the best interest of everyone, as in balancing the game so the more skilled player is actually the one who wins.


Banning isn't to be thought of from the point of view of that single character. You have to think about the metagame of all characters involved, which as far as it seems to me, you aren't doing.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

It only affects six characters, so it doesn't matter if you ban it, right?
Six characters that are ALREADY lower tiers.
Like you just said.

And if they're lower tiers, don't they deserve to not be gimped against SPECIFICALLY high tier character?

There is no "deserve". All there is is what is, and what is not.

Deserve, that's meaningless.

Brawl hardly has any combos as it is, and to have a character with an infinite combo completely destroys the balance(or what little amout of balance) of the game.

No, it doesn't.

Successor, I think Toesrus kinda has you there. As it stands, banning it WOULD be in the best interest of everyone, as in balancing the game so the more skilled player is actually the one who wins.

No. Because, guess what?

The better player knows when to play DeDeDe, and when to play DK.

Sorry, but you're thinking like a scrub. Think like a competitive player.

There are completely, 100% safe times to pick DK (whenever you lose a game). This means that unless you 2-0 every match (in which case, you really cannot complain - oh no, I win so often I cannot play DK safely in tournaments!), there is ALWAYS a safe opportunity to play DK unless your opponent picks DeDeDe first. And if they do, you can play an anti-DeDeDe character (which every player with a good DK should have) and trash them with it to punish them for doing it.

You can also mindgame people with this so you can pick DK blind as well. If you're known for having a good DK and an excellent anti-DeDeDe character, then your opponent is put in a bind - do they play DeDeDe, and potentially get trashed by your blind picked anti-DeDeDe, or do they not pick DeDeDe, and potentially have to face your very strong DK?

Its not like you cannot play DK, and its not like these strategies do not require skill/understanding. The more skilled player WILL know the above, and will understand it. The less skilled player won't.

Knowing which character to play in which round of what matches is a real and useful skill.

 

[Brinzy]

Alright, I'm anti-ban because this is a technique that is basically a long combo, which makes it kinda funny that you say Brawl barely has any combos. It can't be used for stalling, so you don't even have to worry about that. DK and DDD are the only ones truly hit by an "infinite" because the grabbing DDD does not move and can do it at any point of the stage and not run out of room. Bowser has a small step, so that's basically the three that mainly matter. Mario, Luigi, and Samus can break out prior to ~130%; after that, they get hit by the infinite, but they should be dead around that time anyway.

It does not matter that DDD is top tier. It does not matter that the lower tiers are affected by it. All that matters is that you don't ban, essentially, a long combo in order to have a fair, balanced game. You ban things like freezing glitches and removing characters from a playing field completely so they are not harmed in order to keep the game from becoming unruly. You do not ban long combos that affect two characters at lower damages (or three, but let's ignore DDD) and six altogether in a game of nearly 40 characters. It gives them bad match-ups, yes, but bad match-ups are not meant to be ironed out to make good ones unless one character is giving everyone a significantly horrible fight.

If you're going to give yourself a decent shot in competitive gaming, you're not going to want to play match-ups where you're simply at such a large disadvantage that you'd have to face someone who is way worse than you in order to beat them with DK or Bowser. A sensible person would counterpick against this and would only bring out said character when it's safe to... or they would just use said character because DDD does not make up even half of a tournament. With only a handful of DDDs, less DKs, and even less of the rest of them, one should not be running into this problem for the first round many times, if at all. If it's time to CP, then switch to a secondary.

Overall, it's just a long combo... which affects a few characters (and not even all of them immediately). This combo provides a bad match-up for those who are caught in this. Bad match-ups are supposed to happen, and combos are supposed to happen. This is no different from anything else except people read the word "infinite" and think that it'll be used forever and ever when stalling itself is already banned. Just because it's "easy" to do, it "destroys" characters, and it hurts low tier characters does not warrant a ban.

 

[Sonicdahedgie]

The game is intended to have all characters equally balanced. But naturally, some characters end up better than others. For the most part, it's simply the way the character is made. But Dedede's infinite chain grab has to be a "glitch" in the game, seeing as the developers would never intentionally put something in the game like it. I believe it has been previously established that things are banned when they harm the metagame. Lower tier characters already have their metagame harmed simply by being lower tier. If, in a competition, someone can counter pick with Dedede, people would be LESS willing to use the characters in tournaments.


I think counters characters are a natural part of the game, but seeing as this single tactic can utterly slaughter six characters without a fight, it shouldn't be considered a counter.
____________
Note: I'm extremely tired, so I'm excluding the entire DK dimension of my argument. For all intents and purposes, I'm talking about banning the chain grab from use on the other five characters, letting it be legal against DK, since I don't know enough about DK vs. Dedede metagame.

@Successor, my point of damaging metagames would be the counter to your post. Too lazy to type up more.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

Not to mention the fact that this encourages playlist depth; if you can play DeDeDe, you can whip him out against a DK, even if he's not your main; if you play DK, then sometimes you can pull him out and win with him against someone who isn't familiar enough with them (or for some weird character your main isn't good against but DK is, ect.).

The game is intended to have all characters equally balanced. But naturally, some characters end up better than others. For the most part, it's simply the way the character is made. But Dedede's infinite chain grab has to be a "glitch" in the game, seeing as the developers would never intentionally put something in the game like it. I believe it has been previously established that things are banned when they harm the metagame. Lower tier characters already have their metagame harmed simply by being lower tier. If, in a competition, someone can counter pick with Dedede, people would be LESS willing to use the characters in tournaments.

Designer intent is utterly irrelevant. Never, ever use it as an argument, it is always 100% wrong as far as end product goes.

It being a glitch is likewise entirely irrelevant. Wavedashing is a glitch by your definition.

Chain throws are almost invariably unintentional because they're degenerate, but just because a game has chain throws doesn't mean it is bad or even very unbalanced in the grand scheme of things. Same goes for infinites. Its not good game design, and good game designers should remove it. (Incidentally, this isn't a glitch, as the behavior is intentionally coded into the game; it simply had unintended consequences. Same applies to wavedashing as well; it was simply a strange emergent property of the mechanics. As opposed to, say, Ness's Yo-Yo glitch, which was not put in intentionally at all and is the result of the game not functioning properly).

But we aren't game designers. We're players. Our limits are what the game actually allows us to do, not what the designer wanted to be possible. It doesn't matter that it is unintentional. All that matters is what can be done in the game.

DeDeDe's chaingrab does not hurt the metagame. Your argument is "I believe", which means "I'm wrong". Your beliefs are irrelevant, what matters are the facts. DK still sees a good amount of play and still is useful, and the rest are bad for a wide variety of reasons, not just "Oh, DeDeDe beats them." They suck because they suck, or no one knows how to use them properly, not because one character has an infinite on them which is almost entirely irrelevant against all but three characters because, at 130%, a grab = death is perfectly acceptable, so the infinite doesn't actually matter - if he had a throw which just killed them at that percentage, it wouldn't change the situation at all, so clearly any argument on the basis of them being infinited is irrelevant.

Bowser can be CGed to death oftentimes, and DeDeDe and DK can both be killed with a true infinite. But the reality is that DeDeDe is perfectly viable in spite of this, and DK still does pretty well and is still used regardless of the fact that he can be infinited. And let's face it, Bowser's fatal flaw isn't the DeDeDe matchup.

So how is this hurting the metagame? It isn't.

 

[Brinzy]

The game is intended to have all characters equally balanced. But naturally, some characters end up better than others. For the most part, it's simply the way the character is made. But Dedede's infinite chain grab has to be a "glitch" in the game, seeing as the developers would never intentionally put something in the game like it.

Developers' intention is completely meaningless when it comes to competitive gaming.

I believe it has been previously established that things are banned when they harm the metagame. Lower tier characters already have their metagame harmed simply by being lower tier. If, in a competition, someone can counter pick with Dedede, people would be LESS willing to use the characters in tournaments.

@Successor, my point of damaging metagames would be the counter to your post. Too lazy to type up more.

Raising lower tier characters to a playable standard is never really the intention of bans or... well, competitive fighting in general. Characters are, as you know, lower tier in games for various reasons. The presence of an infinite is usually not strong enough to knock characters to lower tier if they would've otherwise been high tier. Removing this infinite would barely help one match-up for the lower tiers because they already have a hell of a fight laid out in front of them, as far as I can tell. It wouldn't be impossible for them to win without it, of course, but it's so insignificant for the lower tiers (excluding DK of course) because they're not even caught by it until 130%.

"Every little bit counts", you might say. Well, banning what I keep calling a "long combo", to me, counts as a lot because it's so similar to other chaingrabs that it's not even funny for us to try and single it out, especially considering the few it affects.

 

[Sonicdahedgie]

Not to mention the fact that this encourages playlist depth; if you can play DeDeDe, you can whip him out against a DK, even if he's not your main; if you play DK, then sometimes you can pull him out and win with him against someone who isn't familiar enough with them (or for some weird character your main isn't good against but DK is, ect.).

Huh? Who's post is this in relation to? Can you explain your thesis here? Cause I'm confused.



And, here's my response to Successor.

Developers' intention is completely meaningless when it comes to competitive gaming.

I'm gonna give a quick opinionated rant. You don't have to read this.
I think video gamers need to treat everyone with honor and respect. We are today's equivalent of gladiators. Everyone should be given the same equal chance. If there is something unbalanced that we CAN fix, I think it is our responsibility to take the initiative and fix it ourselves. The game should be a contest of skill, and it's we should show that we think of it that way. If there's something unfair, and we say, "Oh, it's a counter pick. It's part of the strategy." I think it represents us as people who aren't bound by honor, and are focusing on wining rather than having a fair competition.

Raising lower tier characters to a playable standard is never really the intention of bans or... well, competitive fighting in general. Characters are, as you know, lower tier in games for various reasons. The presence of an infinite is usually not strong enough to knock characters to lower tier if they would've otherwise been high tier. Removing this infinite would barely help one match-up for the lower tiers because they already have a hell of a fight laid out in front of them, as far as I can tell. It wouldn't be impossible for them to win without it, of course, but it's so insignificant for the lower tiers (excluding DK of course) because they're not even caught by it until 130%.

I'm not saying the characters are low tiers because of the chain grab. I'm saying that it hurts their metagame. Through out the Metaknight arguments, the question was, "Does it hurt the metagame?" I think it DEFINITELY hurts the metagame of the lower tier characters. This is why I said I was not debating about Donkey Kong. DK has a higher ranking, and the Dedede matchup IS more of just a counter. The grab doesn't have too much of an effect on his metagame because he can be used against plenty of other characters.

Consider the question yourself, and actually think about it. "Does Dedede's chain grab harm the other five character's metagames?"
And remember to consider everything fomr the other character's points of view.


"Every little bit counts", you might say. Well, banning what I keep calling a "long combo", to me, counts as a lot because it's so similar to other chaingrabs that it's not even funny for us to try and single it out, especially considering the few it affects.
Be careful what you say. Remember that the number of characters it affects is not a reason to keep it legal.

Should I call you Successor or Raphael? do you have a preference?

 

[Titanium Dragon]

It was a response to SoR's post. The fact that DK has such a strong counter encourages people to pick up DeDeDe and learn how to play him, as it is a strong reward vs the odd DK player; likewise DK himself is pretty good, but is underused, so if you take advantage of this fact you can have a powreful secondary or tertiary which you can whip out to confound people who haven't done their homework.

This is perfectly acceptable, and it is also perfectly acceptable to exploit a metagame; indeed, you should do so. This is a huge consideration in Magic: the Gathering; people spend tons of time figuring out which decks everyone else will play, so that they can play the deck that beats that deck.

A great example of this phenomenon in Magic was Owling Mine, the worst deck to T8 a Pro Tour this century. Owling Mine revolves around Howling Mine, a card which causes both players to draw extra cards, and Ebony Owl Netsuke, a card which deals a player damage if they have seven cards in their hand. It played a ton of cards which are normally awful cards, and played a lot of bounce - cards which return played cards to their owner's hand, which are okay but always generate card disadvantage for the user of the bounce card.

The deck was awful because it constantly generated card disadvantage for itself (Howling Mine and a Howling Mine esque card are both card disadvantage, because your opponent didn't have to spend a card to draw an extra card, AND draws before you do), but great because in the metagame, everyone was playing decks which cast expensive (high mana cost) cards, cards which you can normally only play after several turns. This deck caused people to draw so many expensive cards they couldn't play them all, so they were forced to discard cards, thus negating the normal card disadvantage as the Owling Mine deck consisted entirely of cheap cards, so they never had to discard. Likewise, the bounce, ordinarily card disadvantage, became incredibly powerful removal because you almost invariably had a full hand playing against Owling Mine, meaning if a card got bounced to your hand you'd almost invariably have to discard.

So, basically, the deck turned the normal assumptions of the game on its head; you drew so many cards that it actually forced you to discard them, and you were taking damage from cards which punished you for having a full hand, cards which are quite cheap in mana cost because they're bad (as you almost never have a full hand save in the beginning of the game). The deck was excellent because everyone was playing decks which were highly vulnerable to it and played too many expensive spells.

So those decks made the top eight of the tournament. But there they met their maker, the guy who TRULY read the metagame. Actually, two of them. They played "aggro" decks, decks which kill their opponent quickly with lots of small, cheap creatures. Normally these decks are vulnerable to cards which destroy large numbers of creatures, as they have no means of drawing extra cards (all their cards are cheap creatures/damage spells because that makes them faster and kill more consistently, earlier). As it turns out, this went under the slower, big mana decks (because they were so fast that the expensive cards, by the time they were played, were too late and the aggro player had them at such a low life total they'd just throw a spell at them and kill them) and slaughtered Owling Mine, because Owling Mine caused the deck to draw extra cheap cards, and because they cost so little they were easy to recast and bouncing lands wasn't terribly effective. Basically, Owling Mine covered the only weakness the aggro deck had, so the match was completely unwinnable as Owling Mine couldn't get its kill condition (a full hand) and the aggro deck could sometimes win simply by casting all the direct damage spells it drew. There were decks which could beat these aggro decks as well, but they were completely nonviable because they lost to the big mana decks which were so prevalent at the time, so the few people who played the aggro decks could expect favorable matchups all day.

It was perfectly acceptable for Owling Mine to crush the big mana decks, and for the aggro deck to crush Owling Mine, and in the end it made the metagame healthier because the big-mana decks WERE good against the decks which beat the aggro decks, so you ended up with a situation where people had to figure out what other people were going to do that week so they could play the deck that countered that.

 

[Sonicdahedgie]

It was a response to SoR's post. The fact that DK has such a strong counter encourages people to pick up DeDeDe and learn how to play him, as it is a strong reward vs the odd DK player; likewise DK himself is pretty good, but is underused, so if you take advantage of this fact you can have a powreful secondary or tertiary which you can whip out to confound people who haven't done their homework.

But, what about my idea of leaving it as a legal maneuver against DK? One must purse the interests of both the minority and the majority.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

No, we only care about what is competitive, as that's what tournaments are for - competition.

Your idea is a bad one. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to ban it at all, ever, because it doesn't cause problems. Yeah, it can lead to a curbstomping, but that's what you get for playing the wrong character.

 

[Sonicdahedgie]

But it would be more competitive if more characters were played-ASSUMING they're real viable options. This is still similar to the Metaknight topic. Dedede counters all of these characters. There needs to be reason for people to play as other characters.

At least, Dedede's chain grab should be limited to three times (or maybe five times) per stock on the specific characters.

People are not going to attempt to find counters to Dedede with these characters knowing that if he grabs them once, they're screwed. When I said "the interests of both the minority and the majority," I meant the metagames of both the high and low tier characters in this situation. I'm trying to suggest solutions that allow the other characters to be played, but allow Dedede to keep some of the benifits he gets from the chain grab. But you continue to say, "They're the idiots that tried to play other characters."

 

[Titanium Dragon]

But it would be more competitive if more characters were played-ASSUMING they're real viable options. This is still similar to the Metaknight topic. Dedede counters all of these characters. There needs to be reason for people to play as other characters.

No.

More characters =! more competitive.

And yes, we can compare to MK. You are advocating banning DeDeDe, you just don't understand that.

You cannot do this:

At least, Dedede's chain grab should be limited to three times (or maybe five times) per stock on the specific characters.

This is not viable. Period.

I recommend you read Sirlin's website, and you'll better understand why this entire line of thought is worthless.

People are not going to attempt to find counters to Dedede with these characters knowing that if he grabs them once, they're screwed. When I said "the interests of both the minority and the majority," I meant the metagames of both the high and low tier characters in this situation. I'm trying to suggest solutions that allow the other characters to be played, but allow Dedede to keep some of the benifits he gets from the chain grab. But you continue to say, "They're the idiots that tried to play other characters."

Scrubs are not going to attempt to find counters to DeDeDe. But that doesn't mean good players won't.

And there's already a potent counter - don't pick DK when your opponent can pick DeDeDe.

Seriously, read Sirlin's website. You can find it at www.Sirlin.net . Read his playing to win series, and possibly his free online book, Playing to Win.

 

[Brinzy]

I'm gonna give a quick opinionated rant. You don't have to read this.
I think video gamers need to treat everyone with honor and respect. We are today's equivalent of gladiators. Everyone should be given the same equal chance. If there is something unbalanced that we CAN fix, I think it is our responsibility to take the initiative and fix it ourselves. The game should be a contest of skill, and it's we should show that we think of it that way. If there's something unfair, and we say, "Oh, it's a counter pick. It's part of the strategy." I think it represents us as people who aren't bound by honor, and are focusing on wining rather than having a fair competition.

See, what you're thinking of is not a bad thing. However, for some games, patches are available. Patches are great for this type of thing if it's absolutely necessary. However, in a game that does not receive patches, like Brawl, we're only left with a more extreme option - bans.

To understand the art of competitive gaming, you basically have to take out some degree of "common sense" and "equality" in order to have space for understanding why people treat competitive games differently than... say, chess. Competitive gaming isn't about giving every playable character an equal chance. Any amount of equality mainly goes towards the actual players... in the sense that everyone has access to the same things.

It's like if we all told ourselves to pick a weapon to fight each other with. If I picked a sword, and you picked a swordbreaker (basically, a sword that has these ridges which can catch other blades and snap/bend them), why should you be given a rule to not use your special trait against me even though I should stand no chance at winning against you? Whether I picked a kitchen knife or a rapier should not matter when it comes to facing off against your swordbreaker. If I were to fight other people 1 vs. 1, I would not want to lose to a mechanism that I basically can't eliminate. Instead, I would pick a lance and fight you like that, unless I knew my sword stood a good chance.

Basically, we're not trying to make the kitchen knife as good as the lance or the swordbreaker or even the rapier. We're trying to pick what gives us a good chance at winning based off of what advantages and disadvantages I get when I select that weapon. The knife will be at a disadvantage for various reasons, not JUST because the swordbreaker can potentially destroy it. Removing the swordbreaking ability would still leave it at a significant advantage. We need reasons that fall under the realm of competitive gaming/dueling as to why it should be banned, not reasons that extend outside of it (such as making sure every weapon can compete, when we just want every player to be able to compete). Likewise, if I only knew how to use a kitchen knife, then I deserve hard fights.

I'm not saying the characters are low tiers because of the chain grab. I'm saying that it hurts their metagame. Through out the Metaknight arguments, the question was, "Does it hurt the metagame?" I think it DEFINITELY hurts the metagame of the lower tier characters. This is why I said I was not debating about Donkey Kong. DK has a higher ranking, and the Dedede matchup IS more of just a counter. The grab doesn't have too much of an effect on his metagame because he can be used against plenty of other characters.

Consider the question yourself, and actually think about it. "Does Dedede's chain grab harm the other five character's metagames?"
And remember to consider everything fomr the other character's points of view.

Undeniably, this hurts each of those characters at least a little bit. However, DDD's chaingrabbing issue is still a small part of why they're low. I understand that you understand that they're not low tier solely because of the grab, but it is necessary to know that in the end, we're left with bad fights. Theses bad fights will not turn good if we ban this. DDD's presence harms each character enough as it stands. The amount that this grab affects them is so extremely small that getting rid of it won't do much for them. However, on the other hand, by getting rid of this small, small inconvenience for the lower tiers, you end up completely changing a fight for DK (because if you ban one, you have to ban them all).

They're not going to face DDD that much. Mario, Luigi, and Samus are not affected until it is just about time for them to lose a stock in the first place. Bowser is given one more rough fight to deal with, but this isn't really most of his trouble anyway. He's still effective against MK, so it won't completely kill his metagame.

Should I call you Successor or Raphael? do you have a preference?

Anything is fine.

 

[Sonicdahedgie]

No.

More characters =! more competitive.

And yes, we can compare to MK. You are advocating banning DeDeDe, you just don't understand that.

You cannot do this:



This is not viable. Period.

I recommend you read Sirlin's website, and you'll better understand why this entire line of thought is worthless.

Sirlin, I believe, was the one who spoke of pretending that you've miscounted throws? It doens't matter if you miscounted, it's still breaking the rules.

Scrubs are not going to attempt to find counters to DeDeDe. But that doesn't mean good players won't.

If a good player finds a counter to Dedede, with the characters affected by his chain grab, it won't ever get executed, because Dedede would be able to grab the opponent long before they would kill off Dedede. The counter would never get used.

And there's already a potent counter - don't pick DK when your opponent can pick DeDeDe.
I have already established I am not talking about Donkey Kong, I am talking about the characters besides DK..

See, what you're thinking of is not a bad thing. However, for some games, patches are available. Patches are great for this type of thing if it's absolutely necessary. However, in a game that does not receive patches, like Brawl, we're only left with a more extreme option - bans.

To understand the art of competitive gaming, you basically have to take out some degree of "common sense" and "equality" in order to have space for understanding why people treat competitive games differently than... say, chess. Competitive gaming isn't about giving every playable character an equal chance. Any amount of equality mainly goes towards the actual players... in the sense that everyone has access to the same things.

It's like if we all told ourselves to pick a weapon to fight each other with. If I picked a sword, and you picked a swordbreaker (basically, a sword that has these ridges which can catch other blades and snap/bend them), why should you be given a rule to not use your special trait against me even though I should stand no chance at winning against you? Whether I picked a kitchen knife or a rapier should not matter when it comes to facing off against your swordbreaker. If I were to fight other people 1 vs. 1, I would not want to lose to a mechanism that I basically can't eliminate. Instead, I would pick a lance and fight you like that, unless I knew my sword stood a good chance.

Basically, we're not trying to make the kitchen knife as good as the lance or the swordbreaker or even the rapier. We're trying to pick what gives us a good chance at winning based off of what advantages and disadvantages I get when I select that weapon. The knife will be at a disadvantage for various reasons, not JUST because the swordbreaker can potentially destroy it. Removing the swordbreaking ability would still leave it at a significant advantage. We need reasons that fall under the realm of competitive gaming/dueling as to why it should be banned, not reasons that extend outside of it (such as making sure every weapon can compete, when we just want every player to be able to compete). Likewise, if I only knew how to use a kitchen knife, then I deserve hard fights.

I already said I accept the existence of counters. Yes, maybe there is a sword breaker. But I'm saying that if you know how to use your sword well enough, you'll win. But if you choose one of five hypothetical swords, my sword breaker suddenly gains the abilities of Ivy's sword in Sould Caliber, and now you're just screwed no matter what.

If you want to choose the weapon that's going to be more difficult, that's your choice. I know it's a stupid choice, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the ability that shouldn't exist in the first place because it's ALREADY going to be hard. If someone with who happens to mian only those five characters gets ALL the way up to the semi-finals, why should they just throw their controller out the window and leave because their opponent knows this single move?

Also, what if the player did know how to beat Dedede easily with these characters? What if he DID have the PERFECT counter, but he was screwed because of the grab?


Undeniably, this hurts each of those characters at least a little bit. However, DDD's chaingrabbing issue is still a small part of why they're low. I understand that you understand that they're not low tier solely because of the grab, but it is necessary to know that in the end, we're left with bad fights. Theses bad fights will not turn good if we ban this. DDD's presence harms each character enough as it stands. The amount that this grab affects them is so extremely small that getting rid of it won't do much for them. However, on the other hand, by getting rid of this small, small inconvenience for the lower tiers, you end up completely changing a fight for DK (because if you ban one, you have to ban them all).

They're not going to face DDD that much. Mario, Luigi, and Samus are not affected until it is just about time for them to lose a stock in the first place. Bowser is given one more rough fight to deal with, but this isn't really most of his trouble anyway. He's still effective against MK, so it won't completely kill his metagame.



Anything is fine.

Successor, I'm sure you understand my thinking in the difference between the chain grab and being a better character. The Chain grab is probably the first thing that should get patched, I'd like to think we're honorable enough to "patch" it ourselves.

 

[chaos11011]

I think it shouldnt be ban if you can dodge it it isnt harmful

 

[Luigi player]

I think it shouldnt be ban if you can dodge it it isnt harmful

You can't really dodge it. If you could nobody would need it banned.

 

[chaos11011]

what I mean is dont get grabbed

 

[Sonicdahedgie]

Chaos, go an entire competitive three stock match without getting grabbed when the person isn't trying and you are a god.


Titanium, Sirlin does have a point, but that point is completely null and void in Smash Brothers. This game had so many nuances and ATs that it'scan be impossible to deviate the intended from the unintended. Streetfighter has a very clear cut set of moves and characters, and you know what is intended. The terms "Scrub" is not applicable in this game.
The Smash Boards vote for Metaknight was about 2-1. According to the definiteion of "scrub," and entire third of the Back Room Brawlers don't play to win.


Are ITEMS allowed in tournamets? What would you call them? "Cheap"? Then you're a scrub.

I choose Big Blue to play on for a tournament round. Is that cheap as well?

Ok, I'll freaking unplug your controller. Cheap? what a scrub.
________

I tihnk you understand my point by now. You can't apply Sirlin's train of thought in its entirety to Brawl. We've ALREADY banned things from tournament play because they're unfair. By your definition, every single person that enters tournaments is a scrub.

 

[chaos11011]

you can predict your opponent but other than that i still say it shouldnt be banned.

 

[Luigi player]

what I mean is dont get grabbed

Yeah, but that's impossible.

 

[chaos11011]

ok so its impossible than ok you guys win

 

[Sonicdahedgie]

I don't think he believe us.

Lulz.

 

[Luigi player]

ok so its impossible than ok you guys win

If it would be possible I wouldn't want it banned. But it isn't and you have like a 0 % chance to win.

 

[chaos11011]

ok just nevermind i belive you im just saying sudgestions

 

[Titanium Dragon]

Sirlin, I believe, was the one who spoke of pretending that you've miscounted throws? It doens't matter if you miscounted, it's still breaking the rules.

No. Again, I suggest you read his website.

And I think you didn't understand my posts.

Titanium, Sirlin does have a point, but that point is completely null and void in Smash Brothers. This game had so many nuances and ATs that it'scan be impossible to deviate the intended from the unintended. Streetfighter has a very clear cut set of moves and characters, and you know what is intended. The terms "Scrub" is not applicable in this game.

No. The term scrub is applicable to every competitive game. Every single one of them.

You simply didn't understand what he wrote. Which is understandable, as, as was pointed out by Sirlin himself, if you don't understand it you won't understand it.

A scrub is someone who has imaginary rules. That's really what it boils down to. They don't play the game, they play an imaginary game which doesn't really exist. They don't play by the rules, but by a made up set of rules which aren't the actual rules of the game.

If the game allows you to throw someone fifty times in a row, that's the rule. The game may be a good game or a bad game, but that's the way it is. If the game is a bad game because of it, you shouldn't play it. Making up imaginary rules doesn't work.

You cannot say "Well, you should restrict them to throwing only five times in a row." This is not how the game works. It requires a judge to sit there and watch to enforce it, which is unreasonable for most tournaments. Worse still, though, is the fact that the optimal strategy is still to simply throw them the maximum number of times. You should simply play to that maximum, and it doesn't solve the problem in any way.

The Smash Boards vote for Metaknight was about 2-1. According to the definiteion of "scrub," and entire third of the Back Room Brawlers don't play to win.

The Smash community is noted for a large number of scrubs in the community; we have an unusually large number. That applies even to MBR members, though not everyone who voted to ban MK was a scrub; some feel that he is simply unacceptably powerful and has no bad matchups.

But many probably are scrubs, and the SBR has been culled since that time. As for the Smash Boards as a whole, a huge percentage of them are scrubs; I'd put it at somewhere between 60 and 75% scrub.

Are ITEMS allowed in tournamets? What would you call them? "Cheap"? Then you're a scrub.

Certain items are allowed in certain tournaments, and the reality is that the scrubs really hate items because they john about them all the time. "Oh, you got lucky with that beam sword/fruit/whatever".

This is not to say that a lot of items are not justifiably banned. Smash balls, Pokeballs, ect. are all banned, and with good reason - they're too random and the game loses skill intensity because of it. You can control the stage all you want, and pressure all you want, but if someone gets lucky and grabs a pokeball which kills you instantly, that's a stock off for free which is unpredictable and, occaisionally, unpreventable.

I choose Big Blue to play on for a tournament round. Is that cheap as well?

Its not cheap. There is no such thing as cheap. Cheap is a construct created by scrubs.

There is what is, and what is not. Big Blue is banned because it was deemed to be too random. Its arguable as a decision, and it may change at some point in the future.

Ok, I'll freaking unplug your controller. Cheap? what a scrub.

Except that's not a part of the game.

I suggest you read Sirlin's website. Until you do, you'll never understand what we're talking about. But even if you do read it, its not guaranteed you'll understand or even want to understand.

Yeah, but that's impossible.

If avoiding being grabbed is impossible, then banning the infinite is meaningless, because I can always just grab you.

Ergo, your argument is still completely without value.

You can ban a Magic card. You cannot ban using Dark Ritual to pay for Hypnotic Specter.

You can ban a stage. You cannot ban using DeDeDe on some random stage.

You can ban a character. You cannot ban using a character against another character.

You can ban an item. You cannot ban using an item in a certain way.

Bans must be discrete, they must be enforcable, and they must be justified.

This isn't discrete, because there's no real distinction to be had.

This isn't reasonable to enforce, because of the time/staff it would take to enforce it.

This isn't justified, because no character is bad because of it.

There are 0-deaths possible in this game. This is but one means of doing so. There are others. And they are emergent properties of the game, combos which kill you. Its just the way things go. Don't like it? Don't play the game, or ban the characters capable of it. You cannot ban it as a tactic, though.

 

[Sonicdahedgie]

No. Again, I suggest you read his website.

And I think you didn't understand my posts.



No. The term scrub is applicable to every competitive game. Every single one of them.

I meant Sirlin's definition of Scrub specifically, not the term itseld.

You simply didn't understand what he wrote. Which is understandable, as, as was pointed out by Sirlin himself, if you don't understand it you won't understand it.

I understand what Sirlin is saying perfectly, but I'm explaining why Sirlin's view isn't entirely applicable to this game. If you would actually read and understand my arguments, I think you would understand that I understand Sirin's law of understanding. (Yes, I strived to do that.)

A scrub is someone who has imaginary rules. That's really what it boils down to. They don't play the game, they play an imaginary game which doesn't really exist. They don't play by the rules, but by a made up set of rules which aren't the actual rules of the game.

If Bowser does his over b off the side and kill both him and his opponent, and the game goes into Sudden Death, Bowser is declared the winner. Why? Because we say so. If the game's timer runs out, the game goes into sudden death. Both players are supposed to kill them self and regardless of what the game itself says, we, by our own set of made up rules that contradict the game, say that the person with less damage wins.


If the game allows you to throw someone fifty times in a row, that's the rule. The game may be a good game or a bad game, but that's the way it is. If the game is a bad game because of it, you shouldn't play it. Making up imaginary rules doesn't work.

The game allows Metaknight. We should never ever consider banning him. Then why was there a debate?

You cannot say "Well, you should restrict them to throwing only five times in a row." This is not how the game works. It requires a judge to sit there and watch to enforce it, which is unreasonable for most tournaments. Worse still, though, is the fact that the optimal strategy is still to simply throw them the maximum number of times. You should simply play to that maximum, and it doesn't solve the problem in any way.

If the "optimal strategy" is against the rules, they wouldn't use it. If they did, they could easily report to the ref who would do something about it.



The Smash community is noted for a large number of scrubs in the community; we have an unusually large number. That applies even to MBR members, though not everyone who voted to ban MK was a scrub; some feel that he is simply unacceptably powerful and has no bad matchups.

But how would people who voted for Metaknights banning NOT be scrubs? They aren't trying to win by any means necessary. In fact, they're getting RID what they think is the best way to win. By your definition, they are scrubs, period, unless you can find a loophole in the definition.

But many probably are scrubs, and the SBR has been culled since that time. As for the Smash Boards as a whole, a huge percentage of them are scrubs; I'd put it at somewhere between 60 and 75% scrub.


Certain items are allowed in certain tournaments, and the reality is that the scrubs really hate items because they john about them all the time. "Oh, you got lucky with that beam sword/fruit/whatever".

If scrubs are the number one haters of items, why is the competitive scene much more itemless than item'ed?

This is not to say that a lot of items are not justifiably banned. Smash balls, Pokeballs, ect. are all banned, and with good reason - they're too random and the game loses skill intensity because of it. You can control the stage all you want, and pressure all you want, but if someone gets lucky and grabs a pokeball which kills you instantly, that's a stock off for free which is unpredictable and, occaisionally, unpreventable.


But these items are part of the game. The game's rules allow you o use them, so the scrub definition means that YOU'RE a scrub for not using these items to win. If someone's kicking your butt and you kill with a smash ball, you killed them by any means necessary, just like a real "pro."


Its not cheap. There is no such thing as cheap. Cheap is a construct created by scrubs.

You defined smash balls as cheap in the above paragraph, but you went through every effort to avoid any connection with the word so I couldn't use it as a defense against you.

There is what is, and what is not. Big Blue is banned because it was deemed to be too random. Its arguable as a decision, and it may change at some point in the future.

Big blue is. If Big Blue IS, how come it isn't?

Except that's not a part of the game.

The point is just to give extreme examples to show you how far the thinking could go.

I suggest you read Sirlin's website. Until you do, you'll never understand what we're talking about. But even if you do read it, its not guaranteed you'll understand or even want to understand.



If avoiding being grabbed is impossible, then banning the infinite is meaningless, because I can always just grab you.

Ergo, your argument is still completely without value.

I will credit you for a nice try, but we both know that the infinite grab and individual non-linking grabs are different. Grabs cna be avoided, but some will eventually land. If three normal grabs land, that's 50% damage, being generous. Three Infinite Chaingrabs mean three deaths, and would win the game.

I'm in bold. You know the drill.

-------Edit----

You can ban a Magic card. You cannot ban using Dark Ritual to pay for Hypnotic Specter.

You can ban a stage. You cannot ban using DeDeDe on some random stage.

The game's rules ALLOW someone to chose a stage.

You can ban a character. You cannot ban using a character against another character.

The game's rules allow anyone to pick any character they want. (Notice that there is no option anywhere in the game to prevent this.)

You can ban an item. You cannot ban using an item in a certain way.

Items have specific funtions by themselves. Banning the item IS banning using it in a certain way.

Bans must be discrete, they must be enforcable, and they must be justified.

This isn't discrete, because there's no real distinction to be had.

I think you may be confused on the definition of discrete, and you never said the ban wasn't justified. A justified ban should be put into practice, regardless of the practicality of enforcing it.
-EDIT-
I apologize, Dragon. I was the one with the wrong definition of discrete.

This isn't reasonable to enforce, because of the time/staff it would take to enforce it.

Ok then, ban it entirely. If someone does a single linked grab, pause the game, and have a judge watch the remainder of the round.

This isn't justified, because no character is bad because of it.
No character is bad because of MEtaknight, he just kicks the other character's butts

 

[bobson]

This isn't reasonable to enforce, because of the time/staff it would take to enforce it.

Stop saying this. This is completely untrue. If we can enforce the ban on IDC, we can enforce the ban on this.

 

[metaXzero]

Stop saying this. This is completely untrue. If we can enforce the ban on IDC, we can enforce the ban on this.

How does the ban on IDC (which I still disagree with) work anyway? Hope that no one uses Down-B ever?

 

[Luigi player]

If avoiding being grabbed is impossible, then banning the infinite is meaningless, because I can always just grab you.

Ergo, your argument is still completely without value.

It is possible to avoid some grabs during a stock, but it is not really possible to avoid all grabs during a stock.

You cannot be grabbed even once or you're dead.


Did you ever fight against a D3? Just count how many times he grabs you.

It is like Ice Climbers, but worse, because of his really good grab range + no Nana that you could hit away to be safe.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

Sonic, read Sirlin's website. He's addressed all this stuff.

I will credit you for a nice try, but we both know that the infinite grab and individual non-linking grabs are different. Grabs cna be avoided, but some will eventually land. If three normal grabs land, that's 50% damage, being generous. Three Infinite Chaingrabs mean three deaths, and would win the game.

There's no difference between an infinite and a 0-death; both result in you losing a stock. The only "real" difference is that infinites are easier to stall with, but stalling rules are metarules which exist to make tournament play functional.

Basically, its a stock match; the time limit exists to make sure the tournament runs along at a reasonable pace. Because this allows for stalling, tournaments have rules which eliminate your ability to do so, so the meta-rules cancel out.

Trying is only a prize if you learn from it.

And if you can't adjust your playstyle to minimize your odds of being grabbed, then its your own fault. Yes, this puts you at a disadvantage, but it is better than being 0-deathed (usually).

Stop saying this. This is completely untrue. If we can enforce the ban on IDC, we can enforce the ban on this.

Stalling rules are inherently easier to enforce than any other sort of similar rule because if someone claims their opponent is stalling, and the judge comes over, the opponent either has to cease stalling or be DQed; as the purpose is to stop the tactic, and you typically have excess time, anti-stalling rules are enforcable. This is not to say they aren't a PITA for TOs; even Magic, which has real tournaments, has trouble enforcing stalling rules, but they can and are enforced.

If I grab you six times, and you call a TO over, you're still taking whatever percentage I put you at. Reviewing the match takes a long time and delays the tournament. Moreover, its easy to miscount, and as you're probably busy trying to DI and hoping they screw up the grabs, you're busy enough that it is plausible you'd miscount six as five. And if you delay the whole tournament so they can watch over a video of you getting grabbed, and you get grabbed only five times, well, you've wasted everyone's time.

How does the ban on IDC (which I still disagree with) work anyway? Hope that no one uses Down-B ever?

The IDC is really the strongest argument for banning MK. But its banned and it is used as a stalling tactic, and used as a stalling tactic it is easily prevented the way all stalling tactics are prevented. If it were used as an offensive tactic, it'd be a good argument for banning the character, but I don't think anyone uses it as such.

It is possible to avoid some grabs during a stock, but it is not really possible to avoid all grabs during a stock.

You cannot be grabbed even once or you're dead.

In melee, if the ICs grab you, you're dead. The ICs are not banned.

 

[Yuna]

How does the ban on IDC (which I still disagree with) work anyway? Hope that no one uses Down-B ever?

It works the same as all excessive stall bans. If someone uses it and is caught, a TO is sent to their TV to monitor their matches and they'll get DQ:ed if they are caught doing it.

All the TO has to do is watch their fingers as this technique requires a very specific input. If he is caught using the input, the TO only has to throw a glance at the screen to see if MK is in the IDC (since it's wind down isn't a magical 2 frames or whatever) and voila, disqualification.

 

[darkspatan117]

Could you use IDC to approach or TO will still disqualify you?

 

[chaos11011]

sorry but what does IDC means

 

[darkspatan117]

Infinite Dimensional Cape