Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[BentoBox]

26 is the whole cast. That's where concern should start to enter people's decisions.

6? Not so much.

There are 38 characters in this game, counting PT as 3.

25 characters were affected negatively by that one same mechanic. (CG, whether it be standing or running) Meaning 13 characters in Brawl cannot be CGd.

We solved the issue for 20 of them, but we did not for the remaining 5.

How does this not sink in?

It has just dawned upon me that you do not even play the **** game.

 

[pure_awesome]

WTF? I wasn't even addressing you.

The nobody I was posting magically produced 26 in his post, so I assumed he was referring to Melee. In case you didn't know, 26 in Melee pretty much encompasses the whole roster.

What? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't think Sonic was considered tournament viable.

The fact that you think that Sonic's validity in a tournament is at all what I was talking about is hysterical.

 

[CO18]

WTF? I wasn't even addressing you.

The nobody I was posting magically produced 26 in his post, so I assumed he was referring to Melee. In case you didn't know, 26 in Melee pretty much encompasses the whole roster.



What? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't think Sonic was considered tournament viable.

Apparently youre oblivious because he did not magically produce 26 in his post.

You are ****ing dumb. 26 is the number of characters that are chaingrabbable therefore the number of characters effected by walk-offs in this game.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I thought I set a good standard for the pro-bans -

When with basic tech skill, a single move/tactic makes a matchup 100-0, the move/tactic should be banned from the matchup. This meaning that the matchup must be unwinnable for one player, provided both player know basic techs and possess basic matchup knowledge.

D3 standing grab falls under this criteria.

 

[XienZo]

You guys post too fast, I was going to counter an argument, but it was 4 pages ago.

Just because the match up becomes something like 70-30 instead of 80-20 doesn't mean that the character is no longer disadvantaged.

Advantaged or disadvantaged doesn't matter, 50 is not a magic number. A 80-20 to 70-30 is as significant as a 55-45 to 45-55; you'll win 2 more matches out of every twenty. And every match counts, especially if you end up stuck unable to CP against DDD, every increased percent of winning counts.

Also, why aren't the infinites that Marth/Charizard has against Ness/Lucas being brought up? Why aren't the infinites that Yoshi/ZSS/Ike/Peach/Zelda/Captain Falcon/Ganondorf/Bowser has against Wario being brought up? How about the infinite ZSS has on Squirtle? What about the edge dthrow infinite that Snake still has on a good percentage of the cast? What about the Ice Climber's infinites? What about the 0-70% chain grab that Pikachu has against Fox and Wolf. What about the dthrow chaingrab that can go as high as 120% if timed right that Wario has on Wolf, Fox, Snake, Bowser, Donkey Kong, and King Dedede? Do you see where I'm going with this? Narrowing down the discussion this much is pointless and you might as well talk about them all if your goal is to "make everyone more viable overall."

Regarding Metaknight, more than half of the cast has 70-30 or worse matchups against him. Banning a character is much easier than banning a technique especially when it will be debated how long King Dedede's dthrow should last. Okay, you can no longer do 0-death but would 0-50 be okay? 0-80? 0-20? You basically have to deal with conflicting opinions on the matter which would lead to problems in bigger tournaments.

Because they are INEFFICENT TO LEARN. People are BETTER off sticking to their main then learning these because they take too long to learn for too little of an advantage.

You guys can keep on going about "ease of use doesn't matter at high levels" but it DOES matter at lower levels, and the way it affects lower levels also hurts top level play. Until you guys see that, you won't see why DDD's infinite is different....

The "you can't enforce it" is a dumb argument. DDD's infinite is probably the EASIEST technique to ban; you just ban standing and make them move between grabs.

I thought I set a good standard for the pro-bans -

When with basic tech skill, a single move/tactic makes a matchup 100-0, the move/tactic should be banned from the matchup. This meaning that the matchup must be unwinnable for one player, provided both player know basic techs and possess basic matchup knowledge.

D3 standing grab falls under this criteria.

Thats too general. If the matchup was 90:10 before and a technique just finishes them off, you'd ban a technique that only nets them 2 matches out of 20. It could be the same technique that for other characters, makes a 55:45 into a 65:35, which is not bannable.

Also, if CF used had such a technique on MK, would it need to be banned? It would likely cause no centralization, but it still must be banned.

 

[RDK]

26 is referring to the number of characters D3 can chain grab. Not sure if thats accurate or not.

That's not what he made it seem like he was talking about. I don't even remember what the original argument was.

Sonic is actually semi-tourney viable.

Sweet Jesus, it was an attempt at humor. Pure_Awesome made a jive about Sonic in his post, and I was replying with a joke.

 

[aeghrur]

Our line is 0 wtf. How ******** at you. It shouldnt effect ANYONE is our point.

And no it is not too miniscule to matter and the chance of the matchup happening is not 6/1000. Besides the fact that 1/35th is not 6/1000.

ANYONE AND THEIR MOMMA can pick Dedede, you are not restricted to using your main.

0 is a terrible line as well considering that 80% is basically a killing percent so Pika's chaingrab shouldn't be valid either.
Nor should Ice Climbers as they can affect 34 other characters.
Your not restricted to using your main either, you can counterpick.
The match up chance in GENERAL is 6/1000.
Think a little, 35 characters, with 34 characters they can fight each. Now, 6 of those characters have a bad match up with 1 character. 6*1/35*34 Yeah, more than 6/1000. >_>
1/34 only matters if you main one of the 6. But you can change your character. *GASP*

 

[The Halloween Captain]

4*9=36.
3 is next to 2.
forget random is not a character.
Make a typo.
Boom, 26. Jeez, SO HARD TO FIGURE OUT.

Quote:
What? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't think Sonic was considered tournament viable.


lol, **** you.
<3

I think that line came straight from my sig

 

[-Wolfy-]

Apparently youre oblivious because he did not magically produce 26 in his post.

You are ****ing dumb. 26 is the number of characters that are chaingrabbable therefore the number of characters effected by walk-offs in this game.

Cool, we should ban walkoffs since they affect a majority of the cast.

 

[pure_awesome]

Sweet Jesus, it was an attempt at humor. Pure_Awesome made a jive about Sonic in his post, and I was replying with a joke.

Ooohhhh, I get it.

Mew2King?

Nice.

*high-fives RDK*


Though shame on you, you should know humor doesn't work on the internet.


Anyway, we're getting way the hell off topic. Can we at least all agree that, with the standing infinite intact and with a damage cap of 300%, the DDD vs Unluckys match-up is nigh-unwinnable for the Unluckys?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Cool, we should ban walkoffs since they affect a majority of the cast.

Do you even play a character that would be affected by the decision?

 

[Lord Knight]

I thought I set a good standard for the pro-bans -

When with basic tech skill, a single move/tactic makes a matchup 100-0, the move/tactic should be banned from the matchup. This meaning that the matchup must be unwinnable for one player, provided both player know basic techs and possess basic matchup knowledge.

D3 standing grab falls under this criteria.

Ease of use is not a factor.

 

[Remzi]

Cool, we should ban walkoffs since they affect a majority of the cast.

Goodness, the argument is that 1/2 isn't and shouldn't be the line.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Ease of use is not a factor.

Ease of use is not a factor in my definition.

 

[Surri-Sama]

Do you even play a character that would be affected by the decision?

he plays Brawl.

Ya'll are funny

 

[RDK]

Cool, we should ban walkoffs since they affect a majority of the cast.

That's not even what this is about. Their reasoning is still backwards.

Oh no, DK is suddenly thrust from the vaguely defined circle of high-level play, simply because D3 can infinite him. We can't possibly take such a responsibility for picking our character; the concept requires too much brain cells to understand. No--we want every character to be equal, that way I can pick whoever the hell I want and still have an equal chance at winning matchups, despite the fact that choosing characters wisely and knowing your matchups and counterpicks falls under the category "Things Good Players Do".

/SARCASM

^ That tag was for you, Pure_Awesome.

 

[Lord Knight]

"When with basic tech skill" doesn't factor into how easy it is to do?

 

[WastingPenguins]

That's not what he made it seem like he was talking about. I don't even remember what the original argument was.

Sorry you misunderstood! Seeing as how I "magically" produced the number 26, the same number mentioned dozens and dozens of times in this thread as the number of characters that can be chaingrabbed by Dedede, it's no wonder you got confused.

Now that we've got that cleared up, you can answer my question. Walk-off stages had to be banned because leaving those in would produce 26 broken matchups vs. D3. You say that 26 broken matchups is too many! So we ban that.

Now, the standing infinite affects 6 characters, producing 6 broken matchups. You say that 6 isn't enough to warrant a fix.

26 is too many.
6 isn't.

Where's the line? What if only 25 characters could be chain-grabbed, thus being affected by walk-off stages? Would that still be enough to warrant the fix? What about 24? What about 23?

Or is 26 the EXACT line where you say, OK, that's just one too many broken matchups!

Where is the line?

 

[CO18]

Cool, we should ban walkoffs since they affect a majority of the cast.

THATS THE FING Point. The point is we banned stages BECAUSE of walkoffs and wall infinites that effect 26 characters such as Green Greens, Bridge of Eldin and Shadow Moses.

I want to shoot some of you.

 

[Surri-Sama]

Next poll should be

"should ban polls be banned"

 

[-Wolfy-]

Do you even play a character that would be affected by the decision?

no, I do no play a character that would be affected. Totally bias free third party since I don't like brawl, I just play it in friendlies at melee tournaments. I have played longer than most of you I'd wager(japanese game+modded wii), so I'm at least a little bit relevant.

 

[BentoBox]

That's not even what this is about. Their reasoning is still backwards.

Oh no, DK is suddenly thrust from the vaguely defined circle of high-level play, simply because D3 can infinite him. We can't possibly take such a responsibility for picking our character; the concept requires too much brain cells to understand. No--we want every character to be equal, that way I can pick whoever the hell I want and still have an equal chance at winning matchups, despite the fact that choosing characters wisely and knowing your matchups and counterpicks falls under the category "Things Good Players Do".

/SARCASM

^ That tag was for you, Pure_Awesome.

No.

Spoiler

Ten big red NOs

There are 38 characters in this game, counting PT as 3.

25 characters were affected negatively by that one same mechanic. (CG, whether it be standing or running) Meaning 13 characters in Brawl cannot be CGd.

We solved the issue for 20 of them, but we did not for the remaining 5.

How does this not sink in?

It has just dawned upon me that you do not even play the **** game.

 

[aeghrur]

I thought I set a good standard for the pro-bans -

When with basic tech skill, a single move/tactic makes a matchup 100-0, the move/tactic should be banned from the matchup. This meaning that the matchup must be unwinnable for one player, provided both player know basic techs and possess basic matchup knowledge.

D3 standing grab falls under this criteria.

It's not 100-0 anyhow. =/ It could be like 99-1, or 90-10, but not 100-0.
Lern2space&counterpick&counterpick stages.
Also, again, does this mean things like Charizard's or Marth's long, but near endless CGs should be banned? They only require you to go Grab->hit hit hit->Grab.

 

[XienZo]

0 is a terrible line as well considering that 80% is basically a killing percent so Pika's chaingrab shouldn't be valid either.
Nor should Ice Climbers as they can affect 34 other characters.
Your not restricted to using your main either, you can counterpick.
The match up chance in GENERAL is 6/1000.
Think a little, 35 characters, with 34 characters they can fight each. Now, 6 of those characters have a bad match up with 1 character. 6*1/35*34 Yeah, more than 6/1000. >_>
1/34 only matters if you main one of the 6. But you can change your character. *GASP*

Ice climbers don't affect 34 characters. They have an infinite, but they do not make or break ANY OTHER CHARACTER. They affect ZERO charcters.

If we purposely allow 5 characters to no longer appear at tournaments, we would effectively cut down character diversity the same as banning 5 characters.

Ease of use is not a factor.

YES IT IS. TELL ME WHY IT IS NOT, AND I WILL PROVE YOU IT IS A FACTOR.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

he plays Brawl.

Yes, but I wonder if he plays a character that would be affected.

I hate to be a hypocrite, but if you don't play D3 or a character that is infinitied by D3, this discussion really doesn't involve you in any significant way, and you are interfering with a decision that should be made by those who are directly affected by the outcome.

EDIT: If you don't play a character involved, you have no knowledge of the tactic in action, but only witness it, and have no real authority on the decision.

 

[ADHD]

Do not ban it, just use falco. PROBLEM SOLVED, now shut up everyone and move along with your lives, it is part of the game, as is gay stalling and other gay tactics. If dededes grab infinite is banned, so should the IC's cg's, every one of them. Same result, just one is harder to perform than the other.

 

[Surri-Sama]

Do not ban it, just use falco. PROBLEM SOLVED, now shut up everyone and move along with your lives, it is part of the game, as is gay stalling and other gay tactics. If dededes grab infinite is banned, so should the IC's cg's, every one of them. Same result, just one is harder to perform than the other.

Smart man is smart

Why are you not in the SBR?

 

[Remzi]

It's not 100-0 anyhow. =/ It could be like 99-1, or 90-10, but not 100-0.
Lern2space&counterpick&counterpick stages.
Also, again, does this mean things like Charizard's or Marth's long, but near endless CGs should be banned? They only require you to go Grab->hit hit hit->Grab.

If the D3 lrns2PerfectShield he can still infinite someone with good spacing. The matchups are pretty much 99-1.

 

[pure_awesome]

Do not ban it, just use falco. PROBLEM SOLVED, now shut up everyone and move along with your lives, it is part of the game, as is gay stalling and other gay tactics. If dededes grab infinite is banned, so should the IC's cg's, every one of them. Same result, just one is harder to perform than the other.

Oh wow, what a fresh argument that we haven't seen and refuted a hundred times in the thread before!

IDC is part of the game. Shut up.

ICs chaingrabs are a pain in the *** to setup and an even bigger pain to perform. Shut up.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

If the D3 lrns2PerfectShield he can still infinite someone with good spacing. The matchups are pretty much 99-1.

100-0 assuming no outside elements.

 

[XienZo]

Do not ban it, just use falco. PROBLEM SOLVED, now shut up everyone and move along with your lives, it is part of the game, as is gay stalling and other gay tactics. If dededes grab infinite is banned, so should the IC's cg's, every one of them. Same result, just one is harder to perform than the other.

DDD's CG is NOT the same as ICs. Name all the characters that could POTENTIALLY be brought down a tier SOLEY DUE TO THE IC's EXISTANCE.

 

[pure_awesome]

That's not even what this is about. Their reasoning is still backwards.

Oh no, DK is suddenly thrust from the vaguely defined circle of high-level play, simply because D3 can infinite him. We can't possibly take such a responsibility for picking our character; the concept requires too much brain cells to understand. No--we want every character to be equal, that way I can pick whoever the hell I want and still have an equal chance at winning matchups, despite the fact that choosing characters wisely and knowing your matchups and counterpicks falls under the category "Things Good Players Do".

/SARCASM

^ That tag was for you, Pure_Awesome.

Quote from yesterday's debate:

I think the main argument here is what we want the counterpick system to be about.

It's painfully obvious that DDD's amazing grab range, along with the fact that he can perform the infinite easily and everywhere, breaks the match-ups that they effect. Noone can truly main DK against a DDD main. The DK main is forced to play as a secondary for fear of an unwinnable match-up, despite the fact that DK is a great character who makes for a solid main outside of this match.

So what do we want the counterpick system to be about? Do we want it to be an intrinsic part of the game? Do we want the counterpick portion of the game to have just as much weight, take just as much strategy, as some in-game play? Do we want the match-ups to start on the character selection screen? If that's the case, then DDD's infinite shouldn't be banned. It emphasizes the counterpick system. A player who's afraid of an opponent's DK can choose DDD in an effort to force him to play a weaker character.

Or do we want the counterpick system to be more of a sidenote? An almost irrelevant part of the match that only the elite need to pay attention to? Do we want the outcome of the match decided, for the most part, after the words "Ready... Go!"? If this is the case, then DDD's infinite needs to be banned. It pushes the counterpick system onto us, which is the opposite of what we would want. Deciding the outcome of the match before the match begins is the opposite of what we're gunning for.

The counterpick system as it is takes brains. You need to know each character's strengths and weaknesses, ins and outs, who counters who, and how your opponent is likely to react. But does it matter? Should that, ultimately, be part of the way the game is played? This is the question we need to answer. Once we answer that, whether or not to ban DDD's infinite is easy.

If people would stop slinging nonsense arguments around and actually focus on the matter, we wouldn't be repeating **** over and over because some of us have actually been in this thread for more than ten **** pages.

Now. Can we all agree that the DDD vs Unluckys match-ups are as close to unwinnable as they can possibly be without just straight up forfeiting the match, with the infinite allowed and the 300% damage cap?

 

[CO18]

Yeah the real question here is Should Donkey Kong, Mario, Samus, Luigi and Bowser be removed from Super Smash Bros. Brawl?

RDK and others say Yes.

 

[Remzi]

Do not ban it, just use falco. PROBLEM SOLVED, now shut up everyone and move along with your lives, it is part of the game, as is gay stalling and other gay tactics. If dededes grab infinite is banned, so should the IC's cg's, every one of them. Same result, just one is harder to perform than the other.

ICs' infinites do not grant them 99-1 matchups. Everyone that D3 can infinite is faced with a virtually unwinnable matchup.

 

[Luigi player]

Oh wow, what a fresh argument that we haven't seen and refuted a hundred times in the thread before!

IDC is part of the game. Shut up.

ICs chaingrabs are a pain in the *** to setup and an even bigger pain to perform. Shut up.

Maybe you shouldn't end every sentence with "Shut up", but I do understand you.

I'm getting pissed at those anti ban people too... but yeah, they just don't understand.

 

[RDK]

No.

Spoiler

Ten big red NOs

I don't get what the big deal is.

5 characters? As opposed to 25 to 13 out of 38?

Honestly, why do you think the walk-off stages were banned in the first place? Because it positively effected a large number of the cast.

Having 25 of the roster immediately stricken from the list of playable characters simply they can be infinited into the wall is a lot much worse than 5.

So again: why not just ban the move altogether? Obviously the SBR is not just a group of monkeys who sit around and make ridiculous tournament policies.

 

[aeghrur]

Ice climbers don't affect 34 characters. They have an infinite, but they do not make or break ANY OTHER CHARACTER. They affect ZERO charcters.

If we purposely allow 5 characters to no longer appear at tournaments, we would effectively cut down character diversity the same as banning 5 characters.



YES IT IS. TELL ME WHY IT IS NOT, AND I WILL PROVE YOU IT IS A FACTOR.

Affect like have an effect upon?
Yeah, ICs infinite definitely affect every matchup they have.
Also, ease of use is not a matter because as long as it's humanly possible, people will do it. It doesn't matter if you say, oh, ICs is harder to learn so it's less efficient,because as long as it's humanly possible, people Will do it. Yeah, it requires more technical skill, but people at high leveled play/tourny level will have the technical skill. Besides, it's brawl, is the difference in difficulty that large? No, it's like a 2 week difference max.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

We should do a seperate poll for what the D3's think about this.

Most the vocal anti-bans aren't involved in any way, and a lot of D3's actually think this should be banned, from what I've seen.

 

[pure_awesome]

Yeah the real question here is Should Donkey Kong, Mario, Samus, Luigi and Bowser be removed from Super Smash Bros. Brawl?

RDK and others say Yes.

All those characters will NOT be removed if the infinite is allowed. They will just be removed as possible mains, and stuck with "Counterpick Character" status. We as a community should be deciding if this is what we want, what the game should be.

Rather than slinging nonsense back and forth across the internet.

 

[toonlinkrocks101]

i got caught in it once