Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[-Wolfy-]

well I bring up the impossibility of properly banning/not banning because it all comes back to the when is enough enough problem. I personally think 6 is still an issue of countering because a given character could have something that swings as many as 6 matchups his way and not be banned. There's no need to extrapolate and use slippery-slope logic to imply it'll regress into two usable characters. The problem is that my oppinion is no more right or wrong than any other person who has so nobly posted here, and it is a matter based on oppinion, not fact, the oppinion of whether or not 6 is too many.

That's my last post for the night, its been fun debating, I'll return tomorrow.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Hm, I'm beginning to think some Melee mains were right.
Brawl community is too ban happy.
I say, play the match up, learn to space, get better.[/inui]

Spoiler

c wut i did thar? lol, jk inui, jk. xD

dude, did you even play melee?

the amount of broken stuff in melee was matched on like the first day of brawls release.

its not that the community is bann happy, its that the game is so broken that we have to ban more things to make it a good game.
but if you dont believe in banning, thats fine

ill MM you for any amount of money
ill play MK on flatzone 2 and cape away the entire match and then ill play D3 on shadow moses.

cus you know, we ban stuff too much

 

[aeghrur]

THIS ISN'T ABOUT ICs INFINITE. READ THE TITLE. Sigh.

Lol, I did.
I'm saying this:
IC's infinite affects characters.
DDD's infinite affects less characters.
Thus, if you say DDD's infinite should be banned because it affects character match ups, then so should IC's.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Why should we keep the infinite?

I don't want to hear about how you can handle the matchup by counterpicking, or that it is part of the game, or that the IC's are allowed to do it. I simply want to know a good reason why D3 should be allowed to infinite these 5 characters.

 

[Luigi player]

Ugh, IC infinite affects THE MAJORITY OF THE CAST.
It has an EFFECT ON THE MAJORITY OF THE CAST.
IDC if you say it doesn't make or break a match up.
IT HAS AN EFFECT ON ALL OF THE CAST.

But every character still has a chance against them, else it would be banned anyway.

It's just that those 5 characters don't have a chance against D3.

 

[pure_awesome]

Who decides when it over-centralizes the game? Im saying you can't pick and choose.

IMO his infinite on 5 characters over-centralizes the game.

Over-centrilization means the game focuses entirely on a single character, tech, move, thing, and various ways to defeat that thing. So if the whole game was DDD and the characters who beat him, it would be overcentralized.

This does not over-centralize the entire game. Your opinion doesn't mesh with the definition.

 

[Drecker]

2-1 thus far, tooled.

 

[RDK]

No. You're the one involving numbers. We say you apply a solution for all of them or none of them. No lines involved.

All is a number; none is a number. You're making a decision, which means you're drawing a line. One is just more vaguely defined than the other.

And Pure_Awesome, please do.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Why should we keep the infinite?

I don't want to hear about how you can handle the matchup by counterpicking, or that it is part of the game, or that the IC's are allowed to do it. I simply want to know a good reason why D3 should be allowed to infinite these 5 characters.

Please answer, it's really bugging me.

 

[pure_awesome]

Lol, I did.
I'm saying this:
IC's infinite affects characters.
DDD's infinite affects less characters.
Thus, if you say DDD's infinite should be banned because it affects character match ups, then so should IC's.

If you can name a character that the IC's chaingrab makes unviable the way that DDD's makes DK unviable, then I'll completel agree with you.

But until then, it should be fairly obvious why this makes no sense.

 

[RDK]

Why should we keep the infinite?

I don't want to hear about how you can handle the matchup by counterpicking, or that it is part of the game, or that the IC's are allowed to do it. I simply want to know a good reason why D3 should be allowed to infinite these 5 characters.

Why should he not be allowed to? Burden of proof is on those calling for a ban.

Learn how to debate.

 

[BentoBox]

Lol, I did.
I'm saying this:
IC's infinite affects characters.
DDD's infinite affects less characters.
Thus, if you say DDD's infinite should be banned because it affects character match ups, then so should IC's.

And how exactly are you contributing to this thread? Is it too much asked for you not to derail this any further? You're a smash debater?

 

[Luigi player]

Please answer, it's really bugging me.

Because they can't win otherwise.

 

[Breakman6]

Obviously the SBR is not just a group of monkeys who sit around and make ridiculous tournament policies.

Indeed. Any they decided not to ban MK. Why is this any different?

 

[CO18]

Lol, I did.
I'm saying this:
IC's infinite affects characters.
DDD's infinite affects less characters.
Thus, if you say DDD's infinite should be banned because it affects character match ups, then so should IC's.

No that would be as saying Snakes Ftilt effects matchups so it should be banned.

Every character takes the same amount of damage from snakes ftilt and is effected by it the same way which goes into their matchup just as EVERY character is effected by IC's chaingrabs and it goes into their matchups yet they still have no broken matchups and are only mid tier with their infinites.

DDD's infinite does not effect every character and results in 5 broken matchups which basically makes these characters completely unviable vs dedede as they have no chance of winning which ultimately changes the entire metagame and "over-centralizes" it as you will. IMO

 

[aeghrur]

But every character still has a chance against them, else it would be banned anyway.

It's just that those 5 characters don't have a chance against D3.

Okay, that's all I was trying to pull out. Seriously.
GJ.

dude, did you even play melee?

the amount of broken stuff in melee was matched on like the first day of brawls release.

its not that the community is bann happy, its that the game is so broken that we have to ban more things to make it a good game.
but if you dont believe in banning, thats fine

ill MM you for any amount of money
ill play MK on flatzone 2 and cape away the entire match and then ill play D3 on shadow moses.

cus you know, we ban stuff too much

Those things had ban criteria, met the criteria, and thus was banned.
D3's infinite being banned has yet to even have a criteria set up as you can see by this debate.
Then you have to prove it meets the criteria. Thus you shouldn't ban it without those 2 steps. If you do, then it's banning/convicting within reasonable doubt. That should not happen.

 

[Palpi]

If you play any of those 6 characters, you can lose the very purpose of a counter-pick. You would be obligated to choose a different character. And the don't get grab argument is pretty much avoid getting grab for 3 stock, i am not gonna lie, is really hard.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Why should we keep the infinite?

I don't want to hear about how you can handle the matchup by counterpicking, or that it is part of the game, or that the IC's are allowed to do it. I simply want to know a good reason why D3 should be allowed to infinite these 5 characters.

Why should he not be allowed to? Burden of proof is on those calling for a ban.

Learn how to debate.

I heard all the reasons why D3's infinite should not be banned.

Now I propose a reversal of the question:

Why should D3 be allowed to infinite 5 characters?

The question in this form places the burden of proof on the anti-ban. The pro-ban has already made their proofs under the burden.

 

[Remzi]

Why should he not be allowed to? Burden of proof is on those calling for a ban.

Learn how to debate.

Why not? Simple:

It makes it so that there are 7 characters you cannot main and have any hope of winning with.

 

[BentoBox]

All is a number; none is a number. You're making a decision, which means you're drawing a line. One is just more vaguely defined than the other.

And Pure_Awesome, please do.

Go back to my analogy. How is it more logical to apply a rule to a part of the cast and not all of it?

 

[Ulevo]

All is a number; none is a number. You're making a decision, which means you're drawing a line. One is just more vaguely defined than the other.

And Pure_Awesome, please do.

We're choosing to make a clear, concise decision is the point. You, clearly, are not. You're deliberately choosing to ignore the same problem that is presented to 26 characters to 6 other characters, simply because you feel like it.

We're making logical choices as to why the infinite should be banned, and have beneficial reasons to do so.

You only can come up with the fact that it doesn't over centralize, so it shouldn't be banned. Last time I checked, items didn't do that either. They're banned.

You have no solid argument that is concise. You're simply doing what you want to do, because you want to do it, and nothing more.

 

[popsofctown]

Uh, I'm proban but RDK is right. The side proposing change has the burden of proof, you can't reverse the question. You can present your reasons and ask "Why aren't these reasons good enough?" But you can't totally reverse the question.

 

[aeghrur]

No that would be as saying Snakes Ftilt effects matchups so it should be banned.

Every character takes the same amount of damage from snakes ftilt and is effected by it the same way which goes into their matchup just as EVERY character is effected by IC's chaingrabs and it goes into their matchups yet they still have no broken matchups and are only mid tier with their infinites.

DDD's infinite does not effect every character and results in 5 broken matchups which basically makes these characters completely unviable vs dedede as they have no chance of winning which ultimately changes the entire metagame and "over-centralizes" it as you will. IMO

While I agree it does give 5 broken match ups, it does not over-centralize. Instead, it gives a very good counterpick against 5 characters.

And how exactly are you contributing to this thread? Is it too much asked for you not to derail this any further? You're a smash debater?

The point of that post was not to derail nor to argue. It was to specify to help along the criteria for banning via an alternative route.

 

[popsofctown]

@halloween captain ^^^^

dang, can't even double post here.. which is against the rules anyway 0.0

 

[pure_awesome]

And Pure_Awesome, please do.

Thank you.

To everyone who keeps asking about this whole "We saved these guys, why not these guys?", you're seriously misguided.

Stages with walk-off ledges were not banned because of DDD's ability to chaingrab some people into oblivion. It was just one of a multitude of reasons. Stages with walk-off ledges were banned because it over-centralized the game. There were too many broken strategies. Camping walls with Bthrow. DK's Cargo. DDD and Kirby camping the walls with Inhale. Falco's chaingrab. Laser Locking. Jab locking. Diddy's naners. It turned the game into who could play the wall better.

The fact of the matter is that stages with walk-off ledges were set to become a completely different, completely stupid game. The SBR did not ban these stages out of some heroic attempt to save the characters that DDD could chaingrab. They banned the stages because it changed the game at a fundamental level that made it stupid, broken, and uncompetitive. The fact that several characters were given respite from DDD's chaingrab was a complete and full sidenote of the ban.

So please, please stop saying that "We saved these guys, why not these guys?". Because we didn't save those guys. Not directly, anyway. We were fixing a much bigger problem, and the fix happened to cure what ailed them on the way.

The argument is irrelevant to the ultimate question. Please drop it.

 

[Palpi]

It is logical if it can ruin an aspect of the game, as in maining certain characters.

 

[Flayl]

Those things had ban criteria, met the criteria, and thus was banned.
D3's infinite being banned has yet to even have a criteria set up as you can see by this debate

What on earth is with these ****ty posters getting into the smash debate for the love of ****.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Uh, I'm proban but RDK is right. The side proposing change has the burden of proof, you can't reverse the question. You can present your reasons and ask "Why aren't these reasons good enough?" But you can't totally reverse the question.

Actually, within the context of logical debate, I only have to phrase to question in the affirmative and the burden of proof is placed on the opposite side. This is because I cannot affirm the negative I propose when I reverse the question, under the rules of logic.

Now answer the question:

I heard all the reasons why D3's infinite should not be banned.

Now I propose a reversal of the question:

Why should D3 be allowed to infinite 5 characters?

The question in this form places the burden of proof on the anti-ban. The pro-ban has already made their proofs under the burden.

 

[CO18]

Thank you.

To everyone who keeps asking about this whole "We saved these guys, why not these guys?", you're seriously misguided.

Stages with walk-off ledges were not banned because of DDD's ability to chaingrab some people into oblivion. It was just one of a multitude of reasons. Stages with walk-off ledges were banned because it over-centralized the game. There were too many broken strategies. Camping walls with Bthrow. DK's Cargo. DDD and Kirby camping the walls with Inhale. Falco's chaingrab. Laser Locking. Jab locking. Diddy's naners. It turned the game into who could play the wall better.

The fact of the matter is that stages with walk-off ledges were set to become a completely different, completely stupid game. The SBR did not ban these stages out of some heroic attempt to save the characters that DDD could chaingrab. They banned the stages because it changed the game at a fundamental level that made it stupid, broken, and uncompetitive. The fact that several characters were given respite from DDD's chaingrab was a complete and full sidenote of the ban.

So please, please stop saying that "We saved these guys, why not these guys?". Because we didn't save those guys. Not directly, anyway. We were fixing a much bigger problem, and the fix happened to cure what ailed them on the way.

The argument is irrelevant to the ultimate question. Please drop it.

Items do not Over-Centralize the game.

Why are they banned then?

Since in your view if it doesn't over-centralize the game it shouldnt be banned.

So you must think we should play with items on.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Items do not Over-Centralize the game.

Why are they banned then?

Since in your view if it doesn't over-centralize the game it shouldnt be banned.

So you must think we should play with items on.

Items do over-centralize the game when used.

 

[aeghrur]

I heard all the reasons why D3's infinite should not be banned.

Now I propose a reversal of the question:

Why should D3 be allowed to infinite 5 characters?

The question in this form places the burden of proof on the anti-ban. The pro-ban has already made their proofs under the burden.

No, they have made the criteria, not the proof.
Criteria:
Must affect a character's match up immensely, so much so that one is near impossible to win
Must affect at LEAST 1 character.
Must be easy to learn(apparently, because of XienZO)
Must be easy to do, as in, non-situational.

 

[Remzi]

Anti-ban people, over centralization is NOT the only warrant for a ban. As stated earlier, do items over-centralize the game? Does Hanenbow? Does New Pork? Does unplugging your opponents controller?

 

[pure_awesome]

Items do not Over-Centralize the game.

Why are they banned then?

Since in your view if it doesn't over-centralize the game it shouldnt be banned.

So you must think we should play with items on.

Never, not once, did I say that over-centralization was the only reason for something to be banned.

Items are banned because they are random. They randomly affect the outcome of a match, and are therefore counter-competitive. That is entirely irrelevant and the very definition of a Strawman argument, a term that everyone seems to love throwing out since Umbreon mentioned it.

Any more questions?

 

[Remzi]

Items do over-centralize the game when used.

How so?

Spoiler

10 questions

 

[BentoBox]

Thank you.

To everyone who keeps asking about this whole "We saved these guys, why not these guys?", you're seriously misguided.

Stages with walk-off ledges were not banned because of DDD's ability to chaingrab some people into oblivion. It was just one of a multitude of reasons. Stages with walk-off ledges were banned because it over-centralized the game. There were too many broken strategies. Camping walls with Bthrow. DK's Cargo. DDD and Kirby camping the walls with Inhale. Falco's chaingrab. Laser Locking. Jab locking. Diddy's naners. It turned the game into who could play the wall better.

The fact of the matter is that stages with walk-off ledges were set to become a completely different, completely stupid game. The SBR did not ban these stages out of some heroic attempt to save the characters that DDD could chaingrab. They banned the stages because it changed the game at a fundamental level that made it stupid, broken, and uncompetitive. The fact that several characters were given respite from DDD's chaingrab was a complete and full sidenote of the ban.

So please, please stop saying that "We saved these guys, why not these guys?". Because we didn't save those guys. Not directly, anyway. We were fixing a much bigger problem, and the fix happened to cure what ailed them on the way.

The argument is irrelevant to the ultimate question. Please drop it.

That point has been brought before. My reply: How is it that the infinite is considered so different from all these other aspects that supposedly contribute to the overcentralization of the game? Chaingrabs leading to walk-offs, as you said, was one of the MANY reasons as to why the map was banned. Scratch this last sentence. Chaingrabs leading to an ASSURED death, was one of the MANY reasons as to why the map was banned. We considered THIS aspect as well as all the others, so why not do it again? Why is it that because an aspect that could over-centralize the game is terrain independent, we choose not to do anything?

This argument is perfectly valid.

Your problem is that you put too much emphasis on the map itself rather than the fact that we actually did something then.

 

[XienZo]

Thank you.

To everyone who keeps asking about this whole "We saved these guys, why not these guys?", you're seriously misguided.

Stages with walk-off ledges were not banned because of DDD's ability to chaingrab some people into oblivion. It was just one of a multitude of reasons. Stages with walk-off ledges were banned because it over-centralized the game. There were too many broken strategies. Camping walls with Bthrow. DK's Cargo. DDD and Kirby camping the walls with Inhale. Falco's chaingrab. Laser Locking. Jab locking. Diddy's naners. It turned the game into who could play the wall better.

The fact of the matter is that stages with walk-off ledges were set to become a completely different, completely stupid game. The SBR did not ban these stages out of some heroic attempt to save the characters that DDD could chaingrab. They banned the stages because it changed the game at a fundamental level that made it stupid, broken, and uncompetitive. The fact that several characters were given respite from DDD's chaingrab was a complete and full sidenote of the ban.

So please, please stop saying that "We saved these guys, why not these guys?". Because we didn't save those guys. Not directly, anyway. We were fixing a much bigger problem, and the fix happened to cure what ailed them on the way.

The argument is irrelevant to the ultimate question. Please drop it.

So we're going to kill the guys because we never saved people before?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

No, they have made the criteria, not the proof.
Criteria:
Must affect a character's match up immensely, so much so that one is near impossible to win
Must affect at LEAST 1 character.
Must be easy to learn(apparently, because of XienZO)
Must be easy to do, as in, non-situational.

Actually, the best pro-ban proof was proposed by Umbreon, when he said that the D-throw infinite limits the options of the game, to the point of endangering D3 himself with a ban.

 

[aeghrur]

Actually, the best pro-ban proof was proposed by Umbreon, when he said that the D-throw limits the options of the game, to the point of endangering D3 himself with a ban.

But it does not limit the options of the game.
Rather, it limits the options of only certain characters after they have been grabbed.

 

[Ulevo]

Thank you.

To everyone who keeps asking about this whole "We saved these guys, why not these guys?", you're seriously misguided.

Stages with walk-off ledges were not banned because of DDD's ability to chaingrab some people into oblivion. It was just one of a multitude of reasons. Stages with walk-off ledges were banned because it over-centralized the game. There were too many broken strategies. Camping walls with Bthrow. DK's Cargo. DDD and Kirby camping the walls with Inhale. Falco's chaingrab. Laser Locking. Jab locking. Diddy's naners. It turned the game into who could play the wall better.

The fact of the matter is that stages with walk-off ledges were set to become a completely different, completely stupid game. The SBR did not ban these stages out of some heroic attempt to save the characters that DDD could chaingrab. They banned the stages because it changed the game at a fundamental level that made it stupid, broken, and uncompetitive. The fact that several characters were given respite from DDD's chaingrab was a complete and full sidenote of the ban.

So please, please stop saying that "We saved these guys, why not these guys?". Because we didn't save those guys. Not directly, anyway. We were fixing a much bigger problem, and the fix happened to cure what ailed them on the way.

The argument is irrelevant to the ultimate question. Please drop it.

It is not irrelevant.

Even though King Dedede was only one of the reasons present for banning walls and walk offs, he was a very large contributing reason for the stage bans.

You can't sit here and deny the fact that if King Dedede was the only reason to ban those stages, we would have to ban them anyway. King Dedede is single handedly capable of killing anyone of those 26 characters with a single throw on those specific banned stages.

Just because King Dedede wasn't the only reason doesn't discredit the point being made at all.

 

[pure_awesome]

That point has been brought before. My reply: How is it that the infinite is considered so different from all these other aspects that supposedly contribute to the overcentralization of the game? Chaingrabs leading to walk-offs, as you said, was one of the MANY reasons as to why the map was banned. Scratch this last sentence. Chaingrabs leading to an ASSURED death, was one of the MANY reasons as to why the map was banned. We considered THIS aspect as well as all the others, so why not do it again.

This argument is perfectly valid.

Yes. It is. And I agree with your argument, for the most part.


My entire post is meant to stop people from saying "We saved these character, why not these characters?" There was a misconception flying around that walkoff stages were banned in order to specifically save the characters that DDD could chaingrab.