Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Anther]

I agree full-heartedly. I despise it so much when I'm up against these twits who think using the same move in succession is called a strategy, but in this case it only affects 6 characters, so in whatever tournament DDD is used, simply add a rule which states no Chain Grabbing, which should be a sub-branch of the "Play with Honor" rule.. which is my opinion should always be rule #1.

Of course, if those participating in the tournament were real players and had honor, they would never think of resorting to cheapness to win. Unfourtunatly in this world, "honor" is scarce..

very scarce.. *sigh*

I'm bout tired of you and your talk of honor XD.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

xyro has banned the infinite in every hobo I think. just an FYI since you said no other region.

 

[Panix]

We're only talking about the standing chain grab. What you want is not happening...

No I understand that, I know that CG is total legit, I was just saying why I support the bann. =) I mean, I can't stop my friend from CG at home (banns don't exist when theres no regulation or updates) I'm just saying When I go to tourneys I hate the fact that facing 3D limits my options of characters that I choose

 

[cutter]

xyro has banned the infinite in every hobo I think. just an FYI since you said no other region.

IIRC, he has EVERYTHING banned from IC's infinites to wall infinites to block locks, stun locks, jab locks, and laser locks...

 

[Fletch]

lolwhut

"Try and beat a standing infinite from a character with a stupidly large grab range" ...?

Hell, as I understand it, you don't need to main or second Dedede. You just need knowledge of how the infinite works and you've won that match. Feel free to correct me on that, though.

Then have a secondary for the matchup. You're choosing to play a character that is subjected to this, and you should accept your character's weaknesses. Technically a character like Falcon doesn't have a chance against Metaknight, so should we ban that matchup as well?

 

[Crazy Hobo]

I say no, but my opinion doesn't really matter because he can't use it on my character. But if we were to ban DDD's infinite, we would have to ban every infinite. Marth's on the Mother boys, IC's infinite etc. It just doesn't seem fair. If it became too much of a problem, we could always lower the percent at which you have to stop the infinite.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

IIRC, he has EVERYTHING banned from IC's infinites to wall infinites to block locks, stun locks, jab locks, and laser locks...

well he had them banned at first now they are limited to 5 transactions or something like that.

 

[Mmac]

I say no, but my opinion doesn't really matter because he can't use it on my character. But if we were to ban DDD's infinite, we would have to ban every infinite. Marth's on the Mother boys, IC's infinite etc. It just doesn't seem fair. If it became too much of a problem, we could always lower the percent at which you have to stop the infinite.

Ice Climbers takes Skill to use, and needs Nana to be responsive to work, Ness/Lucas can escape Infinites now, and the Characters that can Infinite Wario require tons of timing with little room for error. The only other infinite I am aware of that should be in the same boat is ZSS's infinite on Squirtle, but then again, her grab is very risky and poor.

What I don't get is restricting the Infinite. Why restrict it when most of the time you can get the same number of Dthrows in a standard CG, or more. It might as well be banned in the first place.

 

[Punishment Divine]

Then have a secondary for the matchup. You're choosing to play a character that is subjected to this, and you should accept your character's weaknesses. Technically a character like Falcon doesn't have a chance against Metaknight, so should we ban that matchup as well?

No, but then again MK doesn't have something stupid like 1 grab=1 stock.

Also, the Secondary system doesn't really work. You're still losing at least one game to something ******** just because you chose to get good with a character you liked. If you really wanna say "Well sorry, you picked that character, bad beats." then you're extremely ignorant.

If they could have banned Akuma's fireball move alone, they would have, but that would have been impossible. This is something you MEAN to do, and is almost impossible to do on accident. It's a specific tactic, and not a specific move. If you say "Keep this in, play to win" You're also saying 'Well if you wanna shoot me with a lazah once and camp the ledge for 7 minutes, go right ahead" and I think we can all agree that's ********.

 

[Anther]

Then have a secondary for the matchup. You're choosing to play a character that is subjected to this, and you should accept your character's weaknesses. Technically a character like Falcon doesn't have a chance against Metaknight, so should we ban that matchup as well?

He has more chance against meta than the other 6 do against Ddd.

 

[Nanaki]

Making 4 characters go from completely unviable to tournament viable seems like a good thing to me. How does banning the standing infinite hurt the metagame in any way? How does it hurt D3's metagame in any way? He still does fine against those 4 characters.

The D3 "infinite" on Bowser seems less cut-and-dry to me, though. That one's pretty debatable.

 

[DRaGZ]

Guys, there's a counterpick system at tournaments for a reason. Your opponent goes DeDeDe, you go another character. If you're not good enough, your fault for not making up for your character's weaknesses.

 

[Fletch]

No, but then again MK doesn't have something stupid like 1 grab=1 stock.

Also, the Secondary system doesn't really work. You're still losing at least one game to something ******** just because you chose to get good with a character you liked. If you really wanna say "Well sorry, you picked that character, bad beats." then you're extremely ignorant.

If they could have banned Akuma's fireball move alone, they would have, but that would have been impossible. This is something you MEAN to do, and is almost impossible to do on accident. It's a specific tactic, and not a specific move. If you say "Keep this in, play to win" You're also saying 'Well if you wanna shoot me with a lazah once and camp the ledge for 7 minutes, go right ahead" and I think we can all agree that's ********.

Again, lots of people love Captain Falcon. They choose to get good with a character they like, but then basically stand no chance in a majority of the matches they will face in a tournament. How is that different from this situation? At least these 6 have other decent/better matchups than Falcon does.

He has more chance against meta than the other 6 do against Ddd.

It seems like if that's the case, it's not by much, but I'm really not horribly familiar with the matchup as I never played either character.

 

[CO18]

Making 4 characters go from completely unviable to tournament viable seems like a good thing to me. How does banning the standing infinite hurt the metagame in any way? How does it hurt D3's metagame in any way? He still does fine against those 4 characters.

The D3 "infinite" on Bowser seems less cut-and-dry to me, though. That one's pretty debatable.

Not many people knows this but the small-step is irrelevant because Dedede can infininte Bowser on the ledge as well.

C.Falcon vs MK is not 100:0 and who says the matchup is even that bad anyway? People just simply assume.

Who is to say if we took a player of equal skill of M2k that mained Falcon he wouldn't go even with him.

I just watched a vid recently of Reflex 2 stocking Desu's(Georgia's Best player I believe) Metaknight with his 2 week falcon while Desu seconds MK. His main being Dedede in Winners Finals. But no that cant be possible since the matchup is so terrible and is almost as bad as Dedede's 100:0 matchups with 5 characters.

 

[Yuna]

Why define "unwinnnable"? Does it have to make the matchup absolutely 100% guaranteed that DDD will win for you to consider banning it?

We must define it so we're not banning something arbitrarily and so that we don't inadvertently qualify other things for a ban at the same time.

Until such time we quantify exactly what it is that makes D3's infinites bannable, we'd only be banning them just because, not because they're "too good" (we'd have to define "too good" for a combo/chaingrab).

The SBR rules say that Meta Knight's infinite cape stall is banned. But what if you just do it for 1/3 longer than the normal cape duration? This helps you run down the clock, but it's such a small difference your opponent would be unlikely to notice, aside from controller noise, and they might dismiss even that since they didn't notice the 1/3 longer cape.

Performing the glitch at any time is banned. If you're caught, you could face a DQ. The fact that you might not get caught doesn't make it any less banned and 100% defined.

How is maining said characters even an option when ANYONE can pick up D3 and unleash the gay? These characters are flat out unviable.

So are many other characters. Ban all tactics/combos/characters who render other characters "flat out unviable"? Or are you going to claim Fox is viable despite so many people having various locks and chaingrabs on him?

What the hell's all this limited approach options in brawl thing that keeps popping up x_X. I didn't think they took a button away that was in melee that gave us more approaches. I remember there being Shines as a really sweet move and that's it. If you wanna keep attributing limited approaches then fine. Just because you're not constantly dash dancing and waiting for your opponent to whiff an attack and you retaliate by turning around and grabbing them isn't exactly an approach being removed from the game x_X, just an easy defensive option that def made the game look a lot faster though =p. It's still spacing aerials and grabbing to punish... Smashbros...

Wavedashing backwards, jumpcancelled grabs and the a lack of dashcanceling into any standing moves removed a ton of options, actually.

The Characters that can Infinite Wario require tons of timing with little room for error.

Requirement of skill is inconsequential. As long as it's humanly possible, someone will perfect it.

 

[Punishment Divine]

Again, lots of people love Captain Falcon. They choose to get good with a character they like, but then basically stand no chance in a majority of the matches they will face in a tournament. How is that different from this situation? At least these 6 have other decent/better matchups than Falcon does.

Because MK doesn't 100:0 Captain Falcon, and he doesn't beat him because he grabs him once and renders his opponent's controller useless.

I seriously have no ****ing clue how this is even an issue. Have we become that driven by this "play to win" mentality that we are flatout refusing to ban things we know are stupid and bad for the community?

I can understand MK, guys, but this ****? Come on.

 

[DRaGZ]

If they could have banned Akuma's fireball move alone, they would have, but that would have been impossible. This is something you MEAN to do, and is almost impossible to do on accident. It's a specific tactic, and not a specific move. If you say "Keep this in, play to win" You're also saying 'Well if you wanna shoot me with a lazah once and camp the ledge for 7 minutes, go right ahead" and I think we can all agree that's ********.

It's kind of hard to do the air fireball by accident. It's a command input. Akuma was banned because he's just so **** strong and can escape from anywhere and has a fireball that just goes through other fireballs and keeps going and lots of invincibility frames and...yeah...lots of stuff.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

The problem with D3 is that his grab range provides his opponents with too few options, compared to the other infinities. A difficult infinity is often caused by a person not having as many opennings to start the infinite with (or tough timing, depending on the infinite).

When a matchup becomes 100-0 because of a single attack, there is obviously something wrong with the matchup.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Guys, there's a counterpick system at tournaments for a reason. Your opponent goes DeDeDe, you go another character. If you're not good enough, your fault for not making up for your character's weaknesses.

There's still that first double-blind round.

So you're basically suggesting that everyone who mains these characters should just get used to going into every tournament set one match down?

 

[HeroMystic]

This thread rules.

 

[DRaGZ]

There's still that first double-blind round.

So you're basically suggesting that everyone who mains these characters should just get used to going into every tournament set one match down?

Not everyone plays DeDeDe. >_>

 

[The Halloween Captain]

When a matchup becomes 100-0 because of a single attack, there is obviously something wrong with the matchup.

To clarify:

Any single attack which makes victory completely impossible in an otherwise winnable matchup should be banned. Falcon v. MK is a winnable matchup by this standard - even if it turns out to be 95-5. IC's don't count because no matchup becomes 100-0 by their infinite. I do not know about Marth's grab release on the psi-boys, but if the matchup is not 100-0 because of the grab release, it is not necesary to ban it.

Can everyone agree to this definition?

 

[Melomaniacal]

Not everyone plays DeDeDe. >_>

You don't need to play DeDeDe to execute this infinite.
Basically, if you know your opponent uses one of those characters, you can just pick 3D with almost no experience and win. And it's not hard to figure out who plays who.

 

[J4pu]

Yes infinates are ********, especially the ones that take hardly any skill to pull off. Ice climbers can keep theirs.

how is a 1 frame regrab window easier to pull off than a regrab with the IC's

 

[bobson]

Any single attack which makes victory completely impossible in an otherwise winnable matchup should be banned. Falcon v. MK is a winnable matchup by this standard - even if it turns out to be 95-5. IC's don't count because no matchup becomes 100-0 by their infinite. I do not know about Marth's grab release on the psi-boys, but if the matchup is not 100-0 because of the grab release, it is not necesary to ban it.

Victory isn't completely impossible. It's very possible to win DK VS King Dedede if the Dedede player is blind and deaf or has a heart attack and dies during the match.

 

[DRaGZ]

You don't need to play DeDeDe to execute this infinite.
Basically, if you know your opponent uses one of those characters, you can just pick 3D with almost no experience and win. And it's not hard to figure out who plays who.

But not everyone will play DeDeDe first round.

 

[Fletch]

Because MK doesn't 100:0 Captain Falcon, and he doesn't beat him because he grabs him once and renders his opponent's controller useless.

I seriously have no ****ing clue how this is even an issue. Have we become that driven by this "play to win" mentality that we are flatout refusing to ban things we know are stupid and bad for the community?

I can understand MK, guys, but this ****? Come on.

Fine, since I don't know nearly as much about Brawl as I do Melee, I'll use a Melee example. Sheik can chainthrow many of the characters in Melee from just about zero to death, and it's relatively easy to do. This makes characters like Pichu completely useless then, as Sheik just has to grab Pichu once and his stock is gone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV4SjTp_U1A

This goes for other characters like Bowser too. Therefore, I think we should ban Sheik's downthrow as it completely negates a character, or at least would according to your logic.

 

[Yuna]

Because MK doesn't 100:0 Captain Falcon, and he doesn't beat him because he grabs him once and renders his opponent's controller useless.

I seriously have no ****ing clue how this is even an issue. Have we become that driven by this "play to win" mentality that we are flatout refusing to ban things we know are stupid and bad for the community?

I can understand MK, guys, but this ****? Come on.

Where is the threshold for "unwinnable matchup" drawn?

Quantify that first.

 

[BentoBox]

So are many other characters. Ban all tactics/combos/characters who render other characters "flat out unviable"? Or are you going to claim Fox is viable despite so many people having various locks and chaingrabs on him?

A 30% chaingrab (peach vs fox) doesn't not make him unviable. A 70% chaingrab (which isn't ASSURED and only works at certain percentages) does not make fox completely unviable. A 70% tilt-lock. does not make the match-up impossible. I feel like I'm repeating myself.

And so, because you have yet to respond to my previous post...

For anyone that wasn't following my argument with Yuna, my point is that stages such as Eldin (stages with walk-offs) have been banned because of D3s (and yoshi on some characters) being able to CG the majority (but not ALL) of the cast from one side to the other. So why couldn't we, again, apply such measures in this case? We banned stages because of a technique, and now the same technique presents itself, this time in a form that is totally stage independent and you guys refuse to do anything about it? That's what I don't get. A lot of people claim that we shouldn't ban the infinite because it doesn't affect the whole cast. Well guess what? D3 cannot CG the WHOLE cast either! So why was a ban on Eldin warranted in the first place? What if I should decide that those 13 characters that are safe from CGs should be the only chars viable for tournament play? This is as idiotic as what you are all claiming. "Tough luck! everybody has bad matchups!"? Why is it that because only 5 characters are affected, we shouldn't lift a finger but when its about 2/3rds of the cast, suddenly, an intervention on our part is needed? Who here is setting a threshold as to how many characters need to be affected for us to make a move?

 

[DRaGZ]

Fine, since I don't know nearly as much about Brawl as I do Melee, I'll use a Melee example. Sheik can chainthrow many of the characters in Melee from just about zero to death, and it's relatively easy to do. This makes characters like Pichu completely useless then, as Sheik just has to grab Pichu once and his stock is gone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV4SjTp_U1A

This goes for other characters like Bowser too. Therefore, I think we should ban Sheik's downthrow as it completely negates a character, or at least would according to your logic.

This also means we should ban SSB64 as a whole.

A 30% chaingrab (peach vs fox) doesn't not make him unviable. A 70% chaingrab (which isn't ASSURED and only works at certain percentages) does not make fox completely unviable. A 70% tilt-lock. does not make the match-up impossible. I feel like I'm repeating myself.

And so, because you have yet to respond to my previous post...

For anyone that wasn't following my argument with Yuna, my point is that stages such as Eldin (stages with walk-offs) have been banned because of D3s (and yoshi on some characters) being able to CG the majority (but not ALL) of the cast from one side to the other. So why couldn't we, again, apply such measures in this case? We banned stages because of a technique, and now the same technique presents itself, this time in a form that is totally stage independent and you guys refuse to do anything about it? That's what I don't get. A lot of people claim that we shouldn't ban the infinite because it doesn't affect the whole cast. Well guess what? D3 cannot CG the WHOLE cast either! So why was a ban on Eldin warranted in the first place? What if I should decide that those 13 characters that are safe from CGs should be the only chars viable for tournament play? This is as idiotic as what you are all claiming. "Tough luck! everybody has bad matchups!"? Why is it that because only 5 characters are affected, we shouldn't lift a finger but when its about 2/3rds of the cast, suddenly, an intervention on our part is needed? Who here is setting a threshold as to how many characters need to be affected for us to make a move?

DeDeDe can CG a vast portion of the cast. Combine this with a walk-off means he has the ability to 0-death a vast majority of the cast. That's why. Five characters being affected isn't as drastic.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Fixed:

Any single attack/tactic which makes victory completely impossible in an otherwise winnable matchup, should be banned. Captain Falcon v. MK is a winnable matchup by this standard - even if it turns out to be 95-5. IC's don't count because no matchup becomes 100-0 by their infinite. I do not know about Marth's grab release on the psi-boys, but if the matchup is not 100-0 because of the grab release, it is not necesary to ban it.

A 100-0 matchup is a matchup in which provided both players have basic technical knowledge of their respective characters within the context of the matchup, one player has no possibility of winning without an outside influence causing the other player to cease to be able to play.

Can everyone agree to these definitions?

 

[cutter]

Fine, since I don't know nearly as much about Brawl as I do Melee, I'll use a Melee example. Sheik can chainthrow many of the characters in Melee from just about zero to death, and it's relatively easy to do. This makes characters like Pichu completely useless then, as Sheik just has to grab Pichu once and his stock is gone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV4SjTp_U1A

This goes for other characters like Bowser too. Therefore, I think we should ban Sheik's downthrow as it completely negates a character, or at least would according to your logic.

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

 

[Melomaniacal]

But not everyone will play DeDeDe first round.

If I know my opponent mains DK, I'm choosing DDD. It's not that hard to learn who mains who before the matches start.

 

[Anther]

Wavedashing backwards, jumpcancelled grabs and the a lack of dashcanceling into any standing moves removed a ton of options, actually.

WD backwards is a defensive maneuver. you'd run at them and bait an attack. Jump cancelled grab is essentially what we're doing with dashing shield grabs, and I don't exactly know how these removed tons of options but alright ;p. They're both mad defensive games, most people didn't see melee for what it was though since less mistakes = stock gone, and who isn't happier pressing more buttons and getting flashier results =]? I know I am.

 

[BentoBox]

This also means we should ban SSB64 as a whole.



DeDeDe can CG a vast portion of the cast. Combine this with a walk-off means he has the ability to 0-death a vast majority of the cast. That's why. Five characters being affected isn't as drastic.

Did you even read my post? You are not arguing based on logic; laziness is the only thing motivating your decision. Why should we half-*** a decision on making a "grab = 1 stock" unviable at high levels of play? Why should it just apply to the majority? Again, Who here is setting a threshold as to how many characters need to be affected for us to make a move?

 

[DRaGZ]

If I know my opponent mains DK, I'm choosing DDD. It's not that hard to learn who mains who before the matches start.

If I knew my opponent was maining DK, I'd just stick with R.O.B. anyway. Not everyone will go DeDeDe just for the match-up.

Did you even read my post? You are not arguing based on logic; laziness is the only thing motivating your decision. Why should we half-*** a decision on making a "grab = 1 stock" unviable at high levels of play?

Because it is unnecessary.

 

[Fletch]

This also means we should ban SSB64 as a whole.

I didn't even think about. ****, we should ban grabs in SSB64, because they lead to zero-death combos. That's so overpowered!

 

[bob-e]

If I know my opponent mains DK, I'm choosing DDD. It's not that hard to learn who mains who before the matches start.

By that same merit, you should be able to know who not to use DK against for the first round. Or, just don't play him the first round period. He is still a totally viable counter pick.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Fine, since I don't know nearly as much about Brawl as I do Melee, I'll use a Melee example. Sheik can chainthrow many of the characters in Melee from just about zero to death, and it's relatively easy to do. This makes characters like Pichu completely useless then, as Sheik just has to grab Pichu once and his stock is gone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV4SjTp_U1A

This goes for other characters like Bowser too. Therefore, I think we should ban Sheik's downthrow as it completely negates a character, or at least would according to your logic.

You don't actually read video descriptions, do you?

Don't get me wrong, it demonstaites a point, but that was one of the worst examples you could have scrounged up. The video description says outright that it was a joke match.

 

[Melomaniacal]

By that same merit, you should be able to know who not to use DK against for the first round. Or, just don't play him the first round period. He is still a totally viable counter pick.

The difference is I don't need to use DDD to be able to use this infinite. I don't need to main DDD, and the DK user probably won't expect me to use DDD.

And don't get me wrong, this situation isn't extremely common, but it's just something to think about.