Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[PK-ow!]

This is the reason why the D3 infinite should not be banned, under the current understanding of the ban system. Any other reason so far appears to be caused by a mindset that originates from this view.

Has this view been countered in any way?

I think my last post brought together some points made in the last while to put sufficient doubt on the post you quoted to warrant a reply.

. . . God**** syntax.

I believe I have shown a reason that makes the statements of the post you quoted insufficient on their own to do away with my objection, at least warranting some kind of response, since my post put some doubt on the premises of that post.

Maybe I was just temporarily insane - I was tired, you know.

 

[Woozle]

Here's an analogy that I think is fair.

Olympic Water Polo.

Let's assume that teams (such as the Americans and Hungarians) represent single entities in a manner equivalent to characters in a fighting game.

Let's assume that there are only 2 coaches, and that either coach can pick any team to coach for the duration of a match.

Now let's assume that one coach works well with the American team, and one works well with the American team.

Let's pretend that the Hungarian team wore a certain brand of deodorant to their match against the American team. Now, the Hungarian's usually beat the Americans: However, they discover that wearing this brand of deodorant causes allergic reactions in Americans as well, and that that makes the match almost impossible for the Americans to win, but they can still play.

In situation A, they protest the allowance of the Hungarian team to wear the deodorant and the judges agree. The match is still difficult for the Americans to play, but without threat of hives, they are able to make the best of their situation. And, since the coach overseeing the team uses them to the best of thier ability.

In situation B, the judges disagree because the Americans probably weren't going to win anyway, and on top of that, there are plenty of other teams in the Olympics who could beat the Hungarians. The Americans try to play, but find that any time they try to guard the Hungarians, their skin burns. The Hungarians win with little resistance.

The coach also have the option, if the deodorant is not banned, to use anoter team who have immunity to the allergy against the Hungarians. However, they feel as though the best match would result from the fully trained team they have in the Americans.

Slightly edited.

 

[Sesshomuronay]

The fact that the infinate makes it horrendously unfair for people and takes away their ability to control their character is enough reason to ban it.

 

[PK-ow!]

The fact that the infinate makes it horrendously unfair for people and takes away their ability to control their character is enough reason to ban it.

People got reallly angry at this kind of objection a few pages back. I think around 176 or so.

Simply put, that's not a reason. That's not a reason at all. It's not unfair to any people. Picking Luigi is a choice. Picking Luigi against D3 is the wrong choice, same as leaving guard up against a Marth going dtilt -> dtilt against you isn't going to work either.

Slightly edited.

That doesn't answer the objections from adumbrodeus and you know it!

 

[Woozle]

That doesn't answer the objections from adumbrodeus and you know it!

Actually, I edited for clarity.

I didn't understand the objections: they didn't even seem like objections. They seemed to say "Hey, if THAT happened, we would surely ban". And my point in the analogy was "it is happening."

 

[Sesshomuronay]

@PK-ow!:
It is a reason. It is unfair to people. Picking luigi is a choice, but apparantly a wrong one. So what is the right choice then? Hey I know why dont we all just go play meta knight! Isnt that a good choice? Seriously though if Dedede's infinate was banned people wouldnt need to change characters for ******** reasons. You main ness, thats such a bad choice when compared to MK.

 

[Snowstalker]

I'm for the ban. Dedede still has the advantage, but it's a winnable matchup for DK/Samus/whatever. It'll increase diversity, and probably move up otherwise decent characters.

Of course, I have nothing against Dedede's regular chain grab.

 

[Thee Incubus]

I'm for the ban. Dedede still has the advantage, but it's a winnable matchup for DK/Samus/whatever. It'll increase diversity, and probably move up otherwise decent characters.

Of course, I have nothing against Dedede's regular chain grab.

Exactly.
DDD mains do not need it for the matchup to be in DDD's favor. If a DDD depends on it to win a match against a DK, Samus etc, they should not be winning.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Even if it were an infinite it wouldn't matter -_-;

 

[Deleted member]

It affects less than 1/5 of the cast most of which are low tier. Big Whoop.
DeDeDe would have decent matchups against them anyway.

 

[Snowstalker]

Actually, only Samus and Mario are low, and Mario is high-low, if not low-mid material. Luigi and Bowser are mid, DK is high. Yes, Dedede would still have the advantage. However, a ban would make it at least winnable for the 5 infinited characters.

 

[Sesshomuronay]

It affects less than 1/5 of the cast most of which are low tier. Big Whoop.
DeDeDe would have decent matchups against them anyway.

Exactly dedede would have decent matchups against them anyway. These characters might not be so low tier if dedede didnt slaughter them. I mean people can just crush hardened veterans by picking the penguin and mashing z.

 

[ShadowLink84]

you clearly have no idea how a tierlist works if you're making such a statement about DDD vs those characters.
They are low tier because of overall matchups not because they do badly when facing DDD.

 

[NeoCrono]

I was thinking today, lets say if D3 had the infinite on someone like... Snake. Would we still have this discussion? Cause I think we would just ban it on the spot

 

[ShadowLink84]

I was thinking today, lets say if D3 had the infinite on someone like... Snake. Would we still have this discussion? Cause I think we would just ban it on the spot

No we wouldn't because it doesn't cause overcentralizing

 

[Steeler]

just ban it. ddd doesn't need it to win against them. it doesn't make much of a difference anyway, except for dk, who, imo, would be more common in tourneys without this. the other 4 are uncommon regardless.

this infinite takes no skill. just be able to mash a button really quickly :\. it doesn't make the metagame better, it actually makes it worse by ensuring that mario, samus, luigi, dk, and bowser become much less tourney viable because of an easily exploitable oversight by brawl's ****ty developers.

 

[PK-ow!]

Actually, I edited for clarity.

I didn't understand the objections: they didn't even seem like objections. They seemed to say "Hey, if THAT happened, we would surely ban". And my point in the analogy was "it is happening."

You didn't understand. That's not what he said. That was one small part of the thrust of his whole counter.

He's saying your analogy sucks, and you can't conclude anything from it. It doesn't apply to our case, because it differs in crucial aspects from the D3 infinite case.
And it differs in plainly obvious respects, such that there's no arguing that the analogy is comparable. EDIT: When an analogy breaks down, it undermines the ability to transfer the inferences you make with it. That's what you have to do: set up an analogy, and use it to argue that parallels of the inferences are valid. If the analogy is bad, you can't use it for that, and the argument goes away.

I think I'll leave it to adumbrodeus to maybe clarify or reiterate the dismissal.

You gotta change the analogy. It might help if you actually tried to close your argument by actually saying "and this means D3 infinites should be banned because. . ." instead of just throwing an analogy out there and saying 'It's like this. You guys tell me what it means.'

@PK-ow!:
It is a reason. It is unfair to people. Picking luigi is a choice, but apparantly a wrong one. So what is the right choice then? Hey I know why dont we all just go play meta knight! Isnt that a good choice?

Yeah. Do that.
MK aside (to keep the issues independent), I understand the "right" choice is to pick Falco. He wrecks Dedede. There's also Snake, Robot, whoever. Good characters, they'll do alright.

Not my expertise, though - I'm not actually a good player. Ask someone else.

Is there a point to your question?

Seriously though if Dedede's infinate was banned people wouldnt need to change characters for ******** reasons. You main ness, thats such a bad choice when compared to MK.

Changing a character because he's unviable is not a ******** reason. That's a pretty **** good reason. Saying 'because you lose to an infinite is a ******** reason' is begging the question. That's what you're trying to show, and you haven't done that. You've just asserted it over and over.

Also, unless you can clarify what "it's a ******** reason" means, it's not going to hurt anyone to give you that as you try to use it to establish a ban is warranted. It requires another argument to say "we ban things so that people don't have to make choices that they, otherwise, only make 'for ******** reasons'."

Last, for God's sake, are my own failings at main selection relevant here? Yes, Ness sucks compared to MK. However, I am simply part of the camp that wants to try to beat him. It's a respectable camp; it's a position that the metagame wants some subset of people to take, if MK really isn't broken (because only people trying to beat MK could prove that he isn't). Moreover, if MK does become banned, I don't want to have wasted hours learning to play as him. I am one of the people who think that we can still fight MK, and I want to fight him and get him down to sanity before we are forced to the turning point with his brokenness issue again. If he does stay and is still God tier, I want to be one of the people still trying to bring him down to sanity, before people simply abandon this game (which will happen if there is a superior nonbroken option of character).

And of course, obligatory loyalty comment for my main: Ness has good matchups. There's potential, and I want to find it.

I'm for the ban. Dedede still has the advantage, but it's a winnable matchup for DK/Samus/whatever. It'll increase diversity, and probably move up otherwise decent characters.

Of course, I have nothing against Dedede's regular chain grab.

This is silly. If the characters really do have a robustly 'winnable' situation against D3, then there is absolutely no cause for a ban. It is necessary to establish first that they don't have a chance, at all, if a ban is ever going to go through.

Else what could distinguish the ban from propositions to ban the use of (I dunno) . . . Falco's lasers on Ganondorf? You gotta read the thread, man.

Note that since I'm not actually a good player, I only have the discussion other people produce to say the D3 matchups are one-sided. I assumed they are in my earlier argument (which I'm still hoping someone will take a look at).
For sure, if the matchups aren't one-sided, a ban is absolutely the wrong move. I need to rely on others to make that empirical judgment.

 

[da K.I.D.]

ness is trash, he gets CGd by sonic...

 

[ColinJF]

Donkey Kong is trash, he gets infinite chaingrabbed by Dedede...

 

[XxBlackxX]

just ban it. ddd doesn't need it to win against them. it doesn't make much of a difference anyway, except for dk, who, imo, would be more common in tourneys without this. the other 4 are uncommon regardless.

this infinite takes no skill. just be able to mash a button really quickly :\. it doesn't make the metagame better, it actually makes it worse by ensuring that mario, samus, luigi, dk, and bowser become much less tourney viable because of an easily exploitable oversight by brawl's ****ty developers.

how much skill it takes to do something is irrelevant to if the tactic should be banned. gaining one more so-called "viable" character is not why things are banned either.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I think my last post brought together some points made in the last while to put sufficient doubt on the post you quoted to warrant a reply.

. . . God**** syntax.

I believe I have shown a reason that makes the statements of the post you quoted insufficient on their own to do away with my objection, at least warranting some kind of response, since my post put some doubt on the premises of that post.

Maybe I was just temporarily insane - I was tired, you know.

You mean this one? If it was, you should go temporarily insane more often - I didn't even know what points we were debating until I read this.

Oh it's not impossible to beat. The solution is not to be caught dead with your character selection chip on Luigi, Mario, Samus, DK, or Bowser on the blind.
Easy.

If you ban, the 'problem' would go away in a vicious short-sighted sense. Yes, an obstacle to winning, for those who are set on using these characters to which they have fixated before the fact despite playability issues, is gone if the ban is done. But some people want the competition. Some people can dislike, that if you do this and give these characters a green light on the field, a pass against Dedede, then these characters will be unnecessarily cluttering the metagame. They'll get in the way of everyone else training to defeat the otherwise simplified field. Why give viability if they're. . . not viable? Moreover, Dedede's life will be harder, and so Dedede representation will go down.
A player could even want the tactic to remain because he wants to be the guy that beats it. The Ness user who finds EIDI for Marth release infinites, if one of those could show up for Luigi, I'm there there would be much rejoicing (and **** stroking 9_9).

Most worrying, these people would get anxious that other bans would occur. Modulo WastingPenguins distinction (which I'm not sure I get), this opens a can of worms where any good tactic may be at risk. Why use a great exploit if I can get banhammered? It's not a pleasant feeling.

Not all people would be happier. At the very least, there's still I'm sure some number of D3 mains themselves who would feel very shortchanged if their avenue to instant win were taken from them. Why increase the number of matches they have to deal with? Their character has game against five characters. That's a fraction of the cast you can simplify your training time against, and so credit to these players for picking up a character that can thus fold time upon working their matchups for the other 30~ characters. These guys made a move that is working out for them, it's unjustified to say you wouldn't be making them upset.

. . . wow I'm actually convincing myself this position is problematic now. The D3 infinite really might be an exception. I can't find a bad thing that would happen to the metagame in any sense, from either the position of being an infinited character or not, and whether I want money or whether my ultimate goal is 'seeing what I can beat.' There's just the effect on D3 mains themselves. Banning strictly increases diversity while removing nothing but the ability of players to cash in on the lack of diversity, thanks to WastingPenguins' distinction. Is not our notion of the competitive field one that lets in all comers who can take a route to make the challenger lose? Diversity is inherently a good thing, we agree, since a diverse field is one more challenging to someone trying to get to the top. We just commonly evaluate it as less good than other factors, or judge that we are unable to be objective in most cases between it and another 'good'.

But the D3 infinite creates a stunted asymmetry in five matchups, such that (a) it doesn't prove anything to play out the match in anything past noob level, (b) the move can be enforced out of gameplay with surgical precision just such that these uses where it is indeed infinite are gone - which happens to be the same as the uses where it makes the game trivial, and (c) there would be no glory in 'beating' the technique as one of the exploited characters, by the very nature of the mechanic: since it is a grab, either something equally strange will be found that allows people to 'glide farther' before regrab, or people will just learn advanced methods of "Don't get grabbed." There is nothing else to beating it, it is a one-dimensional technique. (This point and the first point are what the D3 sentiment of banning the move is grounded in, I think).

Leaving it to people to take this technique as a challenge does only this thing: it makes people give up on using these characters, at least in this matchup. As two consequences of that, (i) the technique never in fact comes into play, because no one (who is smart) goes into the match to let people use it, and (ii) Players of these characters are discouraged from taking the character's game to a higher level, since there is such a devastating CP; and so the characters are effectively removed from the player's choices.

The game has five less characters. But there is something the community can do which will do just these things: Diversify the field, give D3's five interesting problems to think about, let D3's enjoy beating five more characters, and let the people who like these characters march boldly forward with their character meta again.

This sounds all upside to me. I think it objectively *is* all upside, and that's the important reason why I'm now questioning this:

Maybe it's a principled exception to the ban principle, as in, the rule for ban is incomplete.

D3 has 'fractured' the meta, and it satisfies conditions which, in my inspection, only make the game worse from every direction we respect.

 

[PK-ow!]

EDIT:

ness is trash, he gets CGd by sonic...

*facepalm*

You mean this one? If it was, you should go temporarily insane more often - I didn't even know what points we were debating until I read this.

Yes, that one.

Who's 'we'? I hadn't been talking to you since the post you just quoted there.

So yes, that post. Remember I'm drawing a lot from the apparent conclusion that the D3 infinites have a form that can be precisely stated as 'the broken' part (allegedly), so there's no problems with 'discreteness' from Sirlin's end of this.

Infinites do a weird thing to Smash Bros.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

This should be the topic of OSBR podcast 3.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Yes, that one.

Who's 'we'? I hadn't been talking to you since the post you just quoted there.

So yes, that post. Remember I'm drawing a lot from the apparent conclusion that the D3 infinites have a form that can be precisely stated as 'the broken' part (allegedly), so there's no problems with 'discreteness' from Sirlin's end of this.

Infinites do a weird thing to Smash Bros.

Sorry. I've been here for a while. When I said "we," I meant me and the people I was discussing with.

 

[PKNintendo]

ness is trash, he gets CGd by sonic...

And you call yourself a master?

Sonics CG isn t that damaging with Super Grab breaks. Ness also has the chance the jump break mid chaingrab.

And colin, I know your pissed (like me) but no need to call DK trash.
Seriously Da Kid, can you not be...

so uninformed about other characters besides your own!

 

[cutter]

This should be the topic of OSBR podcast 3.

Yes, I definately agree.

 

[Ripple]

the day this gets to be 50/50 and SBR allows it , I am going to flip a **** and then quit brawl because of the obvious lack of care about characters

 

[PKNintendo]

the day this gets to be 50/50 and SBR allows it , I am going to flip a **** and then quit brawl because of the obvious lack of care about characters

Please dont. Even if it doesnt get banned, your DK could help the character get tourney results.

 

[Master Knight DH]

Pro-ban, even though I (accidently) voted no. Something that requires minimal skill for what his self-proclaimed majesty does with it is just like Pit's arrow spam: in theory preventing it would work, but you can't effectively prevent it forever, and when you get trapped by it, hope to God the abuser is not competent.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Pro-ban, even though I (accidently) voted no. Something that requires minimal skill for what his self-proclaimed majesty does with it is just like Pit's arrow spam: in theory preventing it would work, but you can't effectively prevent it forever, and when you get trapped by it, hope to God the abuser is not competent.

again, amount of skill it takes to do has nothing to do with whether the tactic is ban-worthy or not.

 

[JOE!]

...shouldnt it?

if it's easy for the DDD to do, and it takes rather high skill to get out of it on the other char's part then something's up...

 

[Master Knight DH]

again, amount of skill it takes to do has nothing to do with whether the tactic is ban-worthy or not.

Well, you have to make sure you don't get grabbed 3 times.

In all fairness, Dedede's general attack range is awfully high to begin with so it's not like his opponent will give much room for being grabbed. Still, losing a whole stock to one mistake is stupid.

 

[XxBlackxX]

...shouldnt it?

if it's easy for the DDD to do, and it takes rather high skill to get out of it on the other char's part then something's up...

lol no.
if you were right...cg's would be banned, ftilt locks would be banned and that's just silly. >_>

ban criteria: (keep in mind that it's a LAST RESORT)

1. breaks the game as a whole, makes brawl unplayable competitively (keep in mind im talking AS A WHOLE, it doesn't matter if there are broken matchups. deal with it as long as it is universal and doesn't break the game as a whole)
2 over-centralizes, makes it "pick character X/do tactic Y or lose"

Well, you have to make sure you don't get grabbed 3 times.

In all fairness, Dedede's general attack range is awfully high to begin with so it's not like his opponent will give much room for being grabbed. Still, losing a whole stock to one mistake is stupid.

shows how *cough* much *cough* you know about when to ban and when not to ban things. just because it's "stupid" doesn't mean ****. "stupid" is also too subjective.

the infinites don't do either of those things.

 

[∫unk]

poor DK mains

 

[da K.I.D.]

i hope people werent taking me seriously when i said ness was trash...

at this point in time, hes better than DK.
that part isnt sarcasm.

 

[CO18]

i hope people werent taking me seriously when i said ness was trash...

at this point in time, hes better than DK.
that part isnt sarcasm.

Ness>DK with infinite in brawl.

DK>>>Ness without infinite in brawl.

 

[XxBlackxX]

i hope people werent taking me seriously when i said ness was trash...

at this point in time, hes better than DK.
that part isnt sarcasm.

lolwut?
just because DK has 1 horridous (bad spelling sry) matchup doesn't mean he's a bad character overall. just don't use him against D3 (and expect to win) >_>

Ness>DK with infinite in brawl.

DK>>>Ness without infinite in brawl.

even if it WAS so, that still doesn't mean ICG's should be banned >_>
people, no matter what there are gonna be bad matchups and "unviable" characters. deal with it yourself. as long as they aren't universal and don't break the game as a whole there no need to ban.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

poor DK mains

Not really.

Most the more competitive regions already banned it. At the highest level of the metagame, this is just a formality.

Wait... Why would the high-level regions be the ones that ban this? I would think it would be scrubby regions that call for the banhammer.

Edit: XxBlackxX - I am pretty sure you underestimate the importance of that one matchup.

 

[ShadowLink84]

i

at this point in time, hes better than DK.
that part isnt sarcasm.

E.Honda in SF2
Bowser in Melee.
Link vs Kirby in 64

You make it sound as if captain falcon and Ganondorf are more viable when they aren't.

Even if there was absolutely no method of escaping the infinite the CP system prevents the characters viability from being destroyed.

Hell if you are known for using Dk surprise them with your uber good Fox.
One 9-1 matchup does not destroy a characters viability completely. There really is nothing to support such a claim and I have yet to hear a legitimate reason for that argument.

 

[ShadowLink84]

And you call yourself a master?

Sonics CG isn t that damaging with Super Grab breaks. Ness also has the chance the jump break mid chaingrab.

And colin, I know your pissed (like me) but no need to call DK trash.
Seriously Da Kid, can you not be...

so uninformed about other characters besides your own!

He was joking.

Sonic doesn't jump release anyone unless they hit Y during the breaking process and his pummel is too quick to allow it.