Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[XxBlackxX]

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.

no. just don't use DK against D3. is that so hard?
and for the "high-level regions"....and what regions would those be?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

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.

I don't mind that DK is affected tierwise by a single attack as much as I mind the neglect to recognize the significance of the change in tiers.

A player is MUCH more likely to go D3 against DK than Marth against Lucas. Lucas has a character flaw which Marth users can occaionally abuse. D3 has a physics flaw which weak players can abuse against several characters. It is VERY likely that Lucas is better than DK, and it is VERY likely it is entirely because of the D3 infinite.

EDIT: AN, Texas, New York.

 

[XxBlackxX]

I don't mind that DK is affected tierwise by a single attack as much as I mind the neglect to recognize the significance of the change in tiers.

A player is MUCH more likely to go D3 against DK than Marth against Lucas. Lucas has a character flaw which Marth users can occaionally abuse. D3 has a physics flaw which weak players can abuse against several characters. It is VERY likely that Lucas is better than DK, and it is VERY likely it is entirely because of the D3 infinite.

EDIT: AN, Texas, New York.

and just because they have a good amount of great smashers, their decisions must be right? that's just like a different kind of namedropping >_>
and for the stuff in red, your source? don't just spout random info unless you have a source.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Its an appeal to authority.
Great smashers say so therefore it is true, let alone that the An is rather ban happy.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Ness>DK with infinite in brawl.

DK>>>Ness without infinite in brawl.

supertrufax!!

just because DK has 1 horridous (bad spelling sry) matchup doesn't mean he's a bad character overall.

because of the naturre and EASE of the matchup, it actually does make him a bad character

1. 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.

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

1. I KNOW RIGHT!? Inui and Bum are such scrubs...
2. he really, really does.

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

yes, yes they are.

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

CONGRATS, CURSED 5 MAINERS. YOU MAY BE ABLE TO USE YOUR MAIN ONE MATCH PER SET.

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.

but if you are using fox, you are not using DK, and if you can use DK, than he is unusable, and if hes unusable because of one character's one move thannnnn...

 

[The Halloween Captain]

and just because they have a good amount of great smashers, their decisions must be right? that's just like a different kind of namedropping >_>

Actually, no.

I was actually wondering why the regions with the greatest smashers banned the D3 infinite first. Of any regions in which "playing to win" thrives, I would think that the AN would be the last region to ban this type of thing.

 

[XxBlackxX]

1. I KNOW RIGHT!? Inui and Bum are such scrubs...
2. he really, really does.

1. it DOESN'T matter. again, that's just like namedropping. >_> just because they are good doesn't mean they're right. in the case of Bum, it may be a biased ban because he plays an affected character.

2. no i don't. overall, DK>>>>Ness. is he anymore viable? probably not. but does the "unviability" of a character mean it's time to ban? no.

@THC, okay, but does that mean that they're RIGHT?

 

[da K.I.D.]

if they were as ban happy as shadow link would have people think, they would have banned MK by now, and AN is the most adamant keep MK region

that also doesnt explain why Texas banned infinites as well

 

[XxBlackxX]

if they were as ban happy as shadow link would have people think, they would have banned MK by now, and AN is the most adamant keep MK region

that also doesnt explain why Texas banned infinites as well

so because Texas banned it, and Texas has good smashers, the rest of the nation must follow suit!

/sarcasm >_>

 

[da K.I.D.]

1.just because they are good doesn't mean they're right. in the case of Bum, it may be a biased ban because he plays an affected character.

THis is 100% subjective, and is therefore meaningless, inaffective and moot to this debate.

 

[da K.I.D.]

so because Texas banned it, and Texas has good smashers, the rest of the nation must follow suit!

/sarcasm >_>

you are being subjective by assuming my opinion, stop that or leave please

and in teh grand scheme, with the infinite, ness is legitamately a better character in tourneys than DK

 

[The Halloween Captain]

2. no i don't. overall, DK>>>>Ness. is he anymore viable? probably not. but does the "unviability" of a character mean it's time to ban? no.

@THC, okay, but does that mean that they're RIGHT?

EDIT: ignore old comment, we were discussing both. Sorry, Ness is right.

I don't know if the Atlantic North Region is right. If anything, I find their decision inconsistent.

 

[ShadowLink84]

1. I KNOW RIGHT!? Inui and Bum are such scrubs...

Appeal to authority fallacy

2. he really, really does.

And the pro ban sde doesn't overestimate it by making such claims as

yes, yes they are.

This?
Again bowser in melee breaks that idea as do other examples from other competitive games where they end up 9-1.
They still win.
Look at fox vs Pika, 9-1 and he still wins.
Dk who wins tournaments outside the An area where infinite are legal.
Clearly your argument is poor.

CONGRATS, CURSED 5 MAINERS. YOU MAY BE ABLE TO USE YOUR MAIN ONE MATCH PER SET.

Sonic vs MK/Luigi/Wario
I highly doubt you will EVER, use Sonic against someone who is good.
hell they can be a lesser player and they can STILL win.

but if you are using fox, you are not using DK, and if you can use DK, than he is unusable, and if hes unusable because of one character's one move thannnnn...

Fix that bolded part its confusing.

here let me again repeat myself.
Cp system keeps those characters viability.


First round.
Double blind.
Dk vs Olimar Dk wins
Olimar user Cp's: Dk user switches to someone who doesn't get utterly ***** like Lucario, Diddy, Peach etc etc.
Olimar user switches accordingly.
DK user loses.
DK user cp's.
Olimar user switches characters.
DK user uses DK.

Worst case scenario you get to use DK only once per set.
Last I sa, Sonic,CF, Ganondorf,Fox, Link and several other characters typically appear once or twice in a set because of the opponent using a character that hard counters them.


in fact lets just stick with ox since he is the only other 9-1.
yet we see Fox's still placing in spite of that horrid matchup.
Why do you not recognize this fact and the examples I brought before you?
Why do you ignore the fact that the fact you are getting to use DK period means he is viable?

When a character is not viable that means they cannot win, the cannot place, they cannot be played EVER.

you are being subjective by assuming my opinion, stop that or leave please

That is called strawmanning.
Stop spamming the word just because it sounds pretty.

and in teh grand scheme, with the infinite, ness is legitamately a better character in tourneys than DK

gain this is a logical fallacy as I showed with my argument.

THis is 100% subjective, and is therefore meaningless, inaffective and moot to this debate.

It is not subjective, he is calling you out o

n APPEALING TO AUHORITY FALLACY.

Definition of subjective:

1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

The other definition are of no importance.

 

[XxBlackxX]

THis is 100% subjective, and is therefore meaningless, inaffective and moot to this debate.

may be are the key words in there.
anything subjective is meaningless? lol
i think we should all just should posting then.
no argument can be absolutely objective, after all, you are arguing your OPINION, but you must back it up with FACTS. and saying "these regions banned it, they must be right" is a dumb argument.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Appeal to authority fallacy

And the pro ban sde doesn't overestimate it by making such claims as
This?
Again bowser in melee breaks that idea as do other examples from other competitive games where they end up 9-1.
They still win.
Look at fox vs Pika, 9-1 and he still wins.
Dk who wins tournaments outside the An area where infinite are legal.
Clearly your argument is poor.

Sonic vs MK/Luigi/Wario
I highly doubt you will EVER, use Sonic against someone who is good.
hell they can be a lesser player and they can STILL win.



Fix that bolded part its confusing.

here let me again repeat myself.
Cp system keeps those characters viability.


First round.
Double blind.
Dk vs Olimar Dk wins
Olimar user Cp's: Dk user switches to someone who doesn't get utterly ***** like Lucario, Diddy, Peach etc etc.
Olimar user switches accordingly.
DK user loses.
DK user cp's.
Olimar user switches characters.
DK user uses DK.

Worst case scenario you get to use DK only once per set.
Last I sa, Sonic,CF, Ganondorf,Fox, Link and several other characters typically appear once or twice in a set because of the opponent using a character that hard counters them.


in fact lets just stick with ox since he is the only other 9-1.
yet we see Fox's still placing in spite of that horrid matchup.
Why do you not recognize this fact and the examples I brought before you?
Why do you ignore the fact that the fact you are getting to use DK period means he is viable?

When a character is not viable that means they cannot win, the cannot place, they cannot be played EVER.

That is called strawmanning.
Stop spamming the word just because it sounds pretty.

gain this is a logical fallacy as I showed with my argument.


It is not subjective, he is calling you out o

n APPEALING TO AUHORITY FALLACY.

Definition of subjective:

1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
5. Medicine. Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
7. Grammar. Relating to or being the nominative case.
8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

may be are the key words in there.
anything subjective is meaningless? lol
i think we should all just should posting then.
no argument can be absolutely objective, after all, you are arguing your OPINION, but you must back it up with FACTS. and saying "these regions banned it, they must be right" is a dumb argument.

I know you are both anti-ban.

That means you both believe that a ban should be a last resort, only when it reaches one of two conditions
1. It breaks the metagame
2. It overcentralizes the metagame

Behind this criteria is a fundamental priciple for why the conditions of a ban need to be so strict. This principle is entirely practical, and in every way to protect the metagame from harm and self-destruction.

What do you believe this principle to be?

EDIT: please be very certain when you write your answer and include the most important reason that you believe a ban should have such strict limits set upon it.

 

[ShadowLink84]

hope what halloween captain says is worth removing him from my ignore list.

Lookie there it is worth it. It better not lead into anything dub though.

I know you are both anti-ban.

That means you both believe that a ban should be a last resort, only when it reaches one of two conditions
1. It breaks the metagame
2. It overcentralizes the metagame

You are half right.
Number 1 lows into number 2.

Overcentralizing is when the game starts to focus on one aspect or another. The degree to which may vary from person to person but considering we are discussing a ban, we shall assume that the definition entails extreme centralizing.

This centralizing requires two things to occur.

1. The tactic affects a majority of characters. Let us assume 50%
2. The tactic breaks the matchup.

Now in the IC's case we have something that is universal and affects 100% of the characters in the game (ignoring IC's themselves).
However, the IC's infinite grab does not break all the matchups.
So while it is universal, the power of it is not enough to bring about overcentralizing.

in DDDs case the infinite is broken. Broken by definition meaning it is extremely powerful (not ban worthy as you've gone by.
in this case it affects 5 characters (though in truth 1 due to grab breaking but we'll say 5).
Now while DDD's infinite breaks 5 matchups, the majority of characters are unaffected.
So while those characters end up with a terrible matchup, the metagame is unaffected because there are many options available within the metagame that do not have such an issue.

So in the IC's case its not powerful enough.
for DDD's its that it doesn't affect enough.

We must also realize that when it comes to overcentralizing, there are two types.
Overcentralizing by nature This is when the game focuses on that aspect by itself, where eventually you must perform the tactic or choose the character or never be capable of winning. i.e. Akuma.

Then there is overcentralizing outside of nature: Where Overcentralizing is the result of people not the metagame itself. For example where everyone starts choosing Link. it isn't that Link is amazing, its that everyone is picking him.

Behind this criteria is a fundamental priciple for why the conditions of a ban need to be so strict. This principle is entirely practical, and in every way to protect the metagame from harm and self-destruction.

What do you believe this principle to be?

Simple, to remain as objective as possible and to ensure that a slippery slope does not occur. It also aids in ensuring that a ban does not occur too quickly since getting things unbanned is difficult since there is now no true data that can be put forth to argue against the current ban.

This conclusion is also reached even if we were to simply keep games like MTG and SF2 by themselves without an example to wor with.

Eventually the conclusion would be

Akuma needs to be banned.
Why? He is a broken character.
So he is a broken character, so is Old sagat what makes him different.
If you choose Ryu agaisnt Akuma you lose.
You choose Ken and you still lose.
You choose Dhalsim and you still lose. No other character is viable and therefore, you are forced to pick Akuma himself or lose. He nullifies the possibilities of other matchups.

So it falls tot he same criteria.

Now let us say we have a 9-1 matchup cause of a tactic.
Again referring to SF2 we look at E. Honda.
E. Honda goes 9-1 against every other character who has a fireball (except Dhalsim).
Simply because they have a fireball places him at a severe disadvantage.


Now let us say we ban fireball spam. Let us say you can only toss out 3 fireballs or eliminate fireball usage entirely.
You would then be capable of saying that this or that tactic should be banned because of the same issue.
So you ban it as well to remain consistent.
Now E.honda and several other characters are doing better.
However, now several other characters have issues because their tools have been limited and no longer can be played to their fullest extent.
So what do we do about the limit?
We cannot remove it since E. Honda ends up 9-1 against so many people and every other ban would have to be yanked out.
If we keep it there no longer will those characters see play because they are now so limited.
So you end up with the same issue.

Nor can it be inconsistent because then that means anything could be subject to a ban at which point, the metagame becomes unhealthy and the game dies because it has no room to develop or is too arbitrary in its banning to remain stable.

Do bare with me I am not as good at foresight as Adumbrodeus is.

EDIT: please be very sure of yourself and include the most important reason that you believe a ban should have such strict limits set upon it.

Meh I tried.

 

[XxBlackxX]

I know you are both anti-ban.

That means you both believe that a ban should be a last resort, only when it reaches one of two conditions
1. It breaks the metagame
2. It overcentralizes the metagame

Behind this criteria is a fundamental priciple for why the conditions of a ban need to be so strict. This principle is entirely practical, and in every way to protect the metagame from harm and self-destruction.

What do you believe this principle to be?

1. it's be proven to work and work well and is used in almost all competitive gaming communities.
2. the reason for # 1 is to keep the metagame AS a whole healthy. banning things that don't need to be banned discourages the community from dealing with their own problems. it prevents a ban-happy community.
3. there is no such thing as a game without bad matchups or "unviable" characters. even in ssbb, the affected chars are not the only "unviable" ones. therefore, there is no point in "fixing" what's not really broken. (by broken i mean breaking the game as a whole of course).

EDIT: in no particular order.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I KNOW RIGHT!? Inui and Bum are such scrubs.../quote]
1.Appeal to authority fallacy

And the pro ban sde doesn't overestimate it by making such claims as
This?
2. Again bowser in melee breaks that idea as do other examples from other competitive games where they end up 9-1.
They still win.
3. Look at fox vs Pika, 9-1 and he still wins.
4. Dk who wins tournaments outside the An area where infinite are legal.
Clearly your argument is poor.

5. Sonic vs MK/Luigi/Wario
6. I highly doubt you will EVER, use Sonic against someone who is good.
hell they can be a lesser player and they can STILL win.



Fix that bolded part its confusing.

here let me again repeat myself.
Cp system keeps those characters viability.


7.First round.
Double blind.
Dk vs D3 cus the olimar knows the DK player plays DK and knows how to infinite. D3 wins
DK user Cp's: Dk user switches to someone who doesn't get utterly ***** like Lucario, Diddy, Peach etc et.
Olimar user switches accordingly.
DK user loses.

8. Worst case scenario you get to use DK only once per set.
Last I sa, Sonic,CF, Ganondorf,Fox, Link and several other characters typically appear once or twice in a set because of the opponent using a character that hard counters them.


9. in fact lets just stick with ox since he is the only other 9-1.
yet we see Fox's still placing in spite of that horrid matchup.
10. Why do you not recognize this fact and the examples I brought before you?
Why do you ignore the fact that the fact you are getting to use DK period means he is viable?

11. When a character is not viable that means they cannot win, the cannot place, they cannot be played EVER.

1.why is an appeal to authority a fallacy? the authority is an authority and therefore they are mostly right... think for yoursefl instead of throwing other peoples ideas and theorys at this.
2. is there one move or tactic for one character that you could ban that would make bowser high tier?
3. D3 Dk is worse than 90-10. get it through your head.
4. WHERE!?!? SHOW ME NOW!!
5. Not that bad, only looks that bad if you suck, (yes at one point i did suck) and WTF? luigi?!? luigi hasnt been a problem like that since may. where the hell are you getting your info from.
6. You dont know me, id do that match any day. but there is no one move that you could spam with any of those characters that would beat mine or anybody elses thats good's sonic
7. Fixed that up for you
8. Worst case scenario, you never use DK, EVER.
9. Dk D3 is worse than 90-10, get it straight. and for teh record, this point is where ease of play becomes a factor, just saying that its not a factor over and over does not make it true.
10. because your logic, standards, ideals, and analogies are completely wrong and off basis.
11. Those 5 cant


EDIT i spam the word subjective cus adumbrodeus tought me that its the only way to win these arguments.

 

[XxBlackxX]

1.why is an appeal to authority a fallacy? the authority is an authority and therefore they are mostly right... think for yoursefl instead of throwing other peoples ideas and theorys at this.
2. is there one more or tactic for one character that you could ban that would make bowser high tier?
3. D3 Dk is worse than 90-10. get it through your head.
4. WHERE!?!? SHOW ME NOW!!
5. Not that bad, only looks that bad if you suck, (yes at one point i did suck) and WTF? luigi?!? luigi hasnt been a problem like that since may. where the hell are you getting your info from.
6. You dont know me, id do that match any day. but there is no one move that you could spam with any of those characters that would beat mine or anybody elses thats good's sonic
7. Fixed that up for you
8. Worst case scenario, you never use DK, EVER.
9. Dk D3 is worse than 90-10, get it straight. and for teh record, this point is where ease of play becomes a factor, just saying that its not a factor over and over does not make it true.
10. because your logic, standards, ideals, and analogies are completely wrong and off basis.
11. Those 5 cant

1. no. YOU should think for yourself. the "authority" isn't always right.
2. does it matter?
3. does it matter?
6. how "spammable" or "easy" a tactic is is irrelevant to whether it should be banned.
8 true....if they pick D3 every round of the match, but then just CP falco....
9. does it matter?
10. im going to toss your own word back at you : SUBJECTIVE!
11. they CAN if used with alts.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

1. it's be proven to work and work well and is used in almost all competitive gaming communities.
2. the reason for # 1 is to keep the metagame AS a whole healthy. banning things that don't need to be banned discourages the community from dealing with their own problems. it prevents a ban-happy community.
3. there is no such thing as a game without bad matchups or "unviable" characters. even in ssbb, the affected chars are not the only "unviable" ones. therefore, there is no point in "fixing" what's not really broken. (by broken i mean breaking the game as a whole of course).

EDIT: in no particular order.

Reason 1 - this is not the fundamental reason for the rule, but a benefit after the rule was decided.

Reason 2 - Can't really argue with that. That is the principle.

Reason 3 - Actually, it is the lack of a game without "unviable characters" from which arises the desire to aid those characters. This is a reason to ban things.

Reason 2 comes from serlin.net concering the rules for a ban. It is actually somewhat indisputable, as each ban loosens the requirements for a previous ban.

Anyway, why do you think the AN region was so scrubby and decided to ban D3's infinite? It's really inconsistent for the region. I would think of all the regions, the AN region would understand the need to preserve the infinite.

 

[da K.I.D.]

so let me get this straight...

shadow link gives me a situation that proves blacks point,

and tear down his analogy, adn black says that my answer doesnt matter????

now i remember why all i do is come in here all call people on subjectivity

 

[XxBlackxX]

Reason 1 - this is not the fundamental reason for the rule, but a benefit after the rule was decided.

Reason 2 - Can't really argue with that. That is the principle.

Reason 3 - Actually, it is the lack of a game without "unviable characters" from which arises the desire to aid those characters. This is a reason to ban things.

Reason 2 comes from serlin.net concering the rules for a ban. It is actually somewhat indisputable, as each ban loosens the requirements for a previous ban.

Anyway, why do you think the AN region was so scrubby and decided to ban D3's infinite? It's really inconsistent for the region. I would think of all the regions, the AN region would understand the need to preserve the infinite.

ah but your desire for no unviable chars conflicts with rule 2. in order to do that, MANY things would have to be banned.

@dakid

why does the fact that it's worse than 9:1 matter? it STILL doesn't over-centralize. nor does it make DK completely unviable. and how exactly did you tear apart his argument o_o?

EDIT: about the AN thing, that i don't really know.

 

[ShadowLink84]

so let me get this straight...

shadow link gives me a situation that proves blacks point,

and tear down his analogy, adn black says that my answer doesnt matter????

now i remember why all i do is come in here all call people on subjectivity

Why are you bothering with his statements and not the argument?
**** dude come on.

1.why is an appeal to authority a fallacy? the authority is an authority and therefore they are mostly right... think for yoursefl instead of throwing other peoples ideas and theorys at this.

That IS an appeal to authority fallacy right there.
You are saying because the are an authority they are mostly right when them being an authority has not importance at all to the validity of their argument.

If a scientist says grass is green and then a 6 year old child says grass is green, is the scientist automatically right just because he is a scientist?

No. It is a fallacy because his position does not automatically validate his statement.
prove where any renowned scientist was considered correct simply because he was an authority on the matter.

2. is there one move or tactic for one character that you could ban that would make bowser high tier?

I was referring to bowser in melee.
In anycase when did we start banning things so that characters would get into high tier or place better? Thats arbitrary.

3. D3 Dk is worse than 90-10. get it through your head.

1.Even if it were 100-0 life doesn't play out that way.
2.100-0 means the character can do absolutely NOTHING in the matchup which we know is untrue in Dk vs D3. D3 doesn't just hit the grab button and kill him.
even if it were 100-0 that does not change the fact that you have other options and that the CP system retains his viability.

4. WHERE!?!? SHOW ME NOW!!

It is called Ankooku's character ranking thread. Go and check it out. BUM isn't the only Dk that wins (though he is most consistent.

you can also ask Ankoku for Bowser's placement in melee in areas where where infinites are banned to those where it is not.

5. Not that bad, only looks that bad if you suck, (yes at one point i did suck) and WTF? luigi?!? luigi hasnt been a problem like that since may. where the hell are you getting your info from.

I am going along with the overall sentiment Kid are you clueless or something?

I want you to play m2k or Inui with Sonic and win consistently.
Those are bad matches because they have an answer to all of Sonic's options.
That is what characterizes a bad matchup. your opponents character can answer all of our options and counter them.

or you can play futile no wait he quit. Forgot the other wario main i'll think of it in a second.

6. You dont know me,

your point being?

id do that match any day.

Thats nice.
You'd still be a scrub for doing so.
mind you scrub means someone who limits themselves or a.k.a. doesn't play to win.

but there is no one move that you could spam with any of those characters that would beat mine or anybody elses thats good's sonic

Never said they have just one move dude. They have several moves that answer ALL of Sonic's options. They can exploit his weaknesses very well.

7. Fixed that up for you

Don't edit my post smart one.
let alone youflat out IGNORED what I said about that issue.

8. Worst case scenario, you never use DK, EVER.

Prove you are never in a position to use DK without the opponent compromising their own character in the process.

9. Dk D3 is worse than 90-10, get it straight.

I have yet to hear why this is true other than lol infinite.

and for teh record, this point is where ease of play becomes a factor, just saying that its not a factor over and over does not make it true.

Let me clarify since apparently we are running on different definitions.
When i state wase of play i am referring to ease of performance.
As in once you land the CG and then consistently perform it afterwards.
Ease of use is when someone can just shield grab you in every situation which I haven't ignored.
So its more of an error in communication on my part.

10. because your logic, standards, ideals, and analogies are completely wrong and off basis.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true.
back up your claims since i have yet to see you do so.

11. Those 5 cant

So they can't use an alt and you're totally not allowed to CP .
Youre just being stubborn.

EDIT i spam the word subjective cus adumbrodeus tought me that its the only way to win these arguments.

Don't give a **** Kid. Speak properly or I'll just place you on ignore until you say something worth while.

Anyway, why do you think the AN region was so scrubby and decided to ban D3's infinite? It's really inconsistent for the region. I would think of all the regions, the AN region would understand the need to preserve the infinite.

Not really, they banned most infinites in melee as well. They are not as conservative as other regions.

 

[SkylerOcon]

One day, a young boy named SkylerOcon wanted to go to a Super Smash Brothers Tournament. Gathering up his trusty gamecube controller, he went off!

Being one of the few people who have balls big enough to main Mario, he was prepared to cape everybody in the tournament! But much to his surprise, everybody kept on using Dedede against him!

SkylerOcon didn't find this fair. Why should his main be made unviable by people who only have to take 10 minutes to learn how to infinite him with a fat penguin that sits on things? That made no sense! It would be much easier to ban this infinite from tournaments, so that his Mario could once again have a chance in tournaments!

tl;dr

Dedede's infinite is to easy to learn and influences match-ups to the point where it's near impossible to win. I really don't want to have to switch my main to Kirby just because of a fat penguin that sits on things.

 

[da K.I.D.]

@black
that wasnt my point

im done trying, people are too hard headed
EDIT skyler is amazing

 

[The Halloween Captain]

ah but your desire for no unviable chars conflicts with rule 2. in order to do that, MANY things would have to be banned.

@dakid

why does the fact that it's worse than 9:1 matter? it STILL doesn't over-centralize. nor does it make DK completely unviable. and how exactly did you tear apart his argument o_o?

EDIT: about the AN thing, that i don't really know.

Why does making DK completely unviable matter so much? He could be completely unviable and totally useless due to a single move, along with the other four, by the esablished criteria. There still wouldn't be a need for a ban.

Note: please recognize that the D3 matchups are far worse than you are describing them. However, this is not a problem, as character viability does not matter under the current criteria for a ban.

The AN thing bothers me because the least scrubby players in the nation, most notably Mew2King, who could obviously pull off the infinite, choose not to allow it. While D3's infinite may not be bannable, it may be noteworthy that if all the characters had D3's qualities, the game would no longer be playable in it's current system, as counterpicking would guarentee the win for the loser of the previous match.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Why are you bothering with his statements and not the argument?
**** dude come on.

actually, he is just strawmanning me, tossing around words like subjective because he cant counter me.
what i said is true... why does the fact that ONE matchup is hell, even if it's 100-0, make the character COMPLETELY unviable?

 

[XxBlackxX]

Why does making DK completely unviable matter so much? He could be completely unviable and totally useless due to a single move, along with the other four, by the esablished criteria. There still wouldn't be a need for a ban.

Note: please recognize that the D3 matchups are far worse than you are describing them. However, this is not a problem, as character viability does not matter under the current criteria for a ban.

The AN thing bothers me because the least scrubby players in the nation, most notably Mew2King, who could obviously pull off the infinite, choose not to allow it. While D3's infinite may not be bannable, it may be noteworthy that if all the characters had D3's qualities, the game would no longer be playable in it's current system, as counterpicking would guarentee the win for the loser of the previous match.

no, whether DK is unviable or not doesn't matter. but dakid was being stubborn and arguing about it.

and the stuff in red is all theorycrafting. sure, that's what MIGHT happen, but it didn't.

and sure, M2K is the least scrubby of all players, does that mean he is always right? no.

maybe it would be nice to hear some AN players in this thread other than inui, whose reasoning is "it makes those characters unviable".

One day, a young boy named SkylerOcon wanted to go to a Super Smash Brothers Tournament. Gathering up his trusty gamecube controller, he went off!

Being one of the few people who have balls big enough to main Mario, he was prepared to cape everybody in the tournament! But much to his surprise, everybody kept on using Dedede against him!

SkylerOcon didn't find this fair. Why should his main be made unviable by people who only have to take 10 minutes to learn how to infinite him with a fat penguin that sits on things? That made no sense! It would be much easier to ban this infinite from tournaments, so that his Mario could once again have a chance in tournaments!

tl;dr

Dedede's infinite is to easy to learn and influences match-ups to the point where it's near impossible to win. I really don't want to have to switch my main to Kirby just because of a fat penguin that sits on things.

you said you have the balls to main mario, so man up, stop whining, and pick alts!

 

[ShadowLink84]

Why does making DK completely unviable matter so much? He could be completely unviable and totally useless due to a single move, along with the other four, by the esablished criteria. There still wouldn't be a need for a ban.

Except he isn't and there have been no supported arguments for stating why they are.

Note: please recognize that the D3 matchups are far worse than you are describing them. However, this is not a problem, as character viability does not matter under the current criteria for a ban.

I am addressing the issue separately THC.

The AN thing bothers me because the least scrubby players in the nation, most notably Mew2King, who could obviously pull off the infinite, choose not to allow it. While D3's infinite may not be bannable, it may be noteworthy that if all the characters had D3's qualities, the game would no longer be playable in it's current system, as counterpicking would guarentee the win for the loser of the previous match.

Don't know ask him yourself dude.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Why are you bothering with his statements and not the argument?
**** dude come on.



That IS an appeal to authority fallacy right there.
You are saying because the are an authority they are mostly right when them being an authority has not importance at all to the validity of their argument.

If a scientist says grass is green and then a 6 year old child says grass is green, is the scientist automatically right just because he is a scientist?

No. It is a fallacy because his position does not automatically validate his statement.
prove where any renowned scientist was considered correct simply because he was an authority on the matter.
1. how is it a fallacy when the authority came to the correct conclusion, find a dictionary brah. 2. i didnt NEVER SAID 'AUTOMATICALLY'. EVER. I said more likely.
I was referring to bowser in melee.
so was i
In anycase when did we start banning things so that characters would get into high tier or place better? Thats arbitrary.
it was referencing the fact that you could ban one simple broken move and dk would be better, you compared this to bowser, adn i said that doesnt work because you cant ban one simple tech to make him better.

1.Even if it were 100-0 life doesn't play out that way.
2.100-0 means the character can do absolutely NOTHING in the matchup which we know is untrue in Dk vs D3. D3 doesn't just hit the grab button and kill him.
even if it were 100-0 that does not change the fact that you have other options and that the CP system retains his viability.
SUBJECTION!!

It is called Ankooku's character ranking thread. Go and check it out. BUM isn't the only Dk that wins (though he is most consistent.
Just like I said in that thread, if a DK wins, and that infinite isnt banned, than the region sucks.
you can also ask Ankoku for Bowser's placement in melee in areas where where infinites are banned to those where it is not.

I am going along with the overall sentiment Kid are you clueless or something?

I want you to play m2k or Inui with Sonic and win consistently.
Those are bad matches because they have an answer to all of Sonic's options.
That is what characterizes a bad matchup. your opponents character can answer all of our options and counter them.
M2K is better than me, its a bad match but nowhere near the level that you think it is. you can even ask inui what he thinks the sonic/mk match ratio is.

or you can play futile no wait he quit. Forgot the other wario main i'll think of it in a second.

your point being?
Thats nice.
You'd still be a scrub for doing so.
mind you scrub means someone who limits themselves or a.k.a. doesn't play to win.
you play sonic too, and the word scrub has subjective interpretations to its meaning...
Never said they have just one move dude. They have several moves that answer ALL of Sonic's options. They can exploit his weaknesses very well.
but one move is what D3 does, im staying on topic with the issue at hand you need ot keep up
Please continue editting my post, you are so smart.
let alone youflat out IGNORED what I said about that issue.
it was subjective, it deserved my ignorance. oh and no problem, anytime.
Prove you are never in a position to use DK without the opponent compromising their own character in the process.

I have yet to hear why this is true other than lol infinite.

you dont need any other reason... except grab range.
Let me clarify since apparently we are running on different definitions.
When i state wase of play i am referring to ease of performance.
As in once you land the CG and then consistently perform it afterwards.
Ease of use is when someone can just shield grab you in every situation which I haven't ignored.
So its more of an error in communication on my part.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true.
back up your claims since i have yet to see you do so.

So they can't use an alt and you're totally not allowed to CP .
Youre just being stubborn.

and your being subjective
Don't give a **** Kid. Speak properly or I'll just place you on ignore until you say something worth while.

"properly" in your mind is opinion and therefore subjective.

They are not as conservative as other regions.

thats your opinion

 

[da K.I.D.]

actually, he is just strawmanning me, tossing around words like subjective because he cant counter me.
that is your opinion, please stop beign subjective.
what i said is true... why does the fact that ONE matchup is hell, even if it's 100-0, make the character COMPLETELY unviable?

cus everyone can do it, thats why ease of use becomes a factor

 

[XxBlackxX]

dakid stop using the word subjective like it's the infinite. it doesn't give you an auto-win on debates >_>

EDIT: are you saying YOUR side of the debate ISN'T being subjective? that's BS. if i wanted to, i could list every subjective phrase in your posts. but i don't because it's useless and you'll just strawman me again.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

no, whether DK is unviable or not doesn't matter. but dakid was being stubborn and arguing about it.

and the stuff in red is all theorycrafting. sure, that's what MIGHT happen, but it didn't.

and sure, M2K is the least scrubby of all players, does that mean he is always right? no.

maybe it would be nice to hear some AN players in this thread other than inui, whose reasoning is "it makes those characters unviable".



you said you have the balls to main mario, so man up, stop whining, and pick alts!

If all the characters had D3's DK matchup against five other characters, and each character was covered at least once, then the game would be unplayable. This is theory crafting. This is also true.

 

[XxBlackxX]

If all the characters had D3's DK matchup against five other characters, and each character was covered at least once, then the game would be unplayable. This is theory crafting. This is also true.

but it also doesn't prove anything/add anything to your argument.

 

[da K.I.D.]

dakid stop using the word subjective like it's the infinite. it doesn't give you an auto-win on debates >_>
so you admit that the infinite gives a 100-0 auto win?
EDIT: are you saying YOUR side of the debate ISN'T being subjective? that's BS. if i wanted to, i could list every subjective phrase in your posts. but i don't because it's useless and you'll just strawman me again.

never said that, go ahead, do it, be my guest, it actually makes talking to people on this thread way less headache inducing. lol @ subjective infinite recursion

just be warned, im just about a pro at this, and i bet i can point out more subjectivity than you.

p.s. your post was subjective.

 

[XxBlackxX]

never said that, go ahead, do it, be my guest, it actually makes talking to people on this thread way less headache inducing. subjective lol @ subjective infinite recursion

just be warned, im just about a pro at this, and i bet i can point out more subjectivity than you. subjective

p.s. your post was subjective.and so was this

lulz.

10subjectives

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Shadowlink, XxBlackxX, while I understand that what you say may technically be true, I don't understand how you can stomach saying it. Even though I think I agree with you on the criteria for a ban - I cannot defend D3's infinite. The principles are right, but you two and your matchup theory crafting is in many cases an underestimation of a factor far more significant than you believe it is. Do not tell Mario mains to man up so that some D3 user can make a quick buck off them at tournaments. Tell them to find a new main, and use Mario as a secondary. Please, PLEASE, DO NOT underestimate D3's HUGE advantage in these matchups, and DO NOT underestimate how significantly it affects the characters metagames. Because right now, you are not convincing me that you actually understand the significance of D3's infinite to these five characters.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Shadowlink, XxBlackxX, while I understand that what you say may technically be true, I don't understand how you can stomach saying it. Even though I think I agree with you on the criteria for a ban - I cannot defend D3's infinite. The principles are right, but you two and your matchup theory crafting is in many cases an underestimation of a factor far more significant than you believe it is. Do not tell Mario mains to man up so that some D3 user can make a quick buck off them at tournaments. Tell them to find a new main, and use Mario as a secondary. Please, PLEASE, DO NOT underestimate D3's HUGE advantage in these matchups, and DO NOT underestimate how significantly it affects the characters metagames. Because right now, you are not convincing me that you actually understand the significance of D3's infinite to these five characters.

i said man up and picks alts. not man up and use only mario. shadowlink stated how it's possible to play as mario at least one round per match unless vs. a D3 main, in which case learn falco and use him.
ok let's pretend that the matchups were actually 100-0s. does this change any of the things related to ban criteria and how ICG's don't fit it?

EDIT: i got to go.

 

[ShadowLink84]

kid this is the only time I am respond to you when you quote in such a method and in such terrible font.
Do it again and I'll just ignore the posts.

1. how is it a fallacy when the authority came to the correct conclusion, find a dictionary brah. 2. i didnt NEVER SAID 'AUTOMATICALLY'. EVER. I said more likely.

Read my posts.
1. Appealing to authority is when someone assumes the person is correct because they are an authoritative figure. It has nothing to do with them reaching a correct conclusion nor did they reach the correct conclusion just because they are an authoritative figure.
2. Stop strawmanning or read my posts. I never claimed you did. I gave you why its an appeal to authority is bad and why you trying to actually jstufy it is wrong.

so was i

Dk doesn't fall out of high tier just because of one terrible matchup. That isn't how tierlists work period.

it was referencing the fact that you could ban one simple broken move and dk would be better, you compared this to bowser, adn i said that doesnt work because you cant ban one simple tech to make him better.

In what way?
His one terrible matchup does NOT affect the rest of his matchups in ANY way.
how does banning the matchup make him place better when he still has to deal with every other character?

SUBJECTION!!

You cannot speak English correctly suddenly.

Just like I said in that thread, if a DK wins, and that infinite isnt banned, than the region sucks.

Thats it? you're not gonna bother with my examples like bowser in melee?
Look at gimpyfish's placement with bowser.

M2K is better than me, its a bad match but nowhere near the level that you think it is. you can even ask inui what he thinks the sonic/mk match ratio is.

don't care what individual people think dude.
Prove your statements.

you play sonic too, and the word scrub has subjective interpretations to its meaning...

Subjective has subjective interpretations to its meaning. OHHH SHEEEET!

but one move is what D3 does, im staying on topic with the issue at hand you need ot keep up

you're strawmanning is what you are doing or you're not understanding.
D3's infinite is the answer to DK's options.
Its a factor in the matchup.

it was subjective, it deserved my ignorance. oh and no problem, anytime.

*sigh* Kid you're just making yourself look stupid.

you dont need any other reason... except grab range.

Sonic goes 100-0 against DDD since he can grab him out of everything.
Shenanigans!

and your being subjective

What dialect of English are you speaking?

properly" in your mind is opinion and therefore subjective.

Your idea that the infinite should be banned is opinion and therefore is subjective.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

i said man up and picks alts. not man up and use only mario. shadowlink stated how it's possible to play as mario at least one round per match unless vs. a D3 main, in which case learn falco and use him.
ok let's pretend that the matchups were actually 100-0s. does this change any of the things related to ban criteria and how ICG's don't fit it?

Nope, but it makes you sound like you know the matchup.

What's wrong with MK as an alt? MK is an awesome character. We need more MK's. Besides, these mainers need a good pickup and play character if we are going to make it impossible to win with their main.

If you are in a tournament and your main is Mario with the infinite allowed, you should never be able to defeat a D3 mainer of relative skill. This is because a D3 mainer is more familiar with his main than you are with your secondary, that is why his is a main, and yours is a secondary. Whatever you counter D3 with must be a REALLY hard counter, as you need to make up for the fact that you aren't using your main.

If you have two characters which you possess equal knowledge of, your set. the only problem is you become a "Mario and Falco" main, or a "Mario and MK" main, not a Mario main.

No one should EVER main a character that can be infinited by D3 as a primary, because they should rarely at best defeat a good D3. Besides, even if your secondary can beat their D3, they WILL have a secondary to counter their weakness against Falco. It's part of maining a character with hard counters.