Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[The Halloween Captain]

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....

I actually am a little obsessive. and I did answer your question. The reason why D3's infinite should be banned is because it is broken, everyone involved agrees (you aren't involved b/c your character's not involved, thats how involment works here), and because your reason why the ban shouldn't be done is the result of a deep-rooted insanity that causes one side of the debate to believe their criteria, that the game should not be playable without a ban for a ban to be used, is the correct one. That mentality is rooted in an obsession with the game where the individual who made the rule clearly did not even want those things banned if it weren't desperately necesary to save his obsession from being unplayable. Right now, I'm talking about gaming communites in general concerning bans - anyone who plays professionally has to have some level of obsession with the game.

Of course, if that's how you want to play, I can't stop you, because it is those who are most obsessed that drive these communities, make the rules, and are the most vocal.

EDIT: If I am wrong, and your reasoning for why we, as a competitive community, don't do things, please tell me. This is the only explanation that makes sense to me concerning the anti-ban side, I've been looking for an answer to your psycology for a couple days now.

 

[Kirio]

The reason why D3's infinite should be banned is because it is broken, everyone involved agrees (you aren't involved b/c your character's not involved, thats how involment works here)

I secondary DK. I do not want this banned. You have been proved wrong.

I only secondary him because he's not a viable main. Oh well, I dealt with it.

Besides, everyone isn't always right.

 

[BrawlLover]

now that is just utterly rediculous i mean cohmon!

 

[XxBlackxX]

I actually am a little obsessive. and I did answer your question. The reason why D3's infinite should be banned is because it is broken, everyone involved agrees (you aren't involved b/c your character's not involved, thats how involment works here), and because your reason why the ban shouldn't be done is the result of a deep-rooted insanity that causes one side of the debate to believe their criteria, that the game should not be playable without a ban for a ban to be used, is the correct one. That mentality is rooted in an obsession with the game where the individual who made the rule clearly did not even want those things banned if it weren't desperately necesary to save his obsession from being unplayable. Right now, I'm talking about gaming communites in general concerning bans - anyone who plays professionally has to have some level of obsession with the game.

Of course, if that's how you want to play, I can't stop you, because it is those who are most obsessed that drive these communities, make the rules, and are the most vocal.

have you noticed that since i askedyou to give me a counter-argument, all you gave me were opinions? So, you think im obessed. That’s great, it still adds absolutely nothing to strengthen you side of the argument. So most people “involved” want it banned. You do know that that’s all opinion right?
To truly counter me, give me FACTS, not OPINIONS.

EDIT: give me, for example, why infinites over-centralize and make brawl as a whole unplayable. id really like to see you give me those, as long that they're FACTS, not "this guy said....."

 

[The Halloween Captain]

have you noticed that since i askedyou to give me a counter-argument, all you gave me were opinions? So, you think im obessed. That’s great, it still adds absolutely nothing to strengthen you side of the argument. So most people “involved” want it banned. You do know that that’s all opinion right?
To truly counter me, give me FACTS, not OPINIONS.

It is not enough for a ban because the standard for a ban was set by people too obssessed to make rational decisions on a subject. That is my opinion. In other words, I can't counter your point about what is necesary for a ban because it is your opinion. It would be like you trying to counter my statement: My standard for a ban is that the tactic should be recognized as broken by everyone in the discussion. You cannot counter that because it is my opinion on what constitutes a ban.

Now that I made my point as clearly as I think I can, how can the anti-ban side not be holding a literally insane view? Explain the psycology behind your thinking.

 

[aeghrur]

It is not enough for a ban because the standard for a ban was set by people too obssessed to make rational decisions on a subject. That is my opinion. In other words, I can't counter your point about what is necesary for a ban because it is your opinion. It would be like you trying to counter my statement: My standard for a ban is that the tactic should be recognized as broken by everyone in the discussion. You cannot counter that because it is my opinion on what constitutes a ban.

Now that I made my point as clearly as I think I can, how can the anti-ban side not be holding a literally insane view? Explain the psycology behind your thinking.

Not everyone agrees that it is broken in this discussion. That is why there is still a discussion. Alright, so your ban criteria has just been disproven. No ban.

 

[BrawlLover]

no way HOW!? that's just messed up dood

 

[Kirio]

Now that I made my point as clearly as I think I can, how can the anti-ban side not be holding a literally insane view? Explain the psycology behind your thinking.

Your argument is that we are not making rational decisions because they do not coincide with yours. Wow.

Melee worked fine without these bans, other games worked wonderfully without these sorts of bans. There is no problem here.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Bra lover makes me cream my pants in joy.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Not everyone agrees that it is broken in this discussion. That is why there is still a discussion. Alright, so your ban criteria has just been disproven. No ban.

I don't care anymore. I want to know how the anti-banners can consider their views sane. Is it because all the other obsessive communities I've heard so much about hold this standard for a ban? Is it because they fall into tradition, rigid, rigid tradition (see "The Lottery" short story)? Is it because they lost all sense of "balance" being better than "rock beats scissors?" What is it?

 

[ShadowLink84]

*hits ignore button on HC*
Sorry I can't stand the stupidity issuing from him anymore.

 

[Kirio]

I don't care anymore. I want to know how the anti-banners can consider their views sane. Is it because all the other obsessive communities I've heard so much about hold this standard for a ban? Is it because they fall into tradition, rigid, rigid tradition (see "The Lottery" short story). Is it because they lost all sense of "balance" being better than "rock beats scissors?" What is it?

I feel your views are insane because they want to change something that has no problem with it.

*hits ignore button on HC*
Sorry I can't stand the stupidity issuing from him anymore.

I'm tempted.

 

[BrawlLover]

hey man, he ain't stupid, he just doesn't understand a lot of things, take some time and help him out instead of just ignoring him, i know you can be patient enough bra

 

[XxBlackxX]

It is not enough for a ban because the standard for a ban was set by people too obssessed to make rational decisions on a subject. That is my opinion. In other words, I can't counter your point about what is necesary for a ban because it is your opinion. It would be like you trying to counter my statement: My standard for a ban is that the tactic should be recognized as broken by everyone in the discussion. You cannot counter that because it is my opinion on what constitutes a ban.

Now that I made my point as clearly as I think I can, how can the anti-ban side not be holding a literally insane view? Explain the psycology behind your thinking.

again, we look at things from the “bigger picture”. We see beyond that fact that this tactic makes matchups impossible. In fact, we want what’s best for the community just as you do. However, we think being ban-happy is NOT good for the community and think the pro-ban reasoning falls short because it doesn’t fit the criteria for banning. As I said, banning is a last resort and should be used as such. The infinites isn’t over-centralizing, nor universal, nor doesn’t it in any way make SSBB unplayable competitively. Therefore, there is no point of banning it, because bad matchups are just that: bad matchups. A lot of characters suffer from these, but the users have to deal with it. It’s not a sympathizing thing to say, but banning it would be the wrong decision.

EDIT: stop thinking the criteria for a ban is my personal opinion. it is used in almost all competitive games, especially fighters. it worked well in melee and it can work in brawl if people realized that they must deal with their stop problems instead of thinking BAN BAN BAN.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

*hits ignore button on HC*
Sorry I can't stand the stupidity issuing from him anymore.

WHY CANT ANY OF YOU TELL ME HOW THE COMPETITIVE COMMUNITY STANDARD SEEMS LIKE THE STADARD BRAWL SHOULD ADOPT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE METAGAME?

It is giving me a headache trying to understand it. So far, I lacked any explanation that made sense in the purest, most logical methology possible. This is WAY more important than the **** ban discussion, as it guides the decisions and motivations of all bans, not just this one.

 

[XxBlackxX]

WHY CANT ANY OF YOU TELL ME HOW THE COMPETITIVE COMMUNITY STANDARD SEEMS LIKE THE STADARD BRAWL SHOULD ADOPT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE METAGAME?

It is giving me a headache trying to understand it. So far, I lacked any explanation that made sense in the purest, most logical methology possible. This is WAY more important than the **** ban discussion, as it guides the decisions and motivations of all bans, not just this one.

BECAUSE IT WORKS, IT WORKS WELL, AND THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN, THEREFORE IT BECOMES FACT INSTEAD OF THE OPINIONS YOU KEEP SPOUTING. example: melee. AND IN THE END, NOT BANNING IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN BANNING FOR THE METAGAME UNLESS SOMETHING TRULY BREAKS THE GAME AS A WHOLE. example: IDC was banned because it over-centralized and broke the game as a whole. Mk was not banned because he didn't.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

again, we look at things from the “bigger picture”. We see beyond that fact that this tactic makes matchups impossible. In fact, we want what’s best for the community just as you do. However, we think being ban-happy is NOT good for the community and think the pro-ban reasoning falls short because it doesn’t fit the criteria for banning. As I said, banning is a last resort and should be used as such. The infinites isn’t over-centralizing, nor universal, nor doesn’t it in any way make SSBB unplayable competitively. Therefore, there is no point of banning it, because bad matchups are just that: bad matchups. A lot of characters suffer from these, but the users have to deal with it. It’s not a sympathizing thing to say, but banning it would be the wrong decision.

You haven't told me how this ban is bad. stop strawmanning, and explain the psycology behind this:

we think being ban-happy is NOT good for the community and think the pro-ban reasoning falls short because it doesn’t fit the criteria for banning. As I said, banning is a last resort and should be used as such. The infinites isn’t over-centralizing, nor universal, nor doesn’t it in any way make SSBB unplayable competitively. Therefore, there is no point of banning it, because bad matchups are just that: bad matchups. A lot of characters suffer from these, but the users have to deal with it. It’s not a sympathizing thing to say, but banning it would be the wrong decision.

None of those reasons make the infinite less broken, we all agree that it is bad, but I cannot understand how you go from "broken" to this stubborn "should not be fixed because we still have the abilty to play." That criteria is what I do not understand why your supporting. It's not about being ban-happy anymore, it's about not being willing to instigate bans that are only beneficial.

I don't understand why that criteria keeps you from doing that.

EDIT: sorry for the double post

 

[The Halloween Captain]

AND IN THE END, NOT BANNING IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN BANNING FOR THE METAGAME UNLESS SOMETHING TRULY BREAKS THE GAME AS A WHOLE.

Why the **** do you think that's true?

 

[BrawlLover]

guys, be more elaborate, please

 

[XxBlackxX]

You haven't told me how this ban is bad. stop strawmanning, and explain the psycology behind this:



None of those reasons make the infinite less broken, we all agree that it is bad, but I cannot understand how you go from "broken" to this stubborn "should not be fixed because we still have the abilty to play." That criteria is what I do not understand why your supporting. It's not about being ban-happy anymore, it's about not being willing to instigate bans that are only beneficial.

I don't understand why that criteria keeps you from doing that.

again with more opinions... only beneficial? ok i got a argument right here.
if we ban the infinites just because they "break" the matchup, in theory we should ban fox CG vs. pika, in theory we should ban falco's cg vs. ike, we should ban shiek ftilts vs. fox. and how is this not beneficial? only the ruleset begins being ban-happy, it won't stop. anything people have trouble beating, they will complain complain. they want more bans, after all, a 9:1 matchup got banned, why not an 85:15 huh? your chances of victory are still minimal, right? BAN.
after all this, brawl's community will stop thinking of ways to deal with their own matchup problems, if something's bothering them, why spend the time to think of something to counter when you can take the easy way out and ban it?

@BrawlLover
if you havent got anything to contribute, please don't post needlessly. i wouldn't normally be this pissy but arguing with THC kinda makes you like that. plus i had a long day

 

[Blackbelt]

I used to be for banning the infinity.



And after this whole back and forth that's been going on, I think I am honestly against the ban.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

again with more opinions... only beneficial? ok i got a argument right here.
if we ban the infinites just because they "break" the matchup, in theory we should ban fox CG vs. pika, in theory we should ban falco's cg vs. ike, we should ban shiek ftilts vs. fox. and how is this not beneficial? only the ruleset begins being ban-happy, it won't stop. anything people have trouble beating, they will complain complain. they want more bans, after all, a 9:1 matchup got banned, why not an 85:15 huh? your chances of victory are still minimal, right? BAN.
after all this, brawl's community will stop thinking of ways to deal with their own matchup problems, if something's bothering them, why spend the time to think of something to counter when you can take the easy way out and ban it?

Yeah, that explains the obsessive need for precident, but I don't think anyone wants to expand beyond D3 all that badly. D3 is a special case, far more broken than anything else we've found. You cannot assume that is true.

EDIT: yeah Blackbelt, I do that to my side of discussions. I should join the pro-infinite side just to spite it. But they still haven't told you why their standard is correct.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Yeah, that explains the obsessive need for precident, but I don't think anyone wants to expand beyond D3 all that badly. D3 is a special case, far more broken than anything else we've found. You cannot assume that is true.

strawmanning. either that or you need to speak more clear. because i cannot see how this refutes what i said. btw, in red, there goes another opinion! this is irrelvant, but are you seriously telling me D3 vs. Luigi is that much worse than pika vs. fox?

EDIT: yeah Blackbelt, I do that to my side of discussions. I should join the pro-infinite side just to spite it. But they still haven't told you why their standard is correct.

it has been proven to work. do you forgot melee?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

strawmanning. either that or you need to speak more clear. because i cannot see how this refutes what i said. btw, in red, there goes another opinion! this is irrelvant, but are you seriously telling me D3 vs. Luigi is that much worse than pika vs. fox?

I don't care, it's been discussed. Tell me why something has to break the metagame in order to be banworthy.

 

[Blackbelt]

I don't care, it's been discussed. Tell me why something has to break the metagame in order to be banworthy.

Becuase if something breaks the metagame, it ruins the metagame, thus degenerating the game into "If you don't do this, you'll lose"



D3 isn't at that point. Not bu a long shot.

 

[aeghrur]

WHY CANT ANY OF YOU TELL ME HOW THE COMPETITIVE COMMUNITY STANDARD SEEMS LIKE THE STADARD BRAWL SHOULD ADOPT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE METAGAME?

It is giving me a headache trying to understand it. So far, I lacked any explanation that made sense in the purest, most logical methology possible. This is WAY more important than the **** ban discussion, as it guides the decisions and motivations of all bans, not just this one.

MAYBE BECAUSE THE COMPETITIVE COMMUNITY STANDARD IS THE STANDARD FOR COMPETITIVE GAMING? OR THAT IT HAS BEEN ABLE TO CREATE HEALTHY AND STRONG METAGAMES SUCH AS THE MELEE METAGAME?
Yeah, maybe, just maybe. -_-"

 

[XxBlackxX]

I don't care, it's been discussed. Tell me why something has to break the metagame in order to be banworthy.

because if it doesn't break the metagame, there is no point of banning since there are other solutions(CP'ing in this case) and BANNING IS THE ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT.
always, i gotta go. PM me response if you want and we'll continue this some other time. i'll elaborate on this post too i know it was kinda short.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Becuase if something breaks the metagame, it ruins the metagame, thus degenerating the game into "If you don't do this, you'll lose"



D3 isn't at that point. Not bu a long shot.

That is why something that breaks the metagame has to be banworthy.

Tell me why something has to break the metagame to be banworthy.

EDIT: Why is banning the last resort?

 

[Blackbelt]

That is why something that breaks the metagame has to be banworthy.

Tell me why something has to break the metagame to be banworthy.

Because things that don't break the metagame have viable solutions to them.


And if something has a solution, than why the hell bother banning?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Because things that don't break the metagame have viable solutions to them.


And if something has a solution, than why the hell bother banning?

That's easy. Because everyone agrees that it's broken.

 

[Kirio]

why must it break the game in order to be banworthy

If you ban for a reason other than because it break the metagame, you are banning to try to improve the metagame. It cannot be proven as to whether something improves the metagame, as it is an opinion, so this is not a good reason to ban. You are now banning based on whether you like the game more one way or the other. Not good.

That's easy. Because everyone agrees that it's broken.

I DO NOT THINK IT IS BROKEN HALLOWEEN
So will you STOP using that argument?

 

[adumbrodeus]

strawmanning. either that or you need to speak more clear. because i cannot see how this refutes what i said. btw, in red, there goes another opinion! this is irrelvant, but are you seriously telling me D3 vs. Luigi is that much worse than pika vs. fox?

Actually, DDD vs Luigi is MUCH MUCH MUCH better then Pikachu vs. Fox.

Why?

BECAUSE LUIGI CAN BREAK OUT BEFORE APROXIMATELY 130!

edit:

That's easy. Because everyone agrees that it's broken.

I don't think it's broken.

At all.

Counter-example!

 

[aeghrur]

That's easy. Because everyone agrees that it's broken.

Haven't I already stated that NOT everyone agrees so there is a discussion on this? -_-"

 

[Blackbelt]

That's easy. Because everyone agrees that it's broken.

But not everyone does.



And beyond that, is it broken enough?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Fair enough. Because most the people who main D3, DK, Luigi, Mario, Bowser, and Samus think it's broken, most notably the D3's. Because it's only function is to make 99-1 matchups.

We have different definitions of broken or something?

Not the point. The reason why something everyone agrees is broken needs to break the metagame to be banned - what is it?

EDIT: Most the people here only believe it's not broken because I asked them so hard why they support something that they believe is broken. Also, "Everyone" is not everyone it's just a supermajority as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Kirio]

Not the point. The reason why something everyone agrees is broken needs to break the metagame to be banned - what is it?

I already answered this. It's at the top of the page. My copy paste functions aren't working.

 

[Blackbelt]

We have different definitions of broken or something?

Not the point. The reason why something everyone agrees is broken needs to break the metagame to be banned - what is it?

What's your definition?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I already answered this. It's at the top of the page. My copy paste functions aren't working.

Yeah, tell me how it doesn't break matchups, and then I'll believe it's not broken. Some negative side-effect to a D3 ban or something. But that is not important if you are just going to argue that it's not broken enough.

Why cannot something which has been shown to be broken with no evdience refuting it's brokenness (in other words, entirely benefits the metagame when banned with no evidence otherwise) not be banned?

 

[aeghrur]

Fair enough. Because most the people who main D3, DK, Luigi, Mario, Bowser, and Samus think it's broken, most notably the D3's. Because it's only function is to make 99-1 matchups.

We have different definitions of broken or something?

Not the point. The reason why something everyone agrees is broken needs to break the metagame to be banned - what is it?

EDIT: Most the people here only believe it's not broken because I asked them so hard why they support something that they believe is broken. Also, "Everyone" is not everyone it's just a supermajority as far as I'm concerned.

It's 99-1 for DK, and possibly bowser.
It's like, 80-20 for the rest. That's a counterpick.
I don't see what's wrong with it. =/ Besides, not all mains of those characters are for the ban. Didn't um, Matador say just let it go?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Fair enough. Because most the people who main D3, DK, Luigi, Mario, Bowser, and Samus think it's broken, most notably the D3's. Because it's only function is to make 99-1 matchups.

Why do I have to explain this to you over and over again?

Luigi, Mario, and Samus can break out prior to about 130. It's only an infinite AFTER that. That's kill percent anyway.

Bowser is not an infinite.

Only DK can be true infinited prior to about 130.

We have different definitions of broken or something?

Not the point. The reason why something everyone agrees is broken needs to break the metagame to be banned - what is it?

They only believe it's not broken because I asked them so hard why they support something that they believe is broken. "Everyone" is not everyone it's just a supermajority as far as I'm concerned.

Nobody actually said it was broken in the sense of ban-worthy except the pro-ban crowd, you just interpreted.


People said it broke some match-ups, people said that it was broken in the sense of being good (and yes, there are multiple definitions of "broken"), but NO ANTI-BANNER SAID IT BROKE THE GAME. Totally discrete concepts.


And yes, obviously we do have very different definitions of broken.


And if it's a supermajority, PROVE IT!

I'm tired of you spouting things like this without solid proof.

And specify what sense of broken you mean, otherwise it doesn't count.