Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[The Halloween Captain]

How so?

Spoiler

10 questions

The game is not the same game with items on, the tier list shifts drastically, and the focus of matches is altered.

I might have the wrong understanding of centralization, however.

 

[CO18]

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?

There are many things counter-competitive other than items SUCH as D3's infinite it counters competitiveness. D3 vs those 5 characters is not a competitive matchup.

And randomness alone is not enough to warrent a ban, Gaw's judgement is random, DDD's waddle dee toss is random as is Peach turnip throw.

 

[RDK]

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.

My main point is: that's life. The whole game is about counterpicking and choosing your character wisely. There are consequences for choosing certain characters in light of others; deciding you don't want to deal with these consequences is not a good reason for banning another character's technique.

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.

Thank you.

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:

Please refer to any post I've made in this thread.

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.

His point was that it's not the only reason for banning those stages; it was one of many reasons.

BentoBox, I'm sure you made a post somewhere in that mess of last few pages, and sorry if I didn't reply; I'm juggling like 5 things right now, including a paper for school, lol.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

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.

Is this question so hard to answer, that anti-banners refuse to approach it at any cost?

Because if the anti-banners can answer it sufficiently, they win the debate.

 

[pure_awesome]

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.

Since that's not what happened, all we have are opinions on what would have probably happened.

What I think doesn't matter. Everyone was saying that the stages were banned in order to save those characters. That is not why they were banned, therefore the argument makes no sense.

 

[cutter]

And randomness alone is not enough to warrent a ban, Gaw's judgement is random, DDD's waddle dee toss is random as is Peach turnip throw.

The degree of randomness is the big thing however.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

My main point is: that's life. The whole game is about counterpicking and choosing your character wisely. There are consequences for choosing certain characters in light of others; deciding you don't want to deal with these consequences is not a good reason for banning another character's technique.
[/COLOR]

You would be right if MK was banned. MK breaking the counterpick system was a serious consideration. However, if one thing was confirmed, it was that skill is an important aspect of the game, and the counterpick system is not and should not be everything.

 

[rehab]

If I get hit by a waddle dee I tell myself "dang I just got hit by a gordo and died I better step it up" since waddle dees are generally avoidable projectiles.

/useless tangent

 

[pure_awesome]

There are many things counter-competitive other than items SUCH as D3's infinite it counters competitiveness. D3 vs those 5 characters is not a competitive matchup.

I can counterpick against DDD. I can't counterpick against him getting a random Home-Run Bat spawn.

And randomness alone is not enough to warrent a ban, Gaw's judgement is random, DDD's waddle dee toss is random as is Peach turnip throw.

Those are controlled randoms. We control that something is going to happen. We control the when.
With item spawns, we control nothing, except to a very small extent, the frequency.

Is this question so hard to answer, that anti-banners refuse to approach it at any cost?

Because if the anti-banners can answer it sufficiently, they win the debate.

Same reason the ICs are allowed to infinite the whole cast; it doesn't break the game.

 

[aeghrur]

I'm taking a shot in the dark here but reasons why D3 should be allowed his infinite:
It's a tech that simply enforces him as a counterpick and it promotes the use of the counterpick system
It's 5 match ups, a small amount of them.
Other games have had these infinites/CGs that tip these match ups heavily too.

Just a guess

 

[BentoBox]

His point was that it's not the only reason for banning those stages; it was one of many reasons.

BentoBox, I'm sure you made a post somewhere in that mess of last few pages, and sorry if I didn't reply; I'm juggling like 5 things right now, including a paper for school, lol.

It's ok ^_^

And here you are again, telling me that we did X because Y number of factors presented themselves. Are you going to set a line as to how many Ys we need to warrant X? What if I decide arbitrarily that 5 characters losing their viability is enough of a reason to ban the infinite? And zomg, this fits the bill!

 

[RDK]

You would be right if MK was banned. MK breaking the counterpick system was a serious consideration. However, if one thing was confirmed, it was that skill is an important aspect of the game, and the counterpick system is not and should not be everything.

MK does not break the counterpick system. You have lots of options. Play as Snake; play as someone who doesn't have a **** matchup ratio; play as Metaknight himself.

If the situation evolved into "PLAY MK OR DIE", then yes, we'd have a problem.

 

[Ulevo]

My main point is: that's life.

This is not an argument.

We as a community have deliberately gone out of our way to reshape Brawl entirely to our specific whims, in order to make it more competitive than it is in it's raw, natural state. We make our own arbitrary rules and set our own boundaries for the goal of making the game better. We continue to do so, even now.

Saying "that's life" is dropping the ball. We chose to not ban Meta Knight. We chose to ban items. We could have easily said "well, items are in the game. That's life.". We didn't, because we have the options, the ability to choose. To make it for the better.

By saying "that's life", you're deliberately ignoring the this ability to choose. And you have no justification for it at all.

We banned items.

We banned stages.

We made time restrictions.

We banned stalling.

We are perfectly capable of banning this technique.

Don't ever bring that poor excuse for an argument up again please.

 

[cutter]

You guys need to realize that in Melee, Sheik ***** a lot of characters and limited character viability because they had a nearly unwinnable matchup against Sheik. So why are we complaining about DDD doing this and giving Sheik a free pass?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I'm taking a shot in the dark here but reasons why D3 should be allowed his infinite:
It's a tech that simply enforces him as a counterpick and it promotes the use of the counterpick system - So D3 should be allowed to do it if Brawl is about counterpicking
It's 5 match ups, a small amount of them. - Not a reason to allow, just a reason not to ban it.
Other games have had these infinites/CGs that tip these match ups heavily too. Also not a reason to allow, just a reason not to ban it.

Just a guess

Good reason #1:

Brawl is primarily about counterpicking, and we want it to stay that way.

 

[RDK]

It's ok ^_^

And here you are again, telling me that we did X because Y number of factors presented themselves. Are you going to set a line as to how many Ys we need to warrant X? What if I decide arbitrarily that 5 characters losing their viability is enough of a reason to ban the infinite? And zomg, this fits the bill!

I don't see it as necessarily setting a line, per se, because honestly, it's a matter of degrees. It's just one of those gray area things that are subjective and open to interpretation for everybody.

I just happen to think that 26 is too much, while 6 is moderately acceptable; at least acceptable enough not to warrant a ban on the D3 infinite. Opinions differ; that's expected. All I can do is try and explain my reasoning.

 

[pure_awesome]

You guys need to realize that in Melee, Sheik ***** a lot of characters and limited character viability because they had a nearly unwinnable matchup against Sheik. So why are we complaining about DDD doing this and giving Sheik a free pass?

Because Sheik countered people with her whole playstyle. She required constant input and thinking.

DDD requires 2 buttons.

They aren't comparable.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

No, because with Bridge of Eldin gone, the metagame is no longer over-centralized around CG's off the stage, various locks or DeDeDe!

The game as it stands now is not over-centralized around D3!

The game isn't over centralized around DDD with Bridge of Eldin on. It just makes about 21 characters unviable against him, only 15 more than currently. This still leaves 14 viable characters in the game, hardly game breaking, that is still plenty of characters - double that of Street Fighter II Turbo, a really competitive fighting game that's lived for over a decade.So yes even with Bridge of Eldin on there are still plenty of viable characters because they cannot get chaingrabbed by DDD..

Not to mention you could still use any character versus him first match. It isn't our place to decide or make more characters tournament viable. At least this is the argument most used by the don't ban the infinite side, so I don't see why they don't apply the same line of reasoning to bridge of Eldin. Or do you set the bar at "6 characters unviable against DDD is okay, but 21 isn't" I'm curious as to which number you drew the line? I find it unfair to decide that "21 characters get grabbed to death on Bridge of Eldin? Ban it! Only 6 get infinited? Leave it alone, we're not here to mess with matchups" I do not understand this arbitrary line drawing considering 14 viable characters would have been plenty enough. Inconsistent reasoning IMO.

 

[pure_awesome]

So are we all just about done with the trivial arguments, and can we move on to the important topic of the debate, the counterpick system and pre-match selection system?

That's really the only thing that actually merits discussion.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I don't see it as necessarily setting a line, per se, because honestly, it's a matter of degrees. It's just one of those gray area things that are subjective and open to interpretation for everybody.

I just happen to think that 26 is too much, while 6 is moderately acceptable; at least acceptable enough not to warrant a ban on the D3 infinite. Opinions differ; that's expected. All I can do is try and explain my reasoning.

Actually, under counterpick logic, all stages and tactics should be allowed, so as to not detract from the maximum ability of characters.

 

[RDK]

Good reason #1:

Brawl is primarily about counterpicking, and we want it to stay that way.

Sweet Jesus, I've said that in literally EVERY POST I've made.

This is not an argument.

We as a community have deliberately gone out of our way to reshape Brawl entirely to our specific whims, in order to make it more competitive than it is in it's raw, natural state. We make our own arbitrary rules and set our own boundaries for the goal of making the game better. We continue to do so, even now.

Saying "that's life" is dropping the ball. We chose to not ban Meta Knight. We chose to ban items. We could have easily said "well, items are in the game. That's life.". We didn't, because we have the options, the ability to choose. To make it for the better.

By saying "that's life", you're deliberately ignoring the this ability to choose. And you have no justification for it at all.

We banned items.

We banned stages.

We made time restrictions.

We banned stalling.

We are perfectly capable of banning this technique.

Don't ever bring that poor excuse for an argument up again please.

All of that is completely true. However this particular decision comes down literally to a value-judgment: just how many characters should constitute the need for a ban on something that effects a certain portion of the roster?

That's what everyone has to answer, and my point is that there's no easy answer. There's no standard, unless someone sets one. And you saying "all" or "none" is just as much a standard as me saying 26 over 5.

 

[bobson]

So are we all just about done with the trivial arguments...

Ho ho, what board do you think you're on?

 

[aeghrur]

A little off topic here... okay, REALLY off topic.
EdreesesPieces is a mod? Cool.
His name sounds like Reese's Pieces.
Reese's Pieces are delicious.

 

[PKNintendo]

It's kind of sad how when Ness/Lucas we're APPARENTLY (**** Cort) by Marth, no one cared.
Wario infinited by Wario/ZSS? No one cared.

People now caring about D3 infinite seems... unfair to say the list for poor Ness who had to endure 5-6 months of people saying LOLZ COUNTERPIKS TO MARTH AND WIN!

But it should be banned. D3 infinite I mean, if I pick Mario and always counterpick, i'll never get tourney results for him. He will forever be in D/E. Thats not fair imo.

No, what we should do is limit the CG to 5 times per regrab.

AND WE ARE NOT BANNING HIS REGULAR CG!

 

[WastingPenguins]

Ok, forget about the walk-off stage stuff.

New question: D3 has five utterly broken matchups. We can all agree on this, yet many here want those broken matchups to remain in the game.

So 5 matchups isn't enough to warrant a ban. How many matchups would it take to warrant a ban? Let's say that D3 could standing infinite every character but MK-- I doubt you'd be throwing the counterpick argument around then. Sure, you COULD always just CP Meta Knight, but would you really allow the game to stand like that?

Again: if 5 broken standing-infinite matchups isn't enough to warrant a ban, HOW MANY WOULD IT TAKE?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Sweet Jesus, I've said that in literally EVERY POST I've made.



All of that is completely true. However this particular decision comes down literally to a value-judgment: just how many characters should constitute the need for a ban on something that effects a certain portion of the roster?

That's what everyone has to answer, and my point is that there's no easy answer. There's no standard, unless someone sets one. And you saying "all" or "none" is just as much a standard as me saying 26 over 5.

A standard is an arbitrary number set by people who are in the middle. There is no such thing as an illegal "tactic" or "stage" for someone who wishes to make the most out of the counterpick system. Stages and tactics are only banned because they give one character an unfair advantage, but there is not such thing as an unfair advantage if the counterpick system is dominant.

 

[illinialex24]

Ok, forget about the walk-off stage stuff.

New question: D3 has five utterly broken matchups. We can all agree on this, yet many here want those broken matchups to remain in the game.

So 5 matchups isn't enough to warrant a ban. How many matchups would it take to warrant a ban? Let's say that D3 could standing infinite every character but MK-- I doubt you'd be throwing the counterpick argument around then. Sure, you COULD always just CP Meta Knight, but would you really allow the game to stand like that?

Again: if 5 broken standing-infinite matchups isn't enough to warrant a ban, HOW MANY WOULD IT TAKE?

He should get a ban on the move. And its just foolish not to have it because it takes almost no skill (if you call doing an easy to press combination at an easy interval skill, then it has almost negligible skill) to do, unlike the IC.

 

[pure_awesome]

Again: if 5 broken standing-infinite matchups isn't enough to warrant a ban, HOW MANY WOULD IT TAKE?

Ten. Happy?

Ten.

There. You have your number. Where does that get us?

 

[Ulevo]

You guys need to realize that in Melee

People like you need to start realizing this isn't Melee.

 

[CO18]

Ok, forget about the walk-off stage stuff.

New question: D3 has five utterly broken matchups. We can all agree on this, yet many here want those broken matchups to remain in the game.

So 5 matchups isn't enough to warrant a ban. How many matchups would it take to warrant a ban? Let's say that D3 could standing infinite every character but MK-- I doubt you'd be throwing the counterpick argument around then. Sure, you COULD always just CP Meta Knight, but would you really allow the game to stand like that?

Again: if 5 broken standing-infinite matchups isn't enough to warrant a ban, HOW MANY WOULD IT TAKE?

Ive made that point like 100 times but they have no good answer.

 

[PKNintendo]

Says the DK main. Until people who aren't affected by D3's infinite speak up (like Edreese did) nothing will happen. I mean hey, I was once against Marth's (debunked) infinite on Ness. The Ness mains fought hard, but failed against the Marth mains, and the legions of ''who cares''

I feel that Ness is being unfairly discriminated here. So im torn.
A) Infinites get banned, but what about Ness? His problem wasn't banned all those months ago and suffered (tourney wise) for it.
B) It' snot banned. I can't go DK/Mario e.c.t. But at least they we'rent treated better than Ness.

PS: add Lucas

PS2: 55% for ban , 45% against.

 

[WastingPenguins]

Difficulty of a broken technique has nothing to do with anything and is the worst argument imaginable, please leave that one alone.

 

[pure_awesome]

A standard is an arbitrary number set by people who are in the middle. There is no such thing as an illegal "tactic" or "stage" for someone who wishes to make the most out of the counterpick system. Stages and tactics are only banned because they give one character an unfair advantage, but there is not such thing as an unfair advantage if the counterpick system is dominant.

We aren't automatons. We're capable of saying that the counterpick system is dominant within reason.


Anytime anyone wants to start up on the actual important topic at hand, feel free.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Ive made that point like 100 times but they have no good answer.

I will answer for the anti-ban side.

There is no limit. A limit would detract from counterpicking.

 

[CO18]

Says the DK main. Until people who aren't affected by D3's infinite speak up (like Edreese did) nothing will happen. I mean hey, I was once against Marth's (debunked) infinite on Ness. The Ness mains fought hard, but failed against the Marth mains, and the legions of ''who cares''

I feel that Ness is being unfairly discriminated here. So im torn.
A) Infinites get banned, but what about Ness? His problem wasn't banned all those months ago and suffered (tourney wise) for it.
B) It' snot banned. I can't go DK/Mario e.c.t. But at least they we'rent treated better than Ness.

PS: add Lucas

PS2: 55% for ban , 45% against.

I'm the one doing the infiniting and Im Pro-Ban.

Its impossible for me to lose to 5 characters if it isn't banned. That only helps me.

 

[RDK]

Ive made that point like 100 times but they have no good answer.

My answer is that your verdict of "the whole roster or none of the roster" is just as much a vague, undefined line as 26 over 6 is.

Both are answers to "How many would it take?"; no ****. But which one is right?

They're both value-judgments. Like I said--what is the standard?

 

[PKNintendo]

I'm the one doing the infiniting and Im Pro-Ban.

Its impossible for me to lose to 5 characters if it isn't banned. That only helps me.

Huh?

 

[pure_awesome]

I gave a limit. The limit is ten characters.

It's a purely hypothetical number, but I'm very interested to see what people do with it.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

We aren't automatons. We're capable of saying that the counterpick system is dominant within reason.

Why do you insist on being within reason?

I think that Super Mario Bros. should be allowed because all the random elements are predictable, and it provides for strong counterpicking. Technically, the stage does not have anything wrong with it that would make a matchup determined by chance. So why not use it?

 

[M15t3R E]

Says the DK main. Until people who aren't affected by D3's infinite speak up (like Edreese did) nothing will happen. I mean hey, I was once against Marth's (debunked) infinite on Ness. The Ness mains fought hard, but failed against the Marth mains, and the legions of ''who cares''

I feel that Ness is being unfairly discriminated here. So im torn.
A) Infinites get banned, but what about Ness? His problem wasn't banned all those months ago and suffered (tourney wise) for it.
B) It' snot banned. I can't go DK/Mario e.c.t. But at least they we'rent treated better than Ness.

PS: add Lucas

PS2: 55% for ban , 45% against.

Ignorance is your bliss.
Plenty of people who are not affected by the infinite, including me, have been speaking up in this thread calling for the ban of D3's infinites. You have not read very far back in this thread, apparently.
As a matter of fact, look at CO18. He wants the infinite banned and HE MAINS D3!