Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[pure_awesome]

Sweet, we're on to the ICs and wobbling now?

Now all we need is someone to compare this to Magneto's infinite in MvC2, and we'll have come completely full circle to 18 hours ago or so.

 

[RDK]

If the ICs had so many supposed faults in Melee to set up Wobbling, why was it still seriously considered being banned?

For the same reason everyone and their mother wants the D3 infinite to be banned, except for less ridiculous reasons.

Johns.

I don't main Dedede. How about me then? That's fair, right?

Your'e bringing a ridiculous hypothetical into the argument. Why would I ever do that when I have the knowledge that I could get infinited? That's beside the point. I would never play you with DK anyway. Don't impose your ideals onto me to make a point about something that would never happen. I know the consequences, as do you; the only difference is that you can't accept them, so you resort to banning one character's option just because it "severely limits" another single character's ability to play in high level situations against said character.

That's the whole point of the discussion. If you can't cope with it, play someone else, or just go with the double blind on the third match.

 

[cutter]

Anit-banners: Why exactly do u want this to stay? When a noob that just learned how to grab yesterday shows up in a tournament and beats ur main with DDD u know something's wrong. It adds nothing to the game and thus should be removed. A competitive game should be about who has more skill and who deserves to win not who can grab or stall the longest.

Because DDD's infinites do not overcentralize the game.

 

[Ulevo]

Because DDD's infinites do not overcentralize the game.

That isn't a reason to want to keep it around. That's a reason to excuse the need for a ban.

 

[Fletch]

Johns.

I don't main Dedede. How about me then? That's fair, right?

What would this prove? That the matchup is terribly in favor of D3? No one is arguing that it isn't, stop making up things that clearly weren't said.

 

[pure_awesome]

Because DDD's infinites do not overcentralize the game.

Tell that to a dedicated DK main.

 

[Fletch]

Tell that to a dedicated DK main.

It's his fault for maining a character with such a weakness.

 

[Woozle]

That's the whole point of the discussion. If you can't cope with it, play Metaknight, or just go with the double blind on the third match.

Oh, okay. Got it.

:D

It's his fault for maining a character with such a weakness.

Yeah!

He should main Metaknight.

 

[Remzi]

Tell that to a dedicated DK main.

They don't over-centralize the game. However that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be banned. It still gives D3 a 9-1 matchup on nearly a fifth of the cast >_>

DK for example wouldn't even have to screw up, one perfect shield from D3 = stock gone.

 

[pure_awesome]

I still say the ultimate point here is that keeping the infinite gives us literally nothing, save for an increased emphasis on counterpicking and the pre-match selection system. It's not like we're ever going to see the infinite, since no high-level players are that dumb. So we gain nothing.

If we ban the infinite, we gain another high-level, tourney viable character.

I don't even understand how this is a debate.

 

[Ussi]

Tell that to a dedicated DK main.

Most DK's pick use a blue bird that CG's to beat a blue bird that CG's (I stole this line off the DK boards lool)

 

[BentoBox]

Because DDD's infinites do not overcentralize the game.

They did, but we took measures so they would not.

We've been through this before,

Spoiler

Yuna

. You don't seem to realize that we've saved a part of the cast from eating dirt, because WE wanted to. If it wasn't for a set of modifications and regulations we CREATED and enforced, D3 would most likely be reigning supreme right now. But WE chose not to let that happen. I say that WE SHOULD NOT have other characters eat crap because they're not a majority this time around. I mean no **** its not a majority, we already made sure a part of the cast was viable, why not finish the job? This isn't like your Honda vs. Ken matchup where the former simply has to deal with it. Our own actions have led to the shaping up of a metagame unlike any other. WE still hold the key to powers allowing US to shape it however we want. DK doesn't do horribad against D3 only because "its part of the game". DK does bad against D3 BECAUSE WE CHOSE NOT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

Tl;dr: "D3 has an infinite against a majority of the cast? Ok *fix*"
[...]
"D3 still has an infinite against a part of the cast now? Ok. Tell them to deal with it, its part of all fighting games. I really can't be ****ed to do anything about it now."

 

[pure_awesome]

It's his fault for maining a character with such a weakness.

...
so hey, that's irrelevant.

 

[Remzi]

I still say the ultimate point here is that keeping the infinite gives us literally nothing, save for an increased emphasis on counterpicking and the pre-match selection system. It's not like we're ever going to see the infinite, since no high-level players are that dumb. So we gain nothing.

If we ban the infinite, we gain another high-level, tourney viable character.

I don't even understand how this is a debate.

People who use an infinitable character can still get screwed over on blind pick.

 

[Ulevo]

For the same reason everyone and their mother wants the D3 infinite to be banned, except for less ridiculous reasons.



Your'e bringing a ridiculous hypothetical into the argument. Why would I ever do that when I have the knowledge that I could get infinited? That's beside the point. I would never play you with DK anyway. Don't impose your ideals onto me to make a point about something that would never happen. I know the consequences, as do you; the only difference is that you can't accept them, so you resort to banning one character's option just because it "severely limits" another single character's ability to play in high level situations against said character.

That's the whole point of the discussion. If you can't cope with it, play someone else, or just go with the double blind on the third match.

No.

I refer to the quote Sliq made that Bento has repeatedly made over, and over, and over, and over again.

Walls and walk offs are banned because of tactics like CG's that end in the stock of a character with little to no effort. The standing CG is actually worse, as it stalls the match, but it is essentially the same result when disregarding that.

King Dedede can perform a CG on everyone but what was it? 13 characters? So that means that 26 characters can be caught in the CG and lose a stock. So what do we do? We ban those stages to prevent problems such as that.

So why all of a sudden do we not follow through with the rest of the rule for those other 6 characters? I believe the common acceptance for a ban on smashboards is a complete ban, or no ban at all. That's why limitations and soft bans are shunned away. So explain to me why it is logically feasible to ban specific stages to prevent walk off deaths to 26 characters from Dedede, meanwhile leaving 6 other characters to be caught in an infinite under the same results?

The answer? It doesn't make sense. It's a half ***** rule set, and one that no one cares about because the majority of the community don't main those said characters.

 

[Remzi]

It's his fault for maining a character with such a weakness.

Yes, and I'm sure you blame yourself every time a Pikachu chains you to 80%. And D3's is much worse than that. It's bad character design, nothing more.

 

[Ulevo]

What would this prove? That the matchup is terribly in favor of D3? No one is arguing that it isn't, stop making up things that clearly weren't said.

It doesn't prove a **** thing. I was only pointing out that he was making excuses, and that his logic was flawed.

Thanks for missing the entire point though.

Yes, and I'm sure you blame yourself every time a Pikachu chains you to 80%. And D3's is much worse than that. It's bad character design, nothing more.

Oh no, he doesn't. He doesn't even play Brawl.

 

[pure_awesome]

People who use an infinitable character can still get screwed over on blind pick.

Exactly. Hence the increased emphasis on the system. People are going to be trying to out-mindgame each other before the **** TV is even turned on.

I'm gonna take DDD, so don't take DK. Or maybe I'm really going to take Metaknight, and I'm just throwing DDD's name out there to mess with your head and take you away from DK, who might counter my MK. But seriously, I'm taking DDD.

 

[aeghrur]

dude, we did b a LONG time ago

EDIT
umbreon is my new best friend, and im thinking about adding him to my sig

No, B was kicked out the door since there is a damage cap on the infinite.
It's not that hard to enforce either...
So, prove A now since there is no B.

 

[Tyser]

You guys are faggots.

 

[-Wolfy-]

It's his fault for maining a character with such a weakness.

I find it hard to believe that there is any fault with this statement. It truly is as simple as this, adapt or lost, it's your choice. I'm not going to be overly simple and just take a "don't get hit" approach, but I am in support of counterpicking with MK or whoever you are comfortable with in that match up.

 

[Remzi]

Oh no, he doesn't. He doesn't even play Brawl.

LOL I stand corrected

I'm gonna take DDD, so don't take DK. Or maybe I'm really going to take Metaknight, and I'm just throwing DDD's name out there to mess with your head and take you away from DK, who might counter my MK. But seriously, I'm taking DDD.

Brilliant, I think I might try this

 

[RDK]

No.

I refer to the quote Sliq made that Bento has repeatedly made over, and over, and over, and over again.

Walls and walk offs are banned because of tactics like CG's that end in the stock of a character with little to no effort. The standing CG is actually worse, as it stalls the match, but it is essentially the same result when disregarding that.

King Dedede can perform a CG on everyone but what was it? 13 characters? So that means that 26 characters can be caught in the CG and lose a stock. So what do we do? We ban those stages to prevent problems such as that.

So why all of a sudden do we not follow through with the rest of the rule for those other 6 characters? I believe the common acceptance for a ban on smashboards is a complete ban, or no ban at all. That's why limitations and soft bans are shunned away. So explain to me why it is logically feasible to ban specific stages to prevent walk off deaths to 26 characters from Dedede, meanwhile leaving 6 other characters to be caught in an infinite under the same results?

The answer? It doesn't make sense. It's a half ***** rule set, and one that no one cares about because the majority of the community don't main those said characters.

We don't follow through with it because it doesn't shut down the entire cast and break the game. That's why.

If D3 could just simply waltz in, grab any of the 26 characters, and infinite them to the edge 3 times in a row, then that's game-breaking.

Doing it to 6 characters, some of which may not even be extensively played or tournament-viable? Gimme a break.

What you're trying to do ultimately is level out the playing field between all the characers. The roster is not balanced. Live with it. If you want a near-perfect game, why the hell are you playing Brawl? Switch to Guilty Gear.

 

[Remzi]

We don't follow through with it because it doesn't shut down the entire cast and break the game. That's why.

If D3 could just simply waltz in, grab any of the 26 characters, and infinite them to the edge 3 times in a row, then that's game-breaking.

Doing it to 6 characters, some of which may not even be extensively played or tournament-viable? Gimme a break.

What you're trying to do ultimately is level out the playing field between all the characers. The roster is not balanced. Live with it. If you want a near-perfect game, why the hell are you playing Brawl? Switch to Guilty Gear.

You just countered your own argument. The reason that walk-offs, or almost anything for that matter, are banned is to help balance the game.

 

[RDK]

You just countered your own argument. The reason that walk-offs, or almost anything for that matter, are banned is to help balance the game.

No it's not. Reread my post, this time using your brain.

 

[Flayl]

It doesn't affect my main, therefore I can state 26>6 and get away with it.

We already know 26 is a bigger number than 6.

 

[CO18]

We don't follow through with it because it doesn't shut down the entire cast and break the game. That's why.

If D3 could just simply waltz in, grab any of the 26 characters, and infinite them to the edge 3 times in a row, then that's game-breaking.

Doing it to 6 characters, some of which may not even be extensively played or tournament-viable? Gimme a break.

What you're trying to do ultimately is level out the playing field between all the characers. The roster is not balanced. Live with it. If you want a near-perfect game, why the hell are you playing Brawl? Switch to Guilty Gear.

Now You're playing God. Where YOU decide how many characters is enough.

How come 26 is too much? You cant just pick and choose when enough is enough.

IMO 6 characters is way too much and is game-breaking.
You're dumb.

There is no ulmately leveling out the playing field, its removing 100:0 matchups in the game.
If you're telling them to pick a different character. You're just assuring that this matchup never happens in the game because anyone can use Dedede and use this tactic.
It adds nothing and just further stagnates the metagame.

 

[Fletch]

Yeah!

He should main Metaknight.

He should if he cares about winning. Or Snake.

Yes, and I'm sure you blame yourself every time a Pikachu chains you to 80%. And D3's is much worse than that. It's bad character design, nothing more.

I play Fox in Melee, sure wouldn't subject myself to playing him in Brawl. And I quit Brawl a bit ago.

They don't over-centralize the game. However that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be banned. It still gives D3 a 9-1 matchup on nearly a fifth of the cast >_>

Sheik had a 9-1 matchup against a fifth of the cast in Melee. Let's ban her too.

...
so hey, that's irrelevant.

Why? What if I wanted to play Falcon, but all the other characters are too good to play him. I think we should ban them all to make that possible. Why care about character weaknesses when we can just ban things instead of finding a way to beat it or maybe even picking up another character? Nah, every character should be viable.

Oh no, he doesn't. He doesn't even play Brawl.

I don't know why that is funny, the game just gets annoying after a while and I found myself wanting to play Melee again. It's not like I've never played Brawl, or haven't played Smash longer than you have.

I find it hard to believe that there is any fault with this statement. It truly is as simple as this, adapt or lost, it's your choice. I'm not going to be overly simple and just take a "don't get hit" approach, but I am in support of counterpicking with MK or whoever you are comfortable with in that match up.

Thank you.

 

[Remzi]

No it's not. Reread my post, this time using your brain.

Something that is "breaking the game" aka a D3 chain grab on walk-off stages; is killing the games balance. The reason it is banned is to stop D3's chain grab from being too unbalanced. Something that breaks the game is simply severely unbalanced.

 

[RDK]

Now You're playing God. Where YOU decide how many characters is enough.

If you don't agree that putting lock on the entire roster is too much compared to 6/26, then I'm sorry, but there's something wrong with you.

There is no ulmately leveling out the playing field, its removing 100:0 matchups in the game.
If you're telling them to pick a different character. You're just assuring that this matchup never happens in the game because anyone can use Dedede and use this tactic.
It adds nothing and just further stagnates the metagame.

I'm not just telling them to pick a different character; I'm telling them to pick a different character if they can't handle the consequences of choosing that character.

That's what the game is about. You pick characters based on a number of factors: the matchup, who the other person picks, ability / experience with that character, etc.

 

[Lord Knight]

Saying that you can't use other games as a precedent is silly.

 

[Ulevo]

We don't follow through with it because it doesn't shut down the entire cast and break the game. That's why.

If D3 could just simply waltz in, grab any of the 26 characters, and infinite them to the edge 3 times in a row, then that's game-breaking.

Oh, so it's game breaking for 26 characters to lose a stock after a grab, but not 6? So where's the line? Do you even have a line? Where do we draw the line at which it becomes broken or not? Why is it you get to decide that stocking a character after a grab on 26 is broken, but 6 isn't?

The technique itself is broken, and that is what matters. It shouldn't exist, whether if it be on 1 character or the whole cast. You ban it, or you don't. You don't half *** the rules.

Doing it to 6 characters, some of which may not even be extensively played or tournament-viable? Gimme a break.

Tell Bum that Donkey Kong isn't viable.

Tell Xyro that Samus isn't viable.

Tell Boss that Mario and Luigi are not viable.

Tell Sliq that Bowser isn't viable.

Then come back to me with your straw man, sorry excuse for an argument. You're basically saying "oh, those characters are **** anyway, so who gives a ****?"

You just proved my point, moron.

What you're trying to do ultimately is level out the playing field between all the characers. The roster is not balanced. Live with it. If you want a near-perfect game, why the hell are you playing Brawl? Switch to Guilty Gear.

Straw maning irrelevant points again.

I love playing Guilty Gear by the way. We're talking about Brawl. Now try and pay attention to what the actual conversation is, alright?

I'm not asking to balance Brawl. I am arguing to ban a technique that is obviously broken to whomever it is used on, that stalls the match and takes complete control away from the player who is victimized by it. That should never happen in a fighting game, regardless of how balance it is or isn't.

 

[-Wolfy-]

How different is his decision that 6 is too few and your decision that 6 is too many?

You cannot slap someone on the wrist for playing god when playing god is exactly what you are doing with a ban.

 

[bobson]

How different is his decision that 6 is too few and your decision that 6 is too many?

You cannot slap someone on the wrist for playing god when playing god is exactly what you are doing with a ban.

One is too many.

 

[Fletch]

I'm not asking to balance Brawl. I am arguing to ban a technique that is obviously broken to whomever it is used on, that stalls the match and takes complete control away from the player who is victimized by it. That should never happen in a fighting game, regardless of how balance it is or isn't.

MvC2 would like a word with you.

 

[CO18]

If you don't agree that putting lock on the entire roster is too much compared to 6/26, then I'm sorry, but there's something wrong with you.



I'm not just telling them to pick a different character; I'm telling them to pick a different character if they can't handle the consequences of choosing that character.

That's what the game is about. You pick characters based on a number of factors: the matchup, who the other person picks, ability / experience with that character, etc.

You think that if 26 characters could be infinited by this such as in the walk-off situation it should be banned? Correct.

Yet you think 6 characters being infinited by this shouldn't be banned.

As Im saying this is subjective and if things are banned to prevent certain matchups from being too broken such as in the case of banning walk-off stages and other stages with wall infinites such as Green-Greens and Shadow Moses.

Why the hell would it change now?

Edit: Stop bringing in other fing games into the argument.
im pretty sure umbreon said there would be consequences for that.

WE are talking about brawl not any other traditional fighter

 

[RDK]

You think that if 26 characters could be infinited by this such as in the walk-off situation it should be banned? Correct.

Yet you think 6 characters being infinited by this shouldn't be banned.

As Im saying this is subjective and if things are banned to prevent certain matchups from being too broken such as in the case of banning walk-off stages and other stages with wall infinites such as Green-Greens and Shadow Moses.

Why the hell would it change now?

Sweet Jesus.

Walk-off stages protect everyone, not just a select group.

And saying that my judgment is skewed in deciding that 26 is too much but 6 is okay is just as ridiculous when you consider the fact that you're using the same vague, undefined judgment I'm using when you say 6 is the same as 26.

 

[BentoBox]

@wolfy: How is he playing god when all he asks is that we should follow through with a reasoning we acted upon in the past? It is you that arbitrarily draws a line and decides that we've "saved" enough characters as it is, the rest being not worth our attention anymore.

@RDK: 13 characters in this game aren't prone to chaingrabbing. What if I decided that that is enough viable characters as is?

 

[Ulevo]

I don't know why that is funny, the game just gets annoying after a while and I found myself wanting to play Melee again. It's not like I've never played Brawl, or haven't played Smash longer than you have.

It's funny because you're the last person who should be in this thread, arguing about anything of anything. You're the last person this effects. You're worse than a casual gamer trying to argue the rules of a competitive game. You don't even play the **** game. Why are you here?

You're a prime example of the people who infest these boards with complete stupidity, with no real experience to back up their arguments, simply because they want to.

That's why it's funny.

 

[RDK]

@wolfy: How is he playing god when all he asks is that we should follow through with a reasoning we acted upon in the past? It is you that arbitrarily draws a line and decides that we've "saved" enough characters as it is, the rest are not worth our attention.

Because it's not reasoning we acted on in the past.

And don't ever berate anyone ever again for drawing conclusions based on past games, especially after sneaking that one in.