Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Yuna]

Yuna, you asked the same questions a few pages back and CO18 answered you.

He can answer them again since there were 10 pages of spam on top of them and I'm too lazy to try to find that one post in all of that BS.

which was precisely what I was purposing.

Though, we could vary it by character, and the procedure after it's done could be varied (cannot dthrow out of a standing grab past that percent, or cannot dthrow period past that percent, or are required to use the kill move in the combo once the percent is reached, etc.), but the main point is, it's a discrete and enforceable rule which deals with the unarguably warranted factor (infinite stalling) leaving us to only argue if it's "too good".

Exactly. 200% is a pretty good one. I believe everyone dies from D3's bthrow at that percentage. But it might not be true on the biggest stages, so 250%?

I was just thinking about the counter-pick system...

I feel like DDD's infinite might make a tactic a counter for those five characters, instead of a character a counter.

Does that make sense? ._.

Like, the fact that DDD has the tactic means you have to use DDD, but it's the specific tactic you are countering with.

I don't know if that's a bad thing or not. It just came to mind.

Yes, your inability to grasp logic is striking.

D3's "tactic" is a part of his character. He can use it against everyone but 12 characters in the game. However, against 6 of them, it works really, really well. This is because they were designed in such a way that it's really effective against them.

It's still something only D3 can do. The tactic is a part of D3, the character. It's D3 countering them.

Your circular talk is getting you nowhere. It's not like it would matter if it was a specific tactic instead of a character. What, if it was a specific tactic pretty much everyone had that rendered these characters unviable, we'd ban it then?

Heromystic, I disagree with you. I'm for the MK ban even though it doesn't effect me, and I'm for the DDD ban even though it doesn't effect me. I have my views because I view it as helping the majority of people at tournaments, and being good for the game and community. I rarely lose to a player just because he uses MK (the MK's that beat me are usually players who would beat me with DDD or snake or falco if they mained them) and I don't get infinited by DDD as Ness or Peach or Diddy, the characters I play. So yeah, your theory isn't always true, but yeah it probably is generally true. I'm also more scared of luigi players than DDD players, so it's actually to my benefit to have DDD's weed out Luigis by infiniting them.

That's why I stress the stages point. People are for banning Bridge of Eldin because they too can effectively get infinited there. But, since the standing infinite works on a character they dont main, they don't care to ban it suddenly. That's why I said ban both or neither for the sake of logical reasoning.

What is this about Bridge of Eldin being great for infiniting? You must mean chaingrabbing off the stage. Not the same thing.

Rules are not written to maximize the viability of characters. They are written to minimize over-centralization (by force, not by choice). We do not ban anything that makes a character unviable in a certain or several matchups.

They were programmed badly. They have sucky matchups, suck it up and deal or switch. The rules aren't there to ensure the worst characters in the game should be playable (or to bypass the worst matchups in the game). They're just there to make the game generally playable, not to make as many characters as possible playable (however, we ban things that minimize the number of characters playable, thus certain stages).

After all, why should we play a game which requires us to ban and ban 'til the cows come home in order to just make it playable?

 

[Hive]

@adumbrodeus -how does this not skew metagame?
getting grabbed and sitting there for 2 min. until you lose a stock doesn't effect metagame?
or having these characters not show up in higher placings in tournies and lose potentially effecting other character placings bc they are subject to fatty penguin death doesn't hurt metagames at all?
the characters effected by it CAN have an effect on the overall tourney scene... and its worse to assume that they won't and not give them any chance to...
its not "matchup surgery" and its not " just another move" either ... i think there is a solid difference between actually playing a character and hitting them enough for a stock, than grabbing them and taking a stock while they can't do anything.... which is why its an issue...

 

[CO18]

I wish I could be like CO18 and speak as if my words did not need to be proven.
I wish I could show that one terrible matchup just completely nullifies a characters potential.

Amazing hack by the way, did you get it off GSC? (lulz)


Oh yes I did girl! *camel head shake*

One impossible matchup does completely nullify a character's potential. How doesn't it?

I also love how the level of difficulty of something doesn't matter.

However the amount of characters it effects does matter.

These are all amazing points.

 

[TechnoMonster]

And also, stop bringing individual examples up. Oh, so someone won over someone else against whom they have a 90:10 matchup...

These examples show methods of play that have statistically higher chance of winning than the way the metagame was previously thought to have played out.

If the circumstances are right, the best DK in the US could win over the best D3 in the US. It's not probable, but it's possible, just as the best Fox in the US might sometimes win over the best Sheik in the US if the Sheik just screws up enough times.

A very good Fox player can beat a very good Sheik player about 30% of the time. Fox has 40% combos and setups of his own and a better upsmash that kills at 80.

No one has yet to tell me why 10:0 is bannable but 90:10 isn't. What's so much better about 90:10 that it's not at all bannable? Why has no one entertained banning Sheik's F-tilt lock? It does, after all, render Fox unviable.

10:0 indicates no wiggle room whatsoever. Take an analogy of poker. Your opponent has three aces on a flop of A24, and you hold 9-8 with no chance of a flush. The pot has a million dollars in it, however, you have a 0% chance to win. If your opponent says "I bet $1" you should immediately fold because you're giving away $1 if you call.

However, if on the same flop you hold 3-9, you have a 4 out draw to a straight which will win just over ten percent of the time. If your opponent bets under $100,000 total on the next two streets, you should call all of his bets to see the cards and find out if he wins, because there is so much money on the line. Its an acceptable gamble.

To transfer the analogy to smash, lets say you 2-stock opponent with DK and double blinds on Smashville, and you know he's going to pick DeDeDe as a counter on some horrible stage for you. The player is competent and the matchup is one you'll probably lose every time barring extreme luck. You don't have a good secondary prepared, however, you decided it would be better to pull out Olimar or Metaknight after he chooses the stage because they are relatively easy to play and at least give you a shot of winning. If you lose you can still counterpick a moving stage like Rainbow or a hazard stage like Orpheon or Norfair to win against DeDeDe.

However, 9:1 or 8:2 might be enough to convince you that because you're relatively more skilled that you can gamble with your main (as in Sheik vs. Fox, for an example) and still have a chance to win.

And to the... people claiming D3's Dthrow can be used to stall. No, it cannot. A lot of tournaments have a cap on how far he can combo people to prevent just this. That cap hovers around 300% a lot of the time. So it's not stalling, it's comboing 'til it's a guaranteed kill. Using that same logic, Sheik's F-tilt lock can be used to stall, as well, just for a shorter amount of time!

This is significant because the amount of time used to stall for is significant, however, I do agree that in general, you can complete 3 infinites within 5 minutes, so this is mostly irrelevant. Your assessment, while sarcastic, would lead people to believe that even Falco's chaingrab can be used to stall, however, at best it will take 20 seconds off the game clock, 3 times a match. Yuna, your arguments are somewhat reasonable, but often based on equating two concepts with a logical gap in between them; for instance, a 0-Death infinite is not the same is a 20-80% combo, though the results are similar, there are mitigating factors that affect both in different ways.


I voted against the ban, because I believe that the counterpicking system is solid and allows players to get around the D3 Infinite and beat players of lesser skill while still maining their character, although it does often put them in a tough spot, and I agree that if we banned it we would see more diversity in tournaments, and I admit that I am not affected directly by it.

One impossible matchup does completely nullify a character's potential. How doesn't it?

In general, the proclamation bears the burden of proof. CO18 is hella ugly. Prove me wrong. If you post a picture I will say its not CO18 but rather Michael Jackson, prove me wrong. He has had much plastic surgery so you do not know for sure that I am wrong, so I am right. Not that I disagree and plus from what I hear you are very sexy but for the sake of a good argument these things must be said.

 

[ShadowLink84]

One impossible matchup does completely nullify a character's potential. How doesn't it?

Cause I don't know, gee its ONE terrible matchup?
Your own statement says

"with this infinite these characters are less viable than Ganondorf and Captain Falcon."

I also love how the level of difficulty of something doesn't matter.

Learning curves matter in a tierlist then.

However the amount of characters it effects does matter.

These are all amazing points.

Yep

 

[Anther]

corrections.
1. D3s infinite takes literally 2 minutes to perfect. 1 minute 30 seconds for mario, luigi, DK and samus and 30 seconds for bowser.
2. you took 1 hour to learn 1 0-death string on one character.
there 38 different characters to learn the timing for, 37 cus IC cant infinite ICs.
theres about 5 different variations of alternating grabs.
flat stages like BF and FD have to be done differently than stages with slopes like YI(B) and lylat.
so 1 hour times 37 times 5 times 2=
370 hours to completely perfect IC chain grabs on the entire cast.
and thats only taking into account 3 different stages, theres a whole bunch more stages that you could factor into this math.
so are you telling me that 2 minutes of D3 practice is comparable to 370 hours of IC practice

thats dumb

It was more than one char <3. They're different classes of CG though, you're right.

 

[BentoBox]

oh is that right? So I should be here 24/7 responding to every post at the same time (I've responded to 3 at once and ended up a page behind) and I should be hekdld accountable when I miss a post?

Sorry I don't have the time nor the ability to look at the last 3 pages to see what I missed. if I miss something, give me a link so I can get to it, but don't expect me to go trudging trough all the pages to find the "counter argument" that was made and then get made if I cannot find it.


let alone that you only claim that what i said was invalidated mean while you never bother explaining how it is invalidated. The only thing I've seceded to you was the argument concerning the walk offs.


Walk offs iirc.
If you want i can go back and check.


Then address what I have stated rather than constantly repeating yourself.

Who's asking you to respond to anything? I'm telling you to READ. Also, 40 posts a page for max browsing efficiency plz :D!

And now, for the bolded part...

You say you conceded the point I made about walk-offs, so why is it that you still fail to understand my point?

We banned stages not only because "camping b-throw is the only way to victory" because that alone could've made it a simple counterpick, we banned it because of walk-offs and what they entail (grab = ez stock, ANYWHERE). That was a MAJOR part that affected our decision...

And now you post this?:

You don't have to use DDD to counte rit. You have 30+ characters who don't get infinited. 12 of which dn't get CG'ed (Luigi is the 13th but gets infinited. The irony)

So why is it that the same cannot apply on Eldin? Why is picking one of said 12 characters who are not vulnerable to walking CGs not a legit argument in this case? Hell, in this case we're talking about ONE map (which you can ban if you're dead set on not CPing), and you oppose strongly. But when it comes down to 5 characters ON ANY MAP, you won't budge? Because in that case, the fact that D3 is CPable is a valid strat? Why would you ever take the risk of picking any of these characters in a double blind pick? That's why people claim that they are less viable than CF. When you risk the chance to lose a game by the flip of a coin, before the game even starts, you know there's something wrong.

CO18 is right, you're playing god.

 

[Yuna]

The 100% to 0% success rate part. It's 0% success.

90% -> 10%, that much better?

And I'm suuuuuure no one will ever be able to win over D3 as DK, ever, in a case of equal skill.

I'll say it again. 90:10 means that 10% of the time, players of a character will manage to win. 100:0 means 0% of the time, a character will be able to win. One is negligible, one is nonexistent.

No, 90% means that there's a 10% chance. For each game played, there's a 10% chance. It's not that for each 10 games, 1 game will be won by Fox. It's that for each game played, Fox stands a 10% chance.

Again, you haven't answered why 90-10 shouldn't be banned when 100-0 should. What makes 90-10 so much less severe? Answer that concisely.

@adumbrodeus -how does this not skew metagame?

What? Because there's a matchup where one side has virtually no chance of winning and must switch characters (i.e. counterpick)?

It will happen. Unless the game is perfectly balanced, it will happen. Deal with it.

There are a jillion horrendously bad matchups in Competitive gaming. I believe Brawl is the only game for which a ban on a character-specific tactic which in turn is character-specific has been a serious contender for a ban to artifically bloat the matchup.

Those 6 characters have 6 really bad matchups, deal with it. Again I ask, Sheik vs. Fox. That much less severe it's totally OK?

I also love how the level of difficulty of something doesn't matter.

Why should it? The only people who care about it are the n00bs who think "Skill" is important.

Who think that if something is technically hard to do, it then requires skill and is therefore less broken than something else, which nets the exact same results, but which is easier to do (technically).

Why? If it's humanly possible to learn and perfect, people will learn and perfect it. Just because it's easier to do does not make it any more or less broken! People will eventually get it down! The only difference is that the easier it is to do, the more people will be able to learn it. Deal with it.

Whoopity doo, nobody (credible) cares.

 

[ADHD]

Can this community get anymore weak? Brawl is gay and everyone should accept it, I think gayness should be a part of the tourney competitive scene. Gay.

 

[Hive]

overcentralizing the metagame and the number of ppl involved shouldn't matter in sbr's decision to ban this...

look at the ruling on bowser's suicide... it effectively only matters to one character....

or also look at decisions on stalling... they don't overcentralize the game but they are banned bc stalling to win a match is completely stupid and effectively prevents fighting in a fighting game....

@yuna- it was a response to something adumbrodeus said ^^ of course there are plenty of bad matchups in the game... and i'm completely ok with that, nor am i unable to handle that the game isn't "perfectly balanced" lol :D
he was suggesting that the infinite doesn't effect the overall metagame... ^^

 

[CO18]

90% -> 10%, that much better?

And I'm suuuuuure no one will ever be able to win over D3 as DK, ever, in a case of equal skill.


No, 90% means that there's a 10% chance. For each game played, there's a 10% chance. It's not that for each 10 games, 1 game will be won by Fox. It's that for each game played, Fox stands a 10% chance.

Again, you haven't answered why 90-10 shouldn't be banned when 100-0 should. What makes 90-10 so much less severe? Answer that concisely.


What? Because there's a matchup where one side has virtually no chance of winning and must switch characters (i.e. counterpick)?

It will happen. Unless the game is perfectly balanced, it will happen. Deal with it.

There are a jillion horrendously bad matchups in Competitive gaming. I believe Brawl is the only game for which a ban on a character-specific tactic which in turn is character-specific has been a serious contender for a ban to artifically bloat the matchup.

Those 6 characters have 6 really bad matchups, deal with it. Again I ask, Sheik vs. Fox. That much less severe it's totally OK?


Why should it? The only people who care about it are the n00bs who think "Skill" is important.

Who think that if something is technically hard to do, it then requires skill and is therefore less broken than something else, which nets the exact same results, but which is easier to do (technically).

Why? If it's humanly possible to learn and perfect, people will learn and perfect it. Just because it's easier to do does not make it any more or less broken! People will eventually get it down! The only difference is that the easier it is to do, the more people will be able to learn it. Deal with it.

Whoopity doo, nobody (credible) cares.

Ok then if it shouldn't. Why should number of characters it effects matter at all?
Your argument is that you can counterpick. With this in mind you are essentially saying if he could do this to all but 2 characters. You could counterpick those characters therefore it is perfectly legal and shouldn't be banned. And if you do think it should be banned in that situation that means you are basically saying YOU can decide when the number of characters effected by it are too much. So you're playing God.

 

[bobson]

Who think that if something is technically hard to do, it then requires skill and is therefore less broken than something else, which nets the exact same results, but which is easier to do (technically).

Why? If it's humanly possible to learn and perfect, people will learn and perfect it. Just because it's easier to do does not make it any more or less broken! People will eventually get it down! The only difference is that the easier it is to do, the more people will be able to learn it. Deal with it.

The harder something is to do, the less people will learn it, and the less of an effect it will have on the metagame. Why do you think the Ice Climbers aren't dominating tournaments?

 

[Ulevo]

Stuff.

Stalling is stalling. Why the hell are we discussion what is and isn't excessive stalling? You say we should find a blanket number in which Dedede can kill any character regardless of circumstance? He can't even kill Bowser at 300% on Final Destination, and getting to that percentage alone takes about a minute and a half to do. That alone is totally unreasonable. That alone IS STALLING. Controlling your opponent to keep yourself completely, 100% safe from harm, for a minute an a half, even if you're dealing damage is stalling. I don't care if you think I do not have a definitive line for "reasonable" or "excessive". It isn't even a topic you can argue.

I absolutely refuse to reply to you anymore. Your idiocy is unparalleled to everyone else in this topic. You've completely diverted yourself from every point I've made, and just argued back with "well define reasonable blah blah blah".

I'm done.

 

[Punishment Divine]

No ICs aren't winning because their grab range is jank. DDD can shieldgrab an Ike who has perfectly spaced his fair. Notice the difference?

 

[ShadowLink84]

Who's asking you to respond to anything? I'm telling you to READ. Also, 40 posts a page for max browsing efficiency plz :D!

Cause the spam is important.

And now, for the bolded part...

You say you conceded the point I made about walk-offs, so why is it that you still fail to understand my point?

Probably because the same arguments do not encessarily work?

We banned stages not only because "camping b-throw is the only way to victory" because that alone could've made it a simple counterpick, we banned it because of walk-offs and what they entail (grab = ez stock, ANYWHERE). That was a MAJOR part that affected our decision...

It was a major part which I did agree to eventually but I also mentioned how there were other factors. nothing is ever banned just because of one character. It would be too arbitrary.

So why is it that the same cannot apply on Eldin? Why is picking one of said 12 characters who are not vulnerable to walking CGs not a legit argument in this case? Hell, in this case we're talking about ONE map (which you can ban if you're dead set on not CPing), and you oppose strongly. But when it comes down to 5 characters ON ANY MAP, you won't budge? Because in that case, the fact that D3 is CPable is a valid strat? Why would you ever take the risk of picking any of these characters in a double blind pick? That's why people claim that they are less viable than CF. When you risk the chance to lose a game by the flip of a coin, before the game even starts, you know there's something wrong.

To my understanding, from what i read from you and edreeses, the banning of Eldin's bridge didn''t just entail the CG, with the CG being a major factor (which I had disagreed with you on because I thought it to be less than major).


On the other maps, DDD's CG cannot extend all the way to the death zone as it does with Eldin's bridge, so the circumstances regarding it changes.

So int he case of Eldin's bridge where only 12 characters are viable, on other stages it increases by more than 2.5x the amount.

Also you make it sound like DD' grab is 100% guaranteed as soon as you hit the Z button.

CO18 is right, you're playing god.

Im calling you black Mr. tea kettle.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Shadowlink and adumbrodeus are Gods. They can decide when too many characters is too much. I wish I could be like them.

Also I got this really cool hack that removes 5 characters from Brawl, its going to be the new tourney standard.

What defines "too many" is actually the legitimate question in this argument.


That said, like with MK, we need a concrete ban standard before we can actually ban.


Furthermore, you have to consider that the issue with over-centralization is how many tournament-viable characters it deals with. In other words, characters that aren't already hard-countered by at least one other highly popular character, and thus aren't tournament viable anyway. And since this is a technique ban, unlike a character ban, we have to consider if the match-ups involved actually become soft-counters or better.

Keep in mind, Sheik hard countered just about everyone lower then high tier in melee. He/she/it/potato wasn't bannable however, because everything she hard-countered was hard countered by at least one other character in high/top. Luigi was closest to viable, and he was hard-countered by marth.

So creating extreme match-ups is not the only criteria, there's no point in a ban that doesn't actually make a sufficient number of characters tournament-viable.

@adumbrodeus -how does this not skew metagame?
getting grabbed and sitting there for 2 min. until you lose a stock doesn't effect metagame?
or having these characters not show up in higher placings in tournies and lose potentially effecting other character placings bc they are subject to fatty penguin death doesn't hurt metagames at all?
the characters effected by it CAN have an effect on the overall tourney scene... and its worse to assume that they won't and not give them any chance to...
its not "matchup surgery" and its not " just another move" either ... i think there is a solid difference between actually playing a character and hitting them enough for a stock, than grabbing them and taking a stock while they can't do anything.... which is why its an issue...

"Skews" refers to an outside factor that effects a value in a way that it shouldn't, the actual attributes of a character is NOT an outside factor, it's an internal factor. Stage choices skew match-ups, people unplugging your controller skews matches. The attributes of a character do not skew match-ups.


The reason "skew" is being used is because most people don't realize the technical terminology (it's a statistical/scientific term), and it has an implicit value judgement, because people associate "skewing" with being "inaccurate".

The point is, you're only using it because of the "ungoodness" people associate with the term.

You're using it to mean the same thing as "changes", use "changes" it doesn't have the implicit value judgement that's toxic to intellectual discourse.

Read Orwell's Politics and the English Language, while he may not be correct in everything, the point that he makes about expanding terms to apply a value judgement to something without exploring the actual issues is something that he explains perfectly.

So, don't do it, let's discuss this issue based on it's merits instead of throwing around prejudicial language.


Onto the issues, touch=death moves are not uncommon. They give poor match-ups. Granted, we may not like it, but it takes more then dislike to make a ban worthwhile.

Ok then if it shouldn't. Why should number of characters it effects matter at all?
Your argument is that you can counterpick. With this in mind you are essentially saying if he could do this to all but 2 characters. You could counterpick those characters therefore it is perfectly legal and shouldn't be banned. And if you do think it should be banned in that situation that means you are basically saying YOU can decide when the number of characters effected by it are too much. So you're playing God.

The number matters because the ban criteria is OVERCENTRALIZATION, what precisely is enough to overcentralize is up to debate.

But the number MATTERS.

 

[Flayl]

The harder something is to do, the less people will learn it, and the less of an effect it will have on the metagame. Why do you think the Ice Climbers aren't dominating tournaments?

Because you can seperate them and their grab range sucks, it's not becuase the infinite is hard. Also they're a pretty unpopular character.

 

[Punishment Divine]

So, can someone explain how in the world COMMON SENSE dictates that this shouldn't be banned?

 

[Sesshomuronay]

Yes Dedede's infinate should be banned end of story. Anyone who disagrees is a ******.

 

[Punishment Divine]

Yes Dedede's infinate should be banned end of story. Anyone who disagrees is a ******.

lmfao this is the most logic I've seen all topic, and I'm not even kidding.

Ad hominem is beyond the level of intelligence the anti-ban side thinks they're using

 

[Hive]

"Skews" refers to an outside factor that effects a value in a way that it shouldn't, the actual attributes of a character is NOT an outside factor, it's an internal factor. Stage choices skew match-ups, people unplugging your controller skews matches. The attributes of a character do not skew match-ups.


The reason "skew" is being used is because most people don't realize the technical terminology (it's a statistical/scientific term), and it has an implicit value judgement, because people associate "skewing" with being "inaccurate".

The point is, you're only using it because of the "ungoodness" people associate with the term.

You're using it to mean the same thing as "changes", use "changes" it doesn't have the implicit value judgement that's toxic to intellectual discourse.

Read Orwell's Politics and the English Language, while he may not be correct in everything, the point that he makes about expanding terms to apply a value judgement to something without exploring the actual issues is something that he explains perfectly.

You should also realize that language is only viable because of accepted definitions of words, and that by saying "skew" most people were able to understand and comprehend what i meant... that is that DDD in this case, makes these matchups completely one sided and unwinnable, and were not confused by the usage.

edit: i also would like to add that i doubt anyone will base their judgement on ddd's infinite on the "biased context of the word skew"

 

[BentoBox]

You forgot one thing THEY END. Florida's best fox just 2-0ed Florida's Best Zss on saturday at a tourney 2 stocking him twice.

Those are not infinites. They do not make Fox unviable.

Pikachu, Sheik, and ZSS's advantages over Fox are completely irrelevant, since they require player skill, knowledge of the tactics, and proper and continuous application of those tactics while facing active resistance.

DDD's infinite requires a grab.


The very important thing that we're all forgetting here is that:

Keeping DDD's infinite adds nothing to the competitive game, save for increased emphasis on the counterpick system and pre-match selection system. We're never going to see the infinite happen. All keeping the infinite does is ensure that these match-ups never occur with anyone who matters.

Fox does not lose the ability to reflect your thunder and shield/dodge/punish your attacks and do damage after it is over.

I wish poor mario samus dk bowser and luigi had that option.


Also pure awesome makes another good point. All youre doing is assuring that these matchups will never happen. Keeping it adds nothing besides the fact that they are 100:0 matchups.

That was the general gist... Yuna.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Cause what CO18 said implies that Mario, Samus, DK Bowser and Luigi all lose as soon as the DDD hits Z. They have no methods of spacing themselves and palying keep away.

 

[Yuna]

These examples show methods of play that have statistically higher chance of winning than the way the metagame was previously thought to have played out.

Congratulations, you might have proven that our perception of a matchup is wrong. Not that 90:10s are quite possible to win on a regular basis.

It doesn't help your argument, in the least, though.

A very good Fox player can beat a very good Sheik player about 30% of the time. Fox has 40% combos and setups of his own and a better upsmash that kills at 80.

Maybe if his opponents are idiots. 40% combos my tuchas.

Also, it's still an unfair 0-85% (depending) combo. And it's a 80:20, I believe, or 90:10, not 70:30.

10:0 indicates no wiggle room whatsoever.

Only to people without logic. 10:0 indicates that statistically, you should lose 100 out of 100 times. It does not mean it is impossible. Just as 70:30 indicates you have a 30% chance of winning vs. 70% chance of losing, it does not dictate that you will win 3 out of every 10 matches.

Each match has a 30% chance of victory.

Take an analogy of poker. Your opponent has three aces on a flop of A24, and you hold 9-8 with no chance of a flush. The pot has a million dollars in it, however, you have a 0% chance to win. If your opponent says "I bet $1" you should immediately fold because you're giving away $1 if you call.

Stop bringing up Poker. Also, learn how to apply analogies correctly.

In Poker, what you see is what you get. With the cards on the table, you can calculate the end results. In Brawl, both sides control their own fates. Each side has different weapons and tools at their disposal unless they're playing the same character.

But the end results are entirely up to the players. It does not matter if you are dealt a bad hand (Stage) or you're on the River (Last Stock) and really, behind. You can still manage to win.

There is no such thing as a 0% chance of winning unless you're already dying on your last stock. As long as there is breath in you, you can still win. It might not be probable to turn around a 2-stock lead, but it is possible, as opposed to in your (highly faulty and illogical) Poker analogy.

Got logic?

However, 9:1 or 8:2 might be enough to convince you that because you're relatively more skilled that you can gamble with your main (as in Sheik vs. Fox, for an example) and still have a chance to win.

You still haven't answered why 90:10 is so much less bannable than 100:0.

This is significant because the amount of time used to stall for is significant, however, I do agree that in general, you can complete 3 infinites within 5 minutes, so this is mostly irrelevant. Your assessment, while sarcastic, would lead people to believe that even Falco's chaingrab can be used to stall, however, at best it will take 20 seconds off the game clock, 3 times a match.

I use a 300% threshold in my tournaments. I suggest others do too. No D3 needs more than 300% to KO anyone on any legal stage.

Yuna, your arguments are somewhat reasonable, but often based on equating two concepts with a logical gap in between them; for instance, a 0-Death infinite is not the same is a 20-80% combo, though the results are similar, there are mitigating factors that affect both in different ways.

I specifically asked you to tell me how it's not bannable while 0-death was.

Can this community get anymore weak? Brawl is gay and everyone should accept it, I think gayness should be a part of the tourney competitive scene. Gay.

Stay away from my pornography collection.

overcentralizing the metagame and the number of ppl involved shouldn't matter in sbr's decision to ban this...

I've already read the rest of your post.

"Your post is bad and you should feel bad!"

look at the ruling on bowser's suicide... it effectively only matters to one character....

What does this have to do with over-centralization? Of course not everything in the rules are written to prevent over-centralization. The decisions on what to ban and what not to ban most often are.

or also look at decisions on stalling... they don't overcentralize the game but they are banned bc stalling to win a match is completely stupid and effectively prevents fighting in a fighting game....

I'm sorry, are you saying that if stalling was allowed, people would not flock to characters who could whack you once to get a %-lead and then run away for the next 7+ minutes to win on time? I mean, in the face of people doing it, the rest would just sit back and take it instead of taking up characters which can the same themselves and thus we'd be stuck with tournaments where people hit each other a few times and then spend the rest of the match stalling?

If you are, then you obviously haven't been a part of any Competitive fighting game scene for an extended period of time.

he was suggesting that the infinite doesn't effect the overall metagame... ^^

No he wasn't.

Ok then if it shouldn't. Why should number of characters it effects matter at all?
Your argument is that you can counterpick. With this in mind you are essentially saying if he could do this to all but 2 characters. You could counterpick those characters therefore it is perfectly legal and shouldn't be banned. And if you do think it should be banned in that situation that means you are basically saying YOU can decide when the number of characters effected by it are too much. So you're playing God.

What part of "It must not over-centralize the metagame" is too Korean for you to understand?

I'm not deciding anything. I'm just one voice in a community. I can try to affect the decision, however. Who are you to say which tactics should be allowed and which should be banned? Hypocrisy, much?

The harder something is to do, the less people will learn it, and the less of an effect it will have on the metagame. Why do you think the Ice Climbers aren't dominating tournaments?

Inconsequential. If enough people learn it, it will affect the metagame. If there was a sudden influx of Bowser/Samus/Mario/Luigi/Donkey Kong players doing really well in tournaments, people would pick up D3 to counter them, even if his infinite was much harder.

Why are ICs not dominating tournaments? Because even if you perfected their infinites, they still aren't the best characters in the game. You still cannot win entire major tournaments as them because the best players in the world can easily beat them.

If they were the best character in the game and easy to win tournaments with, people would flock to them, people of high technical skill and who could learn how to perform their infinites.

You seem to not have any insight into any other Competitive fighting game community. Anything that is humanly possibly will be learned. In GGXX#Accent Core, Millia Rage's combos have timing that fluctuates depending on who she's comboing. They're not even infinites and do not even take away half of the lifebar. But people learn them, because that is what they do.

The techniques in Brawl aren't even that hard to perform relatively speaking. People are electing to go for the charactes with the easiest path to victory, regardless of technical requirements. That is, good players. If they wanted to, they could pick up ICs and perfect their infinites and CGs.

 

[Yuna]

That was the general gist... Yuna.

What, this crap of an argument:
"Fox does not lose the ability to reflect your thunder and shield/dodge/punish your attacks and do damage after it is over."?

Neither do the characters who get infinited. Once the infinite is over, they are free to come back and try to make a comeback. It's just harder to do. They do not magically lose the ability to fight D3. It's not like he gets automatic grabs out of thin air or can prevent you from trying to make a comeback.

No one's questioning that it's harder for them to win than Fox vs. Sheik. Now hit me with valid arguments.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Stalling is stalling. Why the hell are we discussion what is and isn't excessive stalling? You say we should find a blanket number in which Dedede can kill any character regardless of circumstance? He can't even kill Bowser at 300% on Final Destination, and getting to that percentage alone takes about a minute and a half to do. That alone is totally unreasonable. That alone IS STALLING. Controlling your opponent to keep yourself completely, 100% safe from harm, for a minute an a half, even if you're dealign damage is stalling. I don't care if you think I do not have a definitive line for "reasonable" or "excessive". It isn't even a topic you can argue.

I absolutely refuse to reply to you anymore. Your idiocy is unparalleled to everyone else in this topic. You've completely diverted yourself from every point I've made, and just argued back with "well define reasonable blah blah blah".

I'm done.

Why?

Why is that unreasonable?

Tournaments have already done that, it functioned just fine.

That and you don't NEED a blanket number, you can vary it by character and stage.


And bowser isn't an infinite, so it's not even worth considering.


The stall argument is being ignored by everyone exception me because it's ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH, IN MELEE.


The reason that you say that we don't need hard rules is because you're not considering the competitive mindset, and the need to make rules set in stone to eliminate subjectivity.

How do you expect a player to do everything within the rules to win if you don't know what the rules are?! It DOESN'T WORK!

So, can someone explain how in the world COMMON SENSE dictates that this shouldn't be banned?

Because applicability for bans require proof.

lmfao this is the most logic I've seen all topic, and I'm not even kidding.

Ad hominem is beyond the level of intelligence the anti-ban side thinks they're using

So making arguments and backing them up with evidence is below the level of intelligence of Ad Hominem logical fallacy?

Funny, I thought that this was how debates were conducted...

You should also realize that language is only viable because of accepted definitions of words, and that by saying "skew" most people were able to understand and comprehend what i meant... that is that DDD in this case, makes these matchups completely one sided and unwinnable, and were not confused by the usage.

edit: i also would like to add that i doubt anyone will base their judgement on ddd's infinite on the "biased context of the word skew"

You have no idea, the psychology of language is very significant in deciding how undecided individuals pick sides, and even if people change sides. They don't realize it, but it does happen.

There's no advantage to using "skew" except that it's prejudicial language, why bother?

 

[BentoBox]

On the other maps, DDD's CG cannot extend all the way to the death zone as it does with Eldin's bridge, so the circumstances regarding it changes.

No. Just no. Like, wow, no. It doesn't matter HOW it happens if the same results are being witnessed. The problem is the SAME. The fact that you can take a stock out with 1 grab REGARDLESS OF YOUR POSITION ON THE MAP applies in BOTH contexts. Hence, they are to be treated the same way.

So int he case of Eldin's bridge where only 12 characters are viable, on other stages it increases by more than 2.5x the amount.

Also you make it sound like DD' grab is 100% guaranteed as soon as you hit the Z button.

Im calling you black Mr. tea kettle.

Do you even read yourself before posting? Who here is backing up a decision based on arbitrary numbers? (2.5x) And I'm the kettle calling you black? How am I playing god when you're the one throwing subjectivity in the mix?

 

[Punishment Divine]

What, this crap of an argument:
"Fox does not lose the ability to reflect your thunder and shield/dodge/punish your attacks and do damage after it is over."?

Neither do the characters who get infinited. Once the infinite is over, they are free to come back and try to make a comeback. It's just harder to do. They do not magically lose the ability to fight D3. It's not like he gets automatic grabs out of thin air or can prevent you from trying to make a comeback.

No one's questioning that it's harder for them to win than Fox vs. Sheik. Now hit me with valid arguments.

No, it is IMPOSSIBLE to come back from this.

If you are playing against DDD and trying to do ANYTHING, you will get grabbed. I dare you to ask someone who's really, really good. Say M2K. Now ask him to play someone who's been playing the game for a week. Ask him to avoid getting grabbed by DDD three times.

I understand that it's difficult to prove that you can't avoid getting grabbed by DDD. But to be honest, common sense holds more place in debate than theory. And if you can't agree that DDD will grab you at least once a stock, you shouldn't be playing this game at a competitive level.

@ adum whatever the **** - Yes, because you aren't backing anything up. You're using theory and reusing the same arguments even though they've been disproven.

 

[Crow!]

Yuna smells blood, I see.

With respect to ICs vs DDD, the difference is that ICs' grabbing range is pathetic, and the ICs have so little going for them other than a grab that there is basically nothing else to be afriad of; "don't get grabbed" is valid advice as long as you can win the match by focusing all your defenses on that single objective. With DDD, not only is avoiding a grab you know is coming significantly harder due to the huge range, but DDD has so many great options that if you kill your defenses to avoid the grab, then you're just going to die the traditional way because you've killed all your own flexibility.

So basically, it comes down to whether we are okay with the fact that Brawl occasionally comes down to a Rock-Scissors-Paper game decided before play even begins. Me, I think such a thing is sufficiently silly that we can use it as a justification for reinstating 5 otherwise completely dead options for mains by eliminating it.

 

[Woozle]

Yuna:

You are laughable. And I mean this sincerely. You can't seem to have an argument or thought that doesn't begin with an insult or a baseless demoralization of who you are countering. In logic, this kind of technique is called Ad Hominem and is nearly useless in the overall strength and validity of an argument. Let me give you an example:

Yes, your inability to grasp logic is striking.

D3's "tactic" is a part of his character. He can use it against everyone but 12 characters in the game. However, against 6 of them, it works really, really well. This is because they were designed in such a way that it's really effective against them.

It's still something only D3 can do. The tactic is a part of D3, the character. It's D3 countering them.

Your circular talk is getting you nowhere. It's not like it would matter if it was a specific tactic instead of a character. What, if it was a specific tactic pretty much everyone had that rendered these characters unviable, we'd ban it then?

Half of this quote is complete garbage logically.

Why should it? The only people who care about it are the n00bs who think "Skill" is important.

Who think that if something is technically hard to do, it then requires skill and is therefore less broken than something else, which nets the exact same results, but which is easier to do (technically).

Why? If it's humanly possible to learn and perfect, people will learn and perfect it. Just because it's easier to do does not make it any more or less broken! People will eventually get it down! The only difference is that the easier it is to do, the more people will be able to learn it. Deal with it.

Whoopity doo, nobody (credible) cares.

This one, too.

Maybe people would be more willing to entertain your thoughts if you weren't so condescending and rude.

As to the 90:10 versus 100:0, let me try and paint another analogy.

I have a bag. It has nine dimes and a penny.

I dip my hand into the bag. 90 times out of ten, I get a dime. Once in ten, I get the penny.

Now I have a bag full of just dimes.

I will never, ever, ever get a penny.

 

[Yuna]

That was the general gist... Yuna.

I see there was more.

"You forgot one thing THEY END."
So does the infinite. It ends. It's just that when it ends, you're more behind than when Sheik's F-tilt lock ends. No one is disputing this. My challenge is for you to quantify why it's not bannable while the infinite is.

Both end.

"Those are not infinites. They do not make Fox unviable."
O RLY? Why, pray tell? Why is Fox not unviable considering he has to face several 0-high percentage combos out of thin air?

"Pikachu, Sheik, and ZSS's advantages over Fox are completely irrelevant, since they require player skill, knowledge of the tactics, and proper and continuous application of those tactics while facing active resistance."
Only n00bs cling to the notion of "skill". Nobody cares. If it's humanly possible, people will learn to do it. Skilled Sheiks, Pikachus and ZSS's will destroyed skilled Foxes because they will have the necessary skill, knowledge of the tactics and ability to properly apply them contiously while facing active resistance. And what the hell are you talking about, anyway?!

ZSS's and Sheik's locks allow Fox minimal active resistance. Pikachu's CG allows Fox to, um, DI. Wow!

"Keeping DDD's infinite adds nothing to the competitive game, save for increased emphasis on the counterpick system and pre-match selection system."
Anything that doesn't add anything to the Competitive game should be eliminated? Logic?

Also, why doesn't it? Adds, you know, the infinites. It adds D3's ability to destroy those characters he can infinite. This is an addition, whether you like it or not. Competitive fighting games are not fair. Not all characters are viable or should be made viable through banning various things.

if characters are viable, tough luck, switch.


None of you seem to have played any Competitive fighting game Competitively for a longer period of time. Come back in two years time once you have any kind of insight into any Competitive fighting game scene.

Maybe then you will have stopped whining about unfairness and "things requiring little skill" (the battlecry of the Scrubs).

 

[BentoBox]

What, this crap of an argument:
"Fox does not lose the ability to reflect your thunder and shield/dodge/punish your attacks and do damage after it is over."?

Neither do the characters who get infinited. Once the infinite is over, they are free to come back and try to make a comeback. It's just harder to do. They do not magically lose the ability to fight D3. It's not like he gets automatic grabs out of thin air or can prevent you from trying to make a comeback.

No one's questioning that it's harder for them to win than Fox vs. Sheik. Now hit me with valid arguments.

Regardless of the way it was worded, it has a lot to do with this:

This adds nothing to competitive play. Furthermore, it puts DDD dangerously close to my definition of what warrants a ban:

1. Character removes fundamental aspects of gameplay.

The infinite removes the ability of the opponent to DI or to defend themselves, something that should generally always be present.

" since they require player skill, knowledge of the tactics, and proper and continuous application of those tactics while facing active resistance.

DDD's infinite requires a grab."

This was the main point that was brought up. And C018 brought up cases of foxes triumphing against said odds. But you will never hear of a someone coming back from getting his 3 stocks infinited. That is simply not in the realm of the possible.

 

[Cows]

personally i dont think it should be i have a simple solution to all chaingrabbing solutions.....DONT GET INTO THEM!!! if they dont grab you they dont chaingrab you if you know dedede has a chaingrab dont let them grab you problem solved

 

[Punishment Divine]

personally i dont think it should be i have a simple solution to all chaingrabbing solutions.....DONT GET INTO THEM!!! if they dont grab you they dont chaingrab you if you know dedede has a chaingrab dont let them grab you problem solved

Are you ****ing serious? Have you ever been to a tournament, even?

 

[Hive]

I've already read the rest of your post.

"Your post is bad and you should feel bad!"


What does this have to do with over-centralization? Of course not everything in the rules are written to prevent over-centralization. The decisions on what to ban and what not to ban most often are.


I'm sorry, are you saying that if stalling was allowed, people would not flock to characters who could whack you once to get a %-lead and then run away for the next 7+ minutes to win on time? I mean, in the face of people doing it, the rest would just sit back and take it instead of taking up characters which can the same themselves and thus we'd be stuck with tournaments where people hit each other a few times and then spend the rest of the match stalling?

If you are, then you obviously haven't been a part of any Competitive fighting game scene for an extended period of time.
.

<.< not everything that is banning has to do with over centralization... i know you said so yourself but that was exactly my point.....
anyways could you explain to me what you mean you are meaning by overcentralization in this case i think i might have gotten the wrong meaning from it?
anyways, i wasn't saying that ppl wouldn't flock to characters that wouldn't run away for 7 min. win on time.... i'm not sure why you wrote so much on it...


@adumbrodeus: ps i didn't use "skew" bc it has prejudicial language <.<.... if i thought it would have been that big of a deal i wouldn't have used it. period.
but if you felt that was what i meant, then i'm sorry... i honestly didn't mean it like that at all... ; ;

 

[Crow!]

Yuna:

You are laughable. And I mean this sincerely. You can't seem to have an argument or thought that doesn't begin with an insult or a baseless demoralization of who you are countering. In logic, this kind of technique is called Ad Hominem and is nearly useless in the overall strength and validity of an argument. Let me give you an example:
...
Half of this quote is complete garbage logically.
...
This one, too.

Maybe people would be more willing to entertain your thoughts if you weren't so condescending and rude.

...

While arguably true, this is, ironically, an ad hominem attack on Yuna.

 

[Woozle]

Are you ****ing serious? Have you ever been to a tournament, even?

Now, now.

He's trying very hard to get the "good" players to like him. :=

 

[Sesshomuronay]

personally i dont think it should be i have a simple solution to all chaingrabbing solutions.....DONT GET INTO THEM!!! if they dont grab you they dont chaingrab you if you know dedede has a chaingrab dont let them grab you problem solved

This is nearly impossible especially with Dedede's gargantuan grab range.

 

[DA_RAIN]

dis ****e iz gay and has no purpose xcept 2 stall or otherwise ruin da match it has no place in tounrments ban dis garbage LoL

if u say no then what does it add to tournaments it does not foster betetr play n in does not make players better it is just a hindrance to the tournament both the players and the host

dis is really dumb

 

[Woozle]

While true, this is, ironically, an ad hominem attack on Yuna.

It's only Ad Hominem if I'm using it to boost my points over his.

I'm not, really. My attacks are supporting my argument that he is condescending and rude, not using the fact that I think he is to support anything else.