Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Yuna]

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

No, it cannot be used, ever.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

Right. If it could be used, there wouldn't be a debate about banning MK.

 

[chaos11011]

o ok thank you

 

[metaXzero]

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

Under the current ruleset using IDC AT ALL will be seen as possible stalling. I made a VIABLE solution to this, but the SBR is too stubborn to re-review their ruling.

sorry but what does IDC means

Infinite Dimensional Cape. Their's a thread in the MK boards.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

Under the current ruleset using IDC AT ALL will be seen as possible stalling. I made a VIABLE solution to this, but the SBR is too stubborn to review their ruling.

MK is questionable in the eyes of some for sheer dominance. Honestly, if you play MK and like playing MK, you're lucky they didn't ban him outright for IDC.

 

[JOE!]

Honestly, all Infinate chains should be banned, or at least limited to 3 regrabs or something

it's not playing competitivley, its abusing an oversight on one char vs another

 

[darkspatan117]

Honestly, all Infinate chains should be banned, or at least limited to 3 regrabs or something

it's not playing competitivley, its abusing an oversight on one char vs another

If your talking about DDD infinite then it don't matter since you have like 29 other char to chose in this matchup.

 

[bobson]

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.

This is assuming there is an arbitrary limit set at five regrabs, which there wouldn't be if it was outright banned. You're either being regrabbed or you aren't; there shouldn't be any confusion over whether the rules are being broken or not. And most of what you said about delaying the tournament applies to the IDC's ban, as well, given that the victim contests the match.

 

[Toesrus]

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.

THANK YOU. You've given us a real reason to why it shouldn't be banned.
I understand what you're saying and you've convinced me that it shouldn't be banned. (I'm not being sarcastic either, the internet is just weird like that.)

 

[JOE!]

If your talking about DDD infinite then it don't matter since you have like 29 other char to chose in this matchup.

true, but I still see chaingrabs that are to extremes like this as unintentional game design

as such, are an exploit against the effected characters, and to be competitive (and a fun matchup) should be limited at the least, instead of "lolol grab button=iwin"

 

[Barge]

true, but I still see chaingrabs that are to extremes like this as unintentional game design

as such, are an exploit against the effected characters, and to be competitive (and a fun matchup) should be limited at the least, instead of "lolol grab button=iwin"

Well, his chain grab was so obvious from the start that the japanese demo players figured it out on the first day.

 

[Sonicdahedgie]

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

I did, and I know, but there's no reason to say it shouldn't be banned because of anything he says on the website




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.

The difference between an infinite and someone suiciding is dying instantly because of your character chocie and dying of stupidity. You shouldn't be so harshly punished

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.

I'm not arguing that it's a stall tactic, I'm arguing that it's the equivalent of any instant kill.

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).
That's not the point! Of course someone can MINIMALIZE their chances, but the infinite chain grab only needs to hit three times to win the match. You would have to stay in the air almost the ENTIRE game, ignoring the possibility that the Dedede player uses his own aerials and knocks you to the ground, and grabs you when you get up.


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.

Then think of this as a stalling tactic that cause you to die. You pause the game and tell the judge he's doing a chain grab. The judge then monitors the rest of the match for chain grabbing. OH LOOK. IT'S ENFORCED THE SAME WAY.

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.

Yes, the person takes the damage regardless. But if you do it once, it shouldn't adversely effect the game in the long run. If you catch the person in time, there's no need to save the replay and review it. Also, a TO could organize referees to watch over matches. There's a possibility.



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.

The argument for banning Metaknight was his effect on the metagame of the other characters in the game. I'm putting the same aspect in this argument. I would also like to point out that this is a precedent showing that we do allow the banning of a specific move in a certain way.



In melee, if the ICs grab you, you're dead. The ICs are not banned.
I did not play Melee competitively in the least, so I have no response to that.

Titanium, almost all of your defense against banning has been you quoting what Sirlin says should or shouldn't be banned. But the entire point of this is to throughly debate whether or not it should be. You can't say that because we allow it already, it stays that way. You said yourself that Big Blue, while banned now, could end up on the legal list. This shows that we're allowed to change the rules of how we play. I don't give a crap about what Sirlin says, so start debating about the impact the move itself has. (I know you've talked about it some, but I don't think it's been the focus of the argument at all.)

 

[PKNintendo]

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

Quote for the truth. This also true for 64 where DK infinited Jiggs. (I would say ''the Irony'' but thats a improper use of the term)

Or 64 multiple zero deaths. I mean we couldn't ban them would we.

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.

How is it retarted? So Bowser, and DK avoid horrible matchups (if this gets banned) and those characters don't?

I mean specifically for Fox, if this gets banned it would be unfair to everyone else who gets screwed over.

 

[metaXzero]

MK is questionable in the eyes of some for sheer dominance. Honestly, if you play MK and like playing MK, you're lucky they didn't ban him outright for IDC.

Banning MK or IDC upon its (IDC) discovery would have been one of the most ******** decisions ever. It'd be right there with those attempted suggestions of bans for Wobbling.

 

[RDK]

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

So every sinlge time you enter a match as DK against D3, you automatically get grabbed before you can enter in any player input and prevent yourself from being grabbed?

Honestly, just stop posting. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[salaboB]

So every sinlge time you enter a match as DK against D3, you automatically get grabbed before you can enter in any player input and prevent yourself from being grabbed?

No, but every match you're crippled in your offensive options because you can't risk getting shield grabbed, while DDD can spam his projectiles at you all day if you refuse to close with him.

DK really doesn't have much he can do during the match if the DDD knows how to infinite him.

 

[XxBlackxX]

No, but every match you're crippled in your offensive options because you can't risk getting shield grabbed, while DDD can spam his projectiles at you all day if you refuse to close with him.

DK really doesn't have much he can do during the match if the DDD knows how to infinite him.

yeah, at the highest levels of play, i think we would agree than DK vs. D3 is as close to an auto-win as it can get. but that still doesn't mean it should be banned.

 

[RDK]

No, but every match you're crippled in your offensive options because you can't risk getting shield grabbed, while DDD can spam his projectiles at you all day if you refuse to close with him.

DK really doesn't have much he can do during the match if the DDD knows how to infinite him.

This still isn't a reason for it to be banned. It fits none of the criteria we outlined. It doesn't break the game.

 

[salaboB]

This still isn't a reason for it to be banned. It fits none of the criteria we outlined. It doesn't break the game.

I wasn't saying it should be banned, I was simply saying that your exaggeration was wrong.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[IrArby]

If as someone said earlier, keeping the infinite is going to inspire EVERYONE (cough huge exageration cough cough) to play D3 wouldn't that naturally cause EVERYONE else to play chars that beat D3. Seriously, D3 has Waddle Dee's, the CG (or the CG to Ftilt on everyone but Luigi), and he spaces back airs. Thats it really. In the hands of the best players he's got decent mindgames and recovery using his 5 jumps and a good spotdodge. He's highly beatable.

For any Pro Ban advocates that may have joined the thread recently, please feel free to contribute to the new "Should King Dedede's Infinite chaingrab be banned?" Thread which will contain arguments by both sides in the original post. From what I've read in the last few pages, alot of the ProBan side's older arguments are cropping up again. We (the Anti-Bans) have already discussed and refuted them. However, the new OP will have the main arguments from both sides put in for everyone to read so debating won't be so redundant. I'd advise you all to put together some sort of group effort as the AntiBans are already doing so.

If you want further refutations and explanations (from me at least) on what we consider old arguments you'll have to wait for the new OP or scroll back 5-20 pages.

 

[Yuna]

I wasn't saying it should be banned, I was simply saying that your exaggeration was wrong.

Sorry for the confusion.

It's not his exaggeration that is wrong. It's Luigi Player's. He's been saying that it is impossible to not get grabbed by D3 for weeks. It is not impossible, it is just improbable.

 

[cman]

It's not his exaggeration that is wrong. It's Luigi Player's. He's been saying that it is impossible to not get grabbed by D3 for weeks. It is not impossible, it is just improbable.

I'm pretty sure I remember a match of Boss (?) as mario avoiding a grab for an entire match. He still lost though. I'll see if i can find it.

 

[salaboB]

I'm pretty sure I remember a match of Boss (?) as mario avoiding a grab for an entire match. He still lost though. I'll see if i can find it.

Probably because the contortions you have to go through to never get grabbed by DDD put you at a huge disadvantage even if he never lands the CG.

 

[RDK]

Probably because the contortions you have to go through to never get grabbed by DDD put you at a huge disadvantage even if he never lands the CG.

That's not the dilemma. Everybody knows the match is virtually unwinnable at higher levels of play.

Nobody in their right mind would allow themselves to be put into a spot where they could potentially go DK vs D3 anyway. Part of being a competent player is knowing your matchups.

In any case, the match of Boss's Mario vs. the D3 player is proof that you can avoid the grab. It's also possible with DK. Physically possible, but highly impractical and not very likely to happen. It is, for all intents and purposes, unwinnable.

 

[MorphedChaos]

I've been picking up Luigi for fun, and I STILL say the infinite shouldn't be banned, asI can get out of it with Luigi pretty easily. (My anti grab wario skills help.) Its not all that bad. Question, would we have this convo if say, D3 could infinite MK as well? Or Captain Falcon?

 

[Yuna]

Question, would we have this convo if say, D3 could infinite MK as well? Or Captain Falcon?

Yes, because biased whiners will whine about everything.

 

[WastingPenguins]

It's not his exaggeration that is wrong. It's Luigi Player's. He's been saying that it is impossible to not get grabbed by D3 for weeks. It is not impossible, it is just improbable.

Trying to argue that it is *possible* to avoid getting grabbed multiple times during a match is stupid. Obviously no one thinks that scenario is a literal impossibility. For instance, if my opponent has a seizure during the match, I can probably avoid getting grabbed. In another possible scenario my opponent is my mom, in which case I will also avoid getting grabbed. Finally, you might avoid getting grabbed if your opponent just generally sucks at the game. Etc, etc.

No one thinks that it is literally impossible to avoid a grab. Do we really have to append "virtually" to the front of "impossible" every time? Can't you guys figure out that that's what someone means when they say it is impossible?

 

[XxBlackxX]

Trying to argue that it is *possible* to avoid getting grabbed multiple times during a match is stupid. Obviously no one thinks that scenario is a literal impossibility. For instance, if my opponent has a seizure during the match, I can probably avoid getting grabbed. In another possible scenario my opponent is my mom, in which case I will also avoid getting grabbed. Finally, you might avoid getting grabbed if your opponent just generally sucks at the game. Etc, etc.

No one thinks that it is literally impossible to avoid a grab. Do we really have to append "virtually" to the front of "impossible" every time? Can't you guys figure out that that's what someone means when they say it is impossible?

oh no we absolutely get it. at the highest levels of play, DK vs. D3 is as close to an auto-win as it can get. but it still shouldn't be banned because it doesn't fit the criteria. too bad for DK.

 

[1048576]

Counterpicking is good.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

Honestly, all Infinate chains should be banned, or at least limited to 3 regrabs or something

it's not playing competitivley, its abusing an oversight on one char vs another

It is playing competitively. Whether or not a game which has infinite combos is a good game or a bad game is the real question. Not all games with infinite combos are bad games; for instance, Melee.

This is assuming there is an arbitrary limit set at five regrabs, which there wouldn't be if it was outright banned. You're either being regrabbed or you aren't; there shouldn't be any confusion over whether the rules are being broken or not. And most of what you said about delaying the tournament applies to the IDC's ban, as well, given that the victim contests the match.

Shiek in melee.

I did, and I know, but there's no reason to say it shouldn't be banned because of anything he says on the website

Um, what?

From his what should be banned chapter

The thing to be banned must be able to be “completely defined.” Imagine that in a fighting game, repeating a certain sequence of five moves over and over is the best tactic in the game. Further suppose that doing so is “taboo” and that players want to ban it. There is no concrete definition of exactly what must be banned. Can players do three repetitions of the five moves? What about two reps? What about one? What about repeating the first four moves and omitting the fifth? Is that okay? The game becomes a test of who is willing to play as closely as possible to the “taboo tactic” without breaking the (arbitrary) letter of the law defining the tactic.

That alone disqualifies this.

The difference between an infinite and someone suiciding is dying instantly because of your character chocie and dying of stupidity. You shouldn't be so harshly punished

There is a difference between being grab infinited and suiciding; namely, your opponent did something. If you get grabbed, it is your own fault you got infinited.

You ARE harshly punished, therefore you SHOULD consider not playing DK when your opponent can counterpick DeDeDe.

There is no "you shouldn't be punished so badly". There's none of this in a competitive game. What matters, from the player standpoint, is what actually happens. If you make a mistake, it can cost you dearly, or little, depending on whether your opponents' choices allow them to capitalize on it.

Titanium, almost all of your defense against banning has been you quoting what Sirlin says should or shouldn't be banned. But the entire point of this is to throughly debate whether or not it should be. You can't say that because we allow it already, it stays that way. You said yourself that Big Blue, while banned now, could end up on the legal list. This shows that we're allowed to change the rules of how we play. I don't give a crap about what Sirlin says, so start debating about the impact the move itself has. (I know you've talked about it some, but I don't think it's been the focus of the argument at all.)

You have no argument for banning. There is no point for a discussion.

No, but every match you're crippled in your offensive options because you can't risk getting shield grabbed, while DDD can spam his projectiles at you all day if you refuse to close with him.

This is true of other matchups as well, honestly.

Nobody in their right mind would allow themselves to be put into a spot where they could potentially go DK vs D3 anyway. Part of being a competent player is knowing your matchups.

Indeed.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

It's hilarious to me that you guys think one of the easiest infinites I've ever seen in a game is 'competitive' in your minds.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

Its funny that you think that ease of use matters, as it really doesn't unless it isn't humanly possible to pull off (waveshine infinites from Melee). Ease of successfully landing it does matter, but not technical difficulty.

The question is whether or not the game as a whole is competitive/fair. Any individual situation can be unfair and the game on the whole can still be fair.

 

[Plairnkk]

so how does bum consistently beat atomsk?

best dk beats the best d3...hmm

 

[Natch]

so how does bum consistently beat atomsk?

best dk beats the best d3...hmm

Well, he certainly isn't getting grabbed.

 

[Luigi player]

Well, he certainly isn't getting grabbed.

I lol'd.

10grabs

 

[bobson]

Shiek in melee.

What?

so how does bum consistently beat atomsk?

best dk beats the best d3...hmm

Bum only plays where the infinite is banned.

 

[Surri-Sama]

I'm going to main DK and not complain about this just for a laugh

 

[highandmightyjoe]

I'm going to main DK and not complain about this just for a laugh

It's fun, I think you'll like it.

 

[1048576]

You only really have one matchup to worry about. Unfortunately, it's a doozy.

 

[The_NZA]

Like others have mentioned, without a clearly defined rule, this can never be implemented. Doing it x amount of times in a row is dumb, as someone mentioned. We need to have a unified rule that can be applied (to any grab really) in smash brothers. I would word the rule as such:

"Any grab combo, in order to be legally performed, must move the grabber some distance"

This would take out any abuse of standing grab chains. Now, if it is against a wall, that is a different argument. I personally think abusing infinites against walls in stages where there are no perma walls should be allowed. Places like Delfino, or Pokemon Stadium 1 (the tree) and Pokemon Stadium 2 have walls for portions and the fact that the stage changes allows for the grab cycle to end (usually only costing a character a lot of damage, or one stock). I think the rule should not ban this type of tactful exploitation of a characters grab strenghths and another characters grab weakness's.

This is important to address because no one, absolutely no one, can main dk anymore. The only reason this matchup isn't being called a 9.9:.1 matchup is because we've never used decimals before (beyond .5's) and becuase going above an 8:2 is unprecedented.