Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[da K.I.D.]

Name some who would still be viable against D3. with walk offs and walls.
.

Olimar, Shiek, Zelda, GaW, Falco, Fox, Jiggly, ZSS, MK

 

[Moseythepirate]

Why are we discussing walls and walkoff stages? Last time I checked, this was a thread about whether DDD's infinite chaingrab should be banned.

 

[ColinJF]

Rumble Falls makes the match all about running and climbing the stage for your life, it has those spikes which can be comboed into, the kill zones are almost at the very edge of the visible stage.

All in all, it makes for broken matches and we don't like that. Also, it's kinda random. The speed-ups happen at random. And nobody wants to play a Competitive fighting game where you spend half of the match trying not to die due to the scrolling stage, not to mention the camping the stage allows for (when it's not sped up).

Running away isn't a viable strategy on Rumble Falls, and it's easy to keep up with the stage if you are familiar with it. The stage actually includes an upward wind effect to make it easier to keep up. (This is most obvious with Peach's float.) You're right though... "nobody wants to play" on this stage is precisely the reason why it's banned.

This isn't a topic on stage bans, and Halloween Captain is obnoxious, but going by sirlin's strict criteria of what should be banned, the smash community does tend to be overzealous with stage bans.

 

[Gates]

Olimar, Shiek, Zelda, GaW, Falco, Fox, Jiggly, ZSS, MK

You forgot Pikachu and Ice Climbers.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Why are we discussing walls and walkoff stages? Last time I checked, this was a thread about whether DDD's infinite chaingrab should be banned.

The anti-ban standard for a ban would have left those stages in the competitive scene if they were consistent with their understanding of what constitues a ban.

 

[Oddler]

Anything that takes the fun out of a game should be banned. Items were banned...thank god. Cheap *** infinites should be too.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Rumble Falls makes the match all about running and climbing the stage for your life, it has those spikes which can be comboed into, the kill zones are almost at the very edge of the visible stage.

All in all, it makes for broken matches and we don't like that. Also, it's kinda random. The speed-ups happen at random. And nobody wants to play a Competitive fighting game where you spend half of the match trying not to die due to the scrolling stage, not to mention the camping the stage allows for (when it's not sped up).

first paragraph is your opinion.
2nd paragraph, the speed ups are not random. that shows that you dont have much experience on the stage and shouldnt comment on it.
and for the record, i wouldnt mind playing a fighter on a scrolling stage, Ice mountain used to be my favorite stage in melee.

 

[Yuna]

To the Halloween Captain:
As for not giving the stages enough time, we already have experience from previous Smash games to know what should and what shouldn't be banned. And we gave it, what, 4 or so months before there was a definite stage ban list (I might be remembering things wrong)?

That is exactly my point. Credible or not, people have been using that argument.

Nobody cares about the non-credible people. No one credible, that is.

The ratio of match-ups will always be 5/780. However, the actual probability that a DK player will be play against a DDD player is much higher than that.

Yes, and? Dk is still just one character out of 39. His match-up against D3 is still only 1 out of 780.

If a character has a really ****ty match-up against a popular character, of course the odds of running into them will be high. That's neither here nor there.

No one's discussing the odds. The odds are meaningless. What is important is if it's "too good" and over-centralizing. And at the end of the day, it is still only 5 out of 780 match-ups, not matter how much you try to distort the facts.

These are all valid questions, and that is exactly why I didn't propose a number. However, that is not the subject of this argument. This argument is about DDD, and only DDD. Other characters apart from DDD and the chars he can CG have no bearing on this argument whatsoever. All situations are different, and each should be looked upon with an open mind and fresh perspectives.

We cannot make arbitrary bans just because we feel like it. We can't just instate the ban and then change it in how it applies to other characters.

You just set forth a suggestion that would apply to many other characters. You have to work out the kinks.

What I'm saying is that which characters it works on is irrelevant.

So am I. The pro-banners are trying to make it relevant, though. I refute their attempts.

If the CG worked on only the Top Tiers, it would still be completely irrelevant. Whether or not the player would win if the ban was induced has no bearing on this argument, as it cannot be determined until such a ban is employed.

Smart people with insight into Smash can analyze the metagame and come up with the answer without the need of seeing it first.

And yes, it's is irrelevant. Again it was the pro-ban side trying to make this relevant.

I repeat: those situations have no bearing on this debate. Stick to the subject, please.

You are arguing against the pro-banners. What I stated was merely my refutations of their flimsy arguments.

Please, stop the personal attacks.

It's not an attack on your person. It's an attack on your reading comprehension and logic, which I still find lacking after reading this response.

-rather than calling me an idiot immediately. I want to learn.

I didn't call you any names. I didn't claim you were unintelligent. If you want to lean, then don't be so definite in your posts, coming off sounding as if you believe what you say is the truth.

Also, don't be so illogical. People without logic cannot be taught.

 

[ColinJF]

The anti-ban standard for a ban would have left those stages in the competitive scene if they were consistent with their understanding of what constitues a ban.

The "anti-ban" isn't a coherent group. I don't support banning walk offs just for being walk offs. And as much as I disagree with Overswarm on various other things, he doesn't support that either, and he's somebody who posted earlier in this topic.

Besides, inconsistency of position isn't an argument in favour of banning Dedede's infinite chaingrabs.

 

[Yuna]

first paragraph is your opinion.
2nd paragraph, the speed ups are not random. that shows that you dont have much experience on the stage and shouldnt comment on it.

The first paragraph was not my opinion. It contained many facts.

I was under the impression that the speeding up can be random at times.

and for the record, i wouldnt mind playing a fighter on a scrolling stage, Ice mountain used to be my favorite stage in melee.

Icicle Mountain, however, was random.

 

[Yuna]

Olimar, Shiek, Zelda, GaW, Falco, Fox, Jiggly, ZSS, MK

And the rest would not be. The point is that we'd not have 6 characters out of 39 renders unviable. We'd have 30 out of 39. That's a vast majority. Also, Sheik?

Running away isn't a viable strategy on Rumble Falls, and it's easy to keep up with the stage if you are familiar with it.

Running away from the stage. The point is not whether or not it's hard. The point is that the metagame on Rumble Falls is over-centralized around fighting the stage, around not getting killed when the stage scrolls.

This isn't a topic on stage bans, and Halloween Captain is obnoxious, but going by sirlin's strict criteria of what should be banned, the smash community does tend to be overzealous with stage bans.

The Halloween Captain: I am still waiting for you to quote Sirlin. This is my, um, what, 5th request? You made a claim, substantiate it.

 

[Moseythepirate]

As much as I would love to respond, Yuna, your post has horrific formatting. I know it is accidental, but is is rather awkward to respond when the formatting is so...well...****ty. Would you please clean it up?

Edit: Ah, thank you. Much better.

 

[Yuna]

As much as I would love to respond, Yuna, your post has horrific formatting. I know it is accidental, but is is rather awkward to respond when the formatting is so...well...****ty. Would you please clean it up?

I did. 8 minutes ago. Did you view it then and not respond 'til now?

 

[Moseythepirate]

Yep. I think through my posts, even pointless ones. Hell, it took me 5 minutes to write this post.

 

[da K.I.D.]

rumble falls as a stage doesnt over centralising anything, why are you talking about a stage that you dont have the necessary experience with? i asked you to stop that

 

[XxBlackxX]

What I meant is that using that ratio is misleading in an argument, because the actual chance that your opponent will pick DDD on the first go is probably better than .82% Previous posters were using that ratio in order to make it look like DDD's CG has almost no effect. Apparently you misunderstood. That number was indeed "pulled out of my ***." I never meant for it to be taken as a fact, so stop claiming that I did. What I meant is that using the 6/740 ratio in this debate is useless, as the ratio has no real relevance in the metagame. Surely you would agree with that. (By the way, I only used the ratio 734/740 because it is the reverse of 6/740, it is very close to 100%, and has a nice symmetry with the other ratio. The reason why I chose a ratio close to 100% is because, as you said, it very likely that your opponent would choose DDD as a counterpick to DK.)
But it does centralize. I agree completely. That's exactly what I was saying.

first of all, it's out of 780, as Yuna has already told you, and second, yes, D3 IS a popular character and a DK main WILL probably see that match more than most. and no, using the 6/780 is NOT useless. it's a fact, and you cannot change it no matter how OFTEN the matchups occur.

I do not see the problem with that situation. If the CG was escapable, then this debate wouldn't even exist. And why not have the game be closely watched by refs?

because why make a rule that would require it when there isn't any need to in the first place?

I don't think anything breaks the game as a whole. And may you please define the "over" part of over-centralizing? In your opinion, at what point does something centralize too much? How much centralizing is okay?

when something is "universal" or very much close to it. example: IDC. it worked on all the characters.
basically, when it's
"pick character X/do tactic Y or lose"

That is, in fact, subjective. To prove this, precisely define "overcentralizing," tell me exactly what the "game as a whole" is and exactly what "breaking" it means. Furthermore, present it in a form that is indisputable. Unless I am very much mistaken, you can't. Therefore, it is subjective. Indeed, choosing centralization as the main issue in banning is a subjective decision.

you are being like dakid. of course NO argument will EVER be completely objective. you are aruging your OPINION, after all. however, that's okay as long as you back it up with facts
my facts? that the infinites do not break the game as a whole/cause over-centralizing because it's not universal, just CP a different char and you're good. and second, the metagame isn't "pick D3 and do infinites or lose" because they don't work on everyone or even a majority of the cast.

Please, stop turning my arguments into something they are not. I never said that 2/37 0~death combos is over centralizing, and indeed it is not over centralizing in my view. I said that, in my opinion, a character having a 0~death combo that works on 2 characters is too much. To elaborate on my beliefs, I believe that 0~death combos that are as easy to pull off as DDD's should not be allowed at all. I just don't like them, that's all, and if I had my way, they would be removed altogether. That, by the way, is an opinion, and is not the subject of my argument.

unlike the majority of the rest of your post, which is pretty intelligent, THIS is a BS argument. we don't ban things because "you just don't like them". skill, also is a thing that doesn't matter. im not attacking you personally, but after reading "your opinion" i feel you don't really know why we ban things. it's not for any of the reasons you listed.

Also, please cease the personal attacks. Also, my questions are not rhetorical. I actually want to know your personal answers to the questions I have asked. Among those who know me, I am famous for changing sides in an argument. I am not the kind of person who would stick to an argument like a leech to Steve Irwin's inner thigh. I don't care who "wins" this argument. I just want to help make sure that the decision made is the right one, or at least, the one closer to right. If you can convince me that to not ban the CG is the right move, I would change sides in a heartbeat.

no, i said you WOULD be an idiot if you thought 2/37 was over-centralizing "in your opinion". but since you don't, that's all good.

EDIT:
@Oddler

Anything that takes the fun out of a game should be banned. Items were banned...thank god. Cheap *** infinites should be too.

don't you guys like, actually READ any of the thread before you post? anti-bans have addressed this particular BS argument like 30 pgs ago.

 

[MorphedChaos]

Yuna, to specify like I did, I am against this ban, Before I was for it, but with Dark Sonic shedding light on the situation I was totally unaware of, I'm anti ban for this. (I'll be pro ban if it bans MK, but thats a moot point.)

Also, isn't the halberd glitch used for infiniting as well? That makes Snake, Capt falcon, and charazard infinitable. (Wanna make sure you can refute this point Yuna, so people wont bring it up XD. still kinda hate you, but I can respect you sometimes with your debating.)

 

[Ripple]

wasn't yuna for the ban some time ago, I'm getting confused on who's on what side

 

[ShadowLink84]

yuna has always been anti ban.

 

[PK-ow!]

EDIT: It's kind of awesome how I keep hitting first post to a page.

I appologize.
I'll try to pay more attention this time.
[...]
I'm glad we agree.
[...]
My mistake.

*thumbsup*

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.

*faceslap*
You got it wrong again. In the same way, and also a new way.

Again, it's not making a character better than others, it's about making a character better. Than itself, without the 'something'.
And not a technique, "something." This includes, possibly, "banning a technique" (it's what I had in mind).

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.

Yes, definitely, and that puts an end to my foray into the pro-ban camp.
But I had to look to be sure. See, now we all come out of this armed with answers to the objections I just posed, except for anyone who already was equipped with those answers (Yuna, apparently).

Everybody wins. Except those who don't RTFT (Thread).

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

[yaddayadda]

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.

lol. You did it again. I'm just pointing it out 'cuz you'd probably want to know.

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.

I've totally lost track of which this was referring to. One of those questions I was expecting 'no it's a good thing', the other, the other way.

This question:
"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?" ~ Me

I expected 'yes'. Now I've actually been shown the issue is either null-valuable, or irreducibly complex (since viability implicates the reduction of other characters' standings.), so I'm not interested in asking the question anymore.

I don't even remember what the other one was, and the link chain is too long to follow back.

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

Then it's not such a case! Come on, man.

Spoiler

(SENSE: This emoticon makes none)

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

We were talking in a sufficiently abstracted sense I'd have to sentence myself to death if I couldn't come up with an example, of something that is trivial because it has no costs, compared to a strictly inferior option. In any domain. Of anything.

. . . except how I suck with examples.
*headdesk*

But not important. You got me, this isn't such a scenario; there are costs, I was blind to them for a day.

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 really wanted to know the answer. I expected 'yes', but if otherwise I had no leg to stand on. And considering what I had seen, I thought I really might see 'no'.

And that turned out to be the case.

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

Oh yes, there's that. But throughout I needed to assume the characters really were 'hopeless' - I couldn't demonstrate that myself and certainly did not support a ban if they were not.


And now to answer Yuna.

You see, I specifically said that the rules are not written to create the "most rewarding" experience. This means that the rules are not written to maximize "reward".

Which means that we won't ban every little thing that could be viewed as rewarding were it banned. This in no ways means the rules are never ever written to make the game more rewarding. Not over-centralizing the game can be argued as meaning more rewarding than an over-centralized game.

Even though this wasn't addressed to me, I'm quoting it to acknowledge it.

Banning things to artifically get rid of huge weaknesses on the part of characters with huge weaknesses, in essence giving them a handicap = More Competitive?

I know! I was confused okay?

See, this is also an old argument. We just haven't seen it around here for a while.

The rules are not written to maximize "diversity", either. They are written to prevent the minimization of diversity (i.e. over-centralization). But we're not banning stuff to make the game more "diverse".

And the question would be: What would the threshold be? What would qualify as making the game more diverse if we ban it? Do we stop at "diversifying" a match-up once it's 80-20? 70-30? 60-40? 50-50?

Argh! Since I've already seen enough to toss out what I was saying, I don't know if this is worth the effort, but this is so misconstruing what I said.

When did I say anything that allowed "diversifying a matchup" to make sense? It doesn't make sense. Diversifying either happens to the game, or not. The point in a matchup matrix where that happens isn't part of the issue - you'll either see it in tournament turnout or not, it's viability vs. unviability.
So that weirdness aside, the 'threshold' for when the situation would call for the ban (in the view I've abandoned a few kilobytes ago) is when it's unviable. The point at which you stop is when you remove the thing clearly precipitating the unviable (and which satisfies the other restricting conditions which pick it out as being the principle cause, as being in and of itself matchup-fracturing, etc.).

I don't. . . agh. I don't think my curiosity is worth the headache.

I said I viewed diversity as a means to an end. More effective than repeating something you just said to me would be pointing out that diversity doesn't do the job I thought it did, and does the things I thought it didn't.

[The Captain can't beat edgeguarding. Tethers are owned by ledgehogs.]

Other people answered this. (these certainly don't oneside matchups). But yeah, beating dead horse.

Did you just argue we should ban the infinite to make the game more "fun"?

No!

Deadpan delivery: "This is so frustrating."

Competitive gaming is Competitive gaming. We play games Competitively. What is enjoyable for one person is not necessarily enjoyable for someone else.

Me, I find it highly, eh, not-enjoyable, that the community has descended into Ban Trigger Happy La La Land where things need to be "Fair", "Diverse" and "Fun" and if they aren't, well, bring in the Ban Hammer! A metagame where we banned D3's infinite would make me enjoy the Competitive scene less because of my values and principles and my view that we would have sunked to low depths of Scrubbinness. Subjective stuff!

What I was saying is that the playing of games competitively is the thing we are viewing as the reward here. There is value in that. 'Fun' doesn't cover it. 'Rewarding', apparently, is unsuitable. I don't know if I can find the word. But there is a good experience. A pleasure rather than a pain. If there wasn't, we wouldn't want competition. I mean clearly.

Being a competitive gamer is about connecting to that desire. The principles we build and protect in rule systems ensure that what matters is just the competition, nothing else is allowed to decide something which the drive for competition wants to decide. We give reign to it. The scrub is the antithesis of this desire and so we are ever-vigilant to stamp scrubbiness out.

So all I meant by the 'rewarding' comment was just the way of stating 'satisfying the competitive urge'. When you said "Rules are not written to create "the most rewarding experience" (subjective notion, BTW).", I want to say "No, actually, that's exactly what they are written for, for the right meaning of 'the most rewarding experience', and I just sucked at getting a first approximation of words for that idea." and also "And that means it is not a subjective notion; for the right meaning of what the goal is here, it's an objective notion, because what it is that 'competitiveness' is, is something we all have in common: an intuition shared as surely as the moral sense."

Your talk of La La Land is non sequitur to my post, and it's somewhat upsetting.

*~*~*~
So. . . let me screw my cap back on, and I'll be back to playing crowd control around here.

 

[WastingPenguins]

This thread moves too fast, and people just ignore posts. So I'll try one more time. This is in response to the claim that the infinite does indeed have at least one non-broken tactic, which seems to be a brief, risky stalling tactic vs. Luigi, Samus and Mario.

Can someone tell me at what percent D3 is capable of using his infinite on Samus, Mario and Luigi? I'm assuming it's under the 300% cap?

Here's what I don't like: that a D3 player, who is fighting one of these three and has achieved a position where he could score a KO, is instead allowed to choose to stall the match. At that point, if you choose to infinite, you are stalling the match and nothing more. There is no other explanation, rationalization, or otherwise. This is very different from, for instance, ledge-stalling, where there are plenty of other possible reasons that you don't immediately choose to return to the stage. Doesn't this stand in stark contrast to the precedent set by other pure-stalling tactics that have been banned? Can someone else name a pure-stalling tactic that you are allowed to use for a certain period of time, and THEN have to either stop or forfeit the match?

Why the hell did we ban Meta Knight's cape stall outright? Why didn't we allow the MK player to use it... only under certain circumstances, and only just for a little while, THEN tell them to stop?

If no one wants to respond, then I give up.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

And the rest would not be. The point is that we'd not have 6 characters out of 39 renders unviable. We'd have 30 out of 39. That's a vast majority. Also, Sheik?


Running away from the stage. The point is not whether or not it's hard. The point is that the metagame on Rumble Falls is over-centralized around fighting the stage, around not getting killed when the stage scrolls.



The Halloween Captain: I am still waiting for you to quote Sirlin. This is my, um, what, 5th request? You made a claim, substantiate it.

At the last comment - No, b/c the link is down.

Second - 9 characters makes a perfectly acceptable fighter, considering 64 only had 12 total. Haven't there been fighters with more characters and less viable characters than that before?

 

[da K.I.D.]

Can someone tell me at what percent D3 is capable of using his infinite on Samus, Mario and Luigi? I'm assuming it's under the 300% cap?

Here's what I don't like: that a D3 player, who is fighting one of these three and has achieved a position where he could score a KO, is instead allowed to choose to stall the match. At that point, if you choose to infinite, you are stalling the match and nothing more. There is no other explanation, rationalization, or otherwise. This is very different from, for instance, ledge-stalling, where there are plenty of other possible reasons that you don't immediately choose to return to the stage. Doesn't this stand in stark contrast to the precedent set by other pure-stalling tactics that have been banned? Can someone else name a pure-stalling tactic that you are allowed to use for a certain period of time, and THEN have to either stop or forfeit the match?

Why the hell did we ban Meta Knight's cape stall outright? Why didn't we allow the MK player to use it... only under certain circumstances, and only just for a little while, THEN tell them to stop?

this post is amazing and rapetastic

 

[Moseythepirate]

Nobody cares about the non-credible people. No one credible, that is.

And who determines who is credible? And does it matter? The important thing isn't whether the person is "credible," it's the nature of their arguments. Saying that anyone who believes *insert idea here* isn't credible isn't logic; it's arguing ad hominem. Every argument is equally deserving of response, no matter who makes it.

Yes, and? Dk is still just one character out of 39. His match-up against D3 is still only 1 out of 780.

If a character has a really ****ty match-up against a popular character, of course the odds of running into them will be high. That's neither here nor there.

No one's discussing the odds. The odds are meaningless. What is important is if it's "too good" and over-centralizing. And at the end of the day, it is still only 5 out of 780 match-ups, not matter how much you try to distort the facts.

I AGREE. I wasn't "distorting facts." I was pointing out that using the 5/780 matchup argument is. distorting the facts.

We cannot make arbitrary bans just because we feel like it. We can't just instate the ban and then change it in how it applies to other characters.

This isn't too clear to me...would you please elaborate?

You just set forth a suggestion that would apply to many other characters. You have to work out the kinks.

True enough. But just because there are kinks to work out doesn't mean that the idea is inherently flawed.

Smart people with insight into Smash can analyze the metagame and come up with the answer without the need of seeing it first.

Please, I'm an engineer. You can hypothesize all you want, but at the end of the day, you need to test it. Green paper will take you far, but eventually, you need to build a prototype and test it. Truly "Smart" people know that they cannot foresee every outcome.

And yes, it's is irrelevant. Again it was the pro-ban side trying to make this relevant.

I know. That's what I was trying to say.

You are arguing against the pro-banners. What I stated was merely my refutations of their flimsy arguments.

Actually, no. I am arguing against the anti-banners. And that doesn't make your response any less off subject. I repeat again: This is about DDD's CG. NOT any other infinite. Stick to the subject.

It's not an attack on your person. It's an attack on your reading comprehension and logic, which I still find lacking after reading this response.

How is that not an attack on me, personally?

I didn't call you any names.

No you didn't. But you implied I was an idiot. Or is "Do you possess any shred of logic, at all?" a compliment?

I didn't claim you were unintelligent.

Uh, yeah, you kind of did.

If you want to lean, then don't be so definite in your posts, coming off sounding as if you believe what you say is the truth.

Now you're being silly. So your saying that I should come off sounding like I don't believe anything I say? I'm sorry, but I don't take a stance on anything unless I think it is the truth. I'm willing to change my views, and if I do, I will sound just as confident then as well. How I sound when I talk has no bearing on my ability to learn.

Also, don't be so illogical. People without logic cannot be taught.

How exactly am I illogical? Please, be specific and clear, and stay on subject.

 

[Ripple]

the best arguments are won by asking questions and having them think about the answer. saying things has done little to convince some people for or against the ban

 

[ShadowLink84]

the best arguments are won by asking questions and having them think about the answer. saying things has done little to convince some people for or against the ban

Socratic questioning.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Yeah, I tried that. It was... interesting.

The first, and only question, was what was the fundamental reason that bans must only be issued on such stringent standards. The principle behind the principle for "all bans must be of gamebreaking elements." It was a very long discussion involving lots of answers that didn't answer the question.

 

[Moseythepirate]

It was a very long discussion involving lots of answers that didn't answer the question.

Hmmf. That is a remarkably succinct summary of this topic, as well...I really don't care what is decided, to be honest. It isn't as if it actually affects me, as I don't take part in the tourney scene for many reasons. I just wish that people would address the question. All I've seen out of this topic is stubbornness and off topic tangents...

 

[M15t3R E]

Is the SBR planning on voting on this issue soon?
I want this behind us. The arguing is getting us nowhere.

 

[da K.I.D.]

i heard that right now they are voting on a new tier list

 

[M15t3R E]

i heard that right now they are voting on a new tier list

That sounds good to me too.

 

[PK-ow!]

Please, I'm an engineer. You can hypothesize all you want, but at the end of the day, you need to test it. Green paper will take you far, but eventually, you need to build a prototype and test it. Truly "Smart" people know that they cannot foresee every outcome.

What's green paper?
Anyway, I'm at least trained in philosophy. Some answers can come without building anything. The identity theory of mind was dismantled with philosophical considerations alone, in spite of whatever mounting technological power neuroscience had at the time or has now. More powerfully, early concept theories/category theories were tossed out as being unable to account for cognition's "basic building blocks." Nothing was built, just a few simple experiments were done, but then powerful philosophical moves demonstrated that the theories just wouldn't work.

I know you were probably brought up on such things as an engineer, and sure, maybe it's good to give yourself a reason to believe yours is the best profession (it very well could be the most important one to society today for some meaning of 'importance').

But it's not seriously true that the engineer's way is the way to everything. I mean, if you only built things, you wouldn't get to the Truth because there's an infinity of things you could try to build. Some thought is telling you what to try. Some thought tells you when you've failed because it's not possible, or when you've failed because your knowledge was incomplete. Something outside the fact of succeeding or failing in building something - a way of understanding the meaning, by way of thinking about what could be true, and what could not.

So thought is doing something.

There should be a way to know what would happen if a ban on D3's chaingrab took place. There aren't a lot of changing variables, so it should follow any model that an experienced intelligent Smash theorist would have on that.

How is that not an attack on me, personally?

It's not a moral failing to be stupid or illogical. It's not inflammatory to inform someone of a case that, while undesirable, may factually be true.

No you didn't. But you implied I was an idiot. Or is "Do you possess any shred of logic, at all?" a compliment?

Being an idiot is, again, a matter of fact. You're likely not an idiot, as an idiot couldn't qualify and get through an Engineering program. Most people use the term to mean that some intelligence was lacking, though, or just situationally, a in a lapse of rationality or wisdom. But he didn't use the term. You're choosing to believe he implied it.

Lacking logic, as Yuna says, seems to mean that you either don't have good flow to your 'arguments', or you commit blatant logical fallacies, or you don't have training in logic and it shows brutally, or in the worst case just nothing you say makes any sense (in connection with itself or in its context of a discussion).

Each one, again, a matter of fact, modulo quibbling over degree, but if true, it's something that needs to be dealt with first (since a debate can't go on if one side simply isn't 'getting' anything; it's just words.)
If I tried discussing with you and you kept making a nonsense inference to conclude your end, I have to first show you the inference is invalid. If I show it to you as plainly as I can, and you resist, I can only plead that you're being illogical, for a time, before resorting to ignoring you.
Similarly for if you can't see that your statements don't have a clear meaning, or if you are ignoring certain principles of debate (committing informal fallacies), or if your words just don't form an argument for there to be anything to reply to.

That's, believe it or not, mostly what the stuff around here is like.

 

[SirroMinus1]

As much as I would love to respond, Yuna, your post has horrific formatting. I know it is accidental, but is is rather awkward to respond when the formatting is so...well...****ty. Would you please clean it up?

Edit: Ah, thank you. Much better.

Make your name known, Then people will care about what you got to say.

 

[Yuna]

rumble falls as a stage doesnt over centralising anything, why are you talking about a stage that you dont have the necessary experience with? i asked you to stop that

I've played on Rumble Falls tons of times. I have plenty of experience with it. I was wrong on the speeding up possibly being random, that is.

I go to anime conventions... a lot. What do anime conventions have? Casual players. And Casual players love to put all stages on random, hence Rumble Falls.

Also, a bit hypocritical there, aren't we?

wasn't yuna for the ban some time ago, I'm getting confused on who's on what side

I was never for the ban. I was kinda OK-ban (as in I wouldn't mind it) for the, like, first week or two of Brawl's lifespan. But that's hardly "some time ago". That's almost a year ago.

Yes, definitely, and that puts an end to my foray into the pro-ban camp.

Does this mean you're against the ban now?

But I had to look to be sure. See, now we all come out of this armed with answers to the objections I just posed, except for anyone who already was equipped with those answers (Yuna, apparently).

Yes, and in case you're wondering, I was equipped with these answers several months ago as well. People just won't listen.

When did I say anything that allowed "diversifying a matchup" to make sense? It doesn't make sense. Diversifying either happens to the game, or not. The point in a matchup matrix where that happens isn't part of the issue - you'll either see it in tournament turnout or not, it's viability vs. unviability.

Sorry, you misread me due to my unclear language.

I was totally aware of that you meant diversifying the game in general. And I talking about just that. What I meant is that how much "diversifying" should we do? Should we "diversify" the game so that all characters are viable?

And if so, what would "viable" mean? 70-30 at worst? But that's still a 70-30. So 60-40? How about 50-50? That would be the most diverse metagame. Every single character could in essence be viable against every single character, enjoying 50-50 odds.

So, if we really wanted to maximize diversity, we'd ban one jillion things per match-up to artifically mold them. Against Captain Falcon, Marth cannot do this thing which is totally legal against Peach (as Marth). Wham, bam, 90210 bans later, everyone has 50-50 match-ups (only) and the game is super-diverse.

So that weirdness aside, the 'threshold' for when the situation would call for the ban (in the view I've abandoned a few kilobytes ago) is when it's unviable.

And my question would be: What constitutes unviable?

70-30? 80-20? What if it's a technique which works on more than 1 character? Only ban it against the character(s) rendered unviable by it? So Falco can chaingrab some characters, but not others? Or no ban? Or a total ban?

I said I viewed diversity as a means to an end. More effective than repeating something you just said to me would be pointing out that diversity doesn't do the job I thought it did, and does the things I thought it didn't.

It is my view that we should not ban a whole bunch of things to maximize diversity. It is my view. And it is shared by many a Competitive gamer.

What I was saying is that the playing of games competitively is the thing we are viewing as the reward here.

And we can't do this with the infinite in place?

There is value in that. 'Fun' doesn't cover it. 'Rewarding', apparently, is unsuitable. I don't know if I can find the word. But there is a good experience. A pleasure rather than a pain. If there wasn't, we wouldn't want competition. I mean clearly.

And the question becomes: What does this have to do with the infinite?

"And that means it is not a subjective notion; for the right meaning of what the goal is here, it's an objective notion, because what it is that 'competitiveness' is, is something we all have in common: an intuition shared as surely as the moral sense."

But the rules are not written to maximize anything. They are only written to minimize influence (over-centralization)(plus a few exceptions).

Your talk of La La Land is non sequitur to my post, and it's somewhat upsetting.

Because I thought you were one of the La La Yutzes who advocate "total diversity" and "fun". Apparently, I was wrong?

At the last comment - No, b/c the link is down.

Funny, it's working just fine to me.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw

Go, quote your heart out. Now. This is the 6th time I've asked you to do this, BTW (at the very least).

And who determines who is credible? And does it matter? The important thing isn't whether the person is "credible," it's the nature of their arguments. Saying that anyone who believes *insert idea here* isn't credible isn't logic; it's arguing ad hominem. Every argument is equally deserving of response, no matter who makes it.

I'm just saying that you shouldn't lump all anti-banners together. A few misguided and ignorant ones argue a position very few others argue.

I've seen some very lame and stupid attempts to ague for the ban in this very thread. I don't touch those. I just argue against the people who seem to have actually though their arguments true (at all) instead of someone who just steps into the thread to throw some random arguments out there.

I AGREE. I wasn't "distorting facts." I was pointing out that using the 5/780 matchup argument is. distorting the facts.

And I disagree. Pointing out that it's only 5/780 match-ups is not distorting the facts. It is the irrefutable truth.

It is in no way distorting anything. It's a fact. How often you'll run into D3 has nothing to do with the fact that the infinite only applies to 5/780 characters.

This isn't too clear to me...would you please elaborate?

What's not clear? We can't just ban this without thinking it through and writing out a clear definition for why it has to be banned. We have to think it through. To prevent things like something else, which shouldn't be banned, ever, from being banned just because it fits the criteria.

We can't just go "Oh, let's ban it anyway and try to fix that other thing later". It would be arbitrary, premature, Scrubby and without much thought.

True enough. But just because there are kinks to work out doesn't mean that the idea is inherently flawed.

No, but your standpoint is inherently flawed (IMO). Work out your kinks, create the perfect ban criteria for this infinite and I'll be there to debate you on it.

The point is: We need a flawless ban criteria to instate a ban.

Please, I'm an engineer. You can hypothesize all you want, but at the end of the day, you need to test it. Green paper will take you far, but eventually, you need to build a prototype and test it. Truly "Smart" people know that they cannot foresee every outcome.

We play the game. We test things, we know how the characters work. We can make educated guesses. And that's all we have for now, really.

I know. That's what I was trying to say.

No, you did not say that it was the pro-ban side which argued it.

Actually, no. I am arguing against the anti-banners. And that doesn't make your response any less off subject. I repeat again: This is about DDD's CG. NOT any other infinite. Stick to the subject.

No, you are, on these specific points, arguing against the pro-banners. They were the ones who brought them up, they were the ones who claimed these points were relevant. I told them they weren't.

Then you randomly jumped in and acted as if it'd been my argument that they were relevant when it never was.

And everything is a part of a bigger picture. We have to judge everything in a context, not just pull it out and study it without looking at the bigger picture.

Someone kicks someone in the face. Why should their punishment be any more severe than that other guy who also kicked someone in the face in the exact same way with the exact same force with the exact same damages? It would be unfair to not judge both equally and be consistent.

This is why we cannot just lift this infinite out of its context (Brawl) and judge it separately. We have to judge it in perspective with everything else in this game.

If this has to go, why doesn't this other similar thing have to go? Why punish D3 but not someone else who can also do X or Y?

How is that not an attack on me, personally?

Because I am merely questioning your qualifications. Are you saying it's not allowed? Are you saying I must pretend every single person I ever argue with is qualified to debate the things they debate and never ever question their qualifications, even though the debate might end if it comes to light that they aren't qualified to participate in the debate?

No you didn't. But you implied I was an idiot.

No, I implied you lacked reading comprehension and logic. You don't have to be an idiot to lack those two things. And you clearly lack reading comprehension if you read 5/780 as 6/740.

Or is "Do you possess any shred of logic, at all?" a compliment? Uh, yeah, you kind of did. Now you're being silly. So your saying that I should come off sounding like I don't believe anything I say?

No, I'm saying you should speak as if you'e spewing facts when you aren't sure you are spewing facts. That, or if you are sure, to get bette acquainted with the subject at hand in order to not spew incorrect "facts".

I'm sorry, but I don't take a stance on anything unless I think it is the truth.

Then you're just misguided and your "facts" are flawed.

I'm willing to change my views, and if I do, I will sound just as confident then as well. How I sound when I talk has no bearing on my ability to learn.

Yes, because if you sound like someone who's really, really wrong, yet thinks he's right for no good reason (as in, no facts to base your standpoint on vs. lots of facts that refute it), then you'll sound like someone who's stubborn and who doesn't apply logic or look at the facts before deciding on a position.

You also seem to be quite ignorant on this issue. You insist the infinite is detrimental to 6 characters when it's only detrimental to 5. It's apparent you do not know that the 6th character D3 infinites is himself, thus it's still a 50/50 match-up.

How exactly am I illogical? Please, be specific and clear, and stay on subject.

Your incessant whining about how it's "misconstruing the truth" or whatever to say that D3's infinite only affects 5 out of the 780 match-ups in the game in a totally adverse way (D3 being the 6th and since both D3s can infinite each other, it's a 50-50).

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Thank you Yuna, I couldn't find that for some reason.

"Here is the whole issue, of course. If it isn’t warranted to ban something, we don’t need to even consider whether it’s enforceable or discrete. The great lesson of competitive games is that hardly anything warrants a ban.

A bug that gives players a small advantage does not warrant a ban. In fact, it’s common. Many players don’t even realize they are using bugs, but instead view them as “advanced tactics.” Even bugs that have a huge effect on gameplay are usually not warranted to be banned. The game may change with the new tactic, but games are resilient and there tend to be countermeasures (sometimes other bugs) to almost everything.

In the fighting game Street Fighter Alpha 2, there is a bug that allows the player to activate a very damaging move (called “Custom Combo”) against an opponent who is standing up (not crouching). The designers surely intended a standing opponent to be able to crouch and block this move upon seeing it, but if executed correctly, he cannot. It has a huge impact on the way the game is played (standing up is now quite dangerous), but there is still an excellent game left even after this technique is known. At first glance, one might think that attacking is too dangerous because it usually involves standing up. Closer examination shows that the attacker can stick out moves to knock the defender out of his Custom Combo, should he try it. Basically, the bug can be dealt with. This game-changing tactic is referred to by players as the “Valle CC” after its inventor, Alex Valle (more on him later).

As another example, consider the puzzle game Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo. It’s vaguely like Tetris. In this game, blocks of various colors fall into your basin and you try to match up the colors to break these blocks to fill up your opponent’s basin. If you fill up his basin to the top, you win.

Puzzle Fighter has a game-altering bug. A feature called the diamond lets the player break all blocks of a certain color on his own side (even if they aren’t lined up) and send blocks to the opponent’s side. Usually, doing this means sending much, much fewer blocks than if the player had broken all the blocks of that color manually. It’s a tradeoff since the diamond allows the player to break all those blocks instantly, but at the price of a smaller attack. There is a bug, though, called the “diamond trick” that allows the player to send even more blocks with the diamond than he would have sent breaking all his blocks of that color manually. The diamond goes from “get me out of trouble” to being a serious, game-ending thwomp. It’s nearly impossible to defeat a player who uses the diamond trick without using it yourself.

Amongst players who all know this trick, there is still a good game. One player can use his diamond trick to cancel out the other player’s. Each player gets diamond every twenty-fifth piece, so you can count on the other player getting his diamond about the same time you get yours. You can also just break a lot of blocks right when the opponent does his diamond trick. This will allow you to cancel some of the incoming block, but still give you a pretty full basin. A peculiarity of Puzzle Fighter is that when your basin is nearly full, you then have a lot of ammunition to send back to the opponent. A clever player can turn the other player’s huge diamond trick into a stockpile of ammunition to fire back for the win. In the end, the trick merely changes the game and does not destroy it, and is certainly not worthy of banning.

How does one know if a bug destroys the game or even if a legitimate tactic destroys it? The rule of thumb is to assume it doesn’t and keep playing, because 99% of the time, as good as the tactic may be, there will either be a way to counter it or other even better tactics. Prematurely banning something is the scrub’s way. It prevents the scrub from ever discovering the counter to the Valle CC or the diamond trick. It also creates artificial rules that alter the game, when it’s entirely possible that the game was just fine the way it was. It also usually leads to an avalanche of bans in order to be consistent with the first. When players think they have found a game-breaking tactic, I advise them to go win some tournaments with it. If they can prove that the game really is reduced to just that tactic, then perhaps a ban is warranted. It’s extremely rare that a player is ever able to prove this though. In fact, I don’t even have any examples of it.

A note to game developers: fix your bugs after release if you have the opportunity to do so. But beware that players enjoy the feeling of wielding “unfair” tactics, and taking that away from them can be a mistake if the “unfair” tactic isn’t powerful enough to single-handedly win tournaments."

"“It’s Too Good!”

Only in the most extreme, rare cases should something be banned because it is “too good.” This will be the most common type of ban requested by players, and almost all of their requests will be foolish. Banning a tactic simply because it is “the best” isn’t even warranted. That only reduces the game to all the “second best” tactics, which isn’t necessarily any better of a game than the original game. In fact, it’s often worse!

The only reasonable case to ban something because it is “too good” is when that tactic completely dominates the entire game, to the exclusion of other tactics. It is possible, though very rare, that removing an element of the game that is not only “the best” but also “ten times better than anything else in the game” results in a better game. I emphasize that is extremely rare. The most common case is that the player requesting the ban doesn’t fully grasp that the game is, in fact, not all about that one tactic. He should win several tournaments using mainly this tactic to prove his point. Another, far rarer possibility is that he’s right. The game really is shallow and centered on one thing (whether that one thing is a bug or by design is irrelevant). In that case, the best course of action is usually to abandon the game and play one of the hundreds of other readily available good games in the world.

Only in the ultra-rare case that the player is right and the game is worth saving and the game without the ultra-tactic is a ten times better game—only then is the notion even worth fighting for. And even in this case, it may take time for the game to mature enough for a great percentage of the best players and tournament organizers to realize that tactic should, indeed, be banned. Before an official ban takes place, there can also be something called “soft ban.” Let’s look at an example."

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

I simply do not see, even if the walk-off edges and walls begin to dominate, how they would qualify for a ban. Most notable because of this:

"The only reasonable case to ban something because it is “too good” is when that tactic completely dominates the entire game, to the exclusion of other tactics. It is possible, though very rare, that removing an element of the game that is not only “the best” but also “ten times better than anything else in the game” results in a better game. I emphasize that is extremely rare. The most common case is that the player requesting the ban doesn’t fully grasp that the game is, in fact, not all about that one tactic. He should win several tournaments using mainly this tactic to prove his point. Another, far rarer possibility is that he’s right. The game really is shallow and centered on one thing (whether that one thing is a bug or by design is irrelevant). In that case, the best course of action is usually to abandon the game and play one of the hundreds of other readily available good games in the world. "

We have not proven that walls or walkoff edges are "too good," if anything we know that they change the focus of the game outright, adding new elements to the game which were not present before, including strong punishment for mistakes that is never seen on the other stages. For all we know, Brawl could be significantly deeper than the level we play it at, but we were kinda scrubby, and banned stages simply because some characters were significantly more powerful than others, while no one, two, or three characters would have truely dominated. Nor would any one tactic dominate, as there are multiple tactics which use these stage properties.

If you think D3 should be able to counterpick DK with his infinite, you should absolutely be willing to try walled and walk-off stages, which redefine counterpicking and even tiers in Brawl, while still leaving a deep, playable game with tremendous punishment aspects.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder just why those stages were banned.

Once again, thanks Yuna! I couldn't find that with google.

 

[Yuna]

Walk-offs would dominate the game,to the exclusion of other tactics. The metagame would revolve around walk-offs and the characters who can abuse them the best.

What part of that is so hard for you understand?

It's not just the one tactic, it's the walk-offs themselves. The metagame would, at least for counterpicks, revolve around walk-offs, which characters can handle them better, which characters can abuse them better. People could camp walk-offs and chaingrab and lock people off the stage.

THC, you were not a part of Melee's Competitive scene. We already banned walk-offs in Melee for the same reasons as in Brawl. In Melee, we had Fox who could do various things to you off the screen and kill you (and to a lesser extent, Sheik). So we don't need another two years of allowing it to happen with D3's chaingrabs to prove that they're broken and over-centralize the metagame.

 

[M15t3R E]

Walk-offs would dominate the game,to the exclusion of other tactics. The metagame would revolve around walk-offs and the characters who can abuse them the best.

What part of that is so hard for you understand?

It's not just the one tactic, it's the walk-offs themselves. The metagame would, at least for counterpicks, revolve around walk-offs, which characters can handle them better, which characters can abuse them better. People could camp walk-offs and chaingrab and lock people off the stage.

THC, you were not a part of Melee's Competitive scene. We already banned walk-offs in Melee for the same reasons as in Brawl. In Melee, we had Fox who could do various things to you off the screen and kill you (and to a lesser extent, Sheik). So we don't need another two years of allowing it to happen with D3's chaingrabs to prove that they're broken and over-centralize the metagame.

Speaking of over-centralizing the metagame, the anti-DK, Samus, Mario, Luigi, and Bowser metagame is dominated by DDD's infinite. For this reason, those 5 characters might as well not exist.
Banning the infinite can only enrich the competitive Brawl scenes. Banning it is the right thing to do.

 

[Scimitar]

I know I'm butting in here (I've probably only read one ore two posts on this thread), but personally I'm against the ban.

I've gotten out of D3's chain grab multiple times against people who seemed extremely skilled with him.
Maybe because I'm using Peach's aerial strikes?

If any of you wanna show me how cheap it can be, please show me in battle. Until then, I will again state that I am against the ban.

Those who are in favor of the ban just need to figure out unique ways to avoid it/get out it.

 

[M15t3R E]

I know I'm butting in here (I've probably only read one ore two posts on this thread), but personally I'm against the ban.

I've gotten out of D3's chain grab multiple times against people who seemed extremely skilled with him.
Maybe because I'm using Peach's aerial strikes?

If any of you wanna show me how cheap it can be, please show me in battle. Until then, I will again state that I am against the ban.

Those who are in favor of the ban just need to figure out unique ways to avoid it/get out it.

Are you talking about his chaingrabs or his infinite grab?
We are discussing his infinite. His chaingrabs are absolutely not ban-worthy.

 

[Flamingo]

If the opposing character does not have a CHANCE to escape the CG, BAN IT!!!! The winner is based upon how someone can time their grabs? ...pressing 1 button at the right time, rather than comboing and using their character to the fullest? Geez guys, I thought those who reside in the Smashboards community would have more pride... more dignity, and more emphasis on skill.

P.S. DDD IS GOOD ENOUGH TO BE HIGH TIER AT LEAST W/O CG, SO QUIT COMPLAINING.