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.
As I explained previously, banning for ONE match-up leaves us with a very very low standard for banning.
G&W's turtle does more then that. So does Marth's fair, and MK's tornado, and many other moves once those are banned.
So what, we ban them? Where do you stop?
And saying just because it's an especially poor match-up doesn't mean much because in terms of character viability, hard counter is all that really matters.
And arbitrary bannings, what do we do, randomly pick out moves to ban from a hat? With no rhyme or reason as to why they affect the metagame?
That's the anti-ban psychology, that's where Sirlin got his criteria that banning is an absolute last resort. Because haphazard bans gut the metagame, so a consistent criteria is needed, and it must be a high standard.
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?
*bolding added
Stop lying, 1 character. DK is the only character that can be true infinited at less then about 130.
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.
False, that was a rehash of explanations we gave earlier.
The precadent thing was in fact, a meta explanation of THAT EXACT SAME POINT
I previously explaned that in the context of banning other moves that define a large number of match-ups independantly, specifically G&W's Bair and MK's tornado.
I explained it again in equalizing the the Marth v. Ganondorf match-up by removing Marth's pokes.
You've just been ignoring it, those are the reasons why Sirlin gives such a high standard for bans to meet, because if you play surgery with every match-up you leave a game where half the moves are banned.
There are different people, different people have different guiding principals, I may have one guiding principal, and Shadowlink might have another.
Also, you're wrong. Anti-ban needs no thesis because they are not fundamentally trying to prove anything, they are trying to show that the pro-ban thesis is unproven.
Regardless, my thesis is this:
"The standard that we would have to be using for ban is far too low, it would require us to be inconsistent or remove far too many things from the metagame to be workable"
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.
Like any debate respond to individuals, not groups. That's certainly disagreement among pro-ban, and if you checked the MK ban topic, you'd see anti-banners constantly disagreeing.
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.
*bolding added
In PC FPS you can patch games to remove stuff like this, but we don't have that option, it's a console game, we cannot create a new standard.
Most competative scenes that aren't run out of specific companies (and often seperate scenes develop when the rules that companies make are too restrictive or arbitrary for their tastes) play with the game, basically "as is" unless there's an overwhelming reason to ban.
Why? Because the glitches and exploits create a deeper metagame. Melee is much deeper because of wavedashing for example, and street fighter has a slew of ATs.
Figuring out developers intent is a fool's game, we can never really be sure, and it's pointless since using the glitches generally creates a better metagame.
Why bother?
EXACTLY THAT'S THE POINT!!!!!
It causes an imbalance between these characters.
That's the entire point right there.
D3's infinite has caused unbalanced match-ups and need to be removed from the game for the sake of the game.
Plenty of things cause imbalanced match-ups. Only when over-centralization occurs is a ban warranted.
Being a "glitch" doesn't afford it any less protection.
1) Brawl was never meant to be a competitive game (see tripping) why would they need to test characters under this mindset.
2) Lets do some math. How many characters are in Brawl? 35
How many grabs do each of them have? 4
So to test each grab for each character against each character it would take
34x35x4
4760 different grabs.
Not to mention grab release on ground and air to add another 3000 possibilities.
You can go ahead and test them by all means.
And that's why we have testing staff whose job is to test that.
And you have to consider that plenty of things, but that's the reason why you have a professional staff.
you have got to be the biggest fucking dumbass I've ever seen.
Give me proof before you go spouting nonsense.
I'm not spamming, I'm not being some whiny snob wanting attention to my posts.
It is seriously the only way to prove any of these characters would be better off or not. if not, there is no reason to ban it, if results prove otherwise, Pro Ban gets more ammo.
and since you sound like the kind of ****** who would bitch about finding results, I'll give you a head start. Bum plays DK and bans ICG in his tournies. Now go find your proof or don't say anything you prick.
DK is high tier...
I'm saying that there was no REASON to want Rocket jumping banned. There's a HUGE difference. If you don't want people jumping on your point don't make stupid similes.
Also Aver. That reasoning is stupid and you should feel bad. Gaming communities NEVER ban anything because it's not intentional. We only ban things that break gameplay.
The point is that if we ban all glitches then rocket jumping would be the first to go.
It's a logical counterpoint to the initial argument, the argument just changed.
I've been trying to reconcile this in my head since the beginning of this debate:
There are some techniques or sequences, like Falco/Pika's chaingrab to edgeguard, or Shiek's ftilt lock, that can be used in plenty of matchups but happen to be break a few matchups due to unlucky character traits, be it fall speed or just the nature of a character's recovery or whatever. If you banned Falco's chaingrab>spike, you'd be banning tons of non-broken applications of the technique. Banning the sequence in specific gameplay situations but allowing it in others would be not only difficult but just plain stupid, so it stays, always.
Then there is D3's standing infinite, which cannot be used, ever, ever, except to break matchups. That is to say, if it CAN be used in a matchup, at ALL, that is a broken matchup. D3's infinite has ZERO non-broken applications. If you banned it ENTIRELY, you would be banning ONLY broken applications of the technique, because that is all that exists.
Is (isn't?) there a difference?
I think this is what people REALLY mean when they ask, "What would be the downside of banning it? Only good could come of it!" Think about it: If you ban Falco's chaingrab>spike, then something bad comes of it-- Falco loses a legitimate, non-broken tactic vs. a large percentage of the cast. You actually LOSE something legitimate and valuable, just to save a few matchups that the technique breaks. Now consider banning D3's standing infinite-- you lose nothing but brokenness.
Does it set a precedent? You bet, but not one that has anything to do with Falco's chaingrab>spike or Sheik's tilt-lock on Fox. The precedent it sets is this: If there is a technique with ZERO non-broken applications, and it CAN reasonably be banned, ban it.
What makes shiek's ftilt or pikachu's chaingrab to infinite any less broken then DDD's infinite on DK?
Bum, Boss, Xyro, Sliq.
Bum uses DK, Boss uses Mario/Luigi, Xyro uses Samus, and Sliq uses Bowser. They all typically place among the highest in the tournaments they enter where the infinite is banned. Search the tourney results forum for their names if you want proof.
Of which only Bum matters.
Bowser is not an infinite, and Samus, Mario, and Luigi don't get infinited unless they're at ridiculous percents.
Just break out at the pummel.
Well theoretically he is more viable then those 5 characters, only because of this infinite.
2, and only one of them is a true infinite, the other wouldn't be covered under this anyway.
So it doesn't fix it for all six characters only those three?
Pretty much, but Bowser isn't an infinite anyway.
Only DK's match-up is effectively unwinnable.
.