Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Hive]

yes but when a single tactic can be removed that will save 5 characters and not even barely effect DDDs metagame it should follow that the reasons for banning it outweigh any reason for not banning it...
unless you think there will follow more bans because of it in the future, which i think has been indicated that there won't.... people might say they want something banned afterwards but really any other ideas that something should be banned since this has came out has conitnuously and without exception been met with disapproval.

the kkk example is different because it involves people's right to speech and the idea that where violence is not concerned people should be relatively free to choose what beliefs they have no matter how stupid they seem...
which i don't think ddds infinite relates to...


@shadowlink- wait what? you'll have to explain that again for me... how does mks idc glitch effect all 720 matchups? are you saying it somehow effects say pokemon trainer vs dk for example???
It should only effect the 35 matchups mk has, which is the maximum one should ever be able to effect....
which out of 720 makes any tactic look unbannable... which is of course biased.

 

[Luigi player]

yes but when a single tactic can be removed that will save 5 characters and not even barely effect DDDs metagame it should follow that the reasons for banning it outweigh any reason for not banning it...
unless you think there will follow more bans because of it in the future, which i think has been indicated that there won't.... people might say they want something banned afterwards but really any other ideas that something should be banned since this has came out has conitnuously and without exception been met with disapproval.

the kkk example is different because it involves people's right to speech and the idea that where violence is not concerned people should be relatively free to choose what beliefs they have no matter how stupid they seem...
which i don't think ddds infinite relates to...

People just don't care because it "only" shuts down those 5 characters and that's not broken enough for them to ban it. They also don't care about those characters, because they don't use them.

"Learn to use secondaries!"


Those people are just egoists.

 

[Hence]

Oh, the infinite CG.
Sorry I was mistaken, but again, it is character specific.
Simply use a counterpick; problem solved.

 

[Luigi player]

Kind DeDeDe's chaingrab is character specific, requires frame-perfect timing, (On some characters, such as Marth) and is really the only thing DeDeDe has going for him. "Don't get grabbed."

Why King DeDeDe?
Ice Climbers can 0%-Death any character.

What?
You have no idea what you're (and we're) talking about...

 

[Hive]

@hence- sorry going to try to be polite though ^^
actually the discussion is focused on DDDs infinite grab in general and not his regular chaingrabs ^^
having regular cgs but not icgs shouldn't effect his metagame though...

the reason people make a case against ics though is because ics DO rely on their cgs in their matchups, and even with them they still don't escape mid tier...
also it is easier theoretically to avoid ics cg because it has a shorter range and they can be desynched, (which would make their cg unviable)
I don't necessarily agree with all the reasons, but that is why the case exists... hope that helped

 

[Dark Sonic]

yes but when a single tactic can be removed that will save 5 characters and not even barely effect DDDs metagame it should follow that the reasons for banning it outweigh any reason for not banning it...
unless you think there will follow more bans because of it in the future, which i think has been indicated that there won't.... people might say they want something banned afterwards but really any other ideas that something should be banned since this has came out has conitnuously been met with disapproval.

It doesn't matter that we wouldn't want those other bans in the future, it only matters that they would become justified. Banning something to save these characters would make banning other tactics to save other characters justifiable, despite the majority of people not personally thinking that they are ban worthy. So if anybody really wanted to bring up the case, we'd have to ban these other things to keep in line with the precedent that we've set, 'less we decide that it's OK to ban things arbitrarily (hurting the credibility of the SBR, which is really all that they have to enforce their rules), which would cause TOs to question other rules and ultimately cause a number of different rulesets to emerge, dividing the community among the different rulesets and severely damaging the metagame.

The part about TOs questioning the SBR could be written off as theory-craft, but you have to admit it is a logical conclusion. Wouldn't you question the rules made by someone who bans things arbitrarily (ban one thing but not something similar), and who cannot justify why one thing is banned and another is not?

the kkk example is different because it involves people's right to speech and the idea that where violence is not concerned people should be relatively free to choose what beliefs they have no matter how stupid they seem...
which i don't think ddds infinite relates to...

The example was to show that it's possible to argue for something that you are personally against (I would argue for their right to speak any day, despite me being black and thus the target of said speech).

 

[ShadowLink84]

yes but when a single tactic can be removed that will save 5 characters and not even barely effect DDDs metagame it should follow that the reasons for banning it outweigh any reason for not banning it...
unless you think there will follow more bans because of it in the future, which i think has been indicated that there won't.... people might say they want something banned afterwards but really any other ideas that something should be banned since this has came out has conitnuously and without exception been met with disapproval.

how are those 5 characters saved?
No one has yet answered me on this question.
how does the infinite make all these characters less viable than Captain Falcon and ganondorf.

How does the infinite in itself result in these 5 characters being completely incapable of being played in a tournament?
Even if the above was true that those characters lose any viability in tournaments, you till have many other characters you can choose from. The overall metagame isn't harmed as a whole.

@shadowlink- wait what? you'll have to explain that again for me... how does mks idc glitch effect all 720 matchups? are you saying it somehow effects say pokemon trainer vs dk for example???
It should only effect the 35 matchups mk has, which is the maximum one should ever be able to effect....
which out of 720 makes any tactic look unbannable... which is of course biased.

I thought i made myself clear
The reason the the IDC affects all 720 matchups is because it nullifies the possibility of those matchups.
You either play MK or you lose.
So with all those characters being broken (except MK) himself, all those possibilities cease to exist. The MK IDC doesn't allow 719 matchups to occur at all.

This is not the case with DDD's infinite.
It only affects 6 characters.
if we go based on characters it only affects 13% of the cast. That small percentage means you have over 700+ matches that are still possible. Because it doesn't fall down to "do the infinite or lose." you aren't forced to go DDD vs DDD as you are with the infinite dimensional cape. All those possibilities remain.

 

[Hive]

@darksonic- ok but I also don't think that this will be a justifiable precedent for any bans...
people have stated repeatably why this would differ from other tactics and cgs mentioned, and have shown disapproval for the reasons for banning other things as precedent...

its funny (at least to me) because both sides I think can agree on these two things:
the first being that DDDs infinite is a bad tactic
and the second that no other bans should follow after this ^^

as for arguing things even if you don't agree with them... I completely agree but not in this situation...
I don't think DDDs ban has a strong arguement for this because it doesn't realistically adversely effect anyone, not even the people involved (i.e. the ddd mains)...the reason why I would argue against something though even if i don't believe in it though is because there would be an adverse effect to the rights of one party....
which i just don't see in this case...?

 

[ShadowLink84]

Arguing for the sake of arguing is the equivalent of banging your head against a wall just because you can.
@_@

 

[Hive]

yes but then shadowlink you are also using different logics for these numbers-
you are giving mk the obscure ability to somehow effect other matches because it nullifies another matchup (bc the mk matchup is played first? correct me if i'm wrong) but you are not giving any of DDDs matchups the chance to do this as well...
also its extremely unrealistic mk would effect every matchup or even close to 1/10 of the matchups in the game, its not like mk is a guaranteed first fight in a tourney (there are a lot of mks, but not nearly that many...)

also i still don't really think how many matchups it involves should matter.... if a tactic is that bad it should be banned imo regardless if it effects 360/720 matchups or w/e other number you are trying to get to....
not banning a tactic because it doesn't fit enough people and you don't want to ban smaller cases is just lazy imo...

also, i think bowser's suicide glitch has shown that smaller scale tactics can STILL be banned... if anything that precedent already exists with or without ddds infinite.

 

[Master Raven]

Kind DeDeDe's chaingrab is character specific, requires frame-perfect timing, (On some characters, such as Marth) and is really the only thing DeDeDe has going for him. "Don't get grabbed."

Why King DeDeDe?
Ice Climbers can 0%-Death any character.

We're talking about the infinite CG. Not the regular chaingrab.

 

[Dark Sonic]

as for arguing things even if you don't agree with them... I completely agree
however, I also don't think DDDs ban has a strong arguement for this because it doesn't realistically adversely effect anyone, not even the people involved (i.e. the ddd mains)...the reason why I would argue against something though even if i don't believe in it though is because there would be an adverse effect to the rights of one party....
which i just don't see in this case...?

It would have an adverse effect to the DDD mains because in conjuction with making those matchups easier for the 5 characters, it makes those 5 matchups harder for DDD.

You and I disagree on what effect the slippery slope argument would have. I believe that no one has yet presented a criteria that would justify banning DDDs infinite grab, but not other tactics. "Making matchups unwinnable" applies to a number of tactics, "being an infinite" is not reason for a ban (we've seen many games thrive even when infinites are allowed), "causing these characters to be unviable" is simple a result of the first phrase listed and still applies to many other tactics, ect.

Most criteria really come down to "I want to save these characters," and when confronted by the slippery slope arguement they just try to make subjective differences between the other tactics presented.

"Well, it's not as deadly"
"Well, it's harder to do"
"Well, this character needs it"
ect.

also, i think bowser's suicide glitch has shown that smaller scale tactics can STILL be banned... if anything that precedent already exists with or without ddds infinite.

Bowser suicide glitch? Do you mean how it goes to sudden death sometimes? That's not a ban at all, but rather a ruling designed to prevent a match from being decided by sudden death and fix a controller port discrimination problem (whether they die first or it ends up in a draw is decided by who has the lower controller port, which is decided randomly).

 

[ShadowLink84]

yes but then shadowlink you are also using different logics for these numbers-
you are giving mk the obscure ability to somehow effect other matches because it nullifies another matchup (bc the mk matchup is played first? correct me if i'm wrong) but you are not giving any of DDDs matchups the chance to do this as well...
also its extremely unrealistic mk would effect every matchup or even close to 1/10 of the matchups in the game, its not like mk is a guaranteed first fight in a tourney (there are a lot of mks, but not nearly that many...)

also i still don't really think how many matchups it involves should matter.... if a tactic is that bad it should be banned imo regardless if it effects 360/720 matchups or w/e other number you are trying to get to....

You don't understand how it works.
For example take Akuma from SF2. With him you are guaranteed to win provided you have a brain.
At whcih point anyone using Akuma will be guaranteed to win.
So the most logical choice is to fight Akuma with Akuma. Eventually,everyone except a minority of extremely stubborn people will go Akuma because they want to win at the tournament.
This is overcentralizing by nature. You have no choice but to use AKuma in order to win.

This is the same with MK's infinite dimensional cape. There is no point because your oppnent can simply use MK and infinite cape the entire match after tagging you once.
So you switch because you know he wont, and go MK tag him once then cape the entire match.

Eventually everyone does this because they have no choice but to do it.
There is no reason to ply the other 719 matches because of that tactic which breaks every character. it'll be the same situation as Akuma, everyone wil use him because you won't win if you don't do otherwise.

What we have here is overcentralizing by choice. If everyone began choosing peach just because they think she is good, that is overcentralizing by choice, because there is nothing that says "choose Peach or lose".

I have issues trying to incorporate it mathematically. Its not my forte.

Suicide glitch? Explain that please

 

[Hive]

It would have an adverse effect to the DDD mains because in conjuction with making those matchups easier for the 5 characters, it makes those 5 matchups harder for DDD.

You and I disagree on what effect the slippery slope argument would have. I believe that no one has yet presented a criteria that would justify banning DDDs infinite grab, but not other tactics. "Making matchups unwinnable" applies to a number of tactics, "being an infinite" is not reason for a ban (we've seen many games thrive even when infinites are allowed), "causing these characters to be unviable" is simple a result of the first phrase listed and still applies to many other tactics, ect.

it doesn't make these matchups harder for ddd though, yes the possibility that ddd will win is changed slightly in most cases, but how ddds game is played in the match is still almost entirely the same, he still has to approach the same way for the cg. And it will prevent severely less skilled ddds from making an impact on the tourney scene
I still have not heard a single serious ddd complain that it will be realistically harder/worse for them if this is removed...

No other tactics really make any matchups unwinnable.. not nearly in the same light...
and those that have i.e. stalling, mk idg, have already been banned.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Hive you should only argue if you have an actual good argument. Your's is crap. Therefor, you don't have to argue.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm sorry, but this sounds like the arguement of someone who is too stubbornly rooted in the past to do progressive advancement of the metagame. Unless you stop believing D3's infinite is broken, this does not make sense.

Fundamentally, it's not broken. It doesn't over-centralize the metagame enough to be broken.

Oh yeah, appeal to novelty fallacy, just because it's a change, doesn't make it a good change.


I'm all for positive advancement to the metagame, but the unintended consequences (inconsistency or low ban standards) are too great for us to ignore, hence it is a NEGATIVE advancement, and reversing it is something I would consider positive advancement.


Remember, I'm in Atlantic north where the ban is the status quo, so I'm pushing for change within my region.

That's just terribad logic.

Choji can use Ougi against other characters without being broken. D3 can only use his infinite in a broken way. So while banning Choji's Ouji would limit options that are not broken in other matchups, D3 would have the exact same number of options. Also, you can't ban an action against one character but not another, you have to ban it against all characters. Choji's Ougi could not be banned.

You're missing the point, it doesn't matter if it can be used in a non-broken way, what matters it that it can be used in a broken way that can't be discretely and enforceably distinguished from the non-broken ways.

The net effect is having it legal over-centralizes the metagame around the characters that make every move unsafe on block, and were that single move banned, the centralization would disappear.

However, D3 can only use his infinite against the characters it works against, and every time he uses said infinite it is viewed as broken. It amazes me that the entire anti-ban side would actively defend something they themselves view as broken. At least claim it can be used in a non-broken way, but stop claiming that it's not broken enough if every time it is used it's insta-win. Not even IC's have that luxury - they require setup at least.

Since when did the anti-ban side say it's broken?

EDIT: No, Marth's D-tilt is not safe on block. The Marth boards have a detail explanation of how they get a four-frame advantage when using D-tilt on shield.

It's 4 frame disadvantage, it's not a true frame advantage, but factor in a 7 frame reaction time and the 4 frame dancing blade, as well as other ways marth can utilize this, and you get a frame trap. It's quite useful.

I think that to change sides would be to defend something I believe is bad. I don't worry to much about the system for determining how bad it has to be, that would be insane if I know that what I am defending is bad, no matter how good the principle behind it is. Edit: and I know it's bad because you know it's bad.

Because sometimes there are worse consequence to not protecting something that you know is bad.

For example, I protect the rights of the Westboro Baptist church (youtube them if you don't know) to speak freely even they I consider them a hanuous affront to all that I believe in, both as a Catholic, and a respectful human being.

Why?

Because there's a good principal which I believe in far more strongly then any particular good or bad, the right to free speech, to place your view in the marketplace of ideas. I don't care how horrible your view is, it's your right, because in doing so, it allows those groups with good views to counter the horrible ones. We don't need the government to silence those groups, people can just choose not to listen because they have better groups to listen to.

If I opposed their right to speak however, I would ultimately hurt the rights of better groups to speak and present their ideas.


That gets to the crux of the issue. In the immediate, it is usually far better to allow a small bad to exist because the way to squash that small bad would, as an unintended consequence, destroy a far more important good, or set a larger bad in place.


Especially when we are dealing with something that is in reality, only a very minor bad. Seriously, would we be doing the same thing if something else did this for the same number of characters, but wasn't an infinite? I suspect not.

the kkk example is different because it involves people's right to speech and the idea that where violence is not concerned people should be relatively free to choose what beliefs they have no matter how stupid they seem...
which i don't think ddds infinite relates to...

It is related because sometimes you must defend a bad in order to preserve a greater good. This is definitely one such case.

People just don't care because it "only" shuts down those 5 characters and that's not broken enough for them to ban it. They also don't care about those characters, because they don't use them.

"Learn to use secondaries!"


Those people are just egoists.

My Ganondorf sucks against the vast majority of the cast, should I be attempting to ban moves to make him better?

 

[Hive]

@shadowlink - yes but you are still missing one of my main points as well
it shouldn't matter how many people flock to ddd as a result to this
even if no one new picked up mk or akuma bc of those tactics they would STILL warrant a ban, wouldn't they? that means the reasons for banning them are dependent of that.
bans shouldn't and don't rely on how many people flock to them as a result...
most all of sbr's reasoning for bans that currently exist don't use this logic either...

 

[Hive]

Hive you should only argue if you have an actual good argument. Your's is crap. Therefor, you don't have to argue.

look swastikapyle i argue because imo i have good points and i want to test them in a debate setting, of course? differentiating between good points and bad points is entirely the point of debate isn't it!? So if they are bad I want to hear the reasons like in any other debate setting... and I have been trying to present them in an unopinionated way... ITs not like anyone reasonable would ever present an arguement they already thought was bad...
I expect my opponents to keep arguing with me, I would actually be disappointed if they weren't.... and I am glad when they make counters to them bc that is entirely the point of debate, not to try to keep people out if you don't agree with them...
shadowlink and darksonic both are very good debaters and i enjoy this...

however, what you are saying is basically crap...

 

[ShadowLink84]

@shadowlink - yes but you are still missing one of my main points as well
it shouldn't matter how many people flock to ddd as a result to this
even if no one new picked up mk or akuma bc of those tactics they would STILL warrant a ban, wouldn't they? that means the reasons for banning them are dependent of that.
bans shouldn't and don't rely on how many people flock to them as a result...
most all of sbr's reasoning for bans that currently exist don't use this logic either...

You are strawmanning. That is not what I said at all.
The number of people that flock to something willingly does not matter.
The number of people that flock to something against their will do.

People who flock to something because they can "Link being popular in melee." does not constitute a ban. Simply because this does not affect the metagame as a whole, its just people choosing a character.
This is overcentralizing by choce and is not ban worthy.

you then have cases where people are FORCED to use a tactic or character otherwise they WILL lose. MK's infinite cape, ganondorf's edgehog in melee,Akuma in SF2 ravager in MTG.

Those are cases where if you do not use the tactic you will lose. That is unhealthy to the metagame as a whole and is reflected when people start using those respective tactics more and more because they have no ability to do otherwise.
Overcentralizing by nature. That is ban worthy.

This is why Akuma was banned in the U.S. before such an effect could be seen.
The case where you mention no one using broken characters is a soft ban, that is enacted in Japan and it is frowned upon when you use the character though they will not stop you.

Understand now?

 

[Dark Sonic]

it doesn't make these matchups harder for ddd though

DDD players have to put more effort into the match= a harder matchup.

It does adversely effect them. Just not enough. But then we go into the debate of "how much of an adverse effect is enough"

I still have not heard a single serious ddd complain that it will be harder for them if this is removed...

So?

No other tactics really make any matchups unwinnable.. not nearly in the same light...
and those that have i.e. stalling, mk idg, have already been banned.

Define "not nearly in the same light." Did you know that Pikachu can d-throw->uptilt->footstool->quick attack lock on Fox?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV839DT0j5E
And that after the lock they are forced to stand up (just like a jab reset in melee) and you can up smash them or f-smash them. (He doesn't do it in this particular video, but he does it in his demonstrational video.

It looks very hard (I wouldn't know, since I don't play Pikachu) to actually do, but it's not like getting a grab on Fox is hard. And it's a legit 0-death. I believe it keeps working till about 35% too. And since difficulty or preformance has little meaning (it's only a matter of time before players master something like this), it would essentially make Fox unviable.

Bannable?

 

[Hive]

if i was strawmanning you i'm sorry, that was not nor will it ever be my intention in an arguement.... ^^


what you are saying is TRUE though... i just don't think that that is the only reason something should warrant a ban.
there are plenty of instances of things being banned that dont overcentralize the game in the way you are talking about as well...

@darksonic- if pikachu's grab really makes the fox matchup impossible, then yes I do believe it should be banned as well, and under the same logic...
just because it is against one person and even if no one goes to pikachu for it i still think it should be banned, it is an opinion issue mostly i guess though...
however, does it really make the matchup as one-sided? it seems to me that given pika's grab range, pika's other weaknesses, and only being able to do this less situationally (i.e. flat areas, ending in ledge, ok its NOT THAT situational lol) the matchup would still be occasionally winnable by fox..? I'm ASKING btw, I don't claim to know this matchup that well...

 

[ShadowLink84]

if i was strawmanning you i'm sorry, that was not nor will it ever be my intention in an arguement.... ^^

Don't worry, I do't rip on someone if they strawman. Not unless they do it consistently.

what you are saying is TRUE though... i just don't think that that is the only reason something should warrant a ban.
there are plenty of instances of things being banned that dont overcentralize the game in the way you are talking about as well...

That is typically because they go udner different reasoning.
For example stages are banned in accordance to how much they affect gameplay as a whole.
For example, aero port drive is banned because it wrecks gameplay.

Shadow Moses Island for walls and walks off.

 

[Luigi player]

My Ganondorf sucks against the vast majority of the cast, should I be attempting to ban moves to make him better?

Well the difference is that Ganon could still win and those characters against D3 not unless they the D3 doesn't know how to chaingrab them.

And besides that Ganon is imo the worst character in the game by far so I don't really see that as a big problem lol.

 

[fruityman]

I'd say don't ban it. Basically it gives DDD an advantage
against those characters but not to the point where the
match becomes 100-0, or at least close to it.
For example, I versed a falco 4 times and they CGed me
but I still won 3 out of 4 times w/fox.

 

[Hive]

That is typically because they go udner different reasoning.
For example stages are banned in accordance to how much they affect gameplay as a whole.
For example, aero port drive is banned because it wrecks gameplay.

Shadow Moses Island for walls and walks off.

i didn't mean just stages though ^^ yea, i think you are right that stages fall under and should fall under different reasoning...
i was more concerned with how bowser's suicide is ruled, and how stalling is ruled in tournies...
i can see how you would argue that stalling is relevant bc it makes other characters flock away from characters that can't stall, but then also is the arguemnet that DDDs infinite makes people flock from those 5 characters also valid in your opinion?
Bowser's ruling is trickier though because it DOESN'T really overcentralize the game though in the way you are talking about... the point is that different logic can be used to make ban rulings? what do you think?

edit: also if you DO feel i am strawmanning u in the future please do feel free to tell me ^^ I will change what i am saying like 95% of the time ^^ strawmanning is not my intention, nor helpful to the debate

 

[RDK]

I'd say don't ban it. Basically it gives DDD an advantage
against those characters but not to the point where the
match becomes 100-0, or at least close to it.
For example, I versed a falco 4 times and they CGed me
but I still won 3 out of 4 times w/fox.

You guys still aren't getting the point.

Even if the matchup was somehow even ****tier than 99-1 (whether or not it is is debatable to begin with), it's still not a reason to ban something using such poorly defined standards.

Please, learn how competitive gaming works. We've been arguing in circles for days.

 

[bobson]

@darksonic- if pikachu's grab really makes the fox matchup impossible, then yes I do believe it should be banned as well, and under the same logic...

It's a 0-70-ish% combo from a (short-ranged) grab. The reason Pikachu dominates Fox is because Pikachu simply outclasses Fox in every way; the chaingrab only helps that.
It's not comparable to DK VS Dedede.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I'd say don't ban it. Basically it gives DDD an advantage
against those characters but not to the point where the
match becomes 100-0, or at least close to it.
For example, I versed a falco 4 times and they CGed me
but I still won 3 out of 4 times w/fox.

Actually, the D3 infinite gives D3 an advantage so close to 100-0 that it breaks the system we use for measuring matchup difficulty.

Fundamentally, it's not broken. It doesn't over-centralize the metagame enough to be broken.

Oh yeah, appeal to novelty fallacy, just because it's a change, doesn't make it a good change.


I'm all for positive advancement to the metagame, but the unintended consequences (inconsistency or low ban standards) are too great for us to ignore, hence it is a NEGATIVE advancement, and reversing it is something I would consider positive advancement.


Remember, I'm in Atlantic north where the ban is the status quo, so I'm pushing for change within my region.

I do not understand you sir.

Now that it is banned there, you would have to argue that DK can beat D3 and the chain balances the game, due to the burden of proof being on the one who wants change.

How do you think the D3 infinite benefits the metagame?

If you cannot name a way, then your case has no grounds, and the region should remain with the prior decision, if you use the logic you have been using here.

 

[adumbrodeus]

It's a 0-70-ish% combo from a (short-ranged) grab. The reason Pikachu dominates Fox is because Pikachu simply outclasses Fox in every way; the chaingrab only helps that.
It's not comparable to DK VS Dedede.

And with DK, leaving it as just a chaingrab wouldn't improve the match-up beyond a counter. Possibly a hard counter.

 

[Hive]

It's a 0-70-ish% combo from a (short-ranged) grab. The reason Pikachu dominates Fox is because Pikachu simply outclasses Fox in every way; the chaingrab only helps that.
It's not comparable to DK VS Dedede.

ty bobson- if this is true than pikachu's grab i don't think is the same at all...
with ddd, banning this one tactic would be able to help the other 5 characters in the matchup and it wouldn't adversely effect ddd in the same way...
however there is no way you could do this with pikachu to produce this same outcome imo,...

 

[Dark Sonic]

@darksonic- if pikachu's grab really makes the fox matchup impossible, then yes I do believe it should be banned as well, and under the same logic...

But in doing so you'd take away one of Pikachu's greatest attributes, which is the ability to wreck Fox. At the same time, you'd be favoring Fox over the other characters who are "almost" zero-deathed by Pikachu's chaingrab.

however, does it really make the matchup as one-sided? it seems to me that given pika's grab range, pika's other weaknesses, and only being able to do this less situationally (i.e. flat areas, ending in ledge, ok its NOT THAT situational lol) the matchup would still be occasionally winnable by fox..? I'm ASKING btw, I don't claim to know this matchup that well...

Well, what would (in theory) make this so effective is how short ranged Foxes attacks are in general, making them unsafe on block. Shield grabbing fox is a little harder for Pikachu, but still possible on many of his combo moves (nair, dair, uptilt, ect.) And actually, I think theorectically you'd be able to do it on platforms too.

 

[ShadowLink84]

i didn't mean just stages though ^^ yea, i think you are right that stages fall under and should fall under different reasoning...
i was more concerned with how bowser's suicide is ruled, and how stalling is ruled in tournies...
i can see how you would argue that stalling is relevant bc it makes other characters flock away from characters that can't stall, but then also is the arguemnet that DDDs infinite makes people flock from those 5 characters also valid in your opinion?

No.
Primarily since you aren't forced to abandon your main entirely.
For example first match is double blind.
Lets say its DDD vs DK.
i lose causes its so terrible so its my CP.
I announce stage.
my opponent announces their character. if they stay as DDD I go Olimar, f the choose anyone but DDD I can use my main.

Or lets say I won against MK using DK.
They announce the stage.
At which point I switch to someone except the bad 6. If I stay I get hard countered, if I switch, I avid the situation and still retain the usage of my main.

Stalling invokes a "do this or lose" situation wher as DDD's doesn't.

Bowser's ruling is trickier though because it DOESN'T really overcentralize the game though in the way you are talking about... the point is that different logic can be used to make ban rulings? what do you think?

That is correct.
IN this case with DDd's infinite there really is no other logic that can be used since it eventually falls down to the argument of overcentralizing.

edit: also if you DO feel i am strawmanning u in the future please do feel free to tell me ^^ I will change what i am saying like 95% of the time ^^ strawmanning is not my intention, nor helpful to the debate

Don't worry about it.

 

[bobson]

And with DK, leaving it as just a chaingrab wouldn't improve the match-up beyond a counter. Possibly a hard counter.

It can't be too much of a disadvantage without the infinite, or Bum wouldn't be able to do as well with DK as he does.

I don't know DK or Dedede well enough to understand the matchup in detail, though.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

You guys still aren't getting the point.

Even if the matchup was somehow even ****tier than 99-1 (whether or not it is is debatable to begin with), it's still not a reason to ban something using such poorly defined standards.

Please, learn how competitive gaming works. We've been arguing in circles for days.

Frankly, I don't care. Your logic is irrationally based on prior standards, and gives me headaches whenever I attempt to figure out what could motivate a human being to be this stubbornly in support of bad things. I do not understand fighting to the death for the right of D3 players to use a tactic among which most of the active participants do not support using, nor to I understand why you find it so important to set a good standard for the future. No, we do not want the metagame to devolve because of bans. However, D3's infinite is useless, hated, frowned upon at every level of play, and quite frankly broken. And just counterpicking does not make the problem magically go away when it affects more than one character.

I do not understand the pro-ban arguement. It is illogically based on precident and future decisions, and does not make sense in this situation.

EDIT: Bum only goes to tournaments where the infinity is banned.

 

[Xyro77]

Hive, Just do what i do in Houston. Force the rule on them when they go to your events....just like i do.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I do not understand you sir.

Now that it is banned there, you would have to argue that DK can beat D3 and the chain balances the game, due to the burden of proof being on the one who wants change.

How do you think the D3 infinite benefits the metagame?

If you cannot name a way, then your case has no grounds, and the region should remain with the prior decision, if you use the logic you have been using here.

No, not at all. Change in current rulings doesn't have the burden of proof, change from the original game standard has the burden of proof, therefore ANY BAN has the burden of proof. Even IDC, though it's been accepted that it's burden of proof is fulfilled.

I neve said that change has the burden of proof, I merely said that changing the SBR's current position in regards to this requires a burden of proof, because it is a ban. Bans must fulfill burden of proof, that has been my position always.

DO NOT STRAWMAN ME. Ever. I will catch you. Always.




So, yes. Maintaining this rule logically speaking, Atlantic North has burden of proof.



As for how it helps the metagame, lack of arbitrary bannings/an incredibly low ban standard doesn't help the metagame. Because somehow I thought that banning because we feel like it and banning everything and it's mother was a bad thing.

And this, "because we think it's bad" crap doesn't cut it.

Edit: and I know it's bad because you know it's bad.

BS, logically prove it bad, and bad enough to justify a ban.

Frankly, I don't care. Your logic is irrationally based on prior standards, and gives me headaches whenever I attempt to figure out what could motivate a human being to be this stubbornly in support of bad things. I do not understand fighting to the death for the right of D3 players to use a tactic among which most of the active participants do not support using, nor to I understand why you find it so important to set a good standard for the future. No, we do not want the metagame to devolve because of bans. However, D3's infinite is useless, hated, frowned upon at every level of play, and quite frankly broken. And just counterpicking does not make the problem magically go away when it affects more than one character.

I do not understand the pro-ban arguement. It is illogically based on precident and future decisions, and does not make sense in this situation.

EDIT: Bum only goes to tournaments where the infinity is banned.

Read Play to Win.

That is what competitive gaming's standards are, that is our precedent.


You don't understand it because you're not realizing how fundamentally unimportant a few match-ups are. Sure it's annoying to DK mains and Luigi mains, etc. But that's not enough to justify a technique ban.

 

[RDK]

Frankly, I don't care. Your logic is irrationally based on prior standards, and gives me headaches whenever I attempt to figure out what could motivate a human being to be this stubbornly in support of bad things. I do not understand fighting to the death for the right of D3 players to use a tactic among which most of the active participants do not support using, nor to I understand why you find it so important to set a good standard for the future. No, we do not want the metagame to devolve because of bans. However, D3's infinite is useless, hated, frowned upon at every level of play, and quite frankly broken. And just counterpicking does not make the problem magically go away when it affects more than one character.

I do not understand the pro-ban arguement. It is illogically based on precident and future decisions, and does not make sense in this situation.

EDIT: Bum only goes to tournaments where the infinity is banned.

No, it's not irrational; it just seems like it to you because, again, you have not one inkling of how to handle these types of situations with a competitive mindset.

The purpose of the SBR is not to stick its filthy hand into the proverbial cookie jar and fix every little thing that's wrong with the game (in this case, ****ty matchups). If something threatens the overall viability of the roster, I.E. overcentralization, then action should be taken. The mentality of "who gives a ****" should be applied here, especially when so few characters are involved.

And the fact that you think poor reasoning was involved in the creation of these precedents again is testament to just how little you know about the subject. It's not a **** standard; it works, and there's no reason to fix it.

You're honestly so ******** right now I can't even believe it. If the infinite is useless, hated, and frowned upon at virtually every level of play, then why are we even having this discussion? Why should it even be up for debate? It should be moot at this point.

Sirlin, *****.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Hive, Just do what i do in Houston. Force the rule on them when they go to your events....just like i do.

Agreed. Skip the official ban, just make it a standard rule among TO's that the D3 infinite can't be used at tournaments, independent of the normal rules.

We all agree D3's infinite is detrimental to the metagame, and that it should not spur future bans. This is the easiest way.

 

[Dark Sonic]

nor to I understand why you find it so important to set a good standard for the future

What?!?!?!

It's a 0-70-ish% combo from a (short-ranged) grab. The reason Pikachu dominates Fox is because Pikachu simply outclasses Fox in every way; the chaingrab only helps that.
It's not comparable to DK VS Dedede.

DDD outclases Mario, Luigi, Samus, and Bowser in every way too (maybe even DK). And let's not all forget about thisVV

The infinite isn't even that good against Luigi unless you let it be. Around the time I can't mash out of the grab hit and it actually starts working, his u-tilt starts being able to KO at that percent anyway =/

It's more like 100%+ when it legitimately starts becoming impossible to mash out.

It's not just mashing buttons, but doing it in the most efficient way you can to maximize the amount of inputs you get per second. I generally still use my method from Melee to break grabs of rotating the control stick while rapidly sliding the side of my thumb back and forth over B/A/Y/X while pressing L/R/Z, but that's mostly good for it being effective yet easy to set up quickly for any time you happen to get grabbed.

There wasn't really anything before that was multiple regrabs but also required them to grab hit me, since for CGs if I mashed out faster they just won't bother grab hitting while doing it, so there's likely a better method than that for the grab hit infinites since ease/speed to set up and hold the controller differently isn't really important.

And remember this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm8z4O24CvI&feature=related

6:21 WHY IS EVERYONE IGNORING THIS!!!! Breaking out after one pummel at 129%!?! That seems kind of important.

And Magus's response?

Infiniting Samus/Mario/Luigi from 130%-300% is still broken, and makes those matchups absolutely unwinnable. Like wtf, that's 170 damage off of one grab on those 3 characters! Also, it's clearly just some kind of glitch anyway despite him doing it repeatedly in the set after regrabs and the mashing being very audible, cuz i tryed myslef n cnat do it dat fast

Why are people not looking into this?! We have methods that would make the infinite itself null and void and stop us from even having to debate the issue, and absolutely no one (even the people on the recieving end of the infinite) is even testing this kind of stuff?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

No, it's not irrational; it just seems like it to you because, again, you have not one inkling of how to handle these types of situations with a competitive mindset.

The purpose of the SBR is not to stick its filthy hand into the proverbial cookie jar and fix every little thing that's wrong with the game (in this case, ****ty matchups). If something threatens the overall viability of the roster, I.E. overcentralization, then action should be taken. The mentality of "who gives a ****" should be applied here, especially when so few characters are involved.

And the fact that you think poor reasoning was involved in the creation of these precedents again is testament to just how little you know about the subject. It's not a **** standard; it works, and there's no reason to fix it.

You're honestly so ******** right now I can't even believe it. If the infinite is useless, hated, and frowned upon at virtually every level of play, then why are we even having this discussion? Why should it even be up for debate? It should be moot at this point.

Sirlin, *****.

Um, Actually, I don't know why we are having this debate. I think you are wrong. I can prove that D3's infinite is detrimental to the metagame, but aparently not enough that you believe people should stop using D3's infinite. I cannot convince you to change your mind.