Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Dark Sonic]

You can smash DI to get out of ground locks.

Did you even read the post you just quoted? Or did you just click on the videos and disregard the comments that were based on the videos?

C-stick to grab makes perfect or near-perfect-enough-that-your-victim-can't-feasibly-mash-out-of-it timing on the infinite a cakewalk.

Does that allow you to buffer grabs or something? I don't follow you.

And didn't I just say that it doesn't fix it for DK and Bowser, only makes it a little harder?

 

[da K.I.D.]

Ease in execution is irrelevant.

Again, how much skill it takes a move to do is irrelevant.

The need for technical skill is only a barrier, strategic powess in all it's forms and reflexes decide who is more skilled.

since ive never seen this in writing anywhere, im going to assume its your opinion, and on that note i call subjectivity on you



and since when can you not buffer grabs?

 

[Dark Sonic]

and since when can you not buffer grabs?

It makes you shield instead doesn't it?

I don't know, maybe I'm just thinking of melee or something (where you can't buffer anything but spotdodges, rolls, and shields.)

 

[adumbrodeus]

since ive never seen this in writing anywhere, im going to assume its your opinion, and on that note i call subjectivity on you

Because if it's humanly possible, and important enough, people will learn to do it.

Example: Silient Wolf and his crazy melee tech skill, anything humanly possible can be learned with enough time and/or patience.

and since when can you not buffer grabs?

Since buffering grabs causes you to shield instead.

 

[bobson]

Does that allow you to buffer grabs or something? I don't follow you.

More or less. Try it.

And didn't I just say that it doesn't fix it for DK and Bowser, only makes it a little harder?

You said it'd stop random scrubs from beating with the infinite, which it won't.

Only for DK.

Prior to about 130 for the others you don't even need to change you hand position to mash out of it.

Clawing it would probably make it even easier.

Except Bowser, who isn't an infinite anyway.

I'm aware. You've been pointing it out every other post for about five pages now.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You said it'd stop random scrubs from beating with the infinite, which it won't.

How so, they still need to time it perfectly, especially at lower percents.

I'm aware. You've been pointing it out every other post for about five pages now.

So why are you still acting like it effects anyone other then DK?

 

[bobson]

How so, they still need to time it perfectly, especially at lower percents.

If their opponent can manage to consistently mash out between the fraction of a second of space between the regrab and the downthrow, yes. I'm fairly certain you can't break out once the dthrow animation has started.
Even if you can, c-grabbing makes it easy enough to time it perfectly that it isn't relevant.

So why are you still acting like it effects anyone other then DK?

Where have I? Grunt called for proof that the five were viable, so I gave him some. My reply to Dark Sonic was in reference to DK.

 

[adumbrodeus]

If their opponent can manage to consistently mash out between the fraction of a second of space between the regrab and the downthrow, yes. I'm fairly certain you can't break out once the dthrow animation has started.
Even if you can, c-grabbing makes it easy enough to time it perfectly that it isn't relevant.

You've got plenty of time to setup (it is an infinite after all). At low percents it times only an insanely small period of time to break out.

Where have I? Grunt called for proof that the five were viable, so I gave him some. My reply to Dark Sonic was in reference to DK.

Ok, fair enough, I misunderstood.

So, with just one character realistically affected, is it worth banning?

 

[manhunter098]

You've got plenty of time to setup (it is an infinite after all). At low percents it times only an insanely small period of time to break out.




Ok, fair enough, I misunderstood.

So, with just one character realistically affected, is it worth banning?

I wouldnt say its just one character that is realistically effected, but rather one character where it isnt even remotely situational. You wouldnt argue that its hard to perform this on say Mario if he is at 100%.

 

[bobson]

You've got plenty of time to setup (it is an infinite after all). At low percents it times only an insanely small period of time to break out.

I'd have to see it in action. It seems to me that if you could realistically break out every time between the time you get grabbed and the time you get thrown, all throws would be useless at low percent.

So, with just one character realistically affected, is it worth banning?

I'm waiting for my next serious match against a Dedede to find out for myself whether you can only break out in theoryland where everyone has fingers like jackhammers and perfect reflexes or if it's actually a realistic counter to the infinite. (Heretofore my experience with infiniting Dededes has been me screaming at them and kicking them in the shins until they screw up and I up-B them.)

If it is a realistic counter for those three... then no, I don't think it'd be wise to ban it.

I'm still kicking you in the shins if you use it, though.

 

[Dark Sonic]

I wouldnt say its just one character that is realistically effected, but rather one character where it isnt even remotely situational. You wouldnt argue that its hard to perform this on say Mario if he is at 100%.

If he's at 100% isn't he already going to be dying from uptilts anyway?

And really, we're still not sure what percent this stops working at. So far we've seen reflex grab break at 129% with Wario after one pummel, but we don't know if it can be done any higher.

For all we know it could go up to 180% or 190% at which point you are pretty much dying from other moves anyway. I don't know, I might be able to test it on Saturday (I'm going to gigs, and even though it's a melee gigs, my friend is bringing a brawl setup).

 

[manhunter098]

Well arguably you have to land the up tilts, which is less reliable than say infiniting him until you can just b-throw him for the kill. And Mario does have a projectile to help space with, so I wouldnt call u-tilt as reliable of a kill move against Mario.

 

[Dark Sonic]

^Which is why I want to test what percentage the grab break works up to. If it works up to like 180% then I'll just say "he can just kill you with a fresh bair," so really the infinite would just be a slightly more reliable kill method, but not exactly what won him the match.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

And really, we're still not sure what percent this stops working at. So far we've seen reflex grab break at 129% with Wario after one pummel, but we don't know if it can be done any higher.

Hey, I'm mentioned. <3

My older brother plays Dedede, and we play regularly. If you want, I could test it for you. I'm trying to optimize my button mashing method anyway. :D

 

[WastingPenguins]

What makes shiek's ftilt or pikachu's chaingrab to infinite any less broken then DDD's infinite on DK?

Reading comprehension: learn it.

This has nothing to do with how broken something is. It is up to the community to decide whether or not something is broken. We all agree that D3's standing infinite breaks his matchup with DK, which is a subjective opinion that we all happen to agree on. Let's imagine that we all agreed that Pika's chaingrab breaks his matchup with Fox (we don't, but let's pretend.) And please note the difference between a heavily one-sided matchup and a truly broken matchup.

So in our scenario, both those techniques/sequences break matchups. Why don't I support banning both?

Because banning Pika's chaingrab, just to help Fox, or Wolf, or whoever, takes something valuable away from the metagame: a legitimate, non-broken tactic vs. many, many characters. In order to remove the the bad (brokenness) you will also have to remove plenty of good (a legit, non-broken technique vs. most characters). This technique HAS non-broken applications. In fact, it has many non-broken applications, but the number is irrelevant. All that matters is that it has non-broken applications at all, which would be removed if the sequence were banned.

But what happens when you ban D3's infinite? You lose nothing but brokenness, because the sequence exists ONLY to break matchups. It has ZERO non-broken applications. Banning it means you are removing plenty of "bad" and losing nothing "good".

Question: Can someone even think of single other technique/exploit with ZERO non-broken applications that is allowed in tourney play?

Now, if superior button-mashing grab breaks prove to be a viable solution for everyone but DK, as some are suggesting, that might throw a monkey-wrench in my idea! In fact it might break my idea completely. If so, I'll be glad to concede. Let me think about it for a bit.

Edit: Thought about it. If Mario or Samus or any of the others can truly mash out of the infinite, then they are in the same boat as every other character-- the boat that includes characters who are not subject to the infinite in the first place. This does not break my argument at all. In this case, the fact holds: any matchup in which the infinite can be used is a broken matchup, and the technique still hasn't any non-broken applications.

TL;DR version: D3's infinite should not be compared directly to most other broken strategies because it is fundamentally different, as described above.

 

[PimpinTZ]

Yes, this needs to be banned.

- DDD main

 

[PK-ow!]

Responses to Aver, DRaGZ, and WastingPenguins below.
EDIT: Also, everyone should look at WastingPenguins posts again. Persons who want to find my last post can link relatively close to it through my quote of Aver.

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.

As, this is a misunderstanding of the meaning of that statement. It's understandable, as it was phrased. . . problematically. Allow me to correct it:

When it says solution, it means the options that are available to you in the game, as a player at a controller port, trying to win a match. The options are forms of button input sequences on standard controllers, and even further restricted from there (for example, you must set the rules for items during the match to your tourney standard; you must not avoid the stage selection screen).

In your options you are trying to solve 'a problem', meaning anything you encounter that could prevent you from winning a match. We focus on 'options' this way because we have of course agreed that winning should be up to your choices "in the game" (as opposed to kicking your opponent in the groin, or unplugging his controller midmatch).

A ban is not something you can do in the game. A ban is of course one level removed from the game; it consists in an enforcement of certain restrictions on what players can do (to create problems for their opponents).

So the sentence is not paradoxical.

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.

If you're saying that by your standards, if you believe something was not intentional, then you believe it is a glitch, that's your prerogative and I dare not try to mold your crazy mixed-up beliefs. Meanwhile if you're saying that your standards state that if something was not intentional, then it is a glitch, then bravo sir, you have just correctly stated the definition of glitch. Those are good standards.

If you were saying that your belief that something is not intentional means that it is a glitch, then you're insane. But I doubt the premise.

Now, there is some evidence coming up in the Smash Lab that the infinite may have been intentional. So that would throw this out the window. But I want to check you're still going with this post, since many pages have passed.
And of course, see down this post.

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.

Irrelevant. See my last post. "If the problem has a solution, there is no need to ban it." (not my words; I've forgotten the author, sorry!)

It does not matter if it would or would not give six characters a better chance at winning. I give you that point or not, just for the sake of this argument; it's still untouched that "there is no need to ban D3 infinites."

I should probably state here the principle, "If there is no need to ban something, there is no cause to ban something." Which is to say, a ban is necessary just[/i] when it is preferable; this is a property of bans (or rather, of competitive mindsets).
It follows from the simple converse, "If there is cause to ban something, there is a need to ban it." If a ban is warranted, it is necessary to enact it, by the nature of bans and how they are warranted just by dire situations.

Since there is no cause to ban D3 infinites, it doesn't matter whether you were or were not going to try to argue that it ought to be banned from your "it wouldn't make the metagame worse" claim - which, recall, I'm not saying is true, but am saying I don't care about giving it to you for the sake of making this argument stronger. With no cause to ban D3 infinites, that means precisely that no one should do it.

Another example of people just twitch-posting without even understanding what is being said.

I just give up. No one here obviously actually gives a **** about the DeDeDe infinite or not, they just want to prove everyone else wrong at something, anything but the DeDeDe infinite. Because heaven forbid if we actually read the statement we are going to respond to.

I hope I give a ****. I think I'm here because I'm trying to find the Truth, and also because I do in fact care if D3's infinites got banned without it being established there was cause. If they don't break my game, I want them to stay, because I don't want anything messing with the competition.

I hadn't given this much thought, but I suddenly find it incredibly interesting. What's going on with the patch-the-problem-away online gaming communities? Have they totally abandoned the Sirlin approach to competitive gaming that is so highly championed in fighting game circles? Consider an RTS game like Starcraft. Starcraft has been HEAVILY patched all throughout it's life cycle. A very high percentage of patches are implemented specifically to make the game better balanced. When players discover a matchup-breaking exploit that Zerg has over Terran, how does the community react?

They don't say, "Leave it in! But you better stop picking Terran when you're up against a Zerg player."

Instead they say, "Patch that **** up! Restore balance!"

Yes, I realize that Starcraft has three "characters," so a matchup-breaking exploit is a way bigger deal. But that example is just for illustration. A tiny exploit doesn't have to be matchup- or game-breaking to be "balanced" or simply patched away entirely.

That's crucial, though. Do you know for sure that the overwhelming majority of players of FPSs, say, all say "patch that **** up!" ?

I do respect the philosophical move, though. This is the first new direction the argument has taken in. . . well, a hundred pages.

What have they gained from this process? A sublimely balanced, intensely competitive game that has enjoyed a decade of hardcore success. The analogy starts to break down when you consider that Nintendo ain't exactly patching jack ****, and we don't have the power to patch the game in the same manner ourselves without mandating cheat devices that many players simply won't have access too. For any number of reasons, most unbalancing elements and techniques cannot be "fixed" or removed from the game.

But in the case of the infinite in question... removing it from the game ENTIRELY would be ALL TOO EASY. If you don't think a ban could be enforced in tourney play, you're wrong. And it would not be hard. At all.



Sure, you can't fix everything... but every little thing that you truly CAN fix would help toward a balanced, competitive game with a vibrant, sustainable community.

Right now your problem is you haven't shown that "D3 infinites" are something to fix. They can be likeable. I like them.

Back to Kirio's (I think?) point: If you try to talk about making it 'better', you will always get arguments, because it will almost always be subjective. Only when the game is broken is there one clear direction for the game to do. And it has been defended that the game is not broken right now. Players cannot omnipick D3 and win all their games with dthrow. Their opponents can pick. . . I dunno, Pikachu was it?

So why the disconnect? What's going on with these patching maniacs? Is their philosophy less competitive than Sirlin's? I'm not arguing either way but I'm genuinely curious to see what you guys think.

Discuss this, people. Even though I don't think it will get back to answering our issue.

The end answer is probably just that online / producer-managed competitive communities are just. . . different.

Reading comprehension: learn it.

This has nothing to do with how broken something is. It is up to the community to decide whether or not something is broken. We all agree that D3's standing infinite breaks his matchup with DK, which is a subjective opinion that we all happen to agree on. Let's imagine that we all agreed that Pika's chaingrab breaks his matchup with Fox (we don't, but let's pretend.) And please note the difference between a heavily one-sided matchup and a truly broken matchup.

So in our scenario, both those techniques/sequences break matchups. Why don't I support banning both?

Because banning Pika's chaingrab, just to help Fox, or Wolf, or whoever, takes something valuable away from the metagame: a legitimate, non-broken tactic vs. many, many characters. In order to remove the the bad (brokenness) you will also have to remove plenty of good (a legit, non-broken technique vs. most characters). This technique HAS non-broken applications. In fact, it has many non-broken applications, but the number is irrelevant. All that matters is that it has non-broken applications at all, which would be removed if the sequence were banned.

But what happens when you ban D3's infinite? You lose nothing but brokenness, because the sequence exists ONLY to break matchups. It has ZERO non-broken applications. Banning it means you are removing plenty of "bad" and losing nothing "good".

Question: Can someone even think of single other technique/exploit with ZERO non-broken applications that is allowed in tourney play?

Good question. I can't answer it. Anyone?
Also, interesting distinction. But again, I'm doubting it's going to lead to actually backing the ban position.

TL;DR version: D3's infinite should not be compared directly to most other broken strategies because it is fundamentally different, as described above.

Hmm. . .

 

[MarKO X]

I can answer that question.

MK.

jk.

 

[ColinJF]

I'd have to see it in action. It seems to me that if you could realistically break out every time between the time you get grabbed and the time you get thrown, all throws would be useless at low percent.

The reason you have such a long time to break out of King Dedede's grab if he goes for a pummel is that his pummel animation is really long. If he doesn't go for a pummel, he--and every other character--is guaranteed to be able to throw you. The number of pummels you can get before they can break out is related to how fast your pummel animation is.

I'm pretty sure you can't break out if he doesn't go for a pummel, but he has to go for a pummel after a few down throws.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I wouldnt say its just one character that is realistically effected, but rather one character where it isnt even remotely situational. You wouldnt argue that its hard to perform this on say Mario if he is at 100%.

Huh?

If Mario does everything humanly possible to break out, then it doesn't matter what DDD does, Mario breaks out.


That's not hard, that makes it a false infinite, just like the locks you can DI out of.

I'd have to see it in action. It seems to me that if you could realistically break out every time between the time you get grabbed and the time you get thrown, all throws would be useless at low percent.

Technically, but because of required reaction time you don't have enough time to react before the throw can be done. But because it's an infinite to you've got plenty of time to try to make it as hard as possible.

I'm waiting for my next serious match against a Dedede to find out for myself whether you can only break out in theoryland where everyone has fingers like jackhammers and perfect reflexes or if it's actually a realistic counter to the infinite. (Heretofore my experience with infiniting Dededes has been me screaming at them and kicking them in the shins until they screw up and I up-B them.)

If it is a realistic counter for those three... then no, I don't think it'd be wise to ban it.

I'm still kicking you in the shins if you use it, though.

Magus and reflex have both broken out using it, but practice it.

Reading comprehension: learn it.

This has nothing to do with how broken something is. It is up to the community to decide whether or not something is broken. We all agree that D3's standing infinite breaks his matchup with DK, which is a subjective opinion that we all happen to agree on. Let's imagine that we all agreed that Pika's chaingrab breaks his matchup with Fox (we don't, but let's pretend.) And please note the difference between a heavily one-sided matchup and a truly broken matchup.

So in our scenario, both those techniques/sequences break matchups. Why don't I support banning both?

Because banning Pika's chaingrab, just to help Fox, or Wolf, or whoever, takes something valuable away from the metagame: a legitimate, non-broken tactic vs. many, many characters. In order to remove the the bad (brokenness) you will also have to remove plenty of good (a legit, non-broken technique vs. most characters). This technique HAS non-broken applications. In fact, it has many non-broken applications, but the number is irrelevant. All that matters is that it has non-broken applications at all, which would be removed if the sequence were banned.

But what happens when you ban D3's infinite? You lose nothing but brokenness, because the sequence exists ONLY to break matchups. It has ZERO non-broken applications. Banning it means you are removing plenty of "bad" and losing nothing "good".

Question: Can someone even think of single other technique/exploit with ZERO non-broken applications that is allowed in tourney play?

Now, if superior button-mashing grab breaks prove to be a viable solution for everyone but DK, as some are suggesting, that might throw a monkey-wrench in my idea! In fact it might break my idea completely. If so, I'll be glad to concede. Let me think about it for a bit.

Edit: Thought about it. If Mario or Samus or any of the others can truly mash out of the infinite, then they are in the same boat as every other character-- the boat that includes characters who are not subject to the infinite in the first place. This does not break my argument at all. In this case, the fact holds: any matchup in which the infinite can be used is a broken matchup, and the technique still hasn't any non-broken applications.

TL;DR version: D3's infinite should not be compared directly to most other broken strategies because it is fundamentally different, as described above.

Back-reading, learn it.

The anti-ban crowd has said on multiple occasions that it doesn't consider the infinite broken as in "ban-worthy" just broken as in "powerful", in the same way that Marth's fair is "broken".

It's very powerful in that match-up, but not ban-worthy powerful, and I very much doubt you'll get any anti-banner to agree that it's "broken" as in ban-worthy.



What standard are you referencing to in saying that it's "ban-worthy" broken?

 

[Overswarm]

Wobbling didn't work on me in Melee until much higher % because I could break out hella fast.

 

[Magus420]

Edit: Thought about it. If Mario or Samus or any of the others can truly mash out of the infinite, then they are in the same boat as every other character-- the boat that includes characters who are not subject to the infinite in the first place. This does not break my argument at all. In this case, the fact holds: any matchup in which the infinite can be used is a broken matchup, and the technique still hasn't any non-broken applications.

?

The 1-5 standing regrabs without grab hits (depends how stale it already is) are still used for extra damage before going into something else (such as the normal CG for Mario/Samus) when they're too low to infinite, and the infinite is a guaranteed KO move from a successful grab starting somewhere in the 90-150% range as long as the d-throw is somewhat fresh.

 

[ShadowLink84]

magus' sig makes me cry.
Friggin Marth

 

[BrawlLover]

Getting more info about how you guys feel on things always helps with these kinds of issues. I'm interested to see what the community feels about this.

Dedede can currently infinite CG 6 characters in the game: Bowser, DK, Samus, Mario, Luigi, and himself (off the edge). Out of those characters, the one who likely suffers the worst is DK, and the region with one of the best DK players out there, Bum, has banned D3's infinite since nearly the beginning of the game, but I don't believe there are any other regions out there that have consistently banned the infinite.

Do you believe that D3's standing infinite chaingrab should be banned?

I agree that the standing infinite cg should be banned.

 

[XxBlackxX]

I agree that the standing infinite cg should be banned.

...and i think they shouldn't be banned.
your cant just put your opinion out there and expect people to go "BrawlLover think this, he must be right!".
back up your statement with FACTS please, or else your statement is void.

 

[Grunt]

Boss
ChuDat's Thanksgiving Biweekly: 4th in doubles 9th in singles
C3C ECRC: 4th in doubles 9th in singles
EvilTwinz of MD: 2nd in doubles 9th in singles (A DK placed 7th)
Critical Hit 4: 17th in singles
ChuDat Halloween Biweekly: 4th in doubles, 17th in singles
The Last Hurrah-Cyberden: 2nd in doubles, 4th in singles
SoVa Brawl Singles/Doubles: 1st in doubles, 4th in singles (A DK placed 9th)
The Magician's Alliance: 1st in doubles, 2nd in singles (A Mario and a DK placed 9th)
Etc., etc.

Bum
(Smashboards decided that "Bum" was too common a word to bother including in my search, so I searched for posts made by him. These are all the relevant threads I found, but this probably isn't every tournament Bum's been to.)
BX Weekly Oct 10th, 08: 2nd in doubles, 1st in singles
BX Weekly Nov 14, 08: 1st in doubles, 1st in singles
BX Weekly Nov 21, 08: 1st in doubles, 1st in singles
BX Weekly Dec 5, 08: 2nd in doubles, 1st in singles
PnT Oct 18th: 2nd in doubles, 1st in singles
Harry Potter and the Planking Metaknight: 2nd in doubles, 3rd in singles

Sliq
Only in Niagara II: 3rd in singles
Well Thought Out Name: 4th in doubles, 5th in singles
Smash and Coffee 2: 2nd in doubles, 5th in singles (A Mario placed 9th)
Smashtastrophe 2: 5th in Brawl singles
Viva la Smashtaclysm: 33rd in singles
Huge Johnz 3: 9th in doubles, 9th in singles. Except he apparently used Ganon here.
There were other results, but they were reported on a defunct site.

Xyro has stated his placings already.

For additional placings, here are the tourney results threads for Mario, Samus and DK. The Bowser boards have one, too, but I'm probably better off summarizing it with "Sliq is awesome."



And this is the only time DK is a viable choice unless you just want to hope your opponent doesn't know you use DK in a double blind.

Much obliged kind sir.
yellow = truth.

Well theoretically he is more viable then those 5 characters, only because of this infinite.

AH-HA!
that's what i'm trying to do with all these results is remove theory from the equation.

 

[XxBlackxX]

uh...what exactly do the tourney results accomplish in regards to your side of the debate (im assuming you're pro-ban, correct?)

 

[Grunt]

nope. I have no disposition towards this debate.
Hard numbers are the most solid evidence for anything, and I'm only helping give a reliable proof that these 6 characters would or would not do any better in large scale tournaments if the ICG were to be banned.

 

[manhunter098]

...and i think they shouldn't be banned.
your cant just put your opinion out there and expect people to go "BrawlLover think this, he must be right!".
back up your statement with FACTS please, or else your statement is void.

Unless thats your subjective decision based upon all the facts, because everyone will place different priority on different things.

 

[Kirio]

That penguin guy's argument has me at a bit of a neutral position right now, maybe leaning towards pro-ban =3=. I think that if nintendo did care about the competitive scene at all, they would probably patch this and fix it. Things like this were patched over in Soul Calibur 4, infinites and tactics that could be compared to ftilt lock on fox. It was refreshing. I feel that just because the producer is too lazy to patch it should not make us too stubborn to attempt to make fixes to easily remedied problems.

 

[BrawlLover]

...and i think they shouldn't be banned.
your cant just put your opinion out there and expect people to go "BrawlLover think this, he must be right!".
back up your statement with FACTS please, or else your statement is void.

I am entitled to my opinion. I am not saying everyone has to agree. Tell me yours and why.

 

[kr3wman]

I am entitled to my opinion. I am not saying everyone has to agree. Tell me yours and why.

He asked you the question first.

 

[XxBlackxX]

nope. I have no disposition towards this debate.
Hard numbers are the most solid evidence for anything, and I'm only helping give a reliable proof that these 6 characters would or would not do any better in large scale tournaments if the ICG were to be banned.

that's nice and all, but it's kinda irrelevant.
even if the 6 characters WERE completely unviable in large tournies, the ICG still shouldn't be banned because:
1. it's not universal, and broken matchups=/= broken game as a whole
2. it doesn't over-centralizes, there are 31 other characters and 772 other matchups in brawl, therefore it hasn't gone to point where it's "character D3 and do infinites or you lose"
3. the ruleset of competitive games is to keep the game as a whole competitively playable while banning as few things as possible.
4. it is FACT that ICG's DON'T break SSBB as a whole, all it really does is makes 6 matchups impossible, and there are plenty of other near-impossible matchups. it is stupid to ban something just for 6 matchups. in almost all fighting games, there will be unviable characters and impossible matchups, players have to deal with it themselves instead of going the easy way out and asking for a ban when it isn't warranted.

therefore....it doesn't need to be banned
btw...this wasn't really directed at you, it's to all pro-ban people.

I am entitled to my opinion. I am not saying everyone has to agree. Tell me yours and why.

opinions don't matter in debates unless you back it up with facts, you ARE "entitled" to yours, but there's no point of posting unless you back it up. btw, my opinion is anti-ban, and my facts are in this post.

 

[da K.I.D.]

that's nice and all, but it's kinda irrelevant.
even if the 6 characters WERE completely unviable in large tournies, the ICG still shouldn't be banned because:
1. it's not universal, and broken matchups=/= broken game as a whole
2. it doesn't over-centralizes, there are 31 other characters and 772 other matchups in brawl, therefore it hasn't gone to point where it's "character D3 and do infinites or you lose"
3. the ruleset of competitive games is to keep the game as a whole competitively playable while banning as few things as possible.
4. it is FACT that ICG's DON'T break SSBB as a whole, all it really does is makes 6 matchups impossible, and there are plenty of other near-impossible matchups. it is stupid to ban something just for 6 matchups. in almost all fighting games, there will be unviable characters and impossible matchups, players have to deal with it themselves instead of going the easy way out and asking for a ban when it isn't warranted.

therefore....it doesn't need to be banned
btw...this wasn't really directed at you, it's to all pro-ban people.


opinions don't matter in debates unless you back it up with facts, you ARE "entitled" to yours, but there's no point of posting unless you back it up. btw, my opinion is anti-ban, and my facts are in this post.

this entire thing is subjective because it is based on YOUR OPINION on what breaks the game and what doesnt break the game.

 

[EmuKiller]

I think the game is more enjoyable with a standing infinite chain grab removed. You want to infinite? Just do a fancy d-tilt wall infinite or what not. DDD's chain grab is just something I don't see fitting with the brawl competitive play style and I think the game as a whole functions better with it removed.

 

[aeghrur]

this entire thing is subjective because it is based on YOUR OPINION on what breaks the game and what doesnt break the game.

It's basically based upon the opinions of competitive gaming communities as a whole.
Btw, all arguments are subjective. There is no argument in there that is purely objective.

 

[XxBlackxX]

this entire thing is subjective because it is based on YOUR OPINION on what breaks the game and what doesnt break the game.

sure, but 6/31 characters (or 6/780 matchups) definitely don't break the game as a WHOLE. why do i think this is fact? because ICG's are NOT banned currently, and ssbb is still competitvely playable as a whole as of right now. sure characters will be used less, but that doesn't break the game.

EDIT:

I think the game is more enjoyable with a standing infinite chain grab removed. You want to infinite? Just do a fancy d-tilt wall infinite or what not. DDD's chain grab is just something I don't see fitting with the brawl competitive play style and I think the game as a whole functions better with it removed.

"unenjoyable" is TOTALLY subjective is NOT how we ban things. example: what if I happen to find ICG's fun? what if I happen to think fighting MK is not fun? Let's keep infinites and ban MK guys! /sarcasm (btw, im against the MK ban as well)

 

[Woozle]

Originally Posted by XxBlackxX

that's nice and all, but it's kinda irrelevant.

Opinion.

1. it's not universal, and broken matchups=/= broken game as a whole

Opinion.

2. it doesn't over-centralizes,

Opinion.

3. the ruleset of competitive games is to keep the game as a whole competitively playable while banning as few things as possible.

Opinion.

4. it is FACT that ICG's DON'T break SSBB as a whole, all it really does is makes 6 matchups impossible, and there are plenty of other near-impossible matchups.

Opinion. FACT.

it is stupid to ban something just for 6 matchups.

Opinion.

players have to deal with it themselves instead of going the easy way out and asking for a ban when it isn't warranted.

Opinion.

therefore....it doesn't need to be banned

Opinion.

opinions don't matter in debates

unless you back it up with facts, you ARE "entitled" to yours, but there's no point of posting unless you back it up. btw, my opinion is anti-ban, and my facts are in this post.

Nice facts.

 

[aeghrur]

sure, but 6/31 characters (or 772/780 matchups) definitely don't break the game as a WHOLE. why do i think this is fact? because ICG's are NOT banned currently, and ssbb is still competitvely playable as a whole as of right now. sure characters will be used less, but that doesn't break the game.

EDIT:

"unenjoyable" is TOTALLY subjective is NOT how we ban things. example: what if I happen to find ICG's fun? what if I happen to think fighting MK is not fun? Let's keep infinites and ban MK guys! /sarcasm (btw, im against the MK ban as well)

772/780 is broken, lmao.
I think you have the number wrong.
If ANYTHING broke THAT many character match ups, it should definitely be banned.
Luckily, DDD breaks about, 7 match ups, lol.

 

[Woozle]

It's basically based upon the opinions of competitive gaming communities as a whole.
Btw, all arguments are subjective. There is no argument in there that is purely objective.

False. o.o