Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Dynomite]

who even plays such a brok.. oops, but really i infinated a friend's bowser standing still for like 100+ damage AND yes he was trying to DI out of it. i usually play DD on wifi but after that encounter, Day day just seems too broken.

now agenst a wall thats another story, the question is Who are you going up agenst?
if its Reflex http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm8z4O24CvI (1:20) the answer is no..
if its a scrub like me.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXxkYfuapFg the answer is why are you even trying.

but really, both SUCK! across the stage is an acception

 

[Kirio]

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

I don't know what our primary reason is and I don't see why what our primary reason is matters.

Thank you for posting this.

Thank your ability to frustrate.

If you don't have a main argument then it's all just a bunch of mindless rambling that will get nowhere. If all of you really want to solve something then you will need to have some sort of organization.

Why is it not an argument? If I say you should wear a jacket it's cold out, and you say no because you don't need to, that's a perfectly valid argument.

 

[DRaGZ]

I would love for you to tell that to my English teacher in college right now. Please please do.

If you don't have a main argument then it's all just a bunch of mindless rambling that will get nowhere. If all of you really want to solve something then you will need to have some sort of organization.

But you're asking for a thesis statement that you can argue against. The point of a thesis statement is that the topic at hand is ambiguous enough so that one can argue for either side. Why would someone trying to make a strong point thus admit that the issue is relative when people are arguing with precedents that ground conclusions in concrete assertions?

 

[Aver]

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


That's illogical.

This is why.

If you don't have a main argument then it's all just a bunch of mindless rambling that will get nowhere. If all of you really want to solve something then you will need to have some sort of organization.

 

[Grunt]

alright so this thread has grown 20 pages or so since i last posted.

My original statement was: these 6 would not be viable even without ICG in tournaments.
So far I have a very slim possibility of Samus doing decently in tournies without the ICG and nothing for anyone else.

Anyone else want to try and prove this point for the other 5?

 

[Blackbelt]

This is why.

No no no. What I mean is why do you think we all have the same reason for arguing our side of the argument?


We're humans, not an insect hive collective.

 

[BrawlLover]

ok i guess this isn't going to end anytime soon

 

[Aver]

But you're asking for a thesis statement that you can argue against. The point of a thesis statement is that the topic at hand is ambiguous enough so that one can argue for either side. Why would someone trying to make a strong point thus admit that the issue is relative when people are arguing with precedents that ground conclusions in concrete assertions?

Because if you only think your side is correct in the argument and stay ignorant to the other side than you have already lost.

And how about making you last sentence there actually capable of being understood.


THIS IS THE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW

No one knows what the other guy is saying anymore, hence rambling.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

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


That's illogical.

Well, Kirio pretty much had the only guiding principle so far that is consistent with the pro-ban argument. To have any other fundamental principle is to have a flawed one or one that you have not yet shared. the ability to counterpick simply means you do not wish to fix a matchup that you openly recognize is broken, in this case by a single attack. Thus, unless there were an actual reason that could cause a detriment to the metagame, your arguement cannot make sense. My only issue with Kirio's is that I'm kinda too tired right now to think of any real counterpoint. All I've got is that a lot of people think D3 is a special case, I'm sure they had their reasons, which they most likely detailed here somewhere.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I don't know what our primary reason is and I don't see why what our primary reason is matters.


Thank your ability to frustrate.


Why is it not an argument? If I say you should wear a jacket it's cold out, and you say no because you don't need to, that's a perfectly valid argument.

That last arguement is an interesting one, because it is totally based on my opinion and is completely subjective.

EDIT: My primary reason: The metagame is better off without D3's infinite because it breaks matchups. Behind that - games that are not entirely about timing are less fun than games involing the skills of two people.

Your primary reason matters because without one, you defend nothing.

 

[Kirio]

Because if you only think your side is correct in the argument and stay ignorant to the other side than you have already lost.

And how about making you last sentence there actually capable of being understood.


THIS IS THE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW

No one knows what the other guy is saying anymore, hence rambling.

No. Go read my post with a lot of censored words, it seemed to do it for THC.

And we don't need a main argument in order to be correct. We simply have multiple arguments and we aren't sure which is most important. Think please.

That last arguement is an interesting one, because it is totally based on my opinion and is completely subjective.

No it is not. Is it necessary for the person to wear a jacket? No. He can wear the jacket and everything will continue in the universe just fine. He might get a cold or something, but that's simply that.

If it was 'you should wear a jacket because you might get a cold' then him saying 'No, it is not necessary (to prevent a cold)' would be false. Since his argument can be proven false with an altered premise, it is therefore a fact, not an opinion and not subjective. Agghh.

 

[Aver]

No. Go read my post with a lot of censored words, it seemed to do it for THC.

And we don't need a main argument in order to be correct. We simply have multiple arguments and we aren't sure which is most important. Think please.

Sheesh, I read that post twice and still couldn't understand it through all the rage.

This is why I was hoping someone would post the main points of your argument, so that there could be some clarity here.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

No. Go read my post with a lot of censored words, it seemed to do it for THC.

And we don't need a main argument in order to be correct. We simply have multiple arguments and we aren't sure which is most important. Think please.

No, you need at least one arguement that logic does not break when considered a priori of your past experiences.

 

[Blackbelt]

No, you need at least one arguement that logic does not break when considered a priori.

We'll give one when you give us one.

 

[Grunt]

shut The **** Up

alright So This Thread Has Grown 20 Pages Or So Since I Last Posted.

My Original Statement Was: These 6 Would Not Be Viable Even Without Icg In Tournaments.
So Far I Have A Very Slim Possibility Of Samus Doing Decently In Tournies Without The Icg And Nothing For Anyone Else.

Anyone Else Want To Try And Prove This Point For The Other 5?

 

[PK-ow!]

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.

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.

This.

It's a cryin' shame that the D3 infinites relatively lock out these five characters. It could even be granted that there is an effect of reducing the development of those character's metagames, by the pressure to stay out of blind picks and winner's CPs.

But the game persists. If D3 infinite is a problem, it has a solution (counterpick). Therefore, there is no need for a ban.

These two posts sum up all there is to this discussion; it should end now, or someone should refute (or at least confute) the principle "If the problem has a solution, there is no need to ban."

One might want to take the route of stipulating a scenario where each problem has a solution but the game is still broken, in the sense from Kirio's post.
I can't come up with it, and I believe that is because it's an impossible state of affairs. But it's where my mind is drawn, if I consider taking up my own challenge.

@Aver: If a position doesn't have the burden of proof, and the counterclaim has not actually been mounted against the position, then coming up with a 'thesis statement' is nonsense.
Anti-ban sentiments are expressed in fragmentary form, where they need to be expressed - in response to the ban arguments that, thanks to those anti-ban counterarguments, don't get off the ground. It need not become anything more than this until the ban camp successfully escalates it.

As is (not) happening here.

 

[NeoCrono]

ok i guess this isn't going to end anytime soon

Nope, might as well enjoy watching people go back and forth

 

[DRaGZ]

Because if you only think your side is correct in the argument and stay ignorant to the other side than you have already lost.

And how about making you last sentence there actually capable of being understood.


THIS IS THE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW

No one knows what the other guy is saying anymore, hence rambling.

No, this isn't the issue at all.

You, and many other people, are approaching this as though it is a philosophical issue that can be argued through self-reasonings and home-made ideologies, which means that subjective and circumstantial evidence can be brought in to mussy up the problem. The key here is that subjectivity, rather than evidence and precedent, is being emphasized by such a thing.

On the other, I, and many other people, have been trying to present this case through precedent and evidence, which emphasizes objectivity more than anything else. The problem with doing a "thesis statement" approach to this method is that people begin interpreting facts and precedent any way they see fit. On the other hand, we're just trying to take them for what they are, facts and precedent without unnecessary and excessive interpretation to mess up the issue.

 

[Blackbelt]

Thank you for that, PK-ow!

 

[The Halloween Captain]

We'll give one when you give us one.

O.K.!

The culmination of experiences of the perceivable world is far more expressed in games where the culmination of two persons past experiences are brought together in a greater quantity. Thus, the game where the experiences of hundreds of percieved matches comes into play is a better expression of experiences than a game where a single person's experience with the percieved D-throw is the only experiences that factor into the game.

Your turn.

 

[Kirio]

Thank you PK-ow and DRaGZ. I'm getting frustrating and irritated and am developing a headache, and your posts should hold off their ignorance until I regain my composure :D

O.K.!

The culmination of experiences of the perceivable world is far more expressed in games where the culmination of two persons past experiences are brought together in a greater quantity. Thus, the game where the experiences of hundreds of percieved matches comes into play is a better expression of experiences than a game where a single person's experience with the percieved D-throw is the only experiences that factor into the game.

Your turn.

Read DRaGZ's post. This is not a philosophical affair.

 

[Blackbelt]

O.K.!

The culmination of experiences of the perceivable world is far more expressed in games where the culmination of two persons past experiences are brought together in a greater quantity. Thus, the game where the experiences of hundreds of percieved matches comes into play is a better expression of experiences than a game where a single person's experience with the percieved D-throw is the only experiences that factor into the game.

Your turn.

Read Pk-Ow!'s post.

 

[DRaGZ]

O.K.!

The culmination of experiences of the perceivable world is far more expressed in games where the culmination of two persons past experiences are brought together in a greater quantity. Thus, the game where the experiences of hundreds of percieved matches comes into play is a better expression of experiences than a game where a single person's experience with the percieved D-throw is the only experiences that factor into the game.

Your turn.

That scenario becomes irrelevant once you switch characters.

 

[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 best anti-ban arguement. Counter it, and all the other ones are unsubstanciated at some level.

EDIT: I'm serious, all the other ones were fragmentary and not based on any reason why a ban is always bad unless necesary.

 

[BrawlLover]

boy this is never gonna end is it?

 

[Kirio]

This is the best pro-ban arguement.

It's an anti-ban argument.

boy this is never gonna end is it?

You haven't contributed anything with your ~10 posts that I've seen. Please leave.

 

[Aver]

This.

It's a cryin' shame that the D3 infinites relatively lock out these five characters. It could even be granted that there is an effect of reducing the development of those character's metagames, by the pressure to stay out of blind picks and winner's CPs.

But the game persists. If D3 infinite is a problem, it has a solution (counterpick). Therefore, there is no need for a ban.

These two posts sum up all there is to this discussion; it should end now, or someone should refute (or at least confute) the principle "If the problem has a solution, there is no need to ban."

One might want to take the route of stipulating a scenario where each problem has a solution but the game is still broken, in the sense from Kirio's post.
I can't come up with it, and I believe that is because it's an impossible state of affairs. But it's where my mind is drawn, if I consider taking up my own challenge.

@Aver: If a position doesn't have the burden of proof, and the counterclaim has not actually been mounted against the position, then coming up with a 'thesis statement' is nonsense.
Anti-ban sentiments are expressed in fragmentary form, where they need to be expressed - in response to the ban arguments that, thanks to those anti-ban counterarguments, don't get off the ground. It need not become anything more than this until the ban camp successfully escalates it.

As is (not) happening here.

Okay I'm understanding this a little better now.

"If the problem has a solution, there is no need to ban."
Unless the solution is to ban it, which makes this sentence illogical, but that against the point.


Now I don't believe this infinite was intentionally put into this game. Which by my standards makes it a glitch. I have been playing competitively in PC FPS for a long time now and was preparing for playing competitively in Brawl. Now I don't know how different the rules are but when there is ever a glitch in an FPS is it immediately removed.

This is one reason why I feel that this should be banned, that it was never intended to happen.

One other argument I have thought about is how it makes the game unbalanced. Now playing competitively in FPS has led me to see some games competitive form destroyed by ban happy people who want to ban each and every advantage. I don't want to see that happen to Brawl or any other game.

The difference is that this ban would allow six characters to have a better chance at winning, as well as not causing a shift from one character to the next. It would not have a negative effect on the metagame and if you kept the ban happy people in check nothing else would be banned.

The problem is right now both sides are arguing for their opinion as I am right now.

Anti-ban feel that a ban is too much and it should be left as is while the pro-ban feel it is a problem enough to warrant a ban.

I honestly think the anti-ban side will win because of the problems that could come from banning something. Although is am still for taking the risk and banning this glitch to further balance the game.

 

[BrawlLover]

It's an anti-ban argument.


You haven't contributed anything with your ~10 posts that I've seen. Please leave.

hey bro, i am just trying to help bra

 

[Kirio]

Now I don't believe this infinite was intentionally put into this game. Which by my standards makes it a glitch. I have been playing competitively in PC FPS for a long time now and was preparing for playing competitively in Brawl. Now I don't know how different the rules are but when there is ever a glitch in an FPS is it immediately removed.

I honestly think the anti-ban side will win because of the problems that could come from banning something. Although is am still for taking the risk and banning this glitch to further balance the game.

Wavedashing.

Other issues have been addressed. A bit farther back though.

 

[BrawlLover]

so what's the deal, is dedede's infinite banned or not!?!?!?!?!?

 

[Aver]

Wavedashing.

Other issues have been addressed. A bit farther back though.

Wut?

 

[BrawlLover]

yeah i know, makes no sense this guy

 

[Aver]

yeah i know, makes no sense this guy

Your monkey avatar and that post made me lol

I just wish people would make full sentences when in an argument.

What do you mean by wavedashing?

 

[Kirio]

Wut?

Wavedashing was not intended to be in melee, but it actually made it deeper and improved the game in just about everyone's view.

I was giving a counterpoint to your 'ban because was not intended to be in game' argument.

 

[Aver]

Wavedashing was not intended to be in melee, but it actually made it deeper and improved the game in just about everyone's view.

I was giving a counterpoint to your 'ban because was not intended to be in game' argument.

The difference between this and that is that every character could wavedash, where as not every character can pull an infinite.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

Wavedashing was not intended to be in melee, but it actually made it deeper and improved the game in just about everyone's view.

I was giving a counterpoint to your 'ban because was not intended to be in game' argument.

your stupid wavedashing was intended to be in melee just not to be used in the way it was.

 

[BrawlLover]

Your monkey avatar and that post made me lol

I just wish people would make full sentences when in an argument.

What do you mean by wavedashing?

did he answer it yet!?

 

[BrawlLover]

Wavedashing was not intended to be in melee, but it actually made it deeper and improved the game in just about everyone's view.

I was giving a counterpoint to your 'ban because was not intended to be in game' argument.

ohhhhhh!!!! soooo this is one of those stupid a$$ 08ers, man now i can finally tell them apart

 

[Aver]

your stupid wavedashing was intended to be in melee just not to be used in the way it was.

It was an exploit just not a glitch like an infinite is, and there is no need to call people stupid, this is how the thread probably got out of hand in the first place.

 

[BrawlLover]

the game testers:
ron:hey gary! you can slide when you airdoge to the ground
gary:whoa, coolaid bro!