Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[ShadowLink84]

adumbrodeus just hit ignore.

 

[RDK]

I love the smell of ignore in the morning.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

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?

Not interested in D3, I give up on him, his infinite is not banworthy by your standards.

I want to know the logic behind the anti-ban thought process prior to this knowledge. It seems unreasonably difficult to ban this, and there are benefits and no detriments to banning this. I cannot figure out why the whole metagame has to be broken in this situation.

I will not let it go until I understand the logic behind anti-ban. I don't care about some unimportant characters anymore. The fundamental principles seem illogical to stick to, and I want to know why they are so important.

 

[Kirio]

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?

That's not the argument I made at all. I said about why we ban things that break the metagame and not for your reason. (as in, makes it unplayable)

I didn't say ANYTHING about matchups in that post. I don't know where you read that.

I cannot figure out why the whole metagame has to be broken in this situation.

If you ban for a reason other than because it break the metagame, you are banning to try to improve the game. It cannot be proven as to whether something improves the game, 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.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

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.




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.

I don't ****ing care. you failed to address my concern.

My concern is simple. What is the psycology that tells you your principle for what constitutes a ban is correct? So far, I have heard that it works before, which almost qualifies, but not much of a rallying point, and I have heard a lot of reasons why the D3 infinite does not, which has nothing to do with what I am asking. The D3 infinite is not bannable. I question now your standards.

So far, Black belt made the best explanation, to look for ways to get around it, but it did not explain the situation with D3 prior to that "discovery" of the grab break, as there was no way around it.

What makes you think that something has to break the metagame to be bannable? Why can't it simply break multiple character matchups? Do not say "because you can counterpick" - because I want to know why this answer is superior to a ban of the tactic that causes the need for a counterpick. Why is the ban such a last resort? And I have read Sirlin, this is confusion after having read the rules for a ban.

 

[Blackbelt]

I don't ****ing care. you failed to address my concern.

My concern is simple. What is the psycology that tells you your principle for what constitutes a ban is correct? So far, I have heard that it works before, which almost qualifies, but not much of a rallying point, and I have heard a lot of reasons why the D3 infinite does not, which has nothing to do with what I am asking. The D3 infinite is not bannable. I question now your standards.

So far, Black belt made the best explanation, to look for ways to get around it, but it did not explain the situation with D3 prior to that "discovery" of the grab break, as there was no way around it.

What makes you think that something has to break the metagame to be bannable? Why can't it simply break multiple character matchups? Do not say "because you can counterpick" - because I want to know why this answer is superior to a ban of the tactic that causes the need for a counterpick. Why is the ban such a last resort? And I have read Sirlin, this is confusion after having read the rules for a ban.

First off, it's all one word.


Second, there was an answer before the grab break.


It's called a secondary.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

First off, it's all one word.


Second, there was an answer before the grab break.


It's called a secondary.

That is the logic I cannot understand. Why is your solution secondary? This broke not a week ago 5 matchups.

Also, technically "broken" itself is an opinion I suppose, as it expresses one's opinion about what has occured to the metagame as the result of a tactic/character, and imposes the opinion that what has happened is detrimental.

Secondary is wrong. It does not tell me why you think you are in the right, and why the principles you defend are the ones I should defend. No more "other communities." No more "it's not broken enough." No more BS. Why should your understanding of what constitutes a ban be defended?

EDIT: Why is it the most correct understanding?

 

[Kirio]

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

Hence why we only ban for destroying the game.

4th time I've posted it/pointed to it.

 

[Blackbelt]

That is the logic I cannot understand. Why is your solution secondary? This broke not a week ago 5 matchups.

Also, technically "broken" itself is an opinion I suppose, as it expresses one's opinion about what has occured to the metagame as the result of a tactic/character, and imposes the opinion that what has happened is detrimental.

Secondary is wrong. It does not tell me why you think you are in the right, and why the principles you defend are the ones I should defend. No more "other communities." No more "it's not broken enough." No more BS. Why should your understanding of what constitutes a ban be defended?

Tell me, how many characters do you use?


Unless you use Metaknight, it's gonna be more than one. (and even than, Yoshi can be problematic)

After all, everyone has bad matchups, and you get a secondary to cover those matchups.

What is the infinity, except a bad matchup?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Kirio - My answer to you was in line 2 of the previous post -

"Also, technically "broken" itself is an opinion I suppose, as it expresses one's opinion about what has occured to the metagame as the result of a tactic/character, and imposes the opinion that what has happened is detrimental."

This means by that understanding, what "breaks the metagame" and what changes it for the better is opinion.

Blackbelt - The infinity is worse than a bad matchup, caused by a single technique that's sole purpose is to make worse than bad matchups. Why do you defend a technique that breaks matchups, when the alternative is "not broken matchups?"

EDIT: That does not tell me why you defend you standard. Why is your standard correct?

 

[Blackbelt]

Kirio - My answer to you was in line 2 of the previous post -

Also, technically "broken" itself is an opinion I suppose, as it expresses one's opinion about what has occured to the metagame as the result of a tactic/character, and imposes the opinion that what has happened is detrimental.

This means by that understanding, what "breaks the metagame" and what changes it for the better is opinion.

Blackbelt - The infinity is worse than a bad matchup, caused by a single technique that's sole purpose is to make worse than bad matchups. Why do you defend a technique that breaks matchups, when the alternative is "not broken matchups?"

Pikachu vs Fox has the same problem, and Bowser also has some things against some characters, as does Yoshi.


Are you for banning all of that as well?

 

[Mr_Orion]

Good players should avoid it. Period.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Pikachu vs Fox has the same problem, and Bowser also has some things against some characters, as does Yoshi.


Are you for banning all of that as well?

No. but those matchups do not really compare, if you observed the discussion.

I am much more interested in knowing why the pro-ban side's "It must break the metagame," is the one, only condition when a ban is warrented.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Stop quoting the halloween captain, it defeats the purpose of my ignore button.

 

[popsofctown]

What is the infinity, except a bad matchup?

A really really really really bad matchup. One that makes it so you can't even risk using an exploitable character as a blind pick, and under-no-circumstances-ever-in-tourney-play can you use that character as your pick after you just won a game. You will get counterpicked D3 and lose.

Not banning the infinite is like forbidding those characters from the rounds where you pick first, and comes close to forbidding them from appearing as a blind pick.

 

[Blackbelt]

No. but those matchups do not really compare, if you observed the discussion.

I am much more interested in knowing why the pro-ban side's "It must break the metagame," is the one, only condition when a ban is warrented.

I already said why. If a problem has a solution, then there's no need to ban.



If the problem does not have a viable solution, than the ban must be implemented to remove the problem.



And even without secondaries, I can always counterpick Rainbow Cruise and fight D3 there.

A really really really really bad matchup. One that makes it so you can't even risk using an exploitable character as a blind pick, and under-no-circumstances-ever-in-tourney-play can you use that character as your pick after you just won a game. You will get counterpicked D3 and lose.

Not banning the infinite is like forbidding those characters from the rounds where you pick first, and comes close to forbidding them from appearing as a blind pick.

Like I said, I can always pick Rainbow Cruise, where the infinty is a non issue, and blind picks can screw everyone over (with the exception of Metaknight and Marth)

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I already said why. If a problem has a solution, then there's no need to ban.



If the problem does not have a viable solution, than the ban must be implemented to remove the problem.



And even without secondaries, I can always counterpick Rainbow Cruise and fight D3 there.

The problem's solution is unviable, as explained in the post above yours.

 

[Kirio]

This means by that understanding, what "breaks the metagame" and what changes it for the better is opinion.

1 a: to separate into parts with suddenness or violence

That is the definition of break. If something, like Akuma from SF, causes the metagame to suddenly become 1 character or to make it a small part of what it was before, it has been broken. THAT IS NOT AN OPINION.

What changes it for the better IS an opinion, and so that is why we ban based on whether it BREAKS the game and not to try and improve it.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

That is the definition of break. If something, like Akuma from SF, causes the metagame to suddenly become 1 character or to make it a small part of what it was before, it has been broken. THAT IS NOT AN OPINION.

What changes it for the better IS an opinion, and so that is why we ban based on whether it BREAKS the game and not to try and improve it.

By that definition, getting rid of the D3 infinite makes the game "less broken," as five less characters are broken out of the metagame.

So, why does the anti-ban side hold so fast to it's principle that it must destroy the metagame to be banworthy?

 

[Blackbelt]

Hey, how is my solution unviable?



I don't see the problem.

 

[Kirio]

By that definition, getting rid of the D3 infinite makes the game "less broken," as five less characters are broken out of the metagame.

No. You're using wordplay now to make me seem wrong. They aren't 'broken out of the metagame'. They are 5 characters who are all a part of the metagame, but all have 1 very poor matchup. A poor matchup does not disclude them from the metagame, they're just not very prevalent in it.

I think I'm done with this thread until someone with good counterpoints comes along.

 

[BrawlLover]

Hey, how is my solution unviable?



I don't see the problem.

i agree, there's practically muffin wrong wit hit

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Hey, how is my solution unviable?



I don't see the problem.

I already said why. If a problem has a solution, then there's no need to ban.



If the problem does not have a viable solution, than the ban must be implemented to remove the problem.



And even without secondaries, I can always counterpick Rainbow Cruise and fight D3 there.




Like I said, I can always pick Rainbow Cruise, where the infinty is a non issue, and blind picks can screw everyone over (with the exception of Metaknight and Marth)

You solution emphasizes the reason why I fail to understand why you believe a ban can only be instituted when the game is comepletely broken by a single tactic/element. When it destroys the viability of characters, the problem remains. It does not destroy the metagame, but why does a move need to do this to be banned? Why so you feel this principle is so important?

 

[Blackbelt]

You solution emphasizes the reason why I fail to understand why you believe a ban can only be instituted when the game is comepletely broken by a single tactic/element. When it destroys the viability of characters, the problem remains. It does not destroy the metagame, but why does a move need to do this to be banned? Why so you feel this principle is so important?

Does it truly destroy the viablity of the characters?


I don't think so.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

No. You're using wordplay now to make me seem wrong. They aren't 'broken out of the metagame'. They are 5 characters who are all a part of the metagame, but all have 1 very poor matchup. A poor matchup does not disclude them from the metagame, they're just not very prevalent in it.

I think I'm done with this thread until someone with good counterpoints comes along.

You have not told me why you believe your minimum requirements for what should constitute a ban are the correct ones. Why do you believe a move must destroy the game as a whole to be banned?

What is the fundamental principle behind the fundamental principle for defining something as banworthy? The principle by which the game in it's entirety must be broken by a tactic for said tactic to be banned?

 

[BrawlLover]

dood explain to thc now or else this argument is pointless

 

[cutter]

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?

It's because you as a person have not been a part of other competitive gaming communities to understand when something must be banned... such as in MTG. If there is a gamebreaking card that is dominating the metagame, we do not ban cards right away... this is just like how people are crying to preemptively ban D3's infinites. Should the card be so powerful that it turns into "play this card or lose (for example, Yawgmoth's Will or Tinker) and overcentralizes the metagame, it gets banned as a last resort, NOT the first.

I really hope you don't become in charge of the DCI.

Trying to argue with you is like yelling at a brickwall with a microphone repeating the same garbage over and over again.

 

[Kirio]

You have not told me why you believe your minimum requirements for what should constitute a ban are the correct ones. Why do you believe a move must destroy the game as a whole to be banned?

I'm done trying to be nice. This is so god**** frustrating.

Because if it breaks the game, you can't play it, or you might be able to but it has virtually no depth. I think you might be smart enough to wrap your head around that concept. OTHERWISE, you're trying to make the game BETTER by banning it, WHICH NOT EVERYONE AGREES ON, so it becomes just a huge ****ing waste of time to figure out who's opinion is 'right' about what the **** is better. ****.

Banning a tactic to even up some matchups would just make EVERYONE WANT TACTICS BANNED SO THEIR MAIN IS BETTER. Ftilt lock is so broken vs fox. Metaknight gimping is so broken vs tether recoveries. OMG SHDL is so BROKEN vs. Ganondorf, they should be BANNED. This is why you don't ban unless you need to. Drawing the line becomes an impossible procedure. Holy ****.

 

[Aver]

I would like to know the Anti-Ban's arguments in a nice numerical fashion so that I counter them more efficiently. That's what ya'll have been wanting isn't it?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

It's because you as a person have not been a part of other competitive gaming communities to understand when something must be banned... such as in MTG. If there is a gamebreaking card that is dominating the metagame, we do not ban cards right away... this is just like how people are crying to preemptively ban D3's infinites. Should the card be so powerful that it turns into "play this card or lose (for example, Yawgmoth's Will or Tinker) and overcentralizes the metagame, it gets banned as a last resort, NOT the first.

I really hope you don't become in charge of the DCI.

Trying to argue with you is like yelling at a brickwall with a microphone repeating the same garbage over and over again.

This "wait and see" attitude explains the fundamental intended principle of a ban - and would make fully logical sense in a MK ban thread. That does not explain this (Although technically in D3 dittos it is "use or lose"). Why must a tactic be "use or lose" to be banned? Why do you believe your statement is unconditionally true, and should always be upheld in every situation?

This is a psycology question, not a question of the rules. I am trying to figure out either why you believe "the metagame must be broken" for anything at all in the game to be banned. This is the primary reason why no one anti-ban believes D3 should be banned. It almost seems like it is a matter of morality or something - if that is true, I would need a lot of help understanding such a view.

It's like trying to yell at a brick wall because I do not understand aspects of the logic behind your assertions. For example, your arguement above explains a ban as needing to have time (such as the D3 infinite), and needs to be "play or lose," and in this situation, I question the need for the second premise, as it is simply a reiteration of the fundamental principle governing a ban.

 

[Blackbelt]

This "wait and see" attitude explains the fundamental intended principle of a ban - and would make fully logical sense in a MK ban thread. That does not explain this (Although technically in D3 dittos it is "use or lose"). Why must a tactic be "use or lose" to be banned? Why do you believe your statement is unconditionally true, and should always be upheld in every situation?

This is a psycology question, not a question of the rules. I am trying to figure out either why you believe "the metagame must be broken" for anything at all in the game to be banned. This is the primary reason why no one anti-ban believes D3 should be banned. It almost seems like it is a matter of morality or something - if that is true, I would need a lot of help understanding such a view.

It's like trying to yell at a brick wall because I do not understand aspects of the logic behind your assertions. For example, your arguement above explains a ban as needing to have time (such as the D3 infinite), and needs to be "play or lose," and in this situation, I question the need for the second premise, as it is simply a reiteration of the fundamental principle governing a ban.

well I don't understand why you wanna ban it, but you don't hear me whining about psychology and ****.

and when did unconditionally true become a part of this? You're putting words in our mouths.

 

[Aver]

I would like to know the Anti-Ban's arguments in a nice numerical fashion so that I counter them more efficiently. That's what ya'll have been wanting isn't it?

It would be nice of someone to answer this.

Ya'll have posted so much stuff I'm totally lost as of now.

 

[Kirio]

It would be nice of someone to answer this.

Ya'll have posted so much stuff I'm totally lost as of now.

Maybe give us more than 5 minutes? I'm personally not going to do it for you though, because you're perfectly capable of finding and arguing any given point.

 

[Rx-]

This is dumb.

If anything should be banned, it's MK.

 

[Aver]

Maybe give us more than 5 minutes? I'm personally not going to do it for you though, because you're perfectly capable of finding and arguing any given point.

All I want is your main point. It should be one sentence long.

If you want a fancy word what is the thesis of your argument?

 

[Kirio]

All I want is your main point. It should be one sentence long.

If you want a fancy word what is the thesis of your argument?

It's not necessary.

 

[DRaGZ]

Ayer, just lurk for like an hour and you'll get the picture.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I'm done trying to be nice. This is so god**** frustrating.

Because if it breaks the game, you can't play it, or you might be able to but it has virtually no depth. I think you might be smart enough to wrap your head around that concept. OTHERWISE, you're trying to make the game BETTER by banning it, WHICH NOT EVERYONE AGREES ON, so it becomes just a huge ****ing waste of time to figure out who's opinion is 'right' about what the **** is better. ****.

Banning a tactic to even up some matchups would just make EVERYONE WANT TACTICS BANNED SO THEIR MAIN IS BETTER. Ftilt lock is so broken vs fox. Metaknight gimping is so broken vs tether recoveries. OMG SHDL is so BROKEN vs. Ganondorf, they should be BANNED. This is why you don't ban unless you need to. Drawing the line becomes an impossible procedure. Holy ****.

This is the first arguement I almost understand. Almost.

I am not sure it applies to this situation, solely because the situation is unique. Unless it is arguable whether or not matches with the infinity have more or less depth than those without. Thank you for posting this.

Was this the guiding principle for anti-banners, the primary issue they were considering in this debate?

EDIT: psycology, you know, why you guys are motivated to defend to the death a view that doesn't make sense, the ideas running through your mind that make you certain your correct, etc. Everything prior to Kirio fell back on nothing but the principle pf what defines a ban, this falls on what is behind said principle. Is this what you were all defending?

Although on second thought, this argument is kinda odd.

 

[DRaGZ]

This is the first arguement I almost understand. Almost.

I am not sure it applies to this situation, solely because the situation is unique. Unless it is arguable whether or not matches with the infinity have more or less depth than those without. Thank you for posting this.

Was this the guiding principle for anti-banners, the primary issue they were considering in this debate?

This situation isn't unique, I think that's another point you're failing to grasp.

 

[Blackbelt]

This is the first arguement I almost understand. Almost.

I am not sure it applies to this situation, solely because the situation is unique. Unless it is arguable whether or not matches with the infinity have more or less depth than those without. Thank you for posting this.

Was this the guiding principle for anti-banners, the primary issue they were considering in this debate?

Why do you think we all have a single guiding principle?


That's illogical.