Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Punishment Divine]

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.

You're not the first to bring this up.

Simply cross his ad hominem out and attack his weak points, and you'll be fine

 

[UTDZac]

So let's assume you are the best DK player in the world. Your cool and you rock! Now you go to some big tournament. According to statistics, you should place anywhere from 1st-3rd. That's a lot of money and fame!

First game of the first match you beat someone bad. He hates you. He picks DDD. He beats you the next two games. GG you are in losers. You go to losers and beat up a noob. Then the next guy you play knows who you are because you have an awesome DK. He picks DDD and beats you 2/3. GG.

Yes.... Good Games! You placed 65th out of 100 people.

You try to figure out why you did so bad. Oh, were you not focusing on "Don't get grabbed." All you have to do is keep telling yourself "Don't get grabbed" and magically you won't get grabbed. It's impossible to get grabbed as long as you focus. Focus harder. HARDER.

...

In reality focusing can prevent noob/inexperienced players from grabbing you. But against anybody who has a well developed grab game, you will get grabbed at least once per stock if they are trying hard enough because THEY will focus on "I must grab him... I must grab him... That's all I have to do."




DDD counters DK. He deserved it. All characters have their counterpicks. But isn't there a difference between counterpicking characters to gain an edge against your opponent, and counterpicking moves/techniques that don't demonstrate skill?

Falco vs. DDD is a bad matchup for DDD. Getting grabbed adds a lot of damage. But it's not GG. The Falco player still has to add more damage and get a kill move off.

DDD vs. DK, on the other hand, means getting grabbed = stock loss. Therefore the DDD player doesn't need much skill other than a good grab game and knowledge of the technique. He will win just by grabbing once, going to 999%, and then killing. He can even stall out time if he gets a second grab on your next stock.



So it's fair to say:
1 Grab = You win the game. THIS is competitive brawl. Deal with it.

 

[Yuna]

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 shall now ignore your every future post in this thread after this post of utter BS.

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:

I'm only rude and condescending to those who deserve it; people who think they know more than they do, who lack intelligence and logic and who cannot see reason.

Half of this quote is complete garbage logically.

Only to those who lack logic.

This one, too.

Why in the world would that be logically lacking? Difficulty to perform on a technical level is inconsequential since if it's humanly possible to learn, people will perfect it.

What part of that is confusing you?

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

If I'm being rude of condescending towards someone, I've judged them to lack the intellect to grasp plain English or possess any modicum of logic, thus, "a lost cause".

The mere fact that some people seem unable to grasp the fact that difficulty of technical performance is inconsequential after I explain it to them makes them prime candidates for "lost cause"-status.

I will never, ever, ever get a penny.

But that's not how it works. That is not how matchups work. I have already told you this. I have already told you how matchups work.

Smash is not Poker. It is not pre-destined. The fate of both players is always in the hands of the players, even if one player might have an advantage.

A 90-10 means there's statistically 10% chance you will win the match. A 100-0 means you should lose it 100 out of 100 times, but there's nothing stopping you from winning it except the odds. It's possible to win.

Anyone claiming otherwise are "lost causes".

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

Yes, obviously, Umbreons definition of what should be banned is what's important (no offense to UmbreonMeow)

" 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."

It requires a grab and timing. That is player skill, knowledge of the tactic and proper and continious application of those tactics. The only diff. being in that it prevents them from DI:ing.

Fortunately, "Removes an aspect of the game from play" is not what we ban things by or we'd ban edgehogging against tether-recoveries since, hey, it removes the aspect of Up Bs from the game completely for those characters!

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.

Why? Why is not possible, ever?

Fox coming back triumping against his many bad matchups is exceedingly rare. But since it's not as rare as someone winning against an infiniting D3, it's OK? So it's only 80% as bad, so it's OK? Why?

 

[ShadowLink84]

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.

Wait a moment we are both going off in different directions. I was speaking abut DDD's Cg inr egards to the stage including all the other characters.
I was not speaking explicitly about the 5 characters being infinited because I thought we had been discussing as to what factored in Eldin Bridge being banned.

Do you even read yourself before posting?

Stop taking my lines.

Who here is backing up a decision based on arbitrary numbers? (2.5x)

12 X 2.5=28 characters.
Considering i also said more than 2.5x that means 28+ characters are available to use without worrying about the CG as they would on Eldin bridge.

The 12 are those characters who cannot be CG'ed.
Arbitrary indeed.

And I'm the kettle calling you black? How am I playing god when you're the one throwing subjectivity in the mix?

You must be joking. I am the one thats going left and right that thorws things in such as

DDD's infinite is unfair, it breaks the matchup, it takes no skill, it should be banned.
however when i go and bring up how the infinite is not causing overcentralizing, how it doesn't break competitiveness, how several competitive games had to deal with a similar issue, its subjective?

Right.

 

[Yuna]

<.< 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...

Then I have no idea what the hell you meant to say with your last post.

You're not the first to bring this up.

Simply cross his ad hominem out and attack his weak points, and you'll be fine

The beautiful thing is that my points are very seldom weak. Which is why it's OK for me to ad hominem people who keep throwing horrendously weak points my way.

 

[Deleted member]

however when i go and bring up how the infinite is not causing overcentralizing, how it doesn't break competitiveness, how several competitive games had to deal with a similar issue, its subjective?

I fail to see how being unable to move does not break competitiveness.

 

[Punishment Divine]

I shall now ignore your every future post in this thread after this post of utter BS.

Okay, ignoring this ad hominem. Have you ever gone a match without getting grabbed by DDD? Ohwait, you don't go to tournaments. Scrub

 

[da K.I.D.]

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?

this is also known as, "its easier to do"

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

super this
resized for emphasis

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.

but when the infinite is over the D3 either forward, or back throws for the kill...

is it just me, or all are the no ban arguments coming from ppl that dont really go to tourneys to begin with. none of the people against this ban that i can tell, have seen a really good DK/mario player get knocked out of a tourney or lose out on a lot of money because of some silly garbage like this.

if you had in person seen the effects that this has on high stakes games, than you wouldnt be against the ban.

 

[Dark Sonic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm8z4O24CvI&feature=related

6:21 WHY IS EVERYONE IGNORING THIS!!!! Breaking out after one pummel at 129%!?! That seems kind of important.

 

[Kitamerby]

DDD vs. DK/Mario/Luigi/Samus/Bowser is a boring as hell match to watch.

While we're at it, so's Sheik's Ftilt lock on Fox, Pikachu's CG on Fox, and ZSS's Dsmash lock on Fox, Wario's Dthrow shenanigans on DK, etc.

Poor Fox gets gayed over so badly.

Keep the infinites on Wario, though. He's gay. D:<

They make matches boring to watch and boring to play, and that's all I'm gonna say on the matter. This is simply an opinion of mine.

 

[Punishment Divine]

attn: Easier To Do =/= Easier To Achieve In An Actual Match

 

[Deleted member]

You lose full and complete control of your character when you get death comboed by DK as Fox in melee.
Ban the death combo?
There were a number of death combos in melee all of which removed any contorl you had when it was being done to you.

They don't negate DI, nor do they go forever.

You STILL have no addressed that it breaks the game play by removing DI and that it can stall a match indefinitely. Both break fundamental aspects of standard game play. This "breaks" the game.

It is BROKEN.

edit: and you strawman like a mother****er. look it up so you know what it is, and stop doing it.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I fail to see how being unable to move does not break competitiveness.

I fail to see how it does. Again, in several games you have combos that are very long and mae the opponent unable to do anything until they end.
MvC2, Bleach 2nd, melee.

ban everything that leaves the opponent helpless until you decide to kill them.
Makes total sense.

you know what? I'll offer you a challenge.
Since you believe the infinite is so very destructive to competitiveness, I will use DDD while you use any of the 5 characters who get infinited.

We'll see if my scrubby *** DDD can 2-3stock you on the infinite alone.

They don't negate DI, nor do they go forever.

They end in the exact same thing. You get KO'ed. you are completely helpless until they reach that killing percent where they WILL Fsmash you into oblivion.
What makes DDD's infinite so much worse than marth's CG ~Fsmash on ness?
both guarantee death.
Ness can DI though!

You STILL have no addressed that it breaks the game play by removing DI and that it can stall a match indefinitely. Both break fundamental aspects of standard game play. This "breaks" the game.

Stalling can be addressed by putting a ceiling.
250%-300%
Stalling solved.
Removing DI?
no DI will save Wario from the infinite that Ganondorf performs on him.
Shall we ban that too?

Deal with it, don't get grabbed.

It is BROKEN.

Ftilt on Fox is broken.
So is Pikachu's CG.
What about falcos CG~air.
broken.

No denying that it is gay and in a true competitive game, should not occur (or when it does is limited), but it doesn't, and its not like the opponent can press abuttona nd automatically grab you.

 

[Woozle]

Yuna:

It would be the striked things.

 

[BentoBox]

IT'S THE FACT THAT YOU BASE A DECISION UPON A RATIO THAT YOU JUDGE SATISFACTORY THAT MAKES IT SUBJECTIVE.

When did you see me use "its unfair" as a basis for any arguments I've pushed forth?

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. I'm done with you.

 

[Yuna]

Okay, ignoring this ad hominem. Have you ever gone a match without getting grabbed by DDD? Ohwait, you don't go to tournaments. Scrub

Don't say stuff and think people won't call you on it.

The post you wrote did not say "You can never go a match without getting grabbed by DDD", what you said was:
"If you are playing against DDD and trying to do ANYTHING, you will get grabbed."

Anyone sane would interpret this as "Anything you against DDD will result in a grab" and not "You can never go an entire match without getting grabbed by DDD".

You cannot go an entire match without getting F-tilted by Sheik, either. What's your point, really?

 

[Woozle]

They don't negate DI, nor do they go forever.

You STILL have no addressed that it breaks the game play by removing DI and that it can stall a match indefinitely. Both break fundamental aspects of standard game play. This "breaks" the game.

It is BROKEN.

edit: and you strawman like a mother****er. look it up so you know what it is, and stop doing it.

Oh **** strawman :D

Sorry, haven't heard the term in a while.

 

[Crow!]

...

The beautiful thing is that my points are very seldom weak. Which is why it's OK for me to ad hominem people who keep throwing horrendously weak points my way.

Wha-huh?

That officially makes no sense at all. I hope that was supposed to be sarcasm, but even if it is I don't get the joke..

 

[Dark Sonic]

Bleach 2nd

What's Bleach 2nd?

And to add to your list.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fu2154mo9g
The entire naruto ultimate ninja series.

 

[Hive]

I see there was more.

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.

Only n00bs cling to the notion of "skill". Nobody cares.



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.

i'm not sure how you can defend rulings against stalling though
and also claim that "skill" is a noob concept and that competitive games shouldn't try to make matchups viable
also saying that all pro-ban ppl must have obviously never been to a competitive scene is beyond any logic that i know of....
of course i'm still noobish enough apparently to believe in skill....

 

[Ulevo]

They don't negate DI, nor do they go forever.

You STILL have no addressed that it breaks the game play by removing DI and that it can stall a match indefinitely. Both break fundamental aspects of standard game play. This "breaks" the game.

It is BROKEN.

edit: and you strawman like a mother****er. look it up so you know what it is, and stop doing it.

This. Serious, this.

While the rest of us for some reason actually care to go into detail, Umbreon puts it in simplistic terms for everyone to understand. It makes sense. There is no misunderstanding or miscommunication.

Why the hell is everyone still arguing this? How about I unplug your controller for a [insert "what is unreasonable blah blah blah" time here] amount of time? I don't see the difference.

 

[Deleted member]

I fail to see how it does. Again, in several games you have combos that are very long and mae the opponent unable to do anything until they end.
MvC2, Bleach 2nd, melee.

ban everything that leaves the opponent helpless until you decide to kill them.
Makes total sense.

you know what? I'll offer you a challenge.
Since you believe the infinite is so very destructive to competitiveness, I will use DDD while you use any of the 5 characters who get infinited.

We'll see if my scrubby *** DDD can 2-3stock you on the infinite alone.

If you strawman one more time I'm going to drive to your house and kill you.

Brawl =/= other games. Our community serves its own interest, and we should and will not cater the the ****ty rules of other communities.

NO MORE STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS

 

[ShadowLink84]

IT'S THE FACT THAT YOU BASE A DECISION UPON A RATIO THAT YOU JUDGE SATISFACTORY THAT MAKES IT SUBJECTIVE.

When did you see me use "its unfair" as a basis for any arguments I've pushed forth?

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. I'm done with you.

Now you are being hypocritical.
Are you not being subjective by dictating that the ratio is satisfactory enough to warrant a ban?

Let alone that the ratio that I bought before you was supported and the reasoning stated. you have yet to even state WHY 5 characters being infinited is enough to be ban worthy let alone offer true examples of where it would be supported.

If you're leaving fine, I have nothing against you.

 

[Surri-Sama]

Brawl players talk about banning **** to much....

We never had to ban anything but a few stages and items in Smash 64 :o

 

[bobson]

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.

But many people won't learn it if they deem it too hard to do for its payoff, which was my point. If a technique is nigh impossible to do, it won't have a large effect on the metagame because most people aren't capable of doing it, regardless of the power of the technique.

Bringing up the ICs was a terrible argument on my part.

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.

Brawl is not Guilty Gear, nor was it intended for the audience of Guilty Gear. Hell, even classifying it as a fighter is a stretch. I don't believe Brawl's rules should be predominately approached from the angle of traditional fighting games because Brawl is not a traditional fighting game.

Oh **** strawman :D

Sorry, haven't heard the term in a while.

You must've not been in this thread for long.

 

[Deleted member]

Brawl players talk about banning **** to much....

We never had to ban anything but a few stages and items in Smash 64 :o

write a letter to nintendo and tell them to make their games better. if they game doesn't suck, we won't have to fix it.

 

[Woozle]

You must've not been in this thread for long.

Or not at the right times.

 

[Fletch]

write a letter to nintendo and tell them to make their games better. if they game doesn't suck, we won't have to fix it.

Now that's something I can agree with.

 

[Cease Tick]

Aw ****. Accidentaly voted yes instead of no.

 

[ftl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm8z4O24CvI&feature=related

6:21 WHY IS EVERYONE IGNORING THIS!!!! Breaking out after one pummel at 129%!?! That seems kind of important.

Everyone is ignoring it because as far as we know, it was a strange glitch and nothing more. These things happen. Maybe there was some tilt to the stage for some reason. Maybe it was some other glitch. In Tactical, for as long as I've wasted time here there've been occasionally threads popping up with "OMG LOOK AT THIS NEW AT I JUST DISCOVERED!!!!" of which (ignoring the half which are reposts of things everyone knows) most are weird glitches which aren't intentionally reproducible as far as anyone knows. This looks like it's one of those.

 

[Crow!]

Brawl players talk about banning **** to much....

We never had to ban anything but a few stages and items in Smash 64 :o

Games have never been made perfectly. However, gamers are becoming much less complacent about the imperfections and want to take an active hand in making them better. See, for instance, the rise in popularity of modding, first in computer games and now even in console games. Banning stuff is just a way of modding that doesn't require an extensive technical knowledge to put together.

 

[laki]

Just thought I'd through something out here.

Ban criteria from a book I just read by Sirlin, A Street fighter pro who helped balance Street fighter hd remix.

What should be banned.
by Sirlin
Now this is a tricky subject, not nearly so clear-cut as the last. The world is full of players who think everything under the sun should be banned. The scrub believes that any tactic or maneuver that beats him should be labeled “cheap” and consequently banned. In actuality, very little ever needs to be banned.

Before we discuss what should or should not be allowed in tournament play, I should acknowledge that different forms of distribution of games have led to different attitudes about banning. Some types of games are released, and that’s that. The players are stuck with whatever is in the game. Other types of games see a patch or two to fix the most egregious bugs and perhaps game balance problems. I’ll lump these two into the same category though as they both basically stick the player with whatever is there after the last patch. These are the types of games I grew up with.

Internet gaming has introduced a different type of game. Blizzard (makers of StarCraft, Warcraft 3, Diablo, and World of Warcraft) is a special game developer that provides a free matchmaking service called battle.net for many of its games. Since all of its multiplayer competitive games are played over this service, Blizzard can (and does) gather an incredible amount of data about how the games are played, how quickly they end, which tactics are successful, which maps are played, etc. They continue to balance their games though new patches years after release.

So-called massively multiplayer games like EverQuest and World of Warcraft, though not zero-sum competitive games, are also constantly monitored and patched by their developers. Players currently pay a monthly fee to play these types of games and thereby financially support large development teams who constantly improve and tweak the game.

The entire notion of radically patching and altering a game after its release may have many desirable properties, but it also has created an attitude among developers that they can release a somewhat buggy and imbalanced game and just patch it later. It is no surprise then that players of this type of game see differently than players of more “static” games on the issue of banning and altering a game. To players of my kind of games, banning is an ultra-extreme measure. To players of some internet games, the changing of game balance can be an everyday occurrence, as can the fixing of bugs.

The “constant patching” approach by developers also often leads to laziness on the part of the players; there’s less reward for trying as hard as you can within the given rules, because if you are successful, your tactic will just be patched into obsolescence anyway. You might be a footnote someplace, but you won’t still be winning. It gets worse in most massively multiplayer games, where you can actually be banned—permanently—for playing within the rules they created, but playing in a way they had not intended.

Criteria of a Ban

A ban must be enforceable, discrete, and warranted.

Enforceable

Sometimes, a tactic can be hard to detect. If you can’t reliably detect something, you certainly can’t enforce penalties on it. In a fighting game, a trick might make a move invulnerable that shouldn’t be, but actually detecting every time the trick is used might be nearly impossible. Or consider a real-time strategy game, where a trick might give your units a few more hit points than normal, but again, detecting this might be nearly impossible in a real game. If something is to be banned from tournament play, it must be reasonably easy to identify when it happens or to prevent it from ever happening at all.

Also in a fighting game, a move might be “unfairly” unblockable, but only when that move is executed in a certain situation with precise 1/60th of a second timing. Did the player execute it during that “unfair” time window? Or 1/60th of a second late? Perhaps he accidentally executed the move at the unfair time through sheer luck. Is he to be penalized? Imagine trying to enforce a rule that states “You may usually use move X, but there’s 1/60th of a second where you may not use move X.”

Discrete

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.

Or in a first-person shooter game, consider the notion of banning “camping” (sitting in one place for too long). No friendly agreement between the players is necessary for the ban, which at least means it’s enforceable. The server can monitor the positions of players, and it knows exactly who breaks the rule and can hand out penalties accordingly. The ban is enforceable, but the problem is being able to completely define camping. If camping is defined as staying within one zone for 3 minutes, and if it really is the best tactic, then sitting in that zone for 2 minutes 59 seconds becomes the best tactic. It’s a slippery slope because there will always exist camping tactics arbitrarily close to the specific kind of camping that is banned.

Here’s an example of a completely defined game element. In the card game Magic: The Gathering, if a particular card is deemed to be too good, then it is possible to ban it. One can define completely that “that card cannot be used.” There is no fear of players still “sort of” using it, in the same way they could still “sort of” repeat the moves from the fighting game, or “sort of” camp for 2 minutes 59 seconds above. The card is a discrete entity that can feasibly be banned.

Warranted

Here is the whole issue, of course. If it isn’t warranted to ban something, we don’t need to even consider whether it’s enforceable or discrete. The great lesson of competitive games is that hardly anything warrants a ban.

A bug that gives players a small advantage does not warrant a ban. In fact, it’s common. Many players don’t even realize they are using bugs, but instead view them as “advanced tactics.” Even bugs that have a huge effect on gameplay are usually not warranted to be banned. The game may change with the new tactic, but games are resilient and there tend to be countermeasures (sometimes other bugs) to almost everything.

In the fighting game Street Fighter Alpha 2, there is a bug that allows the player to activate a very damaging move (called “Custom Combo”) against an opponent who is standing up (not crouching). The designers surely intended a standing opponent to be able to crouch and block this move upon seeing it, but if executed correctly, he cannot. It has a huge impact on the way the game is played (standing up is now quite dangerous), but there is still an excellent game left even after this technique is known. At first glance, one might think that attacking is too dangerous because it usually involves standing up. Closer examination shows that the attacker can stick out moves to knock the defender out of his Custom Combo, should he try it. Basically, the bug can be dealt with. This game-changing tactic is referred to by players as the “Valle CC” after its inventor, Alex Valle (more on him later).

As another example, consider the puzzle game Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo. It’s vaguely like Tetris. In this game, blocks of various colors fall into your basin and you try to match up the colors to break these blocks to fill up your opponent’s basin. If you fill up his basin to the top, you win.

Puzzle Fighter has a game-altering bug. A feature called the diamond lets the player break all blocks of a certain color on his own side (even if they aren’t lined up) and send blocks to the opponent’s side. Usually, doing this means sending much, much fewer blocks than if the player had broken all the blocks of that color manually. It’s a tradeoff since the diamond allows the player to break all those blocks instantly, but at the price of a smaller attack. There is a bug, though, called the “diamond trick” that allows the player to send even more blocks with the diamond than he would have sent breaking all his blocks of that color manually. The diamond goes from “get me out of trouble” to being a serious, game-ending thwomp. It’s nearly impossible to defeat a player who uses the diamond trick without using it yourself.

Amongst players who all know this trick, there is still a good game. One player can use his diamond trick to cancel out the other player’s. Each player gets diamond every twenty-fifth piece, so you can count on the other player getting his diamond about the same time you get yours. You can also just break a lot of blocks right when the opponent does his diamond trick. This will allow you to cancel some of the incoming block, but still give you a pretty full basin. A peculiarity of Puzzle Fighter is that when your basin is nearly full, you then have a lot of ammunition to send back to the opponent. A clever player can turn the other player’s huge diamond trick into a stockpile of ammunition to fire back for the win. In the end, the trick merely changes the game and does not destroy it, and is certainly not worthy of banning.

How does one know if a bug destroys the game or even if a legitimate tactic destroys it? The rule of thumb is to assume it doesn’t and keep playing, because 99% of the time, as good as the tactic may be, there will either be a way to counter it or other even better tactics. Prematurely banning something is the scrub’s way. It prevents the scrub from ever discovering the counter to the Valle CC or the diamond trick. It also creates artificial rules that alter the game, when it’s entirely possible that the game was just fine the way it was. It also usually leads to an avalanche of bans in order to be consistent with the first. When players think they have found a game-breaking tactic, I advise them to go win some tournaments with it. If they can prove that the game really is reduced to just that tactic, then perhaps a ban is warranted. It’s extremely rare that a player is ever able to prove this though. In fact, I don’t even have any examples of it.

A note to game developers: fix your bugs after release if you have the opportunity to do so. But beware that players enjoy the feeling of wielding “unfair” tactics, and taking that away from them can be a mistake if the “unfair” tactic isn’t powerful enough to single-handedly win tournaments.

Immediately Ban-worthy Glitches

There are some things so extreme that they can be banned without much testing. These include glitches that crash the game or have radical effects, such as blanking out the opponent’s entire screen, removing his characters, units, or resources from the game, and so forth. Glitches so extreme that they undeniably end or prevent gameplay are worthy of being banned. Likewise, so are glitches that are not equally available to all players. Some glitches in a two player game can only be performed by player 2. It is reasonable to ban such a tactic, even if it’s not overly powerful, just on the basis that all players do not have equal access to it.

“It’s Too Good!”

Only in the most extreme, rare cases should something be banned because it is “too good.” This will be the most common type of ban requested by players, and almost all of their requests will be foolish. Banning a tactic simply because it is “the best” isn’t even warranted. That only reduces the game to all the “second best” tactics, which isn’t necessarily any better of a game than the original game. In fact, it’s often worse!

The only reasonable case to ban something because it is “too good” is when that tactic completely dominates the entire game, to the exclusion of other tactics. It is possible, though very rare, that removing an element of the game that is not only “the best” but also “ten times better than anything else in the game” results in a better game. I emphasize that is extremely rare. The most common case is that the player requesting the ban doesn’t fully grasp that the game is, in fact, not all about that one tactic. He should win several tournaments using mainly this tactic to prove his point. Another, far rarer possibility is that he’s right. The game really is shallow and centered on one thing (whether that one thing is a bug or by design is irrelevant). In that case, the best course of action is usually to abandon the game and play one of the hundreds of other readily available good games in the world.

Only in the ultra-rare case that the player is right and the game is worth saving and the game without the ultra-tactic is a ten times better game—only then is the notion even worth fighting for. And even in this case, it may take time for the game to mature enough for a great percentage of the best players and tournament organizers to realize that tactic should, indeed, be banned. Before an official ban takes place, there can also be something called “soft ban.” Let’s look at an example.

The Two Excellent Examples of “Super Turbo”

Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo, or “Super Turbo,” is a wonderful example of bannings in fighting games. As of this writing, the arcade game is ten years old and still played in tournaments. In fact, there are one or two tournaments per week in this game in Tokyo alone. The game is quite mature, and there is a decade of data about the game’s balance.

Many versions of Street Fighter have “secret characters” that are only accessible through a code. Sometimes these characters are good; sometimes they’re not. Occasionally, the secret characters are the best in the game as in the game Marvel vs. Capcom 1. Big deal. That’s the way that game is. Live with it. But Super Turbo was the first version of Street Fighter to ever have a secret character: the untouchably good Akuma. Most characters in that game cannot beat Akuma. I don’t mean it’s a tough match—I mean they cannot ever, ever, ever, ever win. Akuma is “broken” in that his air fireball move is something the game simply wasn’t designed to handle. He is not merely the best character in the game, but is at least ten times better than other characters. This case is so extreme that all top players in America immediately realized that all tournaments would be Akuma vs. Akuma only, and so the character was banned with basically no debate and has been ever since. I believe this was the correct decision.

Japan, however, does not officially ban Akuma from tournaments! They have what is called a “soft ban.” This is a tacit understanding amongst all top players that Akuma is too good to be played, and that he destroys an otherwise beautiful game, so they unofficially agree not to play him. There are always a very small number of people who do play him in tournaments, but never the top players. Usually a few poor players try their hand at the god-character and lose, which is utterly humiliating and crowd-pleasing. This is an interesting alternate take on the “hard ban” we have in America.

That’s all well and good, but Japan has also shown signs of a soft-ban on another character in Super Turbo. I bring up this example because it lives on the threshold. It is just on the edge of what is reasonable to ban because it is “too good.” Anything less than this would not be reasonable, so perhaps others can use it as a benchmark to decide what is reasonable in their games.

The character in question is the mysteriously named “Old Sagat.” Old Sagat is not a secret character like Akuma (or at least he’s not as secret!). Old Sagat does not have any moves like Akuma’s air fireball that the game was not designed to handle. Old Sagat is arguably the best character in the game (Akuma, of course, doesn’t count), but even that is debated by top players! I think almost any expert player would rank him in the top three of all characters, but there isn’t even universal agreement that he is the best! Why, then, would any reasonable person even consider banning him? Surely, it must be a group of scrubs who simply don’t know how to beat him, and reflexively cry out for a ban.

But this is not the case. There seems to be a tacit agreement amongst top players in Japan—a soft ban—on playing Old Sagat. The reason is that many believe the game to have much more variety without Old Sagat. Even if he is only second best in the game by some measure, he flat out beats half the characters in the game with little effort. Half the cast can barely even fight him, let alone beat him. Other top characters in the game, good as they are, win by much more interaction and more “gameplay.” Almost every character has a chance against the other best characters in the game. The result of allowing Old Sagat in tournaments is that several other characters, such as Chun Li and Ken, become basically unviable.

If someone had made these claims in the game’s infancy, no sort of ban would be warranted. Further testing through tournaments would be warranted. But we now have ten years of testing. We don’t have all Old Sagat vs. Old Sagat matches in tournaments, but we do know which characters can’t beat him and as a result are very rarely played in America. We likewise can see that this same category of characters flourishes in Japan, where Old Sagats are rare and only played by the occasional violator of the soft ban. It seems that the added variety of viable characters might outweigh the lack of Old Sagat. Is this ban warranted then? To be honest, I am not totally convinced that it is, but it is just barely in the ballpark of reasonableness since there is a decade of data on which to base the claim.

 

[Punishment Divine]

Don't say stuff and think people won't call you on it.

The post you wrote did not say "You can never go a match without getting grabbed by DDD", what you said was:
"If you are playing against DDD and trying to do ANYTHING, you will get grabbed."

Anyone sane would interpret this as "Anything you against DDD will result in a grab" and not "You can never go an entire match without getting grabbed by DDD".

You cannot go an entire match without getting F-tilted by Sheik, either. What's your point, really?

Okay, I'll change my wording then.

If you are trying to attack DDD, on the ground or in the air, all of these characters are at a high risk of getting shieldgrabbed. The solution? Well, DK is boned. He has to approach. Mari and Luigi and shoot fire at him, but Mario's get stopped by Waddle Dees and Luigi's don't go very far. Bowser has fire, but that doesn't work very long. Samus is the only one who stands a chance in this aspect, but this just forces DDD to approach.

Moving on, the grab itself. Well, DDD's grab range is pretty big. DK MUST perfectly space down-B, bair, and Punches, because DDD can grab him out of anything else. If he messes up ONCE, DDD can punish with a grab. There goes a stock. This applies to anyone but Samus, who when approached by DDD, is also easily shieldgrabbed upon either punish or outright approach.

Another thing I think people fail to notice, is that Shiek's ftilt and Pika's dthrow, they don't combo into a kill move. They also don't take away effects like DI, because Fox can still DI and Shine so it doesn't last as long as we used to think. DDD's infinite can be done until you can simply kill them with a throw, It combos right into the kill move. It also take effects away like DI. You can't even do something like Plank to avoid a kill move or more damage afterwards, because you're already down a stock. The only TRUE way to avoid this IS by planking, and we all know that this is banned already in every tournament in the Atlantic North and many are expected to follow.

Like I've said many times in this topic. It's not the fact that this is easy to do. The evil is that it's easy to GET that grab. So easy to the point that even at the highest level of play, the DDD WILL always win. Do I have a way to prove this? No. The only way to prove this would be something like, have Bum and M2K MM or something. But Common Sense and tournament practice dictates that through COMMON SENSE, not theory, DDD will always get that grab.

@ the above - GET THAT SIRLIN BULL**** OUT OF HERE, NOW

 

[Ulevo]

They end in the exact same thing. You get KO'ed. you are completely helpless until they reach that killing percent where they WILL Fsmash you into oblivion.
What makes DDD's infinite so much worse than marth's CG ~Fsmash on ness?
both guarantee death.
Ness can DI though!

No, Ness cannot DI. And the CG on Ness is no different, we just happen to be talking about Dedede, since that is what the title of the topic happens to be.

Also, it doesn't matter what the end result is. They effect the outcome of the match differently. And with a combo, there is no guarantee you will KO your opponent; it is completely subjective to circumstance. There is no circumstance in the infinite other than precious time being wasted, and you dying.

Oh, and for the record. If Fox UThrows to Uairs you in Melee, and you lose a stock, that might take what? 2 seconds to pull off? King Dedede needs to go over 300% for some characters to die. And let's not forget he can take his time using the infinite. They're not the same, don't argue this please.

Stalling can be addressed by putting a ceiling.
250%-300%
Stalling solved.

No, not stalling solved. I just survived with Bowser on Final Destination from a Dedede BThrow at 300%. So what? Are we going to make the blanket higher now? It already takes a minute and thirty seconds to reach that mark from 0%. Why don't we make it 400% and add an extra what, thirty seconds to the match. It's not a big deal right? Completely relinquishing control over the opponent for a full thirty seconds isn't stalling, right?

Last time I looked at the IDC, people were freaking out that you could do it for ten seconds.

Removing DI?
no DI will save Wario from the infinite that Ganondorf performs on him.
Shall we ban that too?

Um, yes? Again, this is the topic on Dedede. That doesn't mean we're automatically ignoring other characters with other related problems. Stop assuming so.

Deal with it, don't get grabbed.

You have a match with my Dedede and listen to your own advice when you pick one of the five characters mentioned. It's not practical, or competitively intelligent to leave this technique legal.

Ftilt on Fox is broken.

No it's not. It doesn't take control away from the player. It doesn't stall. It actually ends. I think you may even be able to SDI out of it.

So is Pikachu's CG.

A more extreme example, but what I said above still applies.

What about falcos CG~air.
broken.

Falco's CG doesn't work on every stage, regardless of position or percent. For the characters it does work on, it isn't a guaranteed KO every time. It also doesn't stall the match.

No.

 

[ShadowLink84]

If you strawman one more time I'm going to drive to your house and kill you.

Where did I ever misinterpret your argument?
Do explain I've asked you this twice now and you have yet to explain.

if you wish to drive down to my house go ahead, I'll give you the address. We can play smash if you want or if you are planning to live out that thread, sick my rabid rabbits on you.

Brawl =/= other games. Our community serves its own interest, and we should and will not cater the the ****ty rules of other communities.

for being ****ty they've held up really well over time and have resisted many of the arguments held against them.

And I have also brought up examples from our own community. The infinites that were in melee for example.
Do explain how I am straw manning your argument.
I am rather serious since I would like to keep things clear.

No, Ness cannot DI. And the CG on Ness is no different, we just happen to be talking about Dedede, since that is what the title of the topic happens to be.

you're outdated. ness can DI and stop the standing re-grab. Its in the ness forums. He can dash grab ness though which is why i call it a CG.

let alone that you basically just said we should not bring up any example to help prove our argument or any evidence.
Very nice.

Also, it doesn't matter what the end result is. They effect the outcome of the match differently. And with a combo, there is no guarantee you will KO your opponent; it is completely subjective to circumstance. There is no circumstance in the infinite other than precious time being wasted, and you dying.

Dk's death combo on Fox is a guaranteed kill when it is performed correctly.
You should see BUM vs m2k's Fox. He does it twice in the beginning of the match. ills him each time.

Oh, and for the record. If Fox UThrows to Uairs you in Melee, and you lose a stock, that might take what? 2 seconds to pull off? King Dedede needs to go over 300% for some characters to die. And let's not forget he can take his time using the infinite. They're not the same, don't argue this please.

Which ones? Except for Bowser all of them due at the edge of the stage from a throw at over 200%.

No, not stalling solved. I just survived with Bowser on Final Destination from a Dedede BThrow at 300%. So what? Are we going to make the blanket higher now? It already takes a minute and thirty seconds to reach that mark from 0%. Why don't we make it 400% and add an extra what, thirty seconds to the match. It's not a big deal right? Completely relinquishing control over the opponent for a full thirty seconds isn't stalling, right?

I addressed this earlier. I throw you off the stage, I Bair you, you DI. At such percents, a large number of moves WILL kill you.
So at that poit, DD has no need continously D throw. Again, stalling solved.

Last time I looked at the IDC, people were freaking out that you could do it for ten seconds.

People are well. what can I say?

Um, yes? Again, this is the topic on Dedede. That doesn't mean we're automatically ignoring other characters with other related problems. Stop assuming so.

Then why do you continuously brush off those cases? When they are the same?

You have a match with my Dedede and listen to your own advice when you pick one of the five characters mentioned. It's not practical, or competitively intelligent to leave this technique legal.

So the infinite destroys competitiveness of the entire game?
How?
Again it kills those characters in that particular matchup only.

I'll take your challenge if you want, I'll practice with Samus since i like her best.

No it's not. It doesn't take control away from the player. It doesn't stall. It actually ends. I think you may even be able to SDI out of it.

The outcome=death.
I sweetspot my Usmash and you're DEAD.
Same thing for DDD nor does he ened to go over 300% to kill.

A more extreme example, but what I said above still applies.[/quote[
Read the above.

Falco's CG doesn't work on every stage, regardless of position or percent. For the characters it does work on, it isn't a guaranteed KO every time. It also doesn't stall the match.

No.

At earlier percents Falco is guaranteed to land a Dair which is fatal for several characters.
hence why I use more extreme examples since its easier to make the point clear.

 

[BentoBox]

Now you are being hypocritical.
Are you not being subjective by dictating that the ratio is satisfactory enough to warrant a ban?

Let alone that the ratio that I bought before you was supported and the reasoning stated. you have yet to even state WHY 5 characters being infinited is enough to be ban worthy let alone offer true examples of where it would be supported.

If you're leaving fine, I have nothing against you.

NO. My motive is NOT the same. I do not think a ban is warranted because I think that the ratio is unsatisfactory.

AGAIN, I THINK A BAN IS WARRANTED BECAUSE TELLING A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE CAST TO EAT DIRT, WHEN NO AMOUNT OF LOGIC WOULD SUPPORT SUCH A DECISION, DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. YOU SAY WE SHOULD LEAVE IT AS IS BECAUSE THE RATIO OF VIABLE CHARACTERS IS SATISFACTORY. I SAY YOU TREAT EACH CASE AS EQUALS, REGARDLESS OF THE # OF CHARACTERS INVOLVED <= O.B.J.E.C.T.I.V.E.

Hell, I don't even main any of the affected characters. And Peach eats D3 for dinnah. I simply think the motives for dropping the case are unfounded.

 

[Deoxys]

Is the standing infinite the same against Mario and Luigi? Why is it less fair than the IC's?

 

[Dark Sonic]

Everyone is ignoring it because as far as we know, it was a strange glitch and nothing more. These things happen. Maybe there was some tilt to the stage for some reason. Maybe it was some other glitch. In Tactical, for as long as I've wasted time here there've been occasionally threads popping up with "OMG LOOK AT THIS NEW AT I JUST DISCOVERED!!!!" of which (ignoring the half which are reposts of things everyone knows) most are weird glitches which aren't intentionally reproducible as far as anyone knows. This looks like it's one of those.

I posted two other videos where Reflex made similar nearly instant grab breaks (admittedly one of them was under 50%, but Reflex doesn't get grabbed often so it's hard to get videos). He does this on a consistent basis and that is why people have stopped using grab pummels against him.

This is not something that should just be written off as a "weird glitch," especially since it has happened on multiple occasions on multiple stages.

 

[bobson]

Everyone is ignoring it because as far as we know, it was a strange glitch and nothing more. These things happen. Maybe there was some tilt to the stage for some reason. Maybe it was some other glitch. In Tactical, for as long as I've wasted time here there've been occasionally threads popping up with "OMG LOOK AT THIS NEW AT I JUST DISCOVERED!!!!" of which (ignoring the half which are reposts of things everyone knows) most are weird glitches which aren't intentionally reproducible as far as anyone knows. This looks like it's one of those.

I can break out of a pummel to a dthrow with Mario in training mode consistently at 100% in 1/4th time. It is possible to break out over 100% consistently, provided you're mashing more than four times as fast as what I was doing there. (As best as I could while still making Dedede pummel.)

 

[Magus420]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm8z4O24CvI&feature=related

6:21 WHY IS EVERYONE IGNORING THIS!!!! Breaking out after one pummel at 129%!?! That seems kind of important.

Infiniting Samus/Mario/Luigi from 130%-300% is still broken, and makes those matchups absolutely unwinnable. Like wtf, that's 170 damage off of one grab on those 3 characters! Also, it's clearly just some kind of glitch anyway despite him doing it repeatedly in the set after regrabs and the mashing being very audible, cuz i tryed myslef n cnat do it dat fast