Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[XxBlackxX]

I simply cannot change sides unless you address my biggest issue with the infinite, that it is broken. Disprove that, and we can get somewhere. It is my priciple of guiding logic that is driving me nuts - you call a tactic broken, and refuse to fix it, while still admitting the tactic is broken. I cannot be satisfied with that.

it does not break the game as a WHOLE. who cares if certain matchups are broken. stuff like that happens in almost all fighting games. stuff like that happens in other matchups in brawl. deal with it and pick a different character. because, at the end of day, the ruleset is only there to make sure the game as a whole isn't broken by this tactic. and since it isn't universal, well, it doesn't fit the criteria.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

it does not break the game as a WHOLE. who cares if certain matchups are broken. stuff like that happens in almost all fighting games. stuff like that happens in other matchups in brawl. deal with it and pick a different character. because, at the end of day, the ruleset is only there to make sure the game as a whole isn't broken by this tactic. and since it isn't universal, well, it doesn't fit the criteria.

YOU still claim it is broken, and refuse to let anyone fix it.

It is broken. People FIX things that are broken.

 

[Woozle]

Infinites not breaking the game as a whole is like having a bullet wound in your leg not being life-threatening.

Even though all you have to cut off is one limb, it'd be much better if people did something to try and save the leg.

.-.

 

[XxBlackxX]

YOU still claim it is broken, and refuse to let anyone fix it.

It is broken. People FIX things that are broken.

NO, broken matchups=/=broken game. broken matchups DON'T need to be fixed. a character/move that breaks the game does. there's a BIG difference.

@Wozzle
stupid comparison. this is competitive gaming, where the ruleset make as FEW restrictions as it can to keep the WHOLE game from being unplayable. it has nothing to do whatso ever with cutting off people's legs. >_>

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Infinites not breaking the game as a whole is like having a bullet wound in your leg not being life-threatening.

Even though all you have to cut off is one limb, it'd be much better if people did something to try and save the leg.

.-.

Well, the most typical solution is to remove the bullet.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Well, the most typical solution is to remove the bullet.

yes, but that comparison is irrelvant as competitive gaming ruleset=/= real life situations. >_>

 

[Woozle]

yes, but that comparison is irrelvant as competitive gaming ruleset=/= real life situations. >_>

Because there isn't competitive gaming in real life.

yes, but that comparison is irrelvant as competitive gaming ruleset=/= real life situations. >_>

Then what do you suggest we compare it to? Other competitive games? Sports? Computer programs? Or do we just decide that, Hey, lets just **** every precedent ever set by the history of man and make up our own rules governing how to make things competitive, fair, and just?

Until you and all of your "doesn't break enough" friends come up with some kind of reason why we should ignore LIFE as it pertains to A PART OF LIFE, I'll continue to enjoy using whatever parallels I want.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Because there isn't competitive gaming in real life.

what is your point.....?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

yes, but that comparison is irrelvant as competitive gaming ruleset=/= real life situations. >_>

I will accept that D3's infinity is not broken if you're convincing. I will not accept that broken matchups should not be fixed in this situation. It defies the very nature of the words "broken" and "fix," and is totally incomprehensible to me because of the logical assumptions behind the very language itself. I can see how MK wasn't actually broken, just really good, likewise I can see how the IC's chaingrab is a part of gameplay rather than something that "breaks" them, but I cannot see a way in which D3's infinite is not broken.

 

[Kirio]

G-dorf has like 7 matchups that are worse than 30-70 for him. The sucky 5 have, for the most part, just one of those. (Bar bowser maybe) Granted, the matchup is worse for them, but that doesn't change the fact that people are simply going to have ****ty match ups. Just pick a **** secondary up. People did it in melee and that took a LOT more time and effort than it does in Brawl.

EDIT: It's not broken because it's only applicable to a small portion of characters, as has been stated MANY times. It doesn't break the game, so it's not broken.

 

[Woozle]

what is your point.....?

That competitive gaming certainly does exist in real life.

So saying that we can't describe it in terms of what happens in real life is unfounded.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I propose we make an optional ruleset for all the things that may not be banworthy for which there is a large call to ban.

Legal stages are not set in stone, TO's are given options between legal stages concerning which counterpicks they want to ban, and are allowed to use certain counterpicks as neutral stages.

Likewise, there can be an optional ruleset, which clarifies and consolidates all the bans TO's can reasonably make. Thus, all bans will still be TO decisions, but TO's will have a guide for their decisions.

Under optional character bans,
MK

Under optional tactic bans,
IDC
D3 infinite
IC ICG
D3 shortstep

We can simply add anything we have doubt about into an "optional ruleset," sort them into general order of most to least broken, and allow TO's to decide the most beneficial rulesets for the metagame. Thus, the D3 infinite is not banned, nor is it necesarily a part of tournaments, and the decision is left entirely up to Tournament organizers.

There are two precidents for this: one is the legal stage system, and the other is wobble banning.

Well, who can support this proposal?

 

[XxBlackxX]

I will accept that D3's infinity is not broken if you're convincing. I will not accept that broken matchups should not be fixed in this situation. It defies the very nature of the words "broken" and "fix," and is totally incomprehensible to me because of the logical assumptions behind the very language itself. I can see how MK wasn't actually broken, just really good, likewise I can see how the IC's chaingrab is a part of gameplay rather than something that "breaks" them, but I cannot see a way in which D3's infinite is not broken.

*sigh*
i now see why Yuna has called you time and time again "someone who knows absolutely NOTHING about competitive gaming"

yes, logically, to someone who isn't informed, your logic is correct. HOWEVER, the ruleset of competitive games IS not to "fix" anything that doesn't make the whole game unplayable. the D3 infinites are not universal, therefore they don't break the whole game. banning something is a last resort, when the game as a whole cannot be played if it isn't banned, this happens when "pick character X/do tactic Y or you lose", only THEN is it ban-worthy. something that only "breaks" 6 matchups IS NOT actually broken in the sense that it NEEDS to be fixed.

I propose we make an optional ruleset for all the things that may not be banworthy for which there is a large call to ban.

Legal stages are not set in stone, TO's are given options between legal stages concerning which counterpicks they want to ban, and are allowed to use certain counterpicks as neutral stages.

Likewise, there can be an optional ruleset, which clarifies and consolidates all the bans TO's can reasonably make. Thus, all bans will still be TO decisions, but TO's will have a guide for their decisions.

Under optional character bans,
MK

Under optional tactic bans,
IDC
D3 infinite
IC ICG
D3 shortstep

We can simply add anything we have doubt about into an "optional ruleset," sort them into general order of most to least broken, and allow TO's to decide the most beneficial rulesets for the metagame. Thus, the D3 infinite is not banned, nor is it necesarily a part of tournaments, and the decision is left entirely up to Tournament organizers.

There are two precidents for this: one is the legal stage system, and the other is wobble banning.

actually, everything is decided by TO's. if YOU wanted to YOU could make a tourney like that, even though i don't agree with ANY of it. the ruleset by SBR is NOT law. TO's make the "law" in their own tournies. SBR just gives the RECOMMENDED ruleset.

 

[Woozle]

G-dorf has like 7 matchups that are worse than 30-70 for him. The sucky 5 have, for the most part, just one of those. (Bar bowser maybe) Granted, the matchup is worse for them, but that doesn't change the fact that people are simply going to have ****ty match ups. Just pick a **** secondary up. People did it in melee and that took a LOT more time and effort than it does in Brawl.

Yeah. Belittle the other side for being too lazy to pick a secondary. They're all spending hours debating about this because they want to avoid having to pick up Snake to counter Dedede.

Brilliant.

*sigh*
i now see why Yuna has called you time and time again "someone who knows absolutely NOTHING about competitive gaming"

yes, logically, to someone who isn't informed, your logic is correct. HOWEVER, the ruleset of competitive games IS not to "fix" anything that doesn't make the whole game unplayable. the D3 infinites are not universal, therefore they don't break the whole game. banning something is a last resort, when the game as a whole cannot be played if it isn't banned, this happens when "pick character X/do tactic Y or you lose", only THEN is it ban-worthy. something that only "breaks" 6 matchups IS NOT actually broken in the sense that it NEEDS to be fixed.

What do you know about the "rule set of competitive gaming"?

You don't know anything about it. All you know about it is that you think it should be the way you describe it, and you know there are some people who agree with you.

Also, slick name-dropping.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Yeah. Belittle the other side for being too lazy to pick a secondary. They're all spending hours debating about this because they want to avoid having to pick up Snake to counter Dedede.

Brilliant.



What do you know about the "rule set of competitive gaming"?

You don't know anything about it. All you know about it is that you think it should be the way you describe it, and you know there are some people who agree with you.

Also, slick name-dropping.

ha! namedropping? you should have been here 2 days ago. THC actually based his argument on "well the 3 D3 mains that came in this thread said it should be banned...so it should be banned" >_>

and no, you are indeed WRONG. every other ruleset of fighting games and most competitively games DO have rulesets that are EXACTLY the way i described them. the fact that you question that is a sign that you belong in the same camp as THC. okay, so what other competitive game community have you been a part of? HAVE YOU EVEN PLAYED MELEE?

 

[Kirio]

Yeah. Belittle the other side for being too lazy to pick a secondary. They're all spending hours debating about this because they want to avoid having to pick up Snake to counter Dedede.

Brilliant.

Then you're debating it because you don't think it's fair because it's broken. It wasn't fair that Bowser got trounced by Shiek in Melee due to what you would also consider broken but somehow melee is still considered an absolutely amazing game and is lasting past it's sequel despite this broken tactic.. I don't see why it needs to be 'fixed'.

And that's why the problem can be solved as simply as picking up a secondary, as many are already forced to do, instead of trying to instantiate a ban.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

*sigh*
i now see why Yuna has called you time and time again "someone who knows absolutely NOTHING about competitive gaming"

yes, logically, to someone who isn't informed, your logic is correct. HOWEVER, the ruleset of competitive games IS not to "fix" anything that doesn't make the whole game unplayable. the D3 infinites are not universal, therefore they don't break the whole game. banning something is a last resort, when the game as a whole cannot be played if it isn't banned, this happens when "pick character X/do tactic Y or you lose", only THEN is it ban-worthy. something that only "breaks" 6 matchups IS NOT actually broken in the sense that it NEEDS to be fixed.

That doesn't make sense, waiting that long I mean.

I've heard it, but it really doesn't make D3's infinite less broken. In fact, I think the "last resort" necesity is kinda insane.

Sometimes tactics that are discovered as the metagame progresses counter previous tactics, and the reason to avoid an outright ban is so that the metagame can adjust and get better until it reaches the highest level of play. I recall the arguement against a ban except as a last resort revolved around the example of "Orochimaru" seeming broken at the beginning of some Naruto metagame, so it was banned, but better tactics were discovered later which made the ban unnecessary and actually limitted the metagame. The assumption is the metagame keeps evolving around these best tactics until we have a highest level of play, as we do not know what that is.

The problem with the D3 infinite is that it is currently assumed nothing will come close to countering that. So far the closest thing to being a "counter tactic" was turning your controller upside-down and learn some hand technique which will register 17 imputs per second, which I have yet to see done correctly. If there were any hope for a true way around the infinite, then you might be justified. However, there does not appear to be the case, as the best solution proposed has been "learn to counterpick."

Actually, the "learn to counterpick" arguement may very well be the reason why the infinite hurts the metagame and should be banned. Those characters won't be developed because of a single attack, which is kinda nuts.

 

[Kirio]

Actually, the "learn to counterpick" arguement may very well be the reason why the infinite hurts the metagame and should be banned.

No, because what hurts the metagame is debatable and would simply cause more 'well THIS hurts the metagame too' tomfoolery. We don't ban things to attempt to enhance the game, we ban them to ensure it isn't ruined. (Keep in mind I'm speaking in terms of official bans, not single tourney bans)

Those characters won't be developed because of a single attack, which is kinda nuts.

This happens in other games too, and isn't banned. Why should smash be different?

 

[XxBlackxX]

That doesn't make sense, waiting that long I mean.

I've heard it, but it really doesn't make D3's infinite less broken. In fact, I think the "last resort" necesity is kinda insane.

Sometimes tactics that are discovered as the metagame progresses counter previous tactics, and the reason to avoid an outright ban is so that the metagame can adjust and get better until it reaches the highest level of play. I recall the arguement against a ban except as a last resort revolved around "Orochimaru" seeming broken at the beginning of some Naruto metagame, so it was banned, but better tactics were discovered later which made the ban unnecessary and actually limitted the metagame. The assumption is the metagame keeps evolving around these best tactics until we have a highest level of play, as we do not know what that is.

The problem with the D3 infinite is that it is currently assumed nothing will come close to countering that. So far the closest thing to being a "counter tactic" was turning your controller upside-down and learn some hand technique which will register 17 imputs per second, which I have yet to see done correctly. If there were any hope for a true way around the infinite, then you might be justified. However, there does not appear to be the case, as the best solution proposed has been "learn to counterpick."

Actually, the "learn to counterpick" arguement may very well be the reason why the infinite hurts the metagame and should be banned. Those characters won't be developed because of a single attack, which is kinda nuts.

lolwut? you think banning shouldn't be a last resort? that's crazy >_>

yes, nothing probably will come up to counter it. what's your point? nothing will come up to counter shiek's ftilt lock against fox, nor pika's CG against fox. nor will falcon suddenly gain a new tech to improve his matchups.
yes, the solution is CP'ing. and it doesn't/shouldn't matter how great a solution it is. if it's not good enough for you, find a new solution, because banning should be the last resort and atm there's no reason to ban the infinites other than
"it breaks matchups"
"hurts metagame development for characters"
and those reasons aren't good enough because the technique isn't universal.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

This happens in other games too, and isn't banned. Why should smash be different?

Because it's nuts. As in, the competitive community has this obsessively irrational belief that every glitch in every game should be used under every circumstance, unless they are no longer able to play the game because of it, reguardless of the side effects.

Can't we at least reach a middle ground with my "optional ruleset?"

EDIT: This is post #2500, after all.

 

[Woozle]

ha! namedropping? you should have been here 2 days ago. THC actually based his argument on "well the 3 D3 mains that came in this thread said it should be banned...so it should be banned" >_>

and no, you are indeed WRONG. every other ruleset of fighting games and most competitively games DO have rulesets that are EXACTLY the way i described them. the fact that you question that is a sign that you belong in the same camp as THC. okay, so what other competitive game community have you been a part of? HAVE YOU EVEN PLAYED MELEE?

Yes, I have.

D'oh. I'm calling the counter-argument: "Well then you didn't play it COMPETITIVELY".

 

[XxBlackxX]

Because it's nuts. As in, the competitive community has this obsessively irrational belief that every glitch in every game should be used under every circumstance, unless they are no longer able to play the game because of it, reguardless of the side effects.

Can't we at least reach a middle ground with my "optional ruleset?"

EDIT: This is post #2500, after all.

that kinda thinking is wrong.
being ban-happy is BAD for smash, despite what you say about infinites hurting metagame, being ban-happy hurts it more because instead of dealing with their own problems, the community just complains and they get it banned, this destroys thinking on the community's part to counter strats, instead they just want the easier way, which is ban.
soon, every topic on this will be ban,ban, ban.

 

[Kirio]

Because it's nuts. As in, the competitive community has this obsessively irrational belief that every glitch in every game should be used under every circumstance, unless they are no longer able to play the game because of it, reguardless of the side effects.

Can't we at least reach a middle ground with my "optional ruleset?"

I believe it is not nuts and is not irrational. Subjective arguments :/.

No. Any given tourney can do what it wants. The thing we're trying to discuss is for very major tournaments, such as MLG. No offense to MLG, but they do not know the games as in depth as people who have extensively discussed the idea with reasonable arguments and some good experience. Given them an optional ruleset is kind of like saying 'We don't know, you pick' instead of just having them use what they know works due to past competitions of a similar nature.

Giving unknowing sponsors the choice just makes me feel it will end up like the bull**** gamespot did. Obviously not to that extent, but it's still not a good direction to give them the option to screw it up. And if we used that consideration when we created the option ban list, it would be so limited it would not even be worthwhile.

 

[Aver]

I have a question for the people who want the infinite to stay.

How do you think this move does not hurt the metagame?

It makes it so that you have to switch characters just to win and it shouldn't be that way. Every character should at least have a somewhat fair chance of wining. This infinite has caused six characters to become useless in a match. How does that not hurt the metagame?

Don't tell me it doesn't effect enough people. If you think it needs to effect more people then you should just make this game have one character. With only one character there will be no more miss matches and whining about advantages.


And what makes you think this game is like other games. I have not seen one game out there like SSB. Yea it may still be a fighting game but what fighting games have so many jumps and moves that are a button click away and not a+b+lt->rt+b and other things like it.


One last thing, I would go as far as banning all chaingrabs as well. Unless every character has the capability to do it to everyone then it must be hurting the metagame of the characters that can't do it.

 

[Jaigoda]

Alright, I've got one question for the anti-ban side: Why the **** should we NOT ban the infinite? So yeah, you're adding one more line to the ruleset, it though it only applies to 5-6 characters, and....... What? There are many reasons to ban the infinite, but maybe 2-3 to not ban it.

And just one thing to mention if someone were to compare this to the MK ban, there are a lot of people who have put in a lot of time into making their MK better, and some honestly main him because they like the character. On the other hand, D3's infinite may have taken an hour to learn if you suck, and it's not like those characters aren't still going to have a pretty large disadvantage anyway (though nowhere near 100-0).

 

[adumbrodeus]

not really you make a statement, i state that its wrong because its subjective, you have burden of proof.

Not true, you're stating that there is something fallicious about the statement by saying it's subjective, something which you need to back up.

Notice how I always back it up.

Whoever the burden of proof is on in a discussion, any statement is presumed valid until a logical counter-point is brought up to satisify the burden of proof on whoever opposes the statement, unless pre-existing material already does that and it is not addressed.

and who the hell gave you teh incredibly misguided notion that im trying to add to discussion...

im just stating subjection and clarifying misconceptions. you said yourself that thats the only way to win.

The problem is YOU'RE NOT DOING THAT, you're merely spamming "this that and the other thing is subjective".

Pointing out subjectivity and clarifying misconceptions is, by it's nature, adding to the discussion, unless you fail at it.

Which you are doing.

Remember, you're not just trying to hurt your opponent's point, you're trying to put forth your own.

You believe your point is fundamentally correct, right? So there should be objective evidence of it's correctness based on the pre-existblished goals of the community to be a competative community and points that disagree with your idea are ultimately based on misconceptions and subjectivity.

So prove it, objective evidence, pointing out misconceptions in a logical manner, and pointing out subjectivity. If you're right, there should be material to do that with, if you're wrong, ultimately there shouldn't.

I don't believe this is necessarily true. Primarily because the TO's have often done things differently form the SBR. most notably TO's in the AN region who often ban infinites.

I think its more like an advisory rather than actual power given to them.

Which is why I point to the government body they are closest to as the US Supreme court. Multiple cases where their rulings have been ignored, and ultimately they are dependant on legitimacy.

The SBR is a analogious to a government, but they are given precisely as much power as the community wants to give them, which isn't ultimate power, but they're definately highly influential.

Truth be told, there were MANY governments like this, including the US articles of the Confederation federal government.

I would have to say when it comes to yu-gi-oh they're lazy *******s for going to Konami's tournaments when they know cards that should be banned are allowed -_-;
Friggin disc commander.

Perhaps, but my point is, Konami isn't God, the players are. They can set up any competative community they want.

I've heard it, but it really doesn't make D3's infinite less broken. In fact, I think the "last resort" necesity is kinda insane.

Read Sirlin. He explains why.

It's a last resort because banning takes away from the game, by setting a threshold too low you gut the metagame.

And it's not broken. It doesn't break the game. It gives 1 characters a very bad match-up with DDD.

Yes, 1, DK. Bowser is a small step CG and the others can break out before 130%.


So we ban for 1 match-up, really really folks? That's just INSANE.

 

[Jaigoda]

that kinda thinking is wrong.
being ban-happy is BAD for smash, despite what you say about infinites hurting metagame, being ban-happy hurts it more because instead of dealing with their own problems, the community just complains and they get it banned, this destroys thinking on the community's part to counter strats, instead they just want the easier way, which is ban.
soon, every topic on this will be ban,ban, ban.

There is no counter-strat to an infinite, besides 'don't get grabbed,' but that's pretty **** hard if that's all that the opponent needs to do to take your stock, especially when your character has moves that can be counted on one hand that are safe on block.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

that kinda thinking is wrong.
being ban-happy is BAD for smash, despite what you say about infinites hurting metagame, being ban-happy hurts it more because instead of dealing with their own problems, the community just complains and they get it banned, this destroys thinking on the community's part to counter strats, instead they just want the easier way, which is ban.
soon, every topic on this will be ban,ban, ban.

But your anti-ban attitude is simply wrong in this situation. Any D3 user will tell you that:

I fail to see why people who don't play D3 or the 5 characters are even in this.

Personally I feel absolutely nothing is lost from the banning of the infinite, and I play D3. But im just me, I voted, im done.

DDD main here.
Ban it.
DDD really does not need an infinite on those few characters to win the match up. Even without the infinite, the matchup is still going to be in favor for DDD.

Of course the D3 players are going to be biased. They're not the ones being tortured to death.

Dedede is already plenty imbalanced enough without the infinite, he doesn't need it. Get rid of it. You people are saying since Bowser, Samus, and Mario suck, we should just let them suck even more? Pathetic. You're just letting Sakurai's pathetic efforts to balance the game suck as hard as they possibly can. DK is actually high on the tier list and perfectly viable, and the chain grab infinite works perfectly against him. This sole thing will cause DK to slowly drop down into mid tier, if that. Do we really want tournies with noone but the top 7, 90% of them being MK and D3? You people make me sick.

What about those matchups? They're just disadvantaged and definitley not broken

Florida's best Fox 2 stocked Florida's best ZSS twice at a tourney saturday. 2 players of the relatively same skill.

In a broken matchup that certainly would not happen.

I would Never get 2 stocked by nevermind losing nevermind not consistently 2 and 3 stocking any character I can infinite if I choose to do so.

I don't believe there is a link or a quote to an official reason. I could be wrong.

Why does the stage focusing on Dedede have to do anything.

You could simply counterpick a character that couldn't be chaingrabbed such as the argument here as to why Dedede's infinite shouldn't be banned.

There is no reason why one should be banned while the other couldn't.

Shadowlink Dedede's infinite was found out like 1 month after the game's release. There was no information at how often they appeared in tourneys so how would you know that.

Dedede's infinite is a large part of the low amount of Mario/Luigi etc mains. Who is to say some High Level player(just throwing this out there) such as Roy R or something would not main those said characaters if it weren't for D3's infinites.

@Matador : Yeah thats what I don't like, how people are seemingly picking and choosing when a certain amount of characters with broken matchups is enough. There should be no difference whether or not its 34 characters or 1 character being effected by the infinite because essentially you can always "counterpick". Its being very subjective.

 

[Kirio]

It makes it so that you have to switch characters just to win and it shouldn't be that way. Every character should at least have a somewhat fair chance of wining. This infinite has caused six characters to become useless in a match. How does that not hurt the metagame?

G-dorf has ~3 matchups like this. If your argument is that it isn't fair, then how would it be fair to ban something to improve those 5 people with 1 terrible matchup and not banning something to improve gdorfs matchups because it would be harder? No matter what, people will have bad matchups, it's part of being a competitive fighting game.

And what makes you think this game is like other games. I have not seen one game out there like SSB. Yea it may still be a fighting game but what fighting games have so many jumps and moves that are a button click away and not a+b+lt->rt+b and other things like it.

Because they're both competitive fighting games. They both consist of maneuvering your characters and using your selection of moves in order to try and hurt them in attempts of defeating them. Yes, there are differences, but the concepts are similar enough to compare the competive aspects of the games.

One last thing, I would go as far as banning all chaingrabs as well. Unless every character has the capability to do it to everyone then it must be hurting the metagame of the characters that can't do it.

LOL. Why don't we just go ban everyone with more than 2 regular jumps? And everyone with upB's that go too far? They're hurting the metagame because they recover a lot better than characters without :[

 

[Blackbelt]

I think D3's infinite should be banned.


The only reason I think this is because I believe it would leas to a healthier metagame, and it would encourage other characters to be used (and character variety is a good thing)

 

[adumbrodeus]

I have a question for the people who want the infinite to stay.

How do you think this move does not hurt the metagame?

It makes it so that you have to switch characters just to win and it shouldn't be that way. Every character should at least have a somewhat fair chance of wining. This infinite has caused six characters to become useless in a match. How does that not hurt the metagame?

Don't tell me it doesn't effect enough people. If you think it needs to effect more people then you should just make this game have one character. With only one character there will be no more miss matches and whining about advantages.


And what makes you think this game is like other games. I have not seen one game out there like SSB. Yea it may still be a fighting game but what fighting games have so many jumps and moves that are a button click away and not a+b+lt->rt+b and other things like it.


One last thing, I would go as far as banning all chaingrabs as well. Unless every character has the capability to do it to everyone then it must be hurting the metagame of the characters that can't do it.

*Bolding added

Wrong. Dk, that is all.

The others can break out during the pummel before 130(?).


Should all characters have a fair chance of winning? Not at all, there are counter-picks through-out the game. Should I expect Marth's fair, dtilt, nair, and fair be banned so my Ganondorf has a fair chance of beating him? Not at all.

Most characters have counters, learn to live with them.


And if it were with more characters, YES. That's sort of the point. As it currently exists, it only really affects one character, DK. A character who's good enough that he probably should have a hard counter. I see no reason to artificially remove that.

Alright, I've got one question for the anti-ban side: Why the **** should we NOT ban the infinite? So yeah, you're adding one more line to the ruleset, it though it only applies to 5-6 characters, and....... What? There are many reasons to ban the infinite, but maybe 2-3 to not ban it.

And just one thing to mention if someone were to compare this to the MK ban, there are a lot of people who have put in a lot of time into making their MK better, and some honestly main him because they like the character. On the other hand, D3's infinite may have taken an hour to learn if you suck, and it's not like those characters aren't still going to have a pretty large disadvantage anyway (though nowhere near 100-0).

It's not why we don't ban it, it's why should we?

It's part of the game, unless there's an overriding reason, why should we ban it?


Especially if it's something as non-sensical as for 1 match-up.

There is no counter-strat to an infinite, besides 'don't get grabbed,' but that's pretty **** hard if that's all that the opponent needs to do to take your stock, especially when your character has moves that can be counted on one hand that are safe on block.

So, don't get grabbed. Or mash out of it if your opponent's grab if he makes a mistake (like holding DK for a bit too long before down throwing).

Bad match-ups happen.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Yes, I have.

D'oh. I'm calling the counter-argument: "Well then you didn't play it COMPETITIVELY".

then what's your problem? melee had situations like this. characters were unviable. yet CG's weren't banned against them. do you understand why? (hint, reasons ive stated like 20x now in this thread) if so, your argument becomes void.

 

[XxBlackxX]

But your anti-ban attitude is simply wrong in this situation. Any D3 user will tell you that:

well i gotta say nice job collecting all those. too bad OPINIONS DON'T MATTER. facts do. and facts state:
characters/tactic are only banned if they over-centralize and make the game as a whole unplayable
infinites aren't universal, they affect 6/37 chars and 772/780 matchups.
they don't break the game as a whole, brawl is still playable with the inclusions of those

therefore, my anti-ban positions still the same.

EDIT: sorry didn't know it was gonna be double post.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

well i gotta say nice job collecting all those. too bad OPINIONS DON'T MATTER. facts do. and facts state:
characters/tactic are only banned if they over-centralize and make the game as a whole unplayable
infinites aren't universal, they affect 6/37 chars and 772/780 matchups.
they don't break the game as a whole, brawl is still playable with the inclusions of those

therefore, my anti-ban positions still the same.

EDIT: sorry didn't know it was gonna be double post.

do you actually read the posts and care what people who disagree with you think? Most of those brought up good points, especially the last two.

BTW, we already broke Sirlin's rules:

Wrong. As I said before, if you know how to tech, which ALL characters can do quite easily and any skilled person will tech 90% of the time (and pros are still often grabbed by D3 in a matchup), you almost completely negate any ground locks. They are still banned because of the off chance that you're in a situation where you're unable to tech and he's in the position to infinite you. It's not universal, it's not super easy to set up. In fact, I doubt even 10% of matches would have a laser/jab lock in them if walls were not banned.

Oh, and one thing to mention: Say stages with walls were not banned, and there was no way of abusing them besides Dedede's chaingrab. Dedede would **** about 2/3rds of the cast on these stages, simply because he can infinite them off the wall. BUT, it doesn't work on all of the cast (what is it, like 9 or so of the cast isn't infinited by D3?), so under your criteria the walls shouldn't be banned because IT ISN'T UNIVERSAL. So even though he would have near-100-0 matchups on the majority of the cast, he wouldn't warrant a ban because it's not universal.

Am I the only one who thinks this is terrible logic?

Technically, he is right. These situations are not bad enough to warrent a ban in other games, why did we ban them, and why are we being so inconsistent?

 

[Breakman6]

Should all characters have a fair chance of winning? Not at all, there are counter-picks through-out the game. Should I expect Marth's fair, dtilt, nair, and fair be banned so my Ganondorf has a fair chance of beating him? Not at all.

Most characters have counters, learn to live with them.


It's not why we don't ban it, it's why should we?

It's part of the game, unless there's an overriding reason, why should we ban it?


Especially if it's something as non-sensical as for 1 match-up.




So, don't get grabbed. Or mash out of it if your opponent's grab if he makes a mistake (like holding DK for a bit too long before down throwing).

Bad match-ups happen.

I agree with this fully. It is truth.

 

[XxBlackxX]

do you actually read the posts and care what people who disagree with you think? Most of those brought up good points, especially the last two.

yes, ive read ALL of CO18's pro-ban arguments, back when he was arguing in the thread. my conclusion?
ALL the points he makes are GOOD and MOSTLY TRUE.
however, the infinites still don't warrant a ban. want my reasoning? same as the one i posted over 20 times in this thread. you wanna be stubborn, i can too. in fact, im too lazy to even repost the reason. none of the pro-bans ever truly "countered" my statements imo. they either tried to question my credibility in claiming those things, or bring up the same arguments as alway "bad matchups",etc.etc.

Technically, he is right. These situations are not bad enough to warrent a ban in other games, why did we ban them, and why are we being so inconsistent?

i disagree. my response is in other thread.

I agree with this fully. It is truth.

yea. some characters will have impossible matchups. some characters will be "unviable". deal with it, banning is not the correct solution.

 

[cutter]

I've heard it, but it really doesn't make D3's infinite less broken. In fact, I think the "last resort" necesity is kinda insane.

I stopped reading right there. Why do you continue to make yourself look like a complete moron?

Banning something is done as an absolute last resort; when all other options fail to solve the problem. This is a concept that isn't just in Brawl, but it's present in all competitive games such as MTG.

One of the reasons we ban things as a last resort is so people like you don't go slap-happy and ban things on a whim.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

yes, ive read ALL of CO18's pro-ban arguments, back when he was arguing in the thread. my conclusion?
ALL the points he makes are GOOD and MOSTLY TRUE.
however, the infinites still don't warrant a ban. want my reasoning? same as the one i posted over 20 times in this thread. you wanna be stubborn, i can too. in fact, im too lazy to even repost the reason. none of the pro-bans ever truly "countered" my statements imo. they either tried to question my credibility in claiming those things, or bring up the same arguments as alway "bad matchups",etc.etc.

Imo, this counters your opinion:

The more I discuss with the anti-ban side, the more I realize that they are mad. They are not rational. They will be obedient to the programing script of a game unless they are no longer able to play the game. They do not care about anyone involved, for even those who lose from the proposition discussed are in favor of the proposition at hand, while they oppose it on the principle that the bianary should be followed exactly as they recieved it. These are the people who changed their game from what it was originally meant to be in favor of one with fewer random variables and change the match type for no known reason. They follow the rules they created themselves, never departing from it unless it is absolutely impossible to continue playing their games, even then they create rule only to make their game a semblance of "playable" and nothing more. They obsess with games, they obsess with no rules, they obsess in matters that do not involve them. If ever there was a group that went mad with obsession, this would be it. And that is why they cannot see past their rules of no rules to see the greater game.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Imo, this counters your opinion:

The more I discuss with the anti-ban side, the more I realize that they are mad. They are not rational. They will be obedient to the programing script of a game unless they are no longer able to play the game. They do not care about anyone involved, for even those who lose from the proposition discussed are in favor of the proposition at hand, while they oppose it on the principle that the bianary should be followed exactly as they recieved it. These are the people who changed their game from what it was originally meant to be in favor of one with fewer random variables and change the match type for no known reason. They follow the rules they created themselves, never departing from it unless it is absolutely impossible to continue playing their games, even then they create rule only to make their game a semblance of "playable" and nothing more. They obsess with games, they obsess with no rules, they obsess in matters that do not involve them. If ever there was a group that went mad with obsession, this would be it. And that is why they cannot see past their rules of no rules to see the greater game.

no. we just see things in a "bigger picture" than just...."OMG it BREAKS 6 matchups...that's unfair...it hurts viabilty and therefore metagame...BAN!".
and it's not true we don't care about anyone involved...it's just...opinions don't matter in debates, sure it sucks to main the unlucky 6, does that change the fact that they shouldn't be banned? sorry, but no. mad with obession? funny, i thought the same about you yesterday....
my logic seems like fail to you because you don't REALLY understand how rulesets work, you cannot see beyond, this is broken, who cares if it's not universal, BAN!

EDIT: no way in **** does that counter my opinion. all you did was AGAIN question my credibility and even my sanity....

 

[Kirio]

They do not care about anyone involved, for even those who lose from the proposition discussed are in favor of the proposition at hand

We're talking about tournaments. Tournaments don't have to care about people involved.

These are the people who changed their game from what it was originally meant to be in favor of one with fewer random variables

If you support tripping, you also support items in a essence. Seriously now. This is supposed to be for tourneys, which are a measure of who is the best. We don't want a random factor to destroy that. (we don't remove it in all tourneys because that would be very very hard to accomplish)

They follow the rules they created themselves, never departing from it unless it is absolutely impossible to continue playing their games, even then they create rule only to make their game a semblance of "playable" and nothing more.

My god. You need some consistency in order to have official tournaments. Are we seriously expected to change this every so often just so that we appeal to you? What we have works. Why the hell would we change it?

see the greater game.

No. Just no. Your vision of a greater game is illogical. It involves an incredibly large amount of unnecessary changes that take humongous amounts of time to define the boundaries of in order to accomplish a few more even matchups. Just no.

Imo, this counters your opinion:

Why do we even argue with you anymore?