Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[ShadowLink84]

THC usually secondaries are slightly lesser than the mains people used.
They are not that much worse.

Or you can choose Olimar and Diddy Kong.

 

[bobson]

Dk who wins tournaments outside the An area where infinite are legal.

When has this ever happened?

 

[ShadowLink84]

When has this ever happened?

TOURNAMENT: Gameware Monthly #1
LINK: http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=177487
DATE: June 20, 2008
LOCALE: Southwest
ENTRANTS: 40
ENTRY: $4.00
RESULTS:
1 Cyphus (Donkey Kong)
2 Lee (Ike/Meta Knight)
3 Taylor (Marth)
4 Sudai (ROB)
5 David (Snake)
5 Vaughn (Zelda)
7 Hon (Wolf)
7 Donald (Pit)

TOURNAMENT: Alabama Brawl
LINK: http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=173910
DATE: June 28, 2008
LOCALE: Atlantic South
ENTRANTS: 22
ENTRY: $15.00
RESULTS:
1 Will (Donkey Kong/Meta Knight)
2 Pr0t0 (Mr. Game & Watch/Wolf)
3 George (Kirby/Donkey Kong)
4 DanGR (Olimar)
5 Phantom (King Dedede/Meta Knight)
5 Duchock (Ness)
7 Dais (Samus)
7 Solid (Kirby)

TOURNAMENT: Essence Weekend Tournament
LINK: http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=180919
DATE: July 06th, 2008
LOCALE: Southwest
ENTRANTS: 36
ENTRY: $10.00
RESULTS:
1 Cyphus (Ice Climbers/Donkey Kong)
1 Lee (Meta Knight/Snake)
3 Cluck (Meta Knight)
4 David (Snake)
5 Rezze (ROB)
5 John Wu (Lucario/Falco)
7 Loki (Meta Knight)
7 Battosai (Marth)

TOURNAMENT: Ninja Monkey Tournament
LINK: http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=165954&page=90
DATE: July 15th, 2008
LOCALE: Southwest
ENTRANTS: 22
ENTRY: $10.00
RESULTS:
1 GoldenGlove (Donkey Kong)
2 Sinz (Snake)
3 Dekar (Ness)
4 Erich (Lucario)
5 AJ (Pit)
5 AX (Pit)
7 ZMan (Lucas)
7 JT (Ike)

TOURNAMENT: JCCC Brawl Tournament 2
LINK: http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=4997377#post4997377
DATE: July 26th, 2008
LOCALE: Midwest
ENTRANTS: 32
ENTRY: $10.00
RESULTS:
1 darkrain (Donkey Kong)
2 Karmacide (Snake)
3 Goat (Meta Knight)
4 Clel (Marth)
5 Duck (ROB)
5 Affinity (Meta Knight)
7 Nynja (Diddy Kong)
7 8bit (Kirby)

TOURNAMENT: Play N Trade
LINK: http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=5026334#post5026334
DATE: July 26th, 2008
LOCALE: Atlantic South
ENTRANTS: 19
ENTRY: $15.00
RESULTS:
1 Will_ (Meta Knight/Donkey Kong)
2 Moogle (Fox)
3 theONEjanitor (Snake/SheikZelda/Diddy Kong)
4 Pr0+0 (Mr. Game & Watch/Wolf)
5 popsofctown (SheikZelda/Sheik/Zelda)
5 GeorgeTHPS (Kirby)
7 Duchok (Ness)
7 Doren (Zelda)

TOURNAMENT: Cyber Arena III
LINK: http://allisbrawl.com/ttournament.aspx?id=1782
DATE: July 27th, 2008
LOCALE: Midwest
ENTRANTS: 16
ENTRY: $10.00
RESULTS:
1 infernohit (Donkey Kong/Mr. Game & Watch)
2 Chompy (Diddy Kong)
3 Ryzen Xia (Falco)
4 Thom (Olimar)
5 MachinegunNorm (ROB)
5 Princess Aura (Zelda/Toon Link)
7 Mike Braunstein (Snake/Marth)
7 Brush (Marth

There are more if you want them.

So the infinite does not make DK unviable nor stops him from winning.

 

[da K.I.D.]

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.
i did it on purpose so that you WOULDNT RESPOND...

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.
in that case i dont care because as long as they come up with the correct conclusion it doesnt matter how qualified they are. it just so happens that more qualified people have a better chance of coming up to the right conclusion.
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.
an absolute appeal to authority is what you are trying to discredit, a partial appeal to authority is what im using. thats where the disconnect is.

Dk doesn't fall out of high tier just because of one terrible matchup. That isn't how tierlists work period.
subjective. you arent in the sbr, you dont know.
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?
in this situation, he only has to deal with that one character that he cant deal with.
You cannot speak English correctly suddenly.
Thats it? you're not gonna bother with my examples like bowser in melee?
Look at gimpyfish's placement with bowser.
been there done that, you ignored it.

don't care what individual people think dude.
Prove your statements.
prove you arent subjective.

Subjective has subjective interpretations to its meaning. OHHH SHEEEET!
but the definition of subjective is objective.
OH SNAP!!

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.
An overreaching over powered factor. IDC could have been a factor as well.

*sigh* Kid you just keep making me look incredibly stupid.
*shrug* its a gift... and a curse...

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

What dialect of English are you speaking?
t3h 1337 $p34k 0f /-/4X0rs. G37 47 /\/\3!!1one!
Your idea that the infinite should be banned is opinion and therefore is subjective.

your opinion that it shouldnt is also subjective and meaningless.

OH SNAP.

P.S. none of those result are within the last 4.5 months. lol and im going to pull the "those guys suck" card. on abotu half of those tourneys.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Edit: Whatever you say Kid.

 

[da K.I.D.]

pointing out subjection, and correcting misconceptions are the only way to debate, ask adumbrodeus.

p.s. your post was subjective, and pointless.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Anways the argument for those characters becoming completely unviable due to the infinite has not been justified and even if it were true, really has no reflection on this debate.

The requirements just haven't been fulfilled and it would be arbitrary to make such a ban when you have the ability to break the grab.

 

[da K.I.D.]

lol nobody cares about this anymore, hopefully ive scared everyone off.

 

[Mocha19]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_vNhLYW_e4&feature=related

 

[Kitamerby]

Here's some food for thought.

What makes DDD more important than the other 5? Why is it so important to DDD so that he has an instant win against characters he would normally beat otherwise? If you pull the whole "It only works on 5 characters" card, then you have to think about it in reverse. There's only one King Dedede, and 5 characters who suffer. Shouldn't you go with the majority?

 

[Uffe]

It's probably already been said, but I don't really feel like reading through 196 pages. If you're going to ban a chain grab, ban the Ice Climbers' chain grab first.

 

[Samsquamptch]

It's probably already been said, but I don't really feel like reading through 196 pages. If you're going to ban a chain grab, ban the Ice Climbers' chain grab first.

There are a few reasons this doesn't come up:

1. Its much easier for DDD to land a grab than it is for the ICs.

2. DDD's is much easier to pull off, you have a high margin of error and very little finesse needs to be put into any of the motions.

3. ICs' CGs give them a moderate boost in almost every match-up, while DDD's gives him essentially a ridiculous advantage in all of the match-ups being discussed.

Overall, the ICs' CG gives them a boost in the standings while not significantly lowering any other characters' and DDD's CG makes it almost impossible for any of the affected characters to beat DDD (who is a fairly common character in tournaments).

 

[-Wolfy-]

It's all repeat arguments, I wish the SBR would just figure something out. It's useless to argue over something that's so subjective.

 

[Yuna]

The forum randomly marked all threads as read. So I won't be backtracking and reading anything written since my last post in here. Sorry. If anything requires my attention, link me to it.

There are a few reasons this doesn't come up:

1. Its much easier for DDD to land a grab than it is for the ICs.

2. DDD's is much easier to pull off, you have a high margin of error and very little finesse needs to be put into any of the motions.

3. ICs' CGs give them a moderate boost in almost every match-up, while DDD's gives him essentially a ridiculous advantage in all of the match-ups being discussed.

Overall, the ICs' CG gives them a boost in the standings while not significantly lowering any other characters' and DDD's CG makes it almost impossible for any of the affected characters to beat DDD (who is a fairly common character in tournaments).

The problem with this is that almost every single one of the arguments against DDD's chaingrabs apply to IC's, except for the one you just mentioned. IC's are just harder to actually get a grab in with (nobody (credible) cares if it's technically hard to pull off, it is humanly possible. People will and have learned it).

And that argument is up against "It's just 5 matchups (D3 himself does not count as it doesn't somehow make him a himself 100-0:er)". It's just a weapon to vaporize 5 characters (out of 35/39) out of 5 matchups (out of 780). Plenty of characters face ridiculous match-ups. Few face ones as ridiculous as these, but Melee NTSC Sheik vs. Bowser springs to mind.

We don't ban things to magically make characters better. They were designed that way. They are bad characters because of it. The things up for a ban does not over-centralize the game, thus it is not "too good" enough to ban.

The rest of the incessent drivel all applies to IC's infinites, like "One grab = Death" and "Can be used to stall!" and any other of the arguments against D3's infinites.

 

[Surri-Sama]

The forum randomly marked all threads as read. So I won't be backtracking and reading anything written since my last post in here. Sorry. If anything requires my attention, link me to it.


The problem with this is that almost every single one of the arguments against DDD's chaingrabs apply to IC's, except for the one you just mentioned. IC's are just harder to actually get a grab in with (nobody (credible) cares if it's technically hard to pull off, it is humanly possible. People will and have learned it).

And that argument is up against "It's just 5 matchups (D3 himself does not count as it doesn't somehow make him a himself 100-0:er)". It's just a weapon to vaporize 5 characters (out of 35/39) out of 5 matchups (out of 780). Plenty of characters face ridiculous match-ups. Few face ones as ridiculous as these, but Melee NTSC Sheik vs. Bowser springs to mind.

We don't ban things to magically make characters better. They were designed that way. They are bad characters because of it. The things up for a ban does not over-centralize the game, thus it is not "too good" enough to ban.

The rest of the incessent drivel all applies to IC's infinites, like "One grab = Death" and "Can be used to stall!" and any other of the arguments against D3's infinites.

your wrong, simply because your posting on this thread, dun talk to dah noobs!

your food keeps them alive D: (btw you're actually right, just dont expect people to understand)

 

[Diddyknight]

ignore post
, read wrong post and posted for the worng thing

 

[~ Gheb ~]

The forum randomly marked all threads as read. So I won't be backtracking and reading anything written since my last post in here. Sorry. If anything requires my attention, link me to it.


The problem with this is that almost every single one of the arguments against DDD's chaingrabs apply to IC's, except for the one you just mentioned. IC's are just harder to actually get a grab in with (nobody (credible) cares if it's technically hard to pull off, it is humanly possible. People will and have learned it).

And that argument is up against "It's just 5 matchups (D3 himself does not count as it doesn't somehow make him a himself 100-0:er)". It's just a weapon to vaporize 5 characters (out of 35/39) out of 5 matchups (out of 780). Plenty of characters face ridiculous match-ups. Few face ones as ridiculous as these, but Melee NTSC Sheik vs. Bowser springs to mind.

We don't ban things to magically make characters better. They were designed that way. They are bad characters because of it. The things up for a ban does not over-centralize the game, thus it is not "too good" enough to ban.

The rest of the incessent drivel all applies to IC's infinites, like "One grab = Death" and "Can be used to stall!" and any other of the arguments against D3's infinites.

So if the ICs infinites ever turn out to be a problem and have to be banned because it's too good, would you ban D3s infinite as well?

 

[ShadowLink84]

So if the ICs infinites ever turn out to be a problem and has to be banned because it's too good, would you ban D3s infinite as well?

No. The DDD infinite would have to affect a great majority of characters in order to fulfill a ban. If its only broken on 5 it doesn't affect enough characters to cause overcentralizing.
The requirements would still not be fulfilled for DDD.
If he affected every character it is understandable since you're being forced to choose DDD in order to have a chance of winning.

IC's are too weak.
DDD's doesn't affect enough.

They both are missing that one requirement.
Edit: Broke my quote sorry about it.

 

[da K.I.D.]

The forum randomly marked all threads as read. So I won't be backtracking and reading anything written since my last post in here. Sorry. If anything requires my attention, link me to it.


The problem with this is that almost every single one of the arguments against DDD's chaingrabs apply to IC's, except for the one you just mentioned. IC's are just harder to actually get a grab in with (nobody (credible) cares if it's technically hard to pull off, it is humanly possible. People will and have learned it).

And that argument is up against "It's just 5 matchups (D3 himself does not count as it doesn't somehow make him a himself 100-0:er)". It's just a weapon to vaporize 5 characters (out of 35/39) out of 5 matchups (out of 780). Plenty of characters face ridiculous match-ups. Few face ones as ridiculous as these, but Melee NTSC Sheik vs. Bowser springs to mind.

We don't ban things to magically make characters better. They were designed that way. They are bad characters because of it. The things up for a ban does not over-centralize the game, thus it is not "too good" enough to ban.

The rest of the incessent drivel all applies to IC's infinites, like "One grab = Death" and "Can be used to stall!" and any other of the arguments against D3's infinites.

yuna, I believe this requires your IMMEDIATE ATTENTION.

It's useless to argue over something that's so subjective.

look at this quote and take a good minute to think about it.

 

[Yuna]

So if the ICs infinites ever turn out to be a problem and have to be banned because it's too good, would you ban D3s infinite as well?

I'll ban either or ban if either or both ever turn out to be "too good". Neither are the moment by "my" standards, though.

yuna, I believe this requires your IMMEDIATE ATTENTION.

look at this quote and take a good minute to think about it.

I believe you should re-read my posts for the, I don't know, first time ever.

I am perfectly aware of many things in this thread being subjective. In fact, The Halloween Captain and me even debated why certain groups lean towards certain opinions.

Why should we not debate something subjective? We might just change people's minds, enlightened the ignorant, come up with a compromise (not likely in this particular case, though). Some people have actually stated that they have changed positions after reading the arguments in this thread.

A lot of the things on SWF is subjective. It's never stopped us from debating them before.

What is meaningless, however, is debating against people who dismiss other standpoints immediately as soon as they disagree with their own. I provide reasoning for why I think people's standpoints are wrong. Many just go "I am right! Despite my juniority when it comes to Competitive Smash and Competitive gaming and my limited knowledge of the metagame, I must obviously know enough to make calls as important as these and who cares what the more learned in the ways of Smash and Competitive gaming think and say? My opinion is the only one relevant!".

Those are the people I will argue. If I'm still arguing against you, I will have judged you to at least be redeemable (if not reasonable or actually intelligent, if not misguided).

 

[Sesshomuronay]

I think the problem is what people think is ok to ban and what is unfair.

In my opinion it should be banned because Dedede doesnt really need it. I mean there would be no bad side to banning it other than these characters becoming more tourney viable. Dedede would still have good matchups vs most of them its just Dedede might actually have to use a slight amount of skill to win.

 

[M.K]

I think the problem is what people think is ok to ban and what is unfair.

In my opinion it should be banned because Dedede doesnt really need it. I mean there would be no bad side to banning it other than these characters becoming more tourney viable. Dedede would still have good matchups vs most of them its just Dedede might actually have to use a slight amount of skill to win.

Marth doesn't need the tipper to KO.

Meta-Knight doesn't need Shuttle Loop to recover.

Wario doesn't need his Bike to recover.

See? It doesn't work like that.
It's 5 ****ing characters. Just counterpick that **** and stop whining.

 

[Sesshomuronay]

The thing is you can DI or dodge those techniques. Against the infinate once he grabs you there is NOTHING you can do to try to escape except punch your opponent in the face.

Your argument is dumb.

 

[ShadowLink84]

The thing is you can DI or dodge those techniques. Against the infinate once he grabs you there is NOTHING you can do to try to escape except punch your opponent in the face.

irrelevant. Death combo DK had on Fox in melee was inescapable once it had started. You can DI all you want and you would still be screwed as Bowser would be with the infinite CG sheik had on him.

Your argument is dumb.

Your argument is even worse.
Just because your opponent loses control because of their own error doesn't mean the other player should be punished for punishing the person who made the error.

in Guilty Gear there are numerous combos that take an opponents control away from them and can take off 1/2 a bar when done correctly.
ban anything that removes control from the player?

Oh and last I saw, you can spotdodge the grab or use projectiles to avoid it. Dk and bowser are hit hardest but they can break out by mashing buttons and even if the could not, it still wouldn't matter because it does not overcentralize the game.

 

[adumbrodeus]

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.

I understand what you're saying, but effectively speaking, a hard counter is a hard counter. And popular hard counters are what renders a character nonviable.

While, in these match-ups, it would be significant, but in regards to the entire metagame, it wouldn't be.

Your argument that we should create a new exception is unconvincing only because it the effect isn't great enough to warrant it in this case, nor realistically, in any foreseeable case. The damage is just too isolated.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned.html

Technically, the stage bans were wrong. The Smash Back Room was much too strick in deciding what stages deserved the ban hammer, because while many of them altered the rules of the game, not all of them really broke it. For example, Super Mario Bros. is totally legit. You cannot dodge forever, because the turtles give your opponent a long-range non-shieldable projectile. The game does not become "pick here and lose." And the random elements are fairly predictable - You'd have to be blind to not see a turtle coming.

Actually, that's not true

Immediately Ban-worthy Glitches

There are some things so extreme that they can be banned without much testing. These include glitches that crash the game or have radical effects, such as blanking out the opponent’s entire screen, removing his characters, units, or resources from the game, and so forth. Glitches so extreme that they undeniably end or prevent gameplay are worthy of being banned. Likewise, so are glitches that are not equally available to all players. Some glitches in a two player game can only be performed by player 2. It is reasonable to ban such a tactic, even if it’s not overly powerful, just on the basis that all players do not have equal access to it.

Intrusion is a factor, in this case we're dealing with intrusion that isn't brought forth by a glitch, but by a stage. I imagine that this isn't generally dealt with because in most games, the intrusion isn't so great, but it is the case.

However, a lot of stages do legitimately overcentralize. Any stage where you can circle-stall means "pick this or lose". Also, anyone "DDD can chaingrab" means a very significant portion of the cast, enough to merit a ban.

So, stages bans are GENERALLY legit.

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.

The exact same problems are presented here. You can never get away from the issue that in a real life game, the "players" are not the coaches, they are the players. Unless you put a computer chip in peoples' head that remove their free will, and they absolutely follow the coaches' commands. Even if the players have the free option of ignoring the coaches, they are still independent actors.

The players are who we are concerned about, not the coaches. The coaches just make the players play better.


Also, this edit doesn't even attempt to address the other problems I brought up, the "outside interference" problem (because it's still something outside the scope of competition that affects it, akin to a map hack, which incidentally is the reason steroids are banned) and the unequal access issue.

The forum randomly marked all threads as read. So I won't be backtracking and reading anything written since my last post in here. Sorry. If anything requires my attention, link me to it.


The problem with this is that almost every single one of the arguments against DDD's chaingrabs apply to IC's, except for the one you just mentioned. IC's are just harder to actually get a grab in with (nobody (credible) cares if it's technically hard to pull off, it is humanly possible. People will and have learned it).

And that argument is up against "It's just 5 matchups (D3 himself does not count as it doesn't somehow make him a himself 100-0:er)". It's just a weapon to vaporize 5 characters (out of 35/39) out of 5 matchups (out of 780). Plenty of characters face ridiculous match-ups. Few face ones as ridiculous as these, but Melee NTSC Sheik vs. Bowser springs to mind.

We don't ban things to magically make characters better. They were designed that way. They are bad characters because of it. The things up for a ban does not over-centralize the game, thus it is not "too good" enough to ban.

The rest of the incessent drivel all applies to IC's infinites, like "One grab = Death" and "Can be used to stall!" and any other of the arguments against D3's infinites.

Fun fact, you can mash out the ones you are required to pummel unless it's at around 130.

That means that it's just DK that is infinited, and only him and bowser where the match-up is ridiculous.

So if the ICs infinites ever turn out to be a problem and have to be banned because it's too good, would you ban D3s infinite as well?

No, he's just pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Marth doesn't need the tipper to KO.
he kinda does though...
Meta-Knight doesn't need Shuttle Loop to recover.
but he needs it for other things... like breaking combos, and killing.
Wario doesn't need his Bike to recover.
he kinda does though
See? It totally works like that.
It's 5 ****ing characters. Just counterpick that **** and stop whining.

@yuna, i give you credit than, cus i just dont have the time/finger dexterity to be refuting every last incorrect thing somebody says...

@adum
when i first read that ban worthy glitch thing i could have SWORN that you were talking about D3s ICG, it totally fits...

 

[Donkey Bong]

DDD ***** the characters he has an infinite chaingrab against even if the infinite chaingrab didnt exist.

 

[doommachine15]

This is an obv questions...yes it should! A character should not almost automatically win against some characters by just doing an easy chaingrab....I can understand like 80/20 matchups, because at least they have some form of a chance, and there is the argument of like IC or Falco....but IC takes alot of skill to 0-death or falco can only 0-death a couple of characters where you can try and out camp or plank.

 

[cutter]

So I guess Mindslaver needs to be banned in MTG because it completely relinquishes control from your opponent and it infinites your opponent with Academy Ruins...

 

[Yuna]

I think the problem is what people think is ok to ban and what is unfair.

In my opinion it should be banned because Dedede doesnt really need it. I mean there would be no bad side to banning it other than these characters becoming more tourney viable. Dedede would still have good matchups vs most of them its just Dedede might actually have to use a slight amount of skill to win.

No one really needs something then, according to this logic. Also, without it, Luigi is arguably 50-50 or even has an advantage over D3. How does that not equal "D3 needs it"?

The thing is you can DI or dodge those techniques. Against the infinate once he grabs you there is NOTHING you can do to try to escape except punch your opponent in the face.

Your argument is dumb.

Your argument was simply "This is not needed to win". He was refuting it.

DDD ***** the characters he has an infinite chaingrab against even if the infinite chaingrab didnt exist.

In what alternate universe is this true?

This is an obv questions...yes it should! A character should not almost automatically win against some characters by just doing an easy chaingrab....I can understand like 80/20 matchups, because at least they have some form of a chance, and there is the argument of like IC or Falco....but IC takes alot of skill to 0-death or falco can only 0-death a couple of characters where you can try and out camp or plank.

Ah, it's age old "skill"-argument.

I hereby motion for us to ignore anyone who in the future argue something takes more "skill" than the other and therefore is not as bad as something else which takes less "skill", even if they yield the same results (remember, the argument here was not that it requires more set-up to start, the argument was it requires more skill to perform once it has started).

Also, Luigi cannot possibly be chaingrabbed from 0-death by D3. So there.

And quite possibly veiled ridicule.

 

[Surri-Sama]

No one really needs something then, according to this logic. Also, without it, Luigi is arguably 50-50 or even has an advantage over D3. How does that not equal "D3 needs it"?


Your argument was simply "This is not needed to win". He was refuting it.


In what alternate universe is this true?

i told you D:

 

[Dark Sonic]

No one really needs something then, according to this logic. Also, without it, Luigi is arguably 50-50 or even has an advantage over D3. How does that not equal "D3 needs it"?

And here's the icing on the cake.

Luigi is one of the 3 characters who can simply break out by button mashing correctly.
Luigi still shouldn't be getting wrecked by this infinite, it's really just people being too lazy to actually learn more efficient button mashing techniques.

 

[J.L]

if banning the infinite warrants a 50/50 between ddd and luigi, then ddd technically doesnt need it to win. The only determinant would then be the player's skill.

 

[Barge]

Its insanely easy to mess up on an infinite with Ice climbers, even hylian has trouble preforming them 100%.
DDD's infinites however, are simple, grab and repeat. But yes, DDD's infinite doesn't work on everyone, which is why counterpicking is suggested.

I'm not for or against it, just putting in my input.

 

[Yuna]

if banning the infinite warrants a 50/50 between ddd and luigi, then ddd technically doesnt need it to win. The only determinant would then be the player's skill.

BS logic. Then no one really needs anything to win. Because everything will be determined by player skill. And we should ban things in all match-ups that aren't 50:50 make them 50:50.

Hey, Sheik has a 70-30 (I think) against Fox! No more F-tilt locking! Fox can't Upsmash her recovery, she can't edgeguard him and Fox can't chain together U-tilt. Next, we'll ban this and this and this. 50:50, everybody's happy.

First it was "He doesn't need it to win!", now it's "It can be banned because then it'll just be 50:50 and then it'll all be down to player skill".

Guess what, Competitive gaming isn't always about the one with the superior "skill" winning. Competitive gaming acknowledges the existence of tiers and bad match-ups. Competitive gaming says: If you can't stand the match-up, counterpick.

Its insanely easy to mess up on an infinite with Ice climbers, even hylian has trouble preforming them 100%.

It's easy to mess up a lot of things. It's still humanly possible to perfect.

Even if it's really hard to get the timing down, if it were game-breaking and made IC's God Tier, the metagame would be over-centralized around them. People would flock to them, people would master their chaingrabs, the entire metagame would revolve around the IC's and how to beat them.

That's not the case, but if they were God Tier, it would be the case, regardless of how hard it is to perform their chaingrabs flawlessly. It's still humanly possible. If it were called for, people would perfect it.

 

[Barge]

BS logic. Then no one really needs anything to win. Because everything will be determined by player skill. And we should ban things in all match-ups that aren't 50:50 make them 50:50.

Hey, Sheik has a 70-30 (I think) against Fox! No more F-tilt locking! Fox can't Upsmash her recovery, she can't edgeguard him and Fox can't chain together U-tilt. Next, we'll ban this and this and this. 50:50, everybody's happy.

First it was "He doesn't need it to win!", now it's "It can be banned because then it'll just be 50:50 and then it'll all be down to player skill".

Guess what, Competitive gaming isn't always about the one with the superior "skill" winning. Competitive gaming acknowledges the existence of tiers and bad match-ups. Competitive gaming says: If you can't stand the match-up, counterpick.

I agree'd, you'd have to be an idiot to continuously pick mario or another character DDD can infinite if you keep getting 0-deathed by him.

 

[J.L]

i didnt say everything is determined by player skill. if it is a 50/50 match then yes theoretically it will be based on player skill.

i also never said we should ban matchups to make them 50/50.

My simple statement implied that DDD doesnt need his infinite to win his match up with luigi, which you clearly stated does.

 

[J.L]

Guess what, Competitive gaming isn't always about the one with the superior "skill" winning. Competitive gaming acknowledges the existence of tiers and bad match-ups. Competitive gaming says: If you can't stand the match-up, counterpick.

Then why did we ban stages with walls and without ledges? Wasn't the large reason being DDD's infinite? If we dont ban DDD's infinites on certain characters, then why dont we bring back those banned stages? Getting infinited against the wall is pretty much the same as getting infinited anywhere on the stage for those few characters.

 

[da K.I.D.]

and dont say that the game just devolves into CGs on walls because theres like 12 characters that cant get CGd on walls
just counter pick Zss or MK or something.

 

[adumbrodeus]

i didnt say everything is determined by player skill. if it is a 50/50 match then yes theoretically it will be based on player skill.

i also never said we should ban matchups to make them 50/50.

My simple statement implied that DDD doesnt need his infinite to win his match up with luigi, which you clearly stated does.

...

You clearly don't know what "winning a match-up" means.

Winning a match-up means that the character has a clear advantage in the match-up.

"Winning the match" seems to be the concept that you are ATTEMPTING to get accross.


Of course, with Luigi it doesn't really matter, why? Because HE CAN BREAK OUT!

So can Mario and Samus.


It really doesn't change the Luigi match-up that much, it's only an infinite when it's already at kill percents.

Then why did we ban stages with walls and without ledges? Wasn't the large reason being DDD's infinite? If we dont ban DDD's infinites on certain characters, then why dont we bring back those banned stages? Getting infinited against the wall is pretty much the same as getting infinited anywhere on the stage for those few characters.

There are plenty of other infinites that work on those stages. Another big one is Falco's laser lock (walk-offs and walls), dtilt and jab infinites (walls), etc.

They're just bad.

and dont say that the game just devolves into CGs on walls because theres like 12 characters that cant get CGd on walls
just counter pick Zss or MK or something.

12 out of 36 characters? That's very signifigant over-centralizing.

Adding to the fact that it's not just DDD, a few other characters have wall infinites, some of which work on the entire cast, and yeah, the entire metagame in those stages degrades to those characters.