and that competitive games shouldn't try to make matchups viable[/quote9
No, we shouldn't. We do not ban things to make more matchups viable. We ban things that over-centralize the game. If you cannot understand this, then you do not understand the nature of Competitive gaming. Competitive gaming isn't some kind of fair fairytale land where every character must be 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....
Anyone who been to any other Competitive fighting game tournament would know that the things they whine about in this thread exist in all other fighting scenes and no one (credible) from those fighting scenes are demanding they be banned.
Character-specific infinites? Check. Several. None banned.
of course i'm still noobish enough apparently to believe in skill....
Whether or not something takes skill should never factor into whether or not it's banned. Because nobody cares about the lower levels of play.
Nobody cares if n00bs can pick D3 up and learn his Infinite to destroy other n00bs. We only care about the highest levels of play. And at those levels, it does not matter if something is hard to do. The players at those levels can do them, anyway. Or they can easily learn.
Therefore, difficulty/ease of technical performance
is inconsequential when talking about banning.
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.
Inconsequential. Nobody cares about the lower levels of players, where people will shy away from techniques that are hard (but still humanly possible) to learn, even if they're really, really good.
We do not ban things to appease the lower levels of players. At the highest levels, the players are able to learn really had techniques. Thus, it's inconsequential if they are hard, as long as it's
humanly possible to learn them, for if they're really, really good, good players
will learn them and they
will impact the metagame.
Nobody cares about the metagame of the lower skilled players.
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.
It's the old "Brawl is special"-argument. Since Brawl is different, nothing applies. Let's ban everything and anything people whine enough about! Let's make it the land of the Fair where most matchups are 50-50 by banning specific combos and tactics.
After all, the n00bs must be allowed to main their favorite characters no matter how sucky they are! Fanboyism must be allowed to flourish, because why switch to a character without horrendous matchups?
I want to be able to win as my favorite character! So what if they suck?! Ban everything that makes them suck!
Also, this had
absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I brought up another example of something that was technically hard to do, yet any Millia Rage-player worth their salt can do it. She's not even the best character in the game or even one of them. But it's a pat of her character and Millia players learn how to do it.
Because it's humanly possible. Only lazy and bad players would shy away from learning something that is really good for their characters just because it's hard. That was the moral of the story.
Okay, I'll change my wording then.
Yes, let's
not admit to us making a mistake and then yelling at the opponent for giving one flack for it.
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.
"Wah, wah, these characters have bad matchups against D3 and their chances of winning are very, very low."
I'm sorry, have I ever challenged this?
Hey, let me rewrite that. Fox, anything he does against Sheik, if he's anywhere near Sheik, can earn him an F-tilt, even if she's shielding! Voila, your own words used against you.
Moving on, the grab itself. Well, DDD's grab range is pretty big.
So is Sheik's F-tilt.
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.
Usmash? Or can Fox Shine with great timing?
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.
SDI. And Sheik can chase it. So can Pikachu, IIRC.
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.
None of this answers: Why is it OK to ban this but not that other thing that also renders a character unviable.
Because, no, Fox is not viable.
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.[/quote9
I don't believe I've ever argued against this, ever.
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.
At the highest level of play, in practice Sheik will always win against Fox, it's a matchup that's just that much in her favor (even if he's got a chance, in theory).
We can't ban anything that renders a match unviable.
There are matchups without any infinites or locks that are horrendous. Ban entire characters because of it?
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.
And how many times must I say that we tell many characters to eat dirt, every day?
There are many matchups that are horrendously skewed in favor of one side. It's a part of Competitive gaming. Tough luck. If you don't like having such a matchup, switch to someone without them. Don't demand certain things to be banned to change your horrendous matchups.
You chose your main, live with it or switch.
