Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[J.L]

as if infinites on certain characters arent bad?

 

[da K.I.D.]

every character can jab lock on a walk off, and the game wont devolve in that cause people will just learn how to tech.
and as for downtilts. people just need to sdi better.

and you say 3 can break out like all of a sudden, its super easy...

 

[adumbrodeus]

every character can jab lock on a walk off, and the game wont devolve in that cause people will just learn how to tech.
and as for downtilts. people just need to sdi better.

Since when?

As for dtilts, that depends on the dtilt, certain dtilts are true infinites, provided you time it right.

and you say 3 can break out like all of a sudden, its super easy...

I've done it with minimal practice, I would consider it a fundamental tech skill for anyone who mains any of those 3 characters, as well as an important tech skill for bowser and DK players.

How do you explain bridge of eldin? Dont say because of DDDs walk off cg, cuz whether it be that or infinites on certain characters, it all results to losing a stock.

Falco's laser lock is also instant death there, and his chaingrabs on a lot of characters. Also a number of grab releases that are walking releases.

 

[Dark Sonic]

every character can jab lock on a walk off, and the game wont devolve in that cause people will just learn how to tech.
and as for downtilts. people just need to sdi better.

and you say 3 can break out like all of a sudden, its super easy...

1. The game would devolve into characters that can reliably combo into their locks (via footstool combos, trip combos, or other setups). Oh btw. Marth's d-tilt is a true infinite even with SDI. As are laser locking and banana locking.

2. So because the solution is hard it's invalid? People learned how to tech Peach's d-smash in melee, and now it's pretty much useless for edge guarding. People learned how to SDI out of the drillshine infinite, and now it's pretty much useless (except in a "caged" area like the rock formation on PS). People should just practice button mashing....and then against those 3 characters this infinite...will be pretty much useless.

as if infinites on certain characters arent bad?

No. They really aren't.
Infinite's are not inherently bad by nature. A tactic being "infinite" is not what makes it powerful or even noteworthy (case in point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fu2154mo9g)

The only reason we are even discussing this particular infinite is because fulfilling the conditions for the infinite is "too easy," so it plays a large part in the matchups of the characters affected. However, 3 of those characters can get out of it, meaning realistically it's only 2 characters who are destroyed by this technique.

 

[J.L]

What is the difference between getting CGed on the wall, laser locked, and CG infinited?

not a difference as they all result in a stock loss. If certain measures were taken to avoid those infinites, I dont see why we cant do the same for DDD's infinite.

 

[Uffe]

every character can jab lock on a walk off, and the game wont devolve in that cause people will just learn how to tech.
and as for downtilts. people just need to sdi better.

and you say 3 can break out like all of a sudden, its super easy...

Actually, the jab lock is much more difficult to pull off than a chain grab.

Also, in the discussion with the IC's chain grab, it may be a bit harder to do than D3's, but IIRC, don't the IC's have a chain grab on every character or no?

 

[TheReflexWonder]

What is the difference between getting CGed on the wall, laser locked, and CG infinited?

not a difference as they all result in a stock loss. If certain measures were taken to avoid that, I dont see why we cant do the same for DDD's infinite.

Laser locking and wall infinites are very situational. It's realistic to say that you can avoid those either by teching when necessary or staying away from the wall. You can't really stay away from Dedede and win...

 

[J.L]

indeed performing those infinites are different, but the end result is the same.

Apparently though, that difficulty is not a factor as some ppl have been refuting that as long as IC's cgs are potentially an infinite and arent banned regardless of how easy it is to mess up, ddd's infintes shouldnt be banned either.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What is the difference between getting CGed on the wall, laser locked, and CG infinited?

not a difference as they all result in a stock loss. If certain measures were taken to avoid those infinites, I dont see why we cant do the same for DDD's infinite.

Really just the number of characters effected.

Again, for infinites, the qualifacation is effective overcentralization.

If DDD's infinite overcentralized to that degree, we wouldn't be having this conversation, everyone would agree to a ban.

indeed performing those infinites are different, but the end result is the same.

Apparently though, that difficulty is not a factor as some ppl have been refuting that as long as IC's infinites are still possible, it is regarded as an infinite, regardless of how easy it is to mess up.

Difficulty is not a factor if humanly possible. However if it depends on your opponent doing something or not doing something, it's not a question of difficulty, it's a matter of "it doesn't work".


edit: Of course, for all true infintes, difficulty in set-up is a factor.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Apparently though, that difficulty is not a factor as some ppl have been refuting that as long as IC's infinites are still possible, it is regarded as an infinite, regardless of how easy it is to mess up.

Yep. People learned how to do much more difficult things in other games, people will eventually learn how to do the IC's infinites without messing up.

So the only thing that matters is...how hard it is to set it up. Getting a grab with Nana right next to you is hard, especially with IC's horrible grab range. That's pretty much the only reason that we don't think IC's will be destroying everyone (which would make such an infinite ban worthy, since the only solution would be to pick IC's)

 

[PK-ow!]

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.

If you weren't serious, why did you post it?
It wasn't very funny.

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

Will you PLEASE for God's sake learn the $%@#%& meaning of 'subjective' before you use that word again? Doesn't even have to be a definition. Just something, anything, remotely near the sphere of meaning that people on Earth use the word for.

It's just pissing me off now. Seriously.

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

It hasn't even been 24 hours since I was here last. Jeez, people, give others some credit. I can't recheck this site all the time.

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.

I would link you to my last post, but someone else quoted it (and then dealt with it), so I'll just ask you to pay attention to that discussion, as I think it's going somewhere.
EDIT: I mean adumberodeus, to whom I'm replying in this post.

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.

Nope; IC chaingrabs are indisputably a property of the ICs, they apply against every other character. D3 infinites, the ones that exist only in the five matchups, indeed exist only in the five matchups. This forms up the attack against the D3 infinite (the one I've made anyway); it doesn't carry over to ICs and I wouldn't try to make it.

At least, it's not obvious how its form applies to the ICs. Is it a bad thing if banning something makes some characters better? Just that fact itself - some characters are better, ceteris paribus - is it a bad thing? Because the principle that "overcentralization" is a necessary condition for a ban is now in dispute - I am now suggesting that the ban could make them better, am saying that we don't have to accept the characters as 'bad' just because of the infinite, and that no doom awaits us if we ban as apparently the ill-effects of bad banning are not present, thanks to certain distinctions that can be made about D3's infinites.

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.

You're right about the 'stall' one. I'll keep that in my back pocket.
If you could transform all ban claims into "One grab = death" accusations, that would put a stake in them. One would probably want to take that route against me (as in, it could be all I'm saying, but it doesn' t appear so to me).

And so now, a chance to advance my queries! adumbrodeus:

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.

For sure. But a character being unviable is a bad thing, is it not? Unviable characters qua reduction of diversity is a bad thing. Do you agree? Is that not an objective (or widespread agreed subjective) evaluation?

I don't mean equally viable, let me be clear. Indeed, a metagame where all matchups are equally good is somehow less interesting than one with at least some tradeoffs per character. And that, less than one with true tier distinctions. But that's probably subjective. Either way, it means it's not part of the issue: I just mean minimum conditions of viability as opposed to unviability.

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

I'm afraid you simply lost me. Huh? What is "it"?

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.

Do you mean "the effect" that the ban would create? Or something else?
Saying that a benefit is not great enough implies that there is a cost or negative effect which takes place at the same time as making the change in question. What cost or negative effect is that? (This question assumes that you agree that character viability is a good thing; if you don't, I retract this question.)

[. . .] t's just DK that is infinited, and only him and bowser where the match-up is ridiculous.

Quoted for importance.

 

[Jamnt0ast]

stop being banhappy >_>

 

[-Wolfy-]

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

I said what I said because no progress is being made because the whole issue is subjective. There are no objective facts that indubitably sway one to one side or another. It's about personal belief, and in matters of personal belief it will come down to how many people you can gather behind you, no matter how right or wrong you may be. Do not dismiss my statements simply because you've shown a moderate capacity for debate.

 

[Dark Sonic]

At least, it's not obvious how its form applies to the ICs. Is it a bad thing if banning something makes some characters better?

Yes! Because in turn that makes other characters worse! (the characters that are hard countered by the ones made better suffer).

It is not possible for all characters to be made better by any technique ban. Some characters will always suffer. And picking and choosing who deserves to suffer by banning techniques is subjective.

Just that fact itself - some characters are better, ceteris paribus - is it a bad thing?

It is unavoidable. We would love it if every character when 50:50 with every other character, but it is simply not realistically possible.

Because the principle that "overcentralization" is a necessary condition for a ban is now in dispute

Then what pray tell is your criteria for banning?

I am now suggesting that the ban could make them better

And in turn make DDD worse, and make the characters who have bad matchups against those characters...worse.

am saying that we don't have to accept the characters as 'bad' just because of the infinite, and that no doom awaits us if we ban as apparently the ill-effects of bad banning are not present, thanks to certain distinctions that can be made about D3's infinites.

Under what premise would DDDs infinite be banned? Being an infinite is not enough, ruining a few matchups is not enough (there are plenty of techniques that do that), and "making these characters better" is entirely aribtrary and subjective.

If you've stated a different criteria, I appologize and admit to strawmanning you, in which case I'd like you to repeat your criteria for me.

For sure. But a character being unviable is a bad thing, is it not?

It is unavoidable.

Unviable characters qua reduction of diversity is a bad thing. Do you agree? Is that not an objective (or widespread agreed subjective) evaluation?

It is bad, but it is also something that is completely unavoidable. Banning one technique to increase the viability of a few characters, but not banning others that would lead to the same thing is biased.

I just mean minimum conditions of viability as opposed to unviability.

Define Viability. As far as I'm concerned, having one hard counter does not make a character unviable.



I'm afraid you simply lost me. Huh? What is "it"?

Saying that a benefit is not great enough implies that there is a cost or negative effect which takes place at the same time as making the change in question. What cost or negative effect is that? (This question assumes that you agree that character viability is a good thing; if you don't, I retract this question

Consistancy is what we lose. And consistancy in the rules is much more important than character viability. If we ban this technique to make those characters "more viable," and we don't ban other techniques to make other characters "more viable," then we would be unfairly favoring some characters over others. Banning stuff to save DK and Bowser, but not banning stuff to save Ganondorf, Captain Falcon, Fox, Jigglypuff, Sonic, ect doesn't seem fair.

DDD cannot even infinite Mario, Luigi, and Samus if they mash correctly, but he can still get 4 or 5 regrabs before his throw becomes too stale, and it still has non matchup breaking applications in those matchups. Particularly, I'd like to point out that it would still be very important against Luigi, as Luigi cannot be chaingrabbed by normal means. This technique isn't even remotely broken against Luigi, but it is still helpful.

Now I point to Fox vs Pikachu, which is realistically a much harder matchup than DDD vs Luigi. If you ban DDDs infinite (making Luigi's matchup easier), then isn't it unfair to Fox, who has a much harder time in his matchup. Luigi's already decent matchup is being made easier, while Fox is left to suffer?

 

[AlphaZealot]

At least, it's not obvious how its form applies to the ICs. Is it a bad thing if banning something makes some characters better? Just that fact itself - some characters are better, ceteris paribus - is it a bad thing? Because the principle that "overcentralization" is a necessary condition for a ban is now in dispute - I am now suggesting that the ban could make them better, am saying that we don't have to accept the characters as 'bad' just because of the infinite, and that no doom awaits us if we ban as apparently the ill-effects of bad banning are not present, thanks to certain distinctions that can be made about D3's infinites.

Ill-effect: This being banned results in Diddy's single nana infinite (lets pretend its is proven against MK) being banned, which results in MK having no counters, resulting in some tournaments not only to ban infinites and nerf characters like Diddy/D3 but also to completely eliminate MK from contention. The result is that, in an effort to save 5 characters, you nerf or completely eliminate 3 or more characters. The big difference is the game made the characters one way, and we are determining to change that. I do not believe any of us should have such power-the power to determine how match ups should work-and so I leave things to develop naturally.

 

[MorphedChaos]

I'd like to point out that if you take the words of Reflex, just mash buttons like mad when you know your going to get grabbed, you might get lucky and force D3 to do a grab release, I've had a DK do it to me before when I was brick sticking him >.>.

 

[Dark Sonic]

I'd like to point out that if you take the words of Reflex, just mash buttons like mad when you know your going to get grabbed, you might get lucky and force D3 to do a grab release, I've had a DK do it to me before when I was brick sticking him >.>.

It's not even getting lucky anymore. We've defined a very effective technique for grab breaking and have the frame data to support it.

It still works on DK and Bowser since he can just throw them immediately (without having to do the grab pummels), but we've proven that it does not work on the others.

 

[MorphedChaos]

It's not even getting lucky anymore. We've defined a very effective technique for grab breaking and have the frame data to support it.

It still works on DK and Bowser since he can just throw them immediately (without having to do the grab pummels), but we've proven that it does not work on the others.

Oh, then why is this discussion here then? If its ONLY 2 characters, then whats the point of discussing it? Marth could infinite CG ness and lucas, but there wasn't this whole debate, so why about D3? Its it a top tier conspiracy?

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^Well, people thought it was 5 characters (some still do) and more importantly people seem to really want to save DK, since he's actually a good character with advantages and even matchups against some of the top tiers.

So yes, it's a top tier conspiracy.

 

[adumbrodeus]

For sure. But a character being unviable is a bad thing, is it not? Unviable characters qua reduction of diversity is a bad thing. Do you agree? Is that not an objective (or widespread agreed subjective) evaluation?

I don't mean equally viable, let me be clear. Indeed, a metagame where all matchups are equally good is somehow less interesting than one with at least some tradeoffs per character. And that, less than one with true tier distinctions. But that's probably subjective. Either way, it means it's not part of the issue: I just mean minimum conditions of viability as opposed to unviability.

Unviability is only bad at a certain point, otherwise it's just a natural part of fighting games.

The thing with trade-offs of this is you're dealing with adjusting the standards that will be considered for future bans, so you're not just considering trade-offs for individual actions. We're also considering it for the precadent it sets.

I'm afraid you simply lost me. Huh? What is "it"?

The infinite.

Do you mean "the effect" that the ban would create? Or something else?
Saying that a benefit is not great enough implies that there is a cost or negative effect which takes place at the same time as making the change in question. What cost or negative effect is that? (This question assumes that you agree that character viability is a good thing; if you don't, I retract this question.)

It's not a bad thing for some characters to be unviable, however one character rendering quite a few unviable is a bad thing.

Regardless, the bad effect would be either a very low banning standard or if we choose not to apply it, an arbitrary standard.

 

[PKNintendo]

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.

Sorry I flamed your ***.

Really guys Ness>DK with the infinite? How so?

DK has still has his good matchups. sexy moveset e.c.t.
Plus, it's banned in a good amount of area's, and DK's tourney results have not taken a dive.

 

[rathy Aro]

Yeah, THEY aren't ban worthy, they are no infinite but Dededes chaingrab is.


Dededes infinite is so broken, because it is so easy to grab someone with Dedede.

It is unavoidable to get grabbed and that means you're dead, because it is also so ****ing easy to do.

Even if the Dedede does screw up, it is sooo easy to grab you again.

>.>
Luigi and Samus are pretty hard to grab actually and its not broken, because if it was it would make DDD broken which he is not. It breaks the game in no way shape or form, which you can figure out by how DDD doesn't win every tourney.

All it does is create 6 very bad matchups. DDD has plenty of chars that own him so counterpicking isn't a huge deal. There's just no reason its ban worthy and if it is so is MK's tornado, falco's lasers, and any other move that completely shuts down another character (in the case of the ones I mentioned, many characters).

 

[PKNintendo]

>.>
Luigi and Samus are pretty hard to grab actually and its not broken, because if it was it would make DDD broken which he is not. It breaks the game in no way shape or form, which you can figure out by how DDD doesn't win every tourney.

All it does is create 6 very bad matchups. DDD has plenty of chars that own him so counterpicking isn't a huge deal. There's just no reason its ban worthy and if it is so is MK's tornado, falco's lasers, and any other move that completely shuts down another character (in the case of the ones I mentioned, many characters).

Nuh-uh.

Don't pull that, Luigi and Samus are not mother ****ing Wario.
They will eventually get grabbed.

All of us have realized that the matchup is broken.

 

[adumbrodeus]

>.>
Luigi and Samus are pretty hard to grab actually and its not broken, because if it was it would make DDD broken which he is not. It breaks the game in no way shape or form, which you can figure out by how DDD doesn't win every tourney.

All it does is create 6 very bad matchups. DDD has plenty of chars that own him so counterpicking isn't a huge deal. There's just no reason its ban worthy and if it is so is MK's tornado, falco's lasers, and any other move that completely shuts down another character (in the case of the ones I mentioned, many characters).

2, only one of which is an infinite.

DDD can infinite himself, so what?

The others can break out way before kill percents even when executed perfected.

Nuh-uh.

Don't pull that, Luigi and Samus are not mother ****ing Wario.
They will eventually get grabbed.

All of us have realized that the matchup is broken.

But they can break out, so we care, why?


The match-up is not broken in the least.

 

[PK-ow!]

I wish there was quote option that preserved quoted quotes one level deep.
Just one. *sigh*

EDIT:

Dear God I've BECOME YUNA!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
jk. But seriously, I hope to never write posts longer than this.
~

Okay, so Dark Sonic. . . you've mounted some critical points against me, making me think I was just losing my head there. . . but also you've significantly misunderstood parts of that post - probably my fault, especially for putting in one section that I thought only to be clarificatory - so, not to squelch the counterpoints, but I want to focus on those first:

Yes! Because in turn that makes other characters worse! (the characters that are hard countered by the ones made better suffer).

See this is the one point that hits me, especially the part in parenthesis. If I read into it and say 'well even if it's not actually true that Luigi Samus yadda hard counter anyone, the meta could shift to such a point, and then the ban wouldn't be reversible, and that would be A Bad Thing^TM.'

That hits me very hard, I have to give you that. Let me think on it for a while; but I still just want to clear up the rest of this post, okay?

It is unavoidable. We would love it if every character when 50:50 with every other character, but it is simply not realistically possible.

See, I should have just not posted that other part. I was pointing out just for curiosity that I would be rather bored with a game with all 50/50 matchups. Surely that would remove one interesting element of decision-making: picking a character. But it's off-topic; I shouldn't have said anything since I meant to argue nothing by it.

Anyway, you misunderstood that part (refer back to your post quoting mine). I was asking if [SOMETHING], such that it makes some characters better [than their state in the absence of SOMETHING], is a bad thing, all else being equal?

You seemed to be answering the question "If some characters are better [than other characters], is it a bad thing?"

So yeah, big misunderstanding there.

Then what pray tell is your criteria for banning?

I'm not sure what I was thinking to pose it as. But it would have involved adding a disjunct to the condition there, to try to get at this alleged fact about D3's infinites: (a) that they are techniques with "only a broken use", that (i) make matchups one-sided and therefore uninteresting (in a highly qualified sense referring to both the lament of the susceptibles and D3 mains that the technique is so abusable), but also (ii) can be banned such that a naming of the susceptible characters does not feature in the definition of the banned technique and *nothing but* precisely the technique we understand, the infinite, is removed from play (as opposed to having to ban "Pikachu dthrow chains" which are not broken generally, or having to ban "Pikachu infiniting Fox" which is just ridiculous); (b) that removing the technique only increases the competitiveness of the field (which is a good thing), in that (i) diversity goes up, and (ii) D3 mains get to fight DK mains rather than completely scare off DK mains from even picking DK against them, and (iii) some other conditions to be worked out; and that (c) in accord with a and b, there is no downside to the ban, not in the sense of giving people an 'out' for their difficulties since we all see that the matchup had nowhere to go so long as the technique is there, not in the sense of giving people the idea that we're leveling out gameplay willy-nilly in support of some communist ideology since we have these rigid conditions which really do only get such a thing as D3's infinites, nor in the sense

Under what premise would DDDs infinite be banned? Being an infinite is not enough, ruining a few matchups is not enough (there are plenty of techniques that do that), and "making these characters better" is entirely aribtrary and subjective.

I entirely don't understand how this comes after what it quoted. We disconnected drastically.

It is unavoidable.

Not relevant. The question is if it's a bad thing. Unless you think that normative judgments are impossible of necessary truths. I don't think that's true as a rule. I mean, it seems to theology that suffering currently, and of the past, is and was necessary. As in, it is necessary that suffering is happening right now. There is no possible world where it is not (maybe it could've been different, or had a little more or less suffering, maybe).
But I don't think you'll say that you therefore can't say "it's bad that there's suffering."

It is bad, but it is also something that is completely unavoidable. Banning one technique to increase the viability of a few characters, but not banning others that would lead to the same thing is biased.

Not if doing it in one case carries only expenses that *everyone* (who rationally considers it) agrees are strictly less than the expenses of doing it in the other.

Notice that a special case of this is every scenario where taking one action in case A has no costs and in case B would carry at least one.

Define Viability. As far as I'm concerned, having one hard counter does not make a character unviable.

Again, you seemed to miss the intent of those words. I don't think it was important for me to define viability, I wasn't pushing anything on you that you would want to take that move against me for. The only arguing thing I was doing was the previous part:
"Unviable characters qua reduction of diversity is a bad thing. Do you agree? Is that not an objective (or widespread agreed subjective) evaluation?" ~PK-ow!

I just meant unviable in the sense of "You cannot bring this character to a tourney setting without axing your chances of taking home wins in the brackets of any acclaim; it is in that sense a waste of time to pick up this character if your goal is to win money." or whatever sense of meaning hovering around there that people agree on.

If you want to say that different senses of the word change your answer to my question, that's fair. But it's the question, and as I said I think with confusion you've avoided answering it (ironically, by writing "It's unavoidable" ).


I'm afraid you simply lost me. Huh? What is "it"?
EDIT: Broken quote tags. Your fault. XP

Consistancy is what we lose. And consistancy in the rules is much more important than character viability. If we ban this technique to make those characters "more viable," and we don't ban other techniques to make other characters "more viable," then we would be unfairly favoring some characters over others. Banning stuff to save DK and Bowser, but not banning stuff to save Ganondorf, Captain Falcon, Fox, Jigglypuff, Sonic, ect doesn't seem fair.

It would be unfair, if our only condition was to improve viability. But I've tried to give reasons for why there's more to it than that and we don't snowball. (And as I said, people have begun to undress those reasons, so we're getting somewhere.)

Just a reminder, the condition was at least the idea that 'the infinite' is discretely and enforceably definable such that it only exists when in a match against DK (/whoever). Unlike, say, Falco's lasers, which you surely could not ban away discretely but only partially where it *is* broken (against Ganondorf, if it even is broken against Ganny, which I'm not saying), nor enforceably in anything less than a total sense, which would be dumb, since the lasers are a simple part of his game against all sorts of characters, even a weak option against some opponents.

D3's infinites mechanically take care of themselves since they only exist in the messed up matches.

. . . ho wait, I have to give that one up now since it exists but is grab-breakable for Luigi at lower than the percent of forfeit stock (130 < 200).
Yeah that could change things even here.

Still, it's somewhat a bitter taste to be mainly the cause of my own changes in view on this. I've basically gone and come back while trying to fill in the words for other people.
EDIT: I mean, in one sense, it's supposed to happen like that, but in the other, it's like "I'm doin' all this work and the only mind I'm moving is mine."
. . . actually that seems like a not nice comment. And I didn't mean anything not nice by it. Just whining a bit I guess. :O


adumbrodeus (do you have like a nick or something?):

Unviability is only bad at a certain point, otherwise it's just a natural part of fighting games.

Huh? I intended to use unviability in a binary sense, such that talk of 'points' doesn't come into play.
. . . and actually I have no idea what you could mean.

The thing with trade-offs of this is you're dealing with adjusting the standards that will be considered for future bans, so you're not just considering trade-offs for individual actions. We're also considering it for the precadent it sets.

Yes. And that's why I was being very cautious and precise in investigating what it was about D3's infinites that strike one as so different. I think the fact that I gave screen time to talking about the principle at all excuses me from guilt here.

That is, I was looking at it as being this: "It looks like getting rid of D3's infinites (a) can be done (enforceability, discreteness), and (b) doesn't have the downsides that are used to doomsay in regard to 'banhappiness', but critically, (c) one can *state* the conditions that D3's infinites satisfy such that they *following those conditions* will ban only additional things that satisfy (a) and (b)."
EDIT: In bold and asterisk.

I saying things looked like that, and was investigating to see if I could show that.
On the way there, it looks like I found I was mistaken, so I'll get back to you guys.

It's not a bad thing for some characters to be unviable, however one character rendering quite a few unviable is a bad thing.

. . . hmm, you're right. Maybe if I reversed the way it's posed (since 'some characters are unviable' is a relative statement to the size of the cast).

Is it a good thing for more characters to be viable? Notice this can even apply across games. A game with 15 characters, let's say all miraculously viable (the developers are really good), or even change to 10 viable characters; then go to game with 30 characters, with all 30 viable, only 20 viable, or 16 or 15 or 10 viable?

What factors in to deciding which game is more rewarding to the competitive player?

Regardless, the bad effect would be either a very low banning standard or if we choose not to apply it, an arbitrary standard.

Again, what is 'it'? If you don't apply "the very low banning standard", you have 'not a standard', not an arbitrary one.

So lost.

 

[Yuna]

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.

I questioned the definition of "What one needs to win". Define that.

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.

I'm sick and tired of this stale argument. It's been repeated a jillion times and the refute has to be repeated time and time again:
Over-centralization around the walk-offs due to various chaingrabs, cargo throws, wall-infinites/wall quasi-infinites/super-wall-combos, jab locks, laser locks, D-tilt locks, take your pick.

Go read back a page or a 100 if you want a more fleshed out answer.

every character can jab lock on a walk off, and the game wont devolve in that cause people will just learn how to tech.
and as for downtilts. people just need to sdi better.

You cannot tech every single hit. Also, ever heard of the various footstool combos? Hard to hit with and situational, but they'd be 0-death.

and you say 3 can break out like all of a sudden, its super easy...

D3 has to get 2 slow pummels in to keep it going. Have you even tried to break or or are you just talking out of your tuchas?

What is the difference between getting CGed on the wall, laser locked, and CG infinited?

not a difference as they all result in a stock loss. If certain measures were taken to avoid those infinites, I dont see why we cant do the same for DDD's infinite.

The difference is over-centralization. D3's infinite gimps 5 characters. That's 5 out of 39 vs. 1 character = 5 out of 780 match-ups.

Walk-offs and walls would magically over-centralize the game around not only certain characters but also certain tactics. The game would devolve into who can chaingrab/cargo throw/b-throw camp/lock/whatever the best.

Actually, the jab lock is much more difficult to pull off than a chain grab.

The game would still revolve around them. Every chance people got, they would go for that jab lock.

Also, in the discussion with the IC's chain grab, it may be a bit harder to do than D3's, but IIRC, don't the IC's have a chain grab on every character or no?

Yes.

Laser locking and wall infinites are very situational. It's realistic to say that you can avoid those either by teching when necessary or staying away from the wall. You can't really stay away from Dedede and win...

There's no such thing as staying away from a wall to not get laser locked. Laser locks work without walls. The only thing walls do is make it an infinite.

With walk-offs, you eventually fall off the stage and die.

Nope; IC chaingrabs are indisputably a property of the ICs, they apply against every other character. D3 infinites, the ones that exist only in the five matchups, indeed exist only in the five matchups. This forms up the attack against the D3 infinite (the one I've made anyway); it doesn't carry over to ICs and I wouldn't try to make it.

This paragraph makes no sense. Are you aware of that ICs have infinites on every single character in the game?

I am now suggesting that the ban could make them better, am saying that we don't have to accept the characters as 'bad' just because of the infinite, and that no doom awaits us if we ban as apparently the ill-effects of bad banning are not present, thanks to certain distinctions that can be made about D3's infinites.

Then I'm calling you a whiny Scrub (no offense intended) because you just want things to be "fair". Life isn't fair, Competitive gaming isn't fair. Some characters are bad. We're not going to ban things to randomly make characters better just because.

Ill-effect: This being banned results in Diddy's single nana infinite (lets pretend its is proven against MK) being banned, which results in MK having no counters, resulting in some tournaments not only to ban infinites and nerf characters like Diddy/D3 but also to completely eliminate MK from contention. The result is that, in an effort to save 5 characters, you nerf or completely eliminate 3 or more characters. The big difference is the game made the characters one way, and we are determining to change that. I do not believe any of us should have such power-the power to determine how match ups should work-and so I leave things to develop naturally.

Exactly. With the addendum: Unless it over-centralizes the game (significantly).

Oh, then why is this discussion here then? If its ONLY 2 characters, then whats the point of discussing it? Marth could infinite CG ness and lucas, but there wasn't this whole debate, so why about D3? Its it a top tier conspiracy?

Because technically, D3 can infinite the other 3 (+ himself). It's just that the other 3 just happen to only be infitable (without a chance of breaking out) at KO percentages where a throw will kill them, anyway.

So we can't dispute that fact that he can infinite them. It's just that it's nowhere near 0-death. It's more like death-delayed death.

Tell me, how come you're even in this thread debating this issue if you know so little of it? It seems to be an epidemic here on SWF, especially among the ban-happy side.

I wish there was quote option that preserved quoted quotes one level deep.
Just one. *sigh*

There is, SWF just chooses not to implement that code. Very few forums do.

Is it a good thing for more characters to be viable? Notice this can even apply across games. A game with 15 characters, let's say all miraculously viable (the developers are really good), or even change to 10 viable characters; then go to game with 30 characters, with all 30 viable, only 20 viable, or 16 or 15 or 10 viable?

What factors in to deciding which game is more rewarding to the competitive player?

Rules are not written to create "the most rewarding experience" (subjective notion, BTW). We do not write the rules to make as many characters as possible viable.

 

[Kirio]

Just a small quip I had with only like one thing Yuna said.

You cannot tech every single hit.

If a person can learn to do IC's infigrab with 100% consistency, why couldn't they also tech with 100% consistency?

 

[Yuna]

If a person can learn to do IC's infigrab with 100% consistency, why couldn't they also tech with 100% consistency?

It's not a question of a lack of tech skill, it's a question of mindgames. If you tech every hit, you will become predictable. Evey time you tech, the opponent will be ready to punish your tech.

In other words, you'd have two choices: Tech and risk getting hit or don't tech and risk getting locked. And there are still combos into locks (though they are situational). But if walk-offs were allowed, people would start using them more.

 

[Kirio]

It's not a question of a lack of tech skill, it's a question of mindgames. If you tech every hit, you will become predictable. Evey time you tech, the opponent will be ready to punish your tech.

In other words, you'd have two choices: Tech and risk getting hit or don't tech and risk getting locked. And there are still combos into locks (though they are situational). But if walk-offs were allowed, people would start using them more.

Ahh. My apologies, I was interpreting it more as a physical inability instead of as a, er, 'bad habit', I guess. (dunno what else to call it)

Another bothersome thing:

Rules are not written to create "the most rewarding experience" (subjective notion, BTW). We do not write the rules to make as many characters as possible viable.

Well, overcentralization is sought to be prevented so that there is a more rewarding experience than if it were to happen. I suppose the difference would be whether it's the most rewarding experience as opposed to being rewarding at all, but this still kinda bugs me.

 

[PK-ow!]

This paragraph makes no sense. Are you aware of that ICs have infinites on every single character in the game?

Yes I am. I just got in the (bad?) habit of simplifying talk of the ICs infinites to chaingrabs, since in most contexts people get that the IC grabs of importance are infinite, and 'chaingrab' is somehow a nicer word (since it at least looks like a verb and not a noun).

Then I'm calling you a whiny Scrub (no offense intended) because you just want things to be "fair". Life isn't fair, Competitive gaming isn't fair. Some characters are bad. We're not going to ban things to randomly make characters better just because.

OH come on. I think I gave myself more credit in these last thirty pages. Making it 'more fair' is not at all what I'm about. I'm considering this purely from the perspective of making the field more competitive, as in, trying to figure out which groups of tourneys I wanted to go to if my goal was to face the most challenging competition over time.

I am only trying to figure out which side has that property. For a time, I suspected it might be the ban camp, and possessing a critical detachment I think I can say was 100% pure (since I was not directly affected either way), I have been exploring that.

Rules are not written to create "the most rewarding experience" (subjective notion, BTW). We do not write the rules to make as many characters as possible viable.

I get that you see a lot of crap 'arguments' that look like what I just said, but please read me seriously.
I don't care about making more characters viable. At the time of that writing, I considered viability of characters a means to a diverse field, and as such, of utility to increasing degree of competition.

And I thought I meant 'rewarding experience' in just the sense of 'the rewards of the competitive game which are precisely the reason competitive gaming communities exist, because there is a common sensation of enjoying. . . contest, of enjoying competition, and because of this, and in (functional) worship of this end, do we think very carefully on deciding what to shape our games into, and form normative judgments of the scrub, and so on, because what we are trying to build is a system to maximize competition.'

Or have I completely misunderstood the thesis of competitive gaming?

 

[rathy Aro]

No point arguing this. Yuna has it handled. *leaves*

 

[Dark Sonic]

but also you've significantly misunderstood parts of that post - probably my fault, especially for putting in one section that I thought only to be clarificatory - so, not to squelch the counterpoints, but I want to focus on those first:

I appologize.
I'll try to pay more attention this time.

See this is the one point that hits me, especially the part in parenthesis. If I read into it and say 'well even if it's not actually true that Luigi Samus yadda hard counter anyone, the meta could shift to such a point, and then the ban wouldn't be reversible, and that would be A Bad Thing^TM.

I'm glad we agree.

See, I should have just not posted that other part. I was pointing out just for curiosity that I would be rather bored with a game with all 50/50 matchups. Surely that would remove one interesting element of decision-making: picking a character. But it's off-topic; I shouldn't have said anything since I meant to argue nothing by it.

My mistake.

Anyway, you misunderstood that part (refer back to your post quoting mine). I was asking if [SOMETHING], such that it makes some characters better [than their state in the absence of SOMETHING], is a bad thing, all else being equal?

You seemed to be answering the question "If some characters are better [than other characters], is it a bad thing?"

So yeah, big misunderstanding there.

Oh...well I guess that is a different question.

And to that question, my answer is no. It is not inherently bad for a single technique to make a character significantly better than others. In fact it is quite common and I consider it helpful to the metagame as a whole, because it allows the entire community to focus on finding the counter for a single deadly technique, rather than being divided trying to find the solution for multiple, smaller techniques.

I'm not sure what I was thinking to pose it as. But it would have involved adding a disjunct to the condition there, to try to get at this alleged fact about D3's infinites: (a) that they are techniques with "only a broken use", that (i) make matchups one-sided and therefore uninteresting (in a highly qualified sense referring to both the lament of the susceptibles and D3 mains that the technique is so abusable), but also (ii) can be banned such that a naming of the susceptible characters does not feature in the definition of the banned technique and *nothing but* precisely the technique we understand, the infinite, is removed from play (as opposed to having to ban "Pikachu dthrow chains" which are not broken generally, or having to ban "Pikachu infiniting Fox" which is just ridiculous); (b) that removing the technique only increases the competitiveness of the field (which is a good thing), in that (i) diversity goes up, and (ii) D3 mains get to fight DK mains rather than completely scare off DK mains from even picking DK against them, and (iii) some other conditions to be worked out; and that (c) in accord with a and b, there is no downside to the ban, not in the sense of giving people an 'out' for their difficulties since we all see that the matchup had nowhere to go so long as the technique is there, not in the sense of giving people the idea that we're leveling out gameplay willy-nilly in support of some communist ideology since we have these rigid conditions which really do only get such a thing as D3's infinites, nor in the sense

That is certainly a long criteria, but at least it addresses the slippery slope arguement and would allow the community to remain consistent in their bans.

Unfortunately, the individual pieces of that criteria can be picked appart and do not actually apply to D3s infinite.

a)The infinite does have non-broken uses against Mario, Samus and Luigi
a-ii)Those three matchups because of this we can no longer separate the broken and non-broken applications by any means other than naming characters.
b-i)diversity goes up because those characters become more viable, but it also goes down as the characters that they have good matchups against (for one, Luigi and DK has quite a few good matchups across the board) become less viable, thus hurting diversity as well. Measuring the effects could take a very long time after the ban to see whether or not the ban was "justified," rather than justifying the ban beforehand like you're supposed to
c)no longer works because A and B are not fulfiled.

I entirely don't understand how this comes after what it quoted. We disconnected drastically.

Well, after going back to read what you were quoting I do feel kind of silly. But after reading his quote, I'd answer your questions with

Yes it is a bad thing if banning something makes some characters better, because by making some characters better you are making other characters worse (I think I've actually answered this already)

The fact that some characters are better in and of itself is a bad thing yes. I do wish that the game were perfectly balanced. But I am not in favor of using rules to try to force this if that is what you're suggesting with this question.

Not relevant.

True, but I had already recognized that the question was formed in such a way that the answer should more or less be predetermined.

"Yes, it is a bad thing" is the answer you were expecting, so I was simply refuting any arguments that would've been formed after receiving this answer. Yes it is a "bad" thing, but that does not mean that taking action against it is a "good" thing.

Not if doing it in one case carries only expenses that *everyone* (who rationally considers it) agrees are strictly less than the expenses of doing it in the other.

And if there are people who rationally consider it and do not agree? Like myself for instance?

Notice that a special case of this is every scenario where taking one action in case A has no costs and in case B would carry at least one.

Unfortunately, this is no such scenario, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find such a scenario at all.

Again, you seemed to miss the intent of those words.

Sorry I got a little confused after reading the paragraph before it.

"Unviable characters qua reduction of diversity is a bad thing. Do you agree? Is that not an objective (or widespread agreed subjective) evaluation?" ~PK-ow!

Yes I agree, but I can't help but feel that you are asking these questions knowing full well that our answers will be "yes," and then trying to form an argument around this. Why not just skip straight to it?

I just meant unviable in the sense of "You cannot bring this character to a tourney setting without axing your chances of taking home wins in the brackets of any acclaim; it is in that sense a waste of time to pick up this character if your goal is to win money." or whatever sense of meaning hovering around there that people agree on.

And I don't believe this is true of any of the characters in question. Therefore I do not believe they are unviable.

It would be unfair, if our only condition was to improve viability. But I've tried to give reasons for why there's more to it than that and we don't snowball. (And as I said, people have begun to undress those reasons, so we're getting somewhere.)

Well, your reasons broke down so your argument no longer applies.

I'm glad that we found that grab break information though, as it really does show that the community as a whole can find solutions for just about any problem.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I'm sick and tired of this stale argument. It's been repeated a jillion times and the refute has to be repeated time and time again:
Over-centralization around the walk-offs due to various chaingrabs, cargo throws, wall-infinites/wall quasi-infinites/super-wall-combos, jab locks, laser locks, D-tilt locks, take your pick.

Wait, what?

There are VARIOUS chaingrabs, cargo throws, wall-infinities/all that stuff. I don't believe your arguement is all that viable, simply because so many characters have those options, overcentralization would be impossible.

How would overcentralization caused by so many tactics break the game? It's like saying stages without walkoff edges break the game with their emphasis on off-stage combat.

 

[Dark Sonic]

It would not immediately overcentralize around a particular character, but rather around those particular tactics. If your opponent counterpicked that stage and was using a character that could perform such tactics, your only choice would be to do the same. Now with both of you being able to do the tactic, the one who landed the particular tactic would be the winner, with pretty much no exceptions. The only way to counteract the tactic, would be to do it yourself.

Then the characters who were the best at setting up the tactics would become more popular, and eventually everyone would switch to those particular characters (those that can set up locks with trips or footstools...and Diddy).

 

[The Halloween Captain]

It would not immediately overcentralize around a particular character, but rather around those particular tactics. If your opponent counterpicked that stage and was using a character that could perform such tactics, your only choice would be to do the same. Now with both of you being able to do the tactic, the one who landed the particular tactic would be the winner, with pretty much no exceptions. The only way to counteract the tactic, would be to do it yourself.

Then the characters who were the best at setting up the tactics would become more popular, and eventually everyone would switch to those particular characters (those that can set up locks with trips or footstools...and Diddy).

Yeah, so?

The game centralizes around a lot of characters with tactics that can work on those stages. Characters that become popular are those who are viable on both stages with and without walkoff edges and walls. There is no reason to ban these stages that is consistent with the understanding of what constitutes a ban in competitive gaming, simply because while those tactics will centralize the game, there are so many of them, no particular character will be overcentralizing, and the game itself will be about the ability to set up and pull off these many, many combos, rather than what it currently is.

It is inconsistent to ban these stages under the understanding of how competitive gaming works, because while centralizing, the game would still be playable, just in a different form than what most smashers are currently accustomed to playing.

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^And yet there are very, very few characters that can actually combo into their locks or easily set up their wall infinites. Off the top of my head?

locks that can be combo'd into: Sonic (inconsistant because the setup is DI dependent), Pikachu, Falco (only if the shine trips I think, or maybe if it doesn't trip. I don't remember), Diddy Kong

True Wall infinites; Marth's d-tilt, DDD chaingrab, Ike' f-throw chaingrab (lol?), I don't particularly know anymore that didn't fit into the first one.

So we have Sonic, Pikachu, falco, Diddy Kong, Marth, DDD, and Ike that can take full advantage of these stages. Of this group, Sonic, Marth, Ike, and Diddy Kong are all eliminated by DDD's chaingrab, so if you pick any of them the oppponent can just pick DDD. So what you have left are Falco, Pikachu, and DDD, however DDD is unable to take advantage of the stage against these characters, so all you really have left are Falco, and Pikachu.

I don't know for sure, but doesn't Pikachu have the advantage on both Falco? If that's true, then there goes that matchup, and even if not, it's still overcentralizing around two characters.

edit: Does Shiek have a lock of any sort?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

^^And yet there are very, very few characters that can actually combo into their locks or easily set up their wall infinites. Off the top of my head?

locks that can be combo'd into: Sonic (inconsistant because the setup is DI dependent), Pikachu, Falco (only if the shine trips I think, or maybe if it doesn't trip. I don't remember), Shiek, Diddy Kong

True Wall infinites; Marth's d-tilt, DDD chaingrab, Ike' f-throw chaingrab (lol?), I don't particularly know anymore that didn't fit into the first one.

So we have Sonic, Pikachu, falco, Shiek, Diddy Kong, Marth, DDD, and Ike that can take full advantage of these stages. Of this group, Sonic, Marth, Ike, and Diddy Kong are all eliminated by DDD's chaingrab, so if you pick any of them the oppponent can just pick DDD. So what you have left are Shiek, Falco,Pikachu, and DDD, however DDD is unable to take advantage of the stage against these characters, so all you really have left are Shiek, Falco, and Pikachu.

I don't know for sure, but doesn't Pikachu have the advantage on both Falco and Shiek? If that's true, then there goes those matchups.

Pikachu. That's all we are left with. lol?

Wow. You make so many assumptions in there. If D3 is unviable against half the cast, he can't make the other half unviable against himself, because he himself is unviable. In addition, Diddy Kong can abuse D3 just as much as D3 can abuse him on these stages. Pikachu is only the safest option, much like MK is the safest option. Pikachu counters D3, D3 counters Marth, Marth counters Pikachu. There is nothing inconsistent with the competitive mindset with this. In addtion, there is still the option of non-walk-off stages (typically neutral), which means Pikachu is not the best choice in the first matchup.

Even if it were entirely walk-off edges and walled stages, there is nothing wrong with the metagame you described. It is competitively consistent with what is appropriate.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Wow. You make so many assumptions in there. If D3 is unviable against half the cast, he can't make the other half unviable against himself, because he himself is unviable.

I never said that DDD was unviable against half the cast. I said he was unviable against the characters who could not only not be chaingrabbed by him, but also had a reliable way of setting up their infinite. He's still an ultimate counterpick against all the characters he could chaingrab, and he's still got a fair fight against those he can't chaingrab, if they can't infinite him in return.

In addition, Diddy Kong can abuse D3 just as much as D3 can abuse him on these stages. Pikachu is only the safest option, much like MK is the safest option. Pikachu counters D3, D3 counters Marth, Marth counters Pikachu. There is nothing inconsistent with the competitive mindset with this. In addtion, there is still the option of non-walk-off stages (typically neutral), which means Pikachu is not the best choice in the first matchup.

Even if it were entirely walk-off edges and walled stages, there is nothing wrong with the metagame you described. It is competitively consistent with what is appropriate.

Diddy's banana lock is much harder to set up than DDD's chaingrab, so DDD eliminates Diddy too.

But yes, you do get that triangle, given that Pikachu. But that's essentially all that you get, since every other character would be a dangerous choice (it just so happens that most of the characters that DDD can't chaingrab are ones who don't have a wall infinite of any sort.)

You'd essentially be taking a huge risk by picking those other characters. You give up ability to abuse the stage in order to gain immunity to DDDs chaingrab, but by doing so you make yourself susceptible to any character that can abuse the stage.

Thus the metagame would devolve to these 3 characters, and in the event of a double blind pick (if any of these were neutral stages) then you'd still have a 33% chance of running into your hard counter, with the counterpicks from then on already being pre determined (thanks to advanced slob counterpicks). The winner in this case is always determined by the first match, because in every scenario your opponent will be able to hard counter you on thier counterpick.

Overcentralizing yet?

 

[Moseythepirate]

Well, I'll try and stir up this stale argument.

First: I am pro ban. Just getting this across now.
Second: I am not a pro at this game, but I'm no scrub either. I would say that I am better than...say...90% of smash players.
Third: If I say anything that can be PROVEN wrong (not just countered with an argument, but actually proven wrong so there is ZERO chance of it being correct) tell me immediately.
Fourth: I'm only going to make basic points in this post, and elaborate if necessary. Why? I'm lazy.
Fifth: I am not familiar with all of the technical aspects of the CG, so if I make a mistake, tell me, and furthermore, enlighten me as to the technical aspects. Otherwise, I will ignore you.

Now, I'll try and make some points:

1) Saying that this only applies in 6/740 matchups is a fallacy. Why? Because of counterpicking and DDD's popularity. If all characters were randomly picked by both parties, then this argument would be valid. However, DDD is rather popular, making the odds of your opponent being DDD much more likely. Also, because of counterpicks, choosing any of these 6 characters would compel the opponent to pick DDD. For that game, this brings the probability of the opponent choosing DDD closer to 734/740.

2) The "Slippery-Slope" effect could be avoided very simply: Alter the rules so that DDD cannot use the throw in question more than (insert arbitrary number here) times in a row against the 6 characters. If you only ban the maneuver when there is a possibility of an inescapable 0~death combo, then the slope becomes a lot less slippery.

3) Claiming that the CG should be kept because "the characters aren't viable in a tourney anyway" is a logical fallacy because the character's tier placement is irrelevant. The assumption that this argument is based on is that the infinite chain-grab makes these characters useless against DDD. DDD's other techniques, and the techniques of other characters, have no place in this argument whatsoever.

4) Saying "it only effects 6 characters, so it isn't grounds for banning" is purely subjective. Indeed, I would say that 2 characters is too much, but that is subjective as well.

Okay, I'm done for now. Respond, please.


PS: On a side note, you have probably noticed that this is my first post here. As such, I am more or less ignorant of much of SW's intricacies. If I might ask, what is the number that is on the upper right corner of each post?

 

[XxBlackxX]

Well, I'll try and stir up this stale argument.

First: I am pro ban. Just getting this across now.

well it's not really stale, it's still getting posts, but yea, most of the opinions are been voiced already.

Second: I am not a pro at this game, but I'm no scrub either. I would say that I am better than...say...90% of smash players.

source? i can see you're pulling info outta your *** already...

Third: If I say anything that can be PROVEN wrong (not just countered with an argument, but actually proven wrong so there is ZERO chance of it being correct) tell me immediately.

few things have ZERO % chance of being wrong. a counter-argument is a counter. there is no point in arguing with you if you don't accept it >_>

1) Saying that this only applies in 6/740 matchups is a fallacy. Why? Because of counterpicking and DDD's popularity. If all characters were randomly picked by both parties, then this argument would be valid. However, DDD is rather popular, making the odds of your opponent being DDD much more likely. Also, because of counterpicks, choosing any of these 6 characters would compel the opponent to pick DDD. For that game, this brings the probability of the opponent choosing DDD closer to 734/740.

the fact that those 6/740 matchups happen MORE than certain other matchups doesn't not mean it's a fallacy. it's a true fact. also, 734/740? stop pulling "facts" outta your *** please.
and anyways, even if the matchupss happen more often still doesn't change the fact that this DOESN'T over-centralize. and of course you should expect an opponent to CP D3 against DK if you win first match. (and stick with him). that's why the CP system EXISTS, you know.

2) The "Slippery-Slope" effect could be avoided very simply: Alter the rules so that DDD cannot use the throw in question more than (insert arbitrary number here) times in a row against the 6 characters. If you only ban the maneuver when there is a possibility of an inescapable 0~death combo, then the slope becomes a lot less slippery.

that adds more problems than it solves.
scenario
DK player: "OMG, ref! the D3 dthrow-ed me ___ times! "
D3 player " no, i dthrowed you, then _____(insert attack here), THEN regrabbed. therefore you COULD have escaped and it's not an infinite."
see? this has to be really carefully watched by refs, and that's stupid imo.

3) Claiming that the CG should be kept because "the characters aren't viable in a tourney anyway" is a logical fallacy because the character's tier placement is irrelevant. The assumption that this argument is based on is that the infinite chain-grab makes these characters useless against DDD. DDD's other techniques, and the techniques of other characters, have no place in this argument whatsoever.

this doesn't change the fact that the technique doesn't over-centralize or break the game as a WHOLE.

4) Saying "it only effects 6 characters, so it isn't grounds for banning" is purely subjective. Indeed, I would say that 2 characters is too much, but that is subjective as well.

no. there IS already a non-subjective way to decide. basically ask "does it over-centralize or break the game as a WHOLE" and the answer is no. the infinites aren't universal. and if you TRULY think 2/37 is over-centralizing, then honestly, you're an idiot. falco's cg->spike (0-death, btw) works on more chars than that. >_>