Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[KillerSOS]

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.

Agreed. Its not like IC where it takes skill. Sorry I don't play DDD but its easy even for me.

 

[Yuna]

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.

We do not ban things to maximize "enrichment".

And you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Several of those characters can mash out of it.

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.

The thing is that you can mash out of it... unless your name happens to be DK.

Agreed. Its not like IC where it takes skill. Sorry I don't play DDD but its easy even for me.

Skill is irrelevant. It's humanly possible to perfect IC's chaingrabs and infinites.

Someone will perfect it. The reason why people aren't already is because they aren't that good.

 

[cj.Shark]

Someone will perfect it. The reason why people aren't already is because they aren't that good.

Most IC mains have already perfected it by now.
and the reason IC'sCG-Takes-Skill argument is moot is because
Lets say Player A is IC and on a 1-10 scale he is a 5(yes 5s can do perfect cgs)
Player B is X with a skill of 7.
Now player A gets a grab off and 0-deaths player B
does player b say "Wow that was cool! i totally dont mind that an inferior player in terms of skill was able to 0-death me because i f-smashed in the wrong dirrection"
no player B says "i shouldnt have gotten grabbed" endofstory

 

[M15t3R E]

We do not ban things to maximize "enrichment".

And you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Several of those characters can mash out of it.

Banning the infinite won't hurt DDD. He still has the adv over those characters anyway. Tell me, if you want Brawl to do well competitively, why wouldn't you ban something to make the game more competitive?
Taking out the infinite does not hurt the game, it only makes it better. Sounds to me like you want Brawl to fail since you want to leave such an infinite unbanned which hurts the game competitively.

Another thing, DK and Bowser can't really mash out of it. Then the other 3 don't get out of it until around kill %'s.
It can be easily abused for stalling purposes and doesn't allow the other player a chance to show their competitive skill. It's equatable to 2 people playing Chess, and one player taking 15 turns in a row. It's just a total BS tactic.

 

[Moseythepirate]

What's green paper?

Green paper is basically the informal term for the ink and paper part of the engineering design process. Very little of the Engineering design process is testing, actually. Most of it is on paper. Only very late in the game is a design tested.

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.

Well...I would have to disagree. We would have a good idea of what would happen, I won't argue with that. But until we test it out, we cannot be absolutely sure...simply because, as intelligent as these folks are, they cannot think of everything. Nobody can. Something outside their paradigm might surface that they never even suspected. I'm not saying it's certain, I'm not even saying it's likely. What I'm saying is that it is possible.

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.

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.

I'm sorry. I know I shouldn't get riled up by what someone on the internet says. I just take it personally. The fact is that I am not stupid. Unfortunately, I sound stupid, because I am horrible at articulating my thoughts.

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).

Well, he never said anything. All he said is "be logical." In my internet experience, that doesn't mean anything. Unless a person can point out my logical fallacies, then I assume that he or she is just trying to look intelligent when they actually just don't understand. Now, if YOU could point out my fallacies, I would be delighted. Believe it or not, I hate looking stupid. I know I probably look idiotic, but that's just because I have issues articulating.

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.

I like you. You were actually polite, and responded to me in a mature manner. I do not always have my ideas cleanly formed in me head when I say them. I view arguments not as trying to make another person to submit to my view. I see them as a way of improving my understanding of a topic. I have a very good idea of things in my head, but when it comes to articulating them...I can have great trouble making the other person understand. I just see the world from a slightly different angle, I suppose. I would love to actually talk to you about this. I think I would benefit greatly from your input and point of view.

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

What are you talking about? The quote tags were messed up, which made it awkward to read what with all the quote tags getting in the way. Yuna fixed it, but not because I asked. I imagine it is because, he likes getting his point across.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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?


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, 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.


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".


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


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.


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).

*sigh* Yuna, you haven't actually responded to me at all. All you do is say I am ignorant, unqualified, illogical, stubborn, misguided, and (my personal favorite, seeing as anybody who actually knows me would burst out laughing from the sheer irony of you calling me this) a person with poor reading comprehension. From the very beginning, you have misconstued my points, and have shown understanding of NONE of them. You have accused me of saying things that directly contradicts what I believe. Perhaps it's my fault; I've never been good at articulating my thoughts. But you have shown NO comprehension, and a stubborn arrogance that makes my mind reel. But hell, It's the internet. What did I expect, and open mind?


P.S. I knew DDD was the 6th person affected. I was aware of this, and carefully considered whether I should include him or not in my number.

 

[Yuna]

Banning the infinite won't hurt DDD. He still has the adv over those characters anyway.

No he doesn't. Not all of them.

Tell me, if you want Brawl to do well competitively, why wouldn't you ban something to make the game more competitive?

Where do we stop? Where do we stop banning things to make ****ty match-ups less ****ty? And why should we? Some characters were designed bad. Deal with it.

Taking out the infinite does not hurt the game, it only makes it better. Sounds to me like you want Brawl to fail since you want to leave such an infinite unbanned.

You have no clue about how Competitive gaming works.

Another thing, DK and Bowser can't really mash out of it. Then the other 3 don't get out of it until around kill %'s.

No, the other 3 can't be infinited 'til kill %. Educate yourself more before speaking.

It can be easily abused for stalling purposes and doesn't allow the other player a chance to show their competitive skill.

Neither do a lot of combos and locks. It's a part of the game. There are rules in place to prevent stalling. Any long combo could arguably be used to stall according to this logic.

It's equatable to 2 people playing Chess, and one player taking 15 turns in a row. It's just a total BS tactic.

No, it's more like you vs. Michael Phelps in swimming. He's just that much better than you at it. Should we handicap him with weighs to even out the score to make it more "fair" and "Competitive"?

 

[Yuna]

*sigh* Yuna, you haven't actually responded to me at all. All you do is say I am ignorant, unqualified, illogical, stubborn, misguided, and (my personal favorite, seeing as anybody who actually knows me would burst out laughing from the sheer irony of you calling me this) a person with poor reading comprehension. From the very beginning, you have misconstued my points, and have shown understanding of NONE of them. You have accused me of saying things that directly contradicts what I believe. Perhaps it's my fault; I've never been good at articulating my thoughts. But you have shown NO comprehension, and a stubborn arrogance that makes my mind reel. But hell, It's the internet. What did I expect, and open mind?

What you say is very confusing. If you want me to not misunderstand you, speak clearer.

And who in their right mind wouldn't agree on reading 5 matchups out of 780 as 6 matchups out of 740 as poor reading comprehension?

I answered what you gave me. If you want clearer answers, give me clearer posts.

You asked why we shouldn't ban things arbitrarily (or a more fleshed out answer). I answered.

You claim it's distorting the facts to point out that it's only 5 out of 780 match-ups, I tell you that it isn't. I apparently can't possibly convince you of this because of your random logic which totally negates math, somehow.

Don't blame me for working with your posts as the source material. I can only give you answers to the questions you pose. I won't invent questions and answer them for you.

P.S. I knew DDD was the 6th person affected. I was aware of this, and carefully considered whether I should include him or not in my number.

You made the wrong choice.

 

[M15t3R E]

No he doesn't. Not all of them.

The point is, DDD is still top tier without the infinite.

Where do we stop? Where do we stop banning things to make ****ty match-ups less ****ty? And why should we? Some characters were designed bad. Deal with it.

We stop right here. Plenty of character-specific tactics make things ****y for certain other characters, but not to this magnitude. DDD has 90:10- 95:5 match-ups because of this infinite!!!! For god's sake... that is too broken to be allowed to exist.

You have no clue about how Competitive gaming works.

Please do elaborate. What I said is true. Your insult does not attempt to disprove my statement. Try again.

No, the other 3 can't be infinited 'til kill %. Educate yourself more before speaking.

Close enough. They are still **** match-ups in DDD's favor due to the infinite.

Neither do a lot of combos and locks. It's a part of the game. There are rules in place to prevent stalling. Any long combo could arguably be used to stall according to this logic.

What combos and locks are you talking about? I thought people like yourself have said that Brawl has no combos. Also, what locks? Sheik's f-tilt "lock" is SDI'able. Marth's infinite was proven to be escapable. So I'm not sure what you are referencing here.

No, it's more like you vs. Michael Phelps in swimming. He's just that much better than you at it. Should we handicap him with weighs to even out the score to make it more "fair" and "Competitive"?

Hah... that is your best analogy? So, in your analogy Michael Phelps is King DDD and Phelps is using his amazing skill to beat me in the race. I don't understand this analogy, seeing how DDD doesn't use real skill when he uses his infinite, and him using his infinite doesn't prove that he is "that much better than me" at brawl. Also, I'm not implying we should use handicaps on DDD. Removing his infinite is no handicap. He is top tier material without it.

 

[Moseythepirate]

What you say is very confusing. If you want me to not misunderstand you, speak clearer.

Very true. Very true.

And who in their right mind wouldn't agree on reading 5 matchups out of 780 as 6 matchups out of 740 as poor reading comprehension?

ME. I read the numbers once, and used it again from memory 20 minutes later. Should I have double checked? Yes. But it isn't poor reading comprehension. It's poor short term memory.

You asked why we shouldn't ban things arbitrarily (or a more fleshed out answer). I answered.

I asked no such thing. Banning arbitrarily would be, well, idiotic. Please, where did I ask why we shouldn't ban arbitrarily.

You claim it's distorting the facts to point out that it's only 5 out of 780 match-ups, I tell you that it isn't. I apparently can't possibly convince you of this because of your random logic which totally negates math, somehow.

You know, you just won't let this go, will you? Well, this is what I meant: Earlier in the topic, people were using this argument: That only 6 (yes, they used 6. I was using THEIR number. I was using their number in an attempt to specifically refute them.) out of the possible 780 match-ups, and that therefore, it doesn't matter enough to be banned. I was saying (or rather, what I was trying to say) is that using that number is irrelevant. No character can have an affect larger than 38/780. (I use 38 because there are 39 characters, and that the matchup against the same character can hardly be said to affect the metagame, and it is always a 50-50 matchup) Using this logic, no character specific tactic should ever be banned. But lo and behold, look at the dimensional cape stall. Never mind that only 38/780 match-ups are affected by it; it still affected the game enough to be banned. Using the 6/780 (once again, I am not the person who said 6) ratio is completely pointless.

Don't blame me for working with your posts as the source material. I can only give you answers to the questions you pose. I won't invent questions and answer them for you.

Except that you have been saying that I have been saying things that I have not said.

 

[Yuna]

The point is, DDD is still top tier without the infinite.

Or not. He's High. And without the infinite, he's at a disadvantage against Luigi (or it's 50:50, it's being debated). So he loses a lot from this.

We stop right here. Plenty of character-specific tactics make things ****y for certain other characters, but not to this magnitude.

So "this magnitude" clinches it? Something almost as bad is not enough? Also, tell this to the Bowsers of Melee getting chaingrabbed to death by Sheik.

Please do elaborate. What I said is true. Your insult does not attempt to disprove my statement. Try again.

No, it's not true. You think it is because you have no insight into how Competitive gaming works.

Close enough. They are still **** match-ups in DDD's favor due to the infinite.

Yes, and? There plenty of **** match-ups. Deal with it.

What combos and locks are you talking about? I thought people like yourself have said that Brawl has no combos.

I have never argued that Brawl has no combos. Brawl is less combo-oriented. But Brawl has some nasty combos.

Also, what locks? Sheik's f-tilt "lock" is SDI'able. Marth's infinite was proven to be escapable. So I'm not sure what you are referencing here.

Various grab release infinites which are not escapable. Marth's infinite requires frame precise guessing.

Sheik's F-tilt is barely SDI-able and it still locks you up for tons of damage.

Falco's chaingrab to Dair, Pikachu's chaingrab to whatever on Fox.

Hah... that is your best analogy? So, in your analogy Michael Phelps is King DDD and Phelps is using his amazing skill to beat me in the race. I don't understand this analogy, seeing how DDD doesn't use real skill when he uses his infinite, and him using his infinite doesn't prove that he is "so much better than me".

How is it not his "real skill"? He has a skill. He grabs you and can combo from it into another grab. It's a characteristic he has. It's an advantage he has.

If you want the more skilled player to always win no matter what, go ban everyone except one character.

Also, I'm not implying we should use handicaps on DDD. Removing his infinite is no handicap. He is still top tier material.

He has never been Top Tier. Stop claiming he is.

 

[Samuelson]

He has never been Top Tier. Stop claiming he is.

lol wut....


Top
Meta Knight
Snake
King Dedede
Mr. Game & Watch
Falco
R.O.B.

DDD looks like he's in Top Tier to me.

 

[Yuna]

lol wut....


Top
Meta Knight
Snake
King Dedede
Mr. Game & Watch
Falco
R.O.B.

DDD looks like he's in Top Tier to me.

I see my memories deceive me. I thought D3 was just below Top. That showed me, I guess. I was probably confusing it with the tournament results list (the last time I checked on it, at least).

Without his chaingrabs (any chaingrabs), he is not Top Tier material, though. Because several of his chaingrabbable match-ups would become disadvantageous ones.

 

[bobson]

*sigh* Yuna, you haven't actually responded to me at all. All you do is say I am ignorant, unqualified, illogical, stubborn, misguided, and (my personal favorite, seeing as anybody who actually knows me would burst out laughing from the sheer irony of you calling me this) a person with poor reading comprehension. From the very beginning, you have misconstued my points, and have shown understanding of NONE of them. You have accused me of saying things that directly contradicts what I believe. Perhaps it's my fault; I've never been good at articulating my thoughts. But you have shown NO comprehension, and a stubborn arrogance that makes my mind reel. But hell, It's the internet. What did I expect, and open mind?

You can't take Yuna entirely seriously if you want a meaningful debate. You have to ignore the asides and respond to only the core content of his posts or the argument will devolve into nothing but semantics, ad hominems and "You don't understand my point"s within two replies. He's logical and his arguments are typically very sound, but he acts like enough of a **** when making them that you'll just want him to be wrong rather than deciding objectively whether he's wrong or not, and at that point it's impossible to carry on a good debate.


Also,

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).

Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho

 

[Moseythepirate]

Oh, and by the way, you have gone on and on about "over-centralizing." Well, guess what the ban would do? It would directly fight centralization. With one move, 5 characters would instantly become viable. Yes, I said it. More than any other factor, it is the CG that makes the characters unviable. The best part is, it would enrich the metagame by infusing it with the techniques that only the forbidden 5 can offer. You say over-centralization is a bad thing, Yuna, but when the time comes to decentralize, even in a conservative way, you cannot do so. Inconsistent, much?

 

[bobson]

Oh, and by the way, you have gone on and on about "over-centralizing." Well, guess what the ban would do? It would directly fight centralization. With one move, 5 characters would instantly become viable. Yes, I said it. More than any other factor, it is the CG that makes the characters unviable. The best part is, it would enrich the metagame by infusing it with the techniques that only the forbidden 5 can offer. You say over-centralization is a bad thing, Yuna, but when the time comes to decentralize, even in a conservative way, you cannot do so. Inconsistent, much?

Two characters would become more viable. It's possible for the other three to break out of it unless they're at percents where they'd be easily killed anyway, although I have yet to test where the practical limit is.

 

[Moseythepirate]

Fair enough. I was just doing the whole rage against Yuna thing (who I do think is right on some points, but who is also incapable of comprehending anybody else's). I do think that making 2 characters viable and 3 characters much more so is more than enough reason to restrict a single top-tier character's single technique.

 

[Yuna]

Oh, and by the way, you have gone on and on about "over-centralizing." Well, guess what the ban would do? It would directly fight centralization. With one move, 5 characters would instantly become viable. Yes, I said it. More than any other factor, it is the CG that makes the characters unviable. The best part is, it would enrich the metagame by infusing it with the techniques that only the forbidden 5 can offer. You say over-centralization is a bad thing, Yuna, but when the time comes to decentralize, even in a conservative way, you cannot do so. Inconsistent, much?

Guess what over-centralization means. We don't ban anything remotely centralizing. We ban things which are over-centralizing. And D3's infinites does not over-centralize the game.

It only works against 6 characters. We're not seeing massive amounts of people jumping ship to take up D3 because of the infinites (or in general).

Fair enough. I was just doing the whole rage against Yuna thing (who I do think is right on some points, but who is also incapable of comprehending anybody else's). I do think that making 2 characters viable and 3 characters much more so is more than enough reason to restrict a single top-tier character's single technique.

Maybe the fault lies with you and your wording? Don't rage against me, rage against my arguments, my reasoning.

 

[M15t3R E]

It really does have to do with the "magnitude" of the **** that this tactic of DDD's can do. Nothing else in the game can cause **** to any character the way DDD's infinite does to DK and Bowser, and to a lesser extent Mario, Luigi, and Samus.

Guess what over-centralization means. We don't ban anything remotely centralizing. We ban things which are over-centralizing. And D3's infinites does not over-centralize the game.

It only works against 6 characters. We're not seeing massive amounts of people jumping ship to take up D3 because of the infinites (or in general).

Have you spoken with Umbreon or SamuraiPanda? They are both more respected SBR members than yourself. They disagree with you on that over-centralizing argument, and here's why. It does cause an isolated case of over-centralizing in that it makes 5 other characters completely unviable in high levels of play. The anti-metagame of those 5 characters is dominated by 1 tactic. If you'd like every character to be tournament-viable, this tactic must be banned. It's for the good of Brawl, competitively-speaking.

 

[Yuna]

It really does have to do with the "magnitude" of the **** that this tactic of DDD's can do. Nothing else in the game can cause **** to any character the way DDD's infinite does to DK and Bowser, and to a lesser extent Mario, Luigi, and Samus.

Big whoop. It's just a ****ty match-up. Who cares if it's total ****? Just don't play the Suck 5 against D3. This is what counter-picking is for.

Also, Moseythepirate, what part of "We do not write the rules and ban things to maximize the number of viable character/variety/fun/whatever" was too Canadian French pour toi? Nobody cares if banning the infinite would make the Suck 5 (or rather Suck 2) more viable and thus infuse the metagame with more of their presence.

Plenty of characters do not see much tournament play due to sucking. We do not ban things to give them handicaps.

 

[Yuna]

Have you spoken with Umbreon or SamuraiPanda? They are both more respected SBR members than yourself. They disagree with you on that over-centralizing argument, and here's why. It does cause an isolated case of over-centralizing in that it makes 5 other characters completely unviable in high levels of play. If you'd like every character to be tournament-viable, this tactic must be banned. It's for the good of Brawl, competitively-speaking.

I'd like to see quotes of them specifically saying that D3's infinites over-centralize the metagame. It doesn't. It removes two characters from play, making the metagame more restricted by making 2 characters unviable against him (the othe 3 can break out).

It does not over-centralize the metagame. What exactly is the metagame even centralizing over here? And the keyword is over-centralizing, not simply centralizing.

 

[Moseythepirate]

Guess what over-centralization means. We don't ban anything remotely centralizing. We ban things which are over-centralizing. And D3's infinites does not over-centralize the game.

It only works against 6 characters. We're not seeing massive amounts of people jumping ship to take up D3 because of the infinites (or in general).

At what point is a it over-centralizing? Who places the boundaries anyway? How massive would the flock be before there are too many? And what downside is there to letting these characters into the metagame?

Maybe the fault lies with you and your wording? Don't rage against me, rage against my arguments, my reasoning.

Oh. OOOOOOOHHH. Now I know why you have not apparently been understanding me. You haven't even bothered to read my posts all the way through. In one of my previous posts, I said that it is my fault. Twice. Now it makes sense. Nevermind, Yuna. You are completely unqualified to hold an argument if you aren't even willing to read the entirety of the opposing view's statement.

 

[M15t3R E]

I'd like to see quotes of them specifically saying that D3's infinites over-centralize the metagame. It doesn't. It removes two characters from play, making the metagame more restricted by making 2 characters unviable against him (the othe 3 can break out).

It does not over-centralize the metagame. What exactly is the metagame centralizing over here?

No, it over-centralizes the anti-metagame for those 5 characters. All you need to know as far as how to defeat those characters in tournament is to counterpick with DDD and use his infinite.

 

[Moseythepirate]

Yuna, let me ask you a question. Why do we have rules? And don't dodge the question. Why do the backroom people set these tournament standards?

 

[Yuna]

At what point is a it over-centralizing? Who places the boundaries anyway? How massive would the flock be before there are too many? And what downside is there to letting these characters into the metagame?

5 out of 39 =/= Over-centralizing

Over-centralizing the metagame would mean that in order to stand a chance of winning, you'd have to play as DeDeDe. Since you don't, since he's got disadvantageous matchups (several) and even matchups (several) and advantaged but still close ones, you can still win against D3 quite "easily" without having to pick D3.

D3's infinite does not magicallyover-centralize the metagame around him. It just eliminates two characters from play.

The harm to letting those two in would be banning something in order to artifically boost their match-up against D3 despite them having a natural disadvantage against D3 (glitch or not, nobody cares). They have a ****ty match-up, fine. They have to deal with it.

Oh. OOOOOOOHHH. Now I know why you have not apparently been understanding me. You haven't even bothered to read my posts all the way through. In one of my previous posts, I said that it is my fault. Twice. Now it makes sense. Nevermind, Yuna. You are completely unqualified to hold an argument if you aren't even willing to read the entirety of the opposing view's statement.

You said that... but you still blamed me. So I reiterated that maybe the fault is yours entirely. It was my gentle and nice way of blaming you.

But if you want, I could stop being nice and going back to explicitly blaming you again.

No, it over-centralizes the anti-metagame for those 5 characters. All you need to know as far as how to defeat those characters in tournament is to counterpick with DDD and use his infinite.

Insufficient reasoning for a ban. Plenty of characters have hard counters.

Yuna, let me ask you a question. Why do we have rules? And don't dodge the question. Why do the backroom people set these tournament standards?

There are several reasons for why there are rules. There's no uniform answer. Since we're on the subject of bans, I'll address bans. Certain rules exist for certain reasons, others for other reasons. There's no 1-size-fits-all answer concerning all rules.

A simple answer would be: The rules are there to create an environment where Competitive gaming can thrive (but they are not written to "maximize" anything).

Bans are always a last resort. Bans are there to prevent, among other things, over-centralization of the metagame (<-- most important point of bans).

 

[Moseythepirate]

Hmmph. So much for not dodging the question...but that's not important. Anyway, you say that it is to create an environment in which competitive gaming can thrive. Define thrive for me, in this context.

 

[Yuna]

Hmmph. So much for not dodging the question...but that's not important. Anyway, you say that it is to create an environment in which competitive gaming can thrive. Define thrive for me, in this context.

Do you want a 2-page essay on why rules in Competitive gaming exist?

I phrased that wrong, BTW. The rules are thee to create a Competitive environment where one can play Competitively. That is, one which allows for (but does not maximize) Competitive play.

And among these things are "cheap" tactics that screw over a few characters due to inherent flaws/strengths.

 

[M15t3R E]

Insufficient reasoning for a ban. Plenty of characters have hard counters.

This is well beyond a hard counter. A hard counter is 65/35, 70/30, even 75/25. We are talking about a 95/5 to 99/1 here!
It is NOT a disadvantage that can be overcome by skill, and when something cannot be overcome by skill, it harms the game in the competitive sense. Why? Because you want skill to decide the winner. Don't you?
I'm sorry if I confused you with someone who would like skill to decide the winner of matches.

 

[Yuna]

This is well beyond a hard counter. A hard counter is 65/35, 70/30, even 75/25. We are talking about a 95/5 to 99/1 here!
It is NOT a disadvantage that can be overcome by skill, and when something cannot be overcome by skill, it harms the game in the competitive sense. Why? Because you want skill to decide the winner. Don't you?

I'm sorry, did I ever use the term "hard counter"? Did I ever claim this disadvantage can be overcome by "skill"? Also, that's a very vague statement.

Two players of equal level meet up. If the matc-up is 70/30 and both players are equally good, equally familiar with the match-up and playing equally well for the day, the one with the advantage will most probably win. You have to be more skilled to persevere here, so just suck it up.

And since when has "You can't beat it even if you're much better than the other guy" = Ban? There are ****ty match-ups in life. Melee Bowser vs. Melee NTSC Sheik say "Hi". Deal with it instead of demanding de ban things to artifically boost characters' abilities.

 

[Moseythepirate]

Do you want a 2-page essay on why rules in Competitive gaming exist?

Do you have one? That would be great!

I phrased that wrong, BTW. The rules are thee to create a Competitive environment where one can play Competitively. That is, one which allows for (but does not maximize) Competitive play.

That doesn't actually explain why the rules exist, Yuna. You basically repeated the same phrase 3 times. Why are there rules in competitive gaming?

On a side note, I find it amusing that you continue using the word "maximize" in your responses to me. Since when did I ever discuss maximizing anything?

 

[M15t3R E]

We are not even talking about a character ban here. It is merely one tactic. In looking at the logic behind a character ban, it is necessary to ask if the character over-centralizes the metagame as a whole. With merely one tactic, it's inherently not as severe and as such the standards for the ban change. If it over-centralizes certain character match-ups to the point of making them literally unviable, it should be banned. Otherwise, it shouldn't.
No character tactics nor strategies make another character literally unviable, except for DDD's infinite. It's a tactic in its own class, so stop comparing it to anything else.
Also, Sheik's CG's were very much escapable. Maybe you didn't know that.

 

[Yuna]

Do you have one? That would be great!

That doesn't actually explain why the rules exist, Yuna. You basically repeated the same phrase 3 times. Why are there rules in competitive gaming?

Because without rules, there'd be anarchy. Seriously, stop being a tuchas. You know why rules exist. We need rules, guidelines to tell us how to play. We need a uniform ruleset so everyone can follow it.

Stocks, time, stages. Otherwise, we'd have wildly fluctuating results if some tournaments used 7 stocks or some allowed stages most others ban. We wouldn't have an uniform scene. We wouldn't even have a Competitive game since certain things need to be tweaked (settings) and certain things banned in order for not make for a broken metagame.

On a side note, I find it amusing that you continue using the word "maximize" in your responses to me. Since when did I ever discuss maximizing anything?

A part of your argument is that it would add more to the metagame if we banned one thing to allow for another thing to exist. That is maximizing, that is banning to maximize something.

"Hey, if we don't ban this, that other thing won't see Competitive play since it'll be an unviable character!" - That is banning to (at least partially) maximize something.

 

[Yuna]

We are not even talking about a character ban here. It is merely one tactic. In looking at the logic behind a character ban, it is necessary to ask if the character over-centralizes the metagame as a whole. With merely one tactic, it's inherently not as severe and as such the standards for the ban change. If it over-centralizes certain character match-ups to the point of making them literally unviable, it should be banned. Otherwise, it shouldn't.
No character tactics nor strategies make another character literally unviable, except for DDD's infinite. It's a tactic in its own class, so stop comparing it to anything else. Also, Sheik's CG's were very escapable. Maybe you didn't know that.

Why? Why is it OK to ban tactics if they make certain (few) characters unviable? That's just those characters being bad against it. Tough luck.

I love it how you're arguing that it "over-centralizing the anti-strats". Peach's Dsmash overcentralizes anti-fastfaller strats in Melee. Ban? Jigglypuff's U-throw to rest over-centralized anti-Fox strats. Ban?

I mean, the logic here seems to be that since it's become the most widely used strategy to use against certain characters, it's over-centralizing and must go. Either drop that argument or answer why we shouldn't ban a ton of other things.

Ban lasers against slow characters like Ganny while we're at it.

12.

 

[M15t3R E]

It does more than create bad match-ups. I think of a bad match-up as one that can still be overcome by showing excellent skill. DDD's infinite creates match-ups which require no skill for him to win, and lets him win regardless of the other player's level of skill. That doesn't sound very good for a competitive game.
Also, you're still comparing DDD's infinite to other tactics that are FAR less intense. The tactics you mentioned don't dominate the entire match-up by themselves like DDD's infinite does.


Keep your pointless over-centralizing argument and irrelevant melee comparisons if you will, I have to get to work. See ya.

 

[Moseythepirate]

Because without rules, there'd be anarchy. Seriously, stop being a tuchas. You know why rules exist. We need rules, guidelines to tell us how to play. We need a uniform ruleset so everyone can follow it.

Stocks, time, stages. Otherwise, we'd have wildly fluctuating results if some tournaments used 7 stocks or some allowed stages most others ban. We wouldn't have an uniform scene. We wouldn't even have a Competitive game since certain things need to be tweaked (settings) and certain things banned in order for not make for a broken metagame.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere...now...why is order good in the competitive scene? That question I think I can answer on my own. Order is there to promote an environment that maximizes (oh, the irony XD) the importance of skill in determining the winner. That is why items were banned, that is why counter-picking exists, that is why stages are restricted. And the disadvantage forced upon the forbidden 2, arguably 5, is, in the words of Mister_E:

NOT a disadvantage that can be overcome by skill, and when something cannot be overcome by skill, it harms the game in the competitive sense. Why? Because you want skill to decide the winner.

Sorry if you object to me quoting you, btw. Anyway, this shows that not banning the technique goes against the basic philosophy of competitive gaming: that skill should be the last word in deciding the winner.

A part of your argument is that it would add more to the metagame if we banned one thing to allow for another thing to exist. That is maximizing, that is banning to maximize something.

"Hey, if we don't ban this, that other thing won't see Competitive play since it'll be an unviable character!" - That is banning to (at least partially) maximize something.

Hmm. Partially maximize. That's an oxymoron. I'll have to remember that.

 

[Surri-Sama]

/loop

do you folks enjoy saying the same things 1000 times over?

 

[Moseythepirate]

Yep. Sure do.

Well, I think that I have finally crystallized my argument, so I'm off. Thank you for the most delightful debate, Yuna. I enjoyed it tremendously. I wish you luck in all of your endeavors!

 

[link6616]

Do you have one? That would be great!

I actually do have access to one. You may have heard of the site.
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned.html

One is a good example of the difference between a god and just a good character
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/cheating.html

As far as I see the issue
DDD= O Sagat.

DDD hard counters 5 characters
O.Sagat hard counters about 5 as well (in a much smaller cast)

 

[adumbrodeus]

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.

Unviability in the binary sense is meaningless.

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.

Fair enough, though in general, my major issue was you can make the same argument, that you need to create a new exception for other things that have little to no metagame effect just because it "shocks the conscience". Let's be realistic, people don't like DDD's infinite because they don't like DDD's infinite. They didn't even wait to figure out how it effects the metagame.

. . . 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?

Again, not particularly. It's entirely dependent on the depth of the metagame, neither situation is inherently preferable to the other.

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

Depth.

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.

By applying an arbitrary standard, it means that some things that fall under the standard you ban, other things you do not.

In this case, I believe the objection would be an arbitrary or low standard for creating a standard.

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.

We don't actually know at what percent it starts being a true infinite because we don't know the limits of button mashing, we just know what percents it's not. It's been escaped up to about 130% so we know that anything below that isn't an infinite.

If he chooses to continue it beyond a percentage where he can kill with one of his throws, then yes, it is stalling. Which is what a damage ceiling takes care of.

As for IDC, because there wasn't a discrete and enforceable way to ban it for stalling purposes and leave everything else intact. Clock-watching is just impractical, and no other method is really workable, otherwise it wouldn't have been banned.

Another thing, DK and Bowser can't really mash out of it. Then the other 3 don't get out of it until around kill %'s.
It can be easily abused for stalling purposes and doesn't allow the other player a chance to show their competitive skill. It's equatable to 2 people playing Chess, and one player taking 15 turns in a row. It's just a total BS tactic.

Bolding added

What? Uh, you've got it wrong, it doesn't work period until kill percents. Break-outs work the exact OPPOSITE way.

As for the stalling, a damage ceiling deals with that possibility very nicely.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere...now...why is order good in the competitive scene? That question I think I can answer on my own. Order is there to promote an environment that maximizes (oh, the irony XD) the importance of skill in determining the winner. That is why items were banned, that is why counter-picking exists, that is why stages are restricted. And the disadvantage forced upon the forbidden 2, arguably 5, is, in the words of Mister_E:



Sorry if you object to me quoting you, btw. Anyway, this shows that not banning the technique goes against the basic philosophy of competitive gaming: that skill should be the last word in deciding the winner.

The problem is, that's not the basic philosophy of the ban.

The idea of the ban is that by forcing players to constantly adapt you further the development of the metagame, and therefore only ban things where over-centralization is massive or that make the game unplayable, and even then, as non-intrusive as possible.

Remember, part of skill is good counter-picking, so if you're going for the "ban to make match-ups more even" argument, where's your endpoint, and why? Because if you don't specify an endpoint and accept your argument, we gut the game until all match-ups are 50-50.

That may lead to a very skill based metagame, but it also leads to a metagame with very little depth, and allowing for depth (but not artificially adding it) is a goal of competitive gaming. Hence why we don't ban very much.

 

[Dark Sonic]

I really wish people would stop claiming that 5 characters are completely destroyed by this infinite.

Mario, Luigi, and Samus cannot be infinited 0-death. In fact, so far we know for a fact that they cannot be infinited until they already have accumulated at least 130%! That's right, we've seen a breakout occur after one pummel at 129%, so we know for a fact that it is possible. We have video evidence of Reflex doing it with Wario, and we have frame data confirming that all characters break out at the same speed, with the only factor being the character's percentage.

We have not tested to see if the threshold is actually higher than this. For all we know, it might still be possible to break out of the "infinite" at 150%, or even 200%. But for now that's not that important to us.

What is important is that the infinite simply does not work on Samus, Mario, and Luigi until they have already accumulated a lot of damage, at which point the DDD player should already be focusing on refreshing kill moves and trying to land those kill moves (I think a fresh uptilt kills all of them at 130% doesn't it?) This infinite factors very little into those matchups, and it's quite possible that Luigi actually still has an even matchup with DDD (Mario and Samus are still disadvantaged, but not because of the infinite!)

I'm so tired of people skipping over this when they quote people. Especially when they specifically identify this in their quote.

I'd also like to point out that because of this the infinite actually does have some non-broken uses. I point to Luigi, who could not be chaingrabbed by DDDs running chaingrab. However this "infinite" allows DDD to get up to 5 regrabs on him before his D-thow becomes to stale to use without pummeling, essentially serving as a substitute for a running chaingrab.

 

[Delvro]

*looks 50 pages back*
*looks 100 pages back*

...huh. They're the same arguments.