Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[The Halloween Captain]

I do believe D3 has the only standing chaingrab though, not counting grab releases.

 

[BentoBox]

I like my sausages with bacon and maple syrup. Thought I'd share.

 

[Yuna]

We don't actually know if it can be done in a tournament setting. I heard the system for the breakout involves turning your controller upside-down and pressing Z, L, all the directionals, and all the face buttons on different frames.

If you're being infinited, why wouldn't you go for it?

It also doesn't work at all if D3 simply uses D-throw without a pummel.

And which point his infinite would end after 5 throws and no longer be an infinite!

D3 can still chaingrab these characters even with move decay.

Yes, he can chaingrab everyone except 12 characters. Your point being?

And when you hit around 130%, the infinite becomes unescapable again.

No, that's when it becomes inescapable for the first time!

DK and Bowser alone would be like Ness and Lucas for Marth, which means it might not be enough for a ban.

You do realize Marth can't do it to both Ness and Lucas, right?

Yes, and SO FAR, I have not seen a tournament video where this was successfully implemented.

It's possible. We don't need to see it in a tournament video to know that it's possible. Nobody hacked Brawl for the breakout testing.

its the ONLY **** CHAINGRAB or MOVE/THROW in ALL OF THE SMASH BROS. GAMES that DEFIES SMASH BROS. LOGIC.

Sheik's F-tilt lock defies Smash Bros. logic! It's a low-damaging move with almost no knockback that sucks you in towards Sheik and has tons of hitstun! In Brawl! Ban it nao!

Also, set knockback is nothing new.

 

[Moseythepirate]

Even I were to be a strawmanner, that doesn't mean I can't accuse you of doing it.

Also, strawmanning.

I never said you're personally advocating maximizing anything. I said that banning this to make more characters viable using the "It'd give us more characters" is in essence trying to maximize something.

You didn't say it directly, but you did suddenly pull the word maximizing out of the blue, put it bold, and basically started acting as if I had. Then, when I did start using the word, you pounced on it. Now, I have a definition of strawmanning right here: "Setting up a purposefully weak argument so as to achieve a easy, flashy victory." The word maximizing was your idea, but when I started using it, you were all over it like Shi Chei on frybread. Strawmanning.

Should, isn't always. If we wanted true skill to be the most important factor, we'd ban all characters besides one, as I said. Then you'd really have to be the best player to win.

I know. That's the reason why I used the word "should" rather than, "is always." Luck, and other factors, are inherent to the game, and cannot be removed altogether. The point is, however, that an ideal situation would be one where skill is the most important factor. And please, I already refuted your whole "ban all chars but one" argument: 1) It would destroy the competitive community 2) Balancing rules should be made within reason, and (I just thought of this one) 3) Such a ban would be so universally unpopular that it would be nigh-impossible to enforce.

The Grime is for the Back Room, not the Smash Back Room.

Ah. *obviously needs to learn the intricacies of this community.*

Well. Ish.

*pulled an all-nighter*

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I don't keep up with the psy-boys. I never plan on using Marth, Ness, or Lucas.

Bowser and D3 interest me though.

Anyway, while Luigi would be free after five throws, Samus and Mario would be stuck in chain grab.I'd imagine a good D3 should be able to get nine D-throws in from one grab even on the infinity characters that can break out. Has anyone tested what happens when Mario or Samus get standing grabbed into chain-grabbed, then during the chain they hit about 130-140%? I'm curious to know if a single pummel would un-decay 9 d-throws enough for a standing infinite.

 

[QNZ_RAFA]

o ok your right. but not any of those moves can you CHAIN together till 999%. Plus i always thought fox's shine wuz the stupidest thing ever. the weapon is meant to reflect projectiles not freaking characters.

I agree... I honestly believe ALL 3 GAY GIMPS on Fox should be banned. they are as follow...

Sheik's forward tilt lock on fox.
Zero Suit Samus' down smash chain on fox
and Pikachu's down throw chain grab on fox that lasts till about 90%...where fox is already an incredibly weak (defense) character.

and even sheiks' forward tilt lock diminishes as fox's damage Goes up.. the move is weird but still kinda makes sense how it works. but D3'S chain grab you can just RUN THAT F-O-R-E-V-E-R !

 

[Yuna]

You didn't say it directly, but you did suddenly pull the word maximizing out of the blue, put it bold, and basically started acting as if I had.

No, I simply said that we don't write the rules to maximize anything. Banning things that are "too good" merely to artifically alter single match-ups plays into this. I was ridiculing the idea of maximizing things. If you took then as me claiming you'd directly suggested it, then sorry.

Then, when I did start using the word, you pounced on it.

You started arguing that Competitive gaming does indeed in some ways try to maximize Competition. You made that choice yourself.

Now, I have a definition of strawmanning right here: "Setting up a purposefully weak argument so as to achieve a easy, flashy victory."

You ae wrong.

The word maximizing was your idea, but when I started using it, you were all over it like Shi Chei on frybread. Strawmanning.

The idea that Competitive gaming maximizes anything is old and gets thrown around a lot. I was trying to close off that path for you. You chose to take it, however.

I know. That's the reason why I used the word "should" rather than, "is always." Luck, and other factors, are inherent to the game, and cannot be removed altogether. The point is, however, that an ideal situation would be one where skill is the most important factor.

And if we wanted that, we'd ban everything but 1 stage and 1 character. Now you don't want to do that, do you?

Thus, you don't want us to maximize anything.

And please, I already refuted your whole "ban all chars but one" argument: 1) It would destroy the competitive community

And? You seem to argue that Competitive gaming tries to maximize the importance of "skill" and that a situation where "skill" was all that mattered were an ideal situation. If we really wanted it, we'd play only 1 character. It'd acheive your goals.

2) Balancing rules should be made within reason,

And where does the threshold go? And you admit to wanting to artifically re-balance the game just because.

3) Such a ban would be so universally unpopular that it would be nigh-impossible to enforce.

Doesn't change the fact that it would achieve the goals you claim the community aspires to.

 

[Yuna]

Anyway, while Luigi would be free after five throws, Samus and Mario would be stuck in chain grab.I'd imagine a good D3 should be able to get nine D-throws in from one grab even on the infinity characters that can break out. Has anyone tested what happens when Mario or Samus get standing grabbed into chain-grabbed, then during the chain they hit about 130-140%? I'm curious to know if a single pummel would un-decay 9 d-throws enough for a standing infinite.

This only works on really large stages. They do slide across the stage, you know.

and even sheiks' forward tilt lock diminishes as fox's damage Goes up.. the move is weird but still kinda makes sense how it works. but D3'S chain grab you can just RUN THAT F-O-R-E-V-E-R !

Are you saying Fox's Shine in Melee could not infinite people? Heck, are you saying it cannot infinite people in Brawl?

Are you unaware of the fact that there are rules against going on forever and that threshold is set much lower than 999% at many tournaments (while it was 999% for most tournaments in Melee, allowing Fox to potentially 999%-infinite you)?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Yuna's post count -

IT'S OVER 9000!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not a big fan of getting rid of Pika's chain on Fox BTW.

Pikachu uses his chain on a lot of characters other characters without it breaking the matchups. Fox's tools are better than Pika's without the chain, and if Pikachu doesn't kill immediately after the chain, Fox can still live past 150% due to his shine beating Pika's spam and Pika having fairly short range on his best kill moves. Eliminating Pika's chain really messes up a lot of his matchups (Snake, Falco) unfairly for the sake of a single character, unlike D3, who messes up five characters to which the ban would not extend past.

I'm not saying that Pika-chaining isn't cheap, but there are betters reasons to allow it that to allow the D3 infinite.

EDIT:

This only works on really large stages. They do slide across the stage, you know.

Actually, I don't know. Does short-stepping fix this problem, or does decay make that impossible too?

 

[Moseythepirate]

No, I simply said that we don't write the rules to maximize anything. Banning things that are "too good" merely to artifically alter single match-ups plays into this. I was ridiculing the idea of maximizing things. If you took then as me claiming you'd directly suggested it, then sorry.

I accept your apology. Now drop the whole maximizing thing.

You started arguing that Competitive gaming does indeed in some ways try to maximize Competition. You made that choice yourself.

You led me to that, however. But that is neither here no there. I hereby renounce the word "Maximize." It is now replaced with "Optimize."

You ae wrong.

*shrugs* I'm not the one who's wrong. That came straight out my dictionary. The one on my desk. **** YOU MR. WEBSTER AND YOUR COLLEGIATENESS!!!

The idea that Competitive gaming maximizes anything is old and gets thrown around a lot. I was trying to close off that path for you. You chose to take it, however.

Consider it closed. Say hello to the path of OPTIMIZING!!!

And if we wanted that, we'd ban everything but 1 stage and 1 character. Now you don't want to do that, do you?

No. I gave you my reasons why.

Thus, you don't want us to maximize anything.

Yeah. I already said that. Please refer to my previous post.

And? You seem to argue that Competitive gaming tries to maximize the importance of "skill" and that a situation where "skill" was all that mattered were an ideal situation. If we really wanted it, we'd play only 1 character. It'd acheive your goals.

Please, optimize, optimize. Maximize is so last post.

And where does the threshold go? And you admit to wanting to artifically re-balance the game just because.

As I said earlier, that threshold is something that no two people will view exactly the same way. Now, as for how to decide, I think a vote would do nicely.

Doesn't change the fact that it would achieve the goals you claim the community aspires to.

You mean the goal to optimize the importance of skill? Nope. It would not satisfy the "within reason" clause.

 

[Dark Sonic]

we Don't Actually Know If It Can Be Done In A Tournament Setting. I Heard The System For The Breakout Involves Turning Your Controller Upside-down And Pressing Z, L, All The Directionals, And All The Face Buttons On Different Frames. It Also Doesn't Work At All If D3 Simply Uses D-throw Without A Pummel. D3 Can Still Chaingrab These Characters Even With Move Decay. And When You Hit Around 130%, The Infinite Becomes Unescapable Again.

Dk And Bowser Alone Would Be Like Ness And Lucas For Marth, Which Means It Might Not Be Enough For A Ban.

Edit: What Did Yuna Just Do?

Edit2: Nvm

Do You Read At All!!!! Read it again!

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.

Video Evidence, Frame Data, Detailed Instructions Of The Method, What More Do You Want!?!

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=209846
We Have ****ing Frame Data! Is That Not Enough?
A+b+x+y+l+z+2 Oposite Diagonals On The Control Stick=80 Frame Reduction In one Cycle Requireing Absolutely No Change In Hand Placement. At 0%, That's A 10 Frame Breakout! (90-80)

Even Accounting For Higher Percentages You'd Just Have To Do This Cycle Twice And You'd Be Able To Break Out 160 Frames Earlier Than Normal (that's 2.66 Seconds). Just 3 Cycles Breaks You Out At Up To At Least 100% In Only 20 Frames! Grabbing And Pummeling Take Well Over A Second, So You've Got Plenty Of Leeway!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm8z4o24cvi&feature=related
6:20 Broke Out At 129% Right After The Pummel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ovharcohaq&feature=related
0:13 Broke Out during The Pummel (as Wario Is Forced To Air Release For All Other Circumstances) At 48%
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=radizvv7bhy&feature=related
2:01 Broke Out Right After The Pummel At 97%
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04qdxc6mudw&feature=channel_page
2:51 Broke Out Right After The Pummel At 114%

He Did It In Every Match Of That Set Against m2k! He Did It In The Last Match In Winner's Finals Too! Is That Not Enough Video Evidence? Well I'm Sorry That I Don't Have A Million Videos Of People Grab Breaking efficiently, Instead Of Trying To Grab Break By Pressing 2 Or 3 Buttons Over And Over (which Is Pretty Dumb When You Think About It). But Then Again, We Don't Have A Million Videos Of People SDI-ing Out Of Jab Locks Either, Or A Million Videos Of People Sdiing Out Of Wall Infinites, But We Have 2 Or 3 Videos And That Seems To Be More Than Enough For Those.
We've Proved It In Theory, We've Seen It In Practice, And You're Still Doubting It?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Do You Read At All!!!!



Video Evidence, Frame Data, Detailed Instructions Of The Method, What More Do You Want!?!

Cool .

 

[RDK]

Dear God... Yuna now has two accounts... You did it so that you could debate with yourself, didn't you?

Did anyone else find this idea as immensely entertaining as I did?

 

[Yuna]

Pikachu uses his chain on a lot of characters other characters without it breaking the matchups. Fox's tools are better than Pika's without the chain, and if Pikachu doesn't kill immediately after the chain, Fox can still live past 150% due to his shine beating Pika's spam and Pika having fairly short range on his best kill moves. Eliminating Pika's chain really messes up a lot of his matchups (Snake, Falco) unfairly for the sake of a single character, unlike D3, who messes up five characters to which the ban would not extend past.

D3's infinite does not break his match-ups against Samus, Mario and Luigi! So you just argued against yourself here.

Actually, I don't know. Does short-stepping fix this problem, or does decay make that impossible too?

Then it wouldn't be a standing infinite, now would it? And you can't just magically short-step characters you can't short-step.

You led me to that, however. But that is neither here no there. I hereby renounce the word "Maximize." It is now replaced with "Optimize."

No, I brought it up. You were the one who chose to argue for maximization. You have no one to blame but yourself for that decision.

"Maximize" and "Optimize" is essentially the same thing in this context. And the rules are not written to do either.

Consider it closed. Say hello to the path of OPTIMIZING!!!

You can find synonyms as much as you want. You're still wrong on whether or not Competitive gaming rules are written for this specific purpose.

No. I gave you my reasons why.

None of which invalidates that if we wanted to optimize Competition, my "solution" would be the way to go. So we don't want to optimize it, now do we?

As I said earlier, that threshold is something that no two people will view exactly the same way. Now, as for how to decide, I think a vote would do nicely.

The threshold would have to be agreed upon and objectively defined. Your job here is to come up with such a definition as you're arguing for it.

Nope. It would not satisfy the "within reason" clause.

Which you have no defined.

Do You Read At All!!!!

Video Evidence, Frame Data, Detailed Instructions Of The Method, What More Do You Want!?!

You must have have much experience debating The Halloween Captain, who once claimed Captain Falcon "was just as viable as anyone else" and who is unable to find Sirlin's article "Playing to Win" on Google (+ Sirlin + "Playing to Win" put the correct link at the very top of the results page).

 

[MorphedChaos]

Dark Sonic, your my hero (Almost, I don't hold idols, it doesn't do well for a free mind.)

But, thats wonderful, I'll incorporate that into my Wario game, No More being CG'ed as Wario!

Would that work for DK too if D3 is too slow on the infinite?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

You must have have much experience debating The Halloween Captain, who once claimed Captain Falcon "was just as viable as anyone else" and who is unable to find Sirlin's article "Playing to Win" on Google (+ Sirlin + "Playing to Win" put the correct link at the very top of the results page).

I don't mind that you point this out as much as I mind that you take it as a debating point rather than a humerous example of my occational incompitence with search engines.

Besides, M2K thought Brawl Captain Falcon had high tier potential, are you going to hold it against him in debates from now on?

EDIT: I know just enough about shortstepping that I'm pretty sure it works on any character that can be infinitied except Luigi. I do not yet know if it works with stale moves. I was thinking infinite into short-stepped stale D-throw into pummel over 130% into standing infinite.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Dark Sonic, your my hero (Almost, I don't hold idols, it doesn't do well for a free mind.)

But, thats wonderful, I'll incorporate that into my Wario game, No More being CG'ed as Wario!

Would that work for DK too if D3 is too slow on the infinite?

You're still going to get CG'd -> U-Tilt when you play as Wario. Dedede doesn't have to pummel. M2K presumably thought that he could get the extra damage with no repercussions.

Still, maybe you can practice it and trick some Dededes into thinking they can get extra damage. I do it. :D

As for DK and Bowser, Dedede doesn't have to pummel, so he can do it with impunity. Any Dedede can do it virtually instantly if he knows what he's doing.

Mario, Luigi, and Samus can break out of the outright infinite, however. Granted, Dedede still gets a free five-throw chaingrab, but it's better than losing a full stock, right?

 

[Dark Sonic]

Dark Sonic, your my hero (Almost, I don't hold idols, it doesn't do well for a free mind.)

But, thats wonderful, I'll incorporate that into my Wario game, No More being CG'ed as Wario!

Would that work for DK too if D3 is too slow on the infinite?

If he was slow on the infinite? Yes, but admittedly that is really slow.

It works whenever they try to grab pummel you too (which is why you see that M2K stopped doing it on reflex).

If they throw you as quickly as possible without any pummels then you won't break out, but considering DDD has to do the grab pummels to maintain the infinite on them... infinite "solved."

Also, this could really help when playing as characters who get grab release combo'd via air releases (Wario, Metaknight, ect) because you may be able to force a breakout during one of their pummels, which forces you to do a ground release instead of an air release (0:13 of the second video in my super quote). Now if the opponent simply chooses not to pummel...there's nothing you can do about that.

edit:Reflex beat me to it.

omnom!!

Thank you for being good at this game and providing the video evidence needed to prove this theory.

 

[MorphedChaos]

I'd also like to restate the Halberd infinite, whats the verdict on that?

 

[Yuna]

I don't mind that you point this out as much as I mind that you take it as a debating point rather than a humerous example of my occational incompitence with search engines.

It's not occasional. It's chronic. Not your search engine skills, a lot of things. I just gave two examples, one recent and one old.

Besides, M2K thought Brawl Captain Falcon had high tier potential, are you going to hold it against him in debates from now on?

Did he think this a month or two (IIRC) into the metagame and argue passionately for it (instead of just expressing his thesis) having almost zero facts to back his stand point up all the while facing opposition from people with tons of points disproving his thesis?

 

[Moseythepirate]

No, I brought it up. You were the one who chose to argue for maximization. You have no one to blame but yourself for that decision.

And I changed my mind. Shocking, eh?

"Maximize" and "Optimize" is essentially the same thing in this context. And the rules are not written to do either.

Not at all. Optimize implies an effective balance. Maximize is simply making it as big as possible. They are two completely different things.

You can find synonyms as much as you want. You're still wrong on whether or not Competitive gaming rules are written for this specific purpose.

Except they are not synonyms. Like I said, optimization would be the balancing of different factors. Maximization would be taking one factor to the highest possible level.

None of which invalidates that if we wanted to optimize Competition, my "solution" would be the way to go. So we don't want to optimize it, now do we?

Oh look, bold! I feel special. Now then, tell me why optimizing the emphasis on skill would be bad. Remember, balancing of different factors...the difference between optimization and maximization is that optimization is about finding the best level, not necessarily the greatest.

The threshold would have to be agreed upon and objectively defined. Your job here is to come up with such a definition as you're arguing for it.

Well, I wouldn't feel comfortable finding that definition. I think someone with more metagame experience and insight would be the one to do it. I propose a challenge to find said definition...but I do not believe I am the person to find it.

Which you have no defined.

As you have yet to define competitiveness, by the way. The difference being, I didn't try to dismiss it with a BS definition.

 

[Y.b.M.]

MAN!!! Ya'll better not Ban this...Every character cannot be chained grabbed...If anything Ban them Ice Climbers Infinite grab cause that's broken...but DDD can trip and he can misused....so IMO its stupid to Ban a that move.....Y.b.M.

 

[Moseythepirate]

Umm...Yuna? I know that you disagree with my views, but I am just wondering...do you think that I am at least more informed than Y.b.M?

 

[Moseythepirate]

Hmm...another thought...why hasn't anybody tried having guinea pig tournaments? It seems to me like when generally debating the bans and rule changes, this would be a good procedure to follow:
1) Proposing a vote to change a rule or ban something.
If step one is seconded upon, then;
2) Vote to discuss the proposed change or ban.
If step 2 carries with a majority,then
3) Discuss the change or ban.
After 3 is concluded, the group would then
4) Hold a number of guinea pig tourneys to observe the effects of the proposed change in action.
After 4 is completed, repeat step 3 again. Then, go to:
5) Hold the final vote on whether the proposed change or ban will be implemented.

EDIT: What percentage would carry the vote on the final design is not something that I can feel I can really propose, but for the sake of argument, I think that a simple majority for general rule changes and 2/3's majority for bans wouldn't be unreasonable (I think it should be higher for bans because, since they restrict the metagame, are not something that should be enforced lightly). I tried to design this process so it emphasizes analysis and discussion with a lot of balances to prevent hasty decisions. Overcomplicated, perhaps, though.

Any thoughts?

 

[bobson]

Hmm...another thought...why hasn't anybody tried having guinea pig tournaments?

There are a decent amount of tournaments that already ban the infinite. In general, the only change is that DK places more often.

 

[BentoBox]

MAN!!! Ya'll better not Ban this...Every character cannot be chained grabbed...If anything Ban them Ice Climbers Infinite grab cause that's broken...but DDD can trip and he can misused....so IMO its stupid to Ban a that move.....Y.b.M.

MAN!!!

stop posting.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Well, on all the characters except Luigi, King D3 gets five throws, plus a chain grab, plus an attack. Luigi lucks out by only getting 5 throws (maybe an attack). I'm not sure completely how decay works, but that is about 8+7+6+5+4, or 36% minimum on Luigi (assuming D3 cannot land any attacks out of his throw against Luigi). Then Mario/Samus can get chain-grabbed, which is about another 4 to 12, between 40 and 48 damage, depending on stage length. Against Samus, he can us D-tilt to increase damage by another 10%, to get 50-58% total damage. Against Mario he'll probably use F-tilt for 12%, or 52-60% total damage. These moves will not be decayed because of all the D-throws which will refresh his moves. The D3 infinite which so far only works on Bowser and DK, can as a standing grab cause an average 52% on it's first use per stock, reguardless of the current fastest button mashing speed, on the characters that it standing chaingrabs but does not infinite.

Current qualities of chaingrab - At beginning of every one of D3's stocks, one grab causes -

Luigi - 36(to 48)%
Mario/Samus - 48-60%
Bowser/Dk - instant kill in super slow-motion

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=142229

 

[cutter]

Falco can chaingrab the majority of cast to ~35% at the beginning of a stock and follow up with a DAC Usmash or Dair. Your point being?

 

[Trapt497]

Falco doesnt have an infinite grab though. He makes a point in saying that bowser and dk are so screwed in this matchup that the ban could be justified

falco is for another discussion, anyways.

 

[Dark Sonic]

There are plenty of things that screw characters over. A hard counter is a hard counter.

What makes DK and Bowser so special (Bowser being an unviable character in the first place)?

 

[Trapt497]

What makes them so special?

How about every single benefit each character has? How about the fact that each one has a very unique moveset? The characters are VERY special to those who have commited to maining them!! Bowser is not unviable in the eyes of pros who main him..sliq's bowser is one special bowser if i have ever seen one.

 

[KHSigma]

I have been chain-grabbed as Sonic and unable to get out of it. Thats why I dont use Sonic anymore.

 

[Dark Sonic]

So what do we tell the Fox/Ganon/Captain Falcon/Link/Jigglypuff/Sonic/ect players? They're not worth saving?

Fox could be made better by just banning Pikachu's chaingrab and Shiek's f-tilt lock. Should we do that?

There are plenty of things that completely destroy characters. A lot of characters have bad matchups. A lot of characters even have hard counters. Some characters even have multiple hard counters (this is exactly what makes them unviable).

We can't be going around making rules to just "fix" bad characters. And don't say "DK isn't a bad character," because it is the fact that he can be infinited that makes him bad, just as Fox is bad because he can be chaingrabbed and tilt locked, just as Ganon is bad because he can be camped, just like so many other characters are bad because things can be done to them.

 

[Crazy Hobo]

My friend mains DDD (and I don't know how accurate he is) but he says Bowser cannot be infinited, because he needs to move a little, not as much as his chaingrab, to regrab. Also, is it hard for DKs to learn Olimar a little to counter DDDs?

 

[EdreesesPieces]

So what do we tell the Fox/Ganon/Captain Falcon/Link/Jigglypuff/Sonic/ect players? They're not worth saving?

Fox could be made better by just banning Pikachu's chaingrab and Shiek's f-tilt lock. Should we do that?

There are plenty of things that completely destroy characters. A lot of characters have bad matchups. A lot of characters even have hard counters. Some characters even have multiple hard counters (this is exactly what makes them unviable).

We can't be going around making rules to just "fix" bad characters. And don't say "DK isn't a bad character," because it is the fact that he can be infinited that makes him bad, just as Fox is bad because he can be chaingrabbed and tilt locked, just as Ganon is bad because he can be camped, just like so many other characters are bad because things can be done to them.

And that's why Bridge of Eldin should be on! It's the characters fault for being able to get chain grabbed, the character is bad for being able to get chaingrabbed off the stage. for the loss of a stock.

 

[RDK]

I have been chain-grabbed as Sonic and unable to get out of it. Thats why I dont use Sonic anymore.

...as opposed to not using Sonic because he completely blows?

 

[Dark Sonic]

Good thing that Bridge of Eldin would not overcentralize the metagame...at all!

Am I rite?

Also, I found this video to be hilarious, and completely unrelated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0seAOBHjxE&feature=related

and this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG73SUI4y4U&feature=related

Yeah.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

Good thing that Bridge of Eldin would not overcentralize the metagame...at all!

Am I rite?

Also, I found this video to be hilarious, and completely unrelated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0seAOBHjxE&feature=related

and this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG73SUI4y4U&feature=related

Yeah.

No it doesn't. You can ban the stage, and it's only a counterpick. You could potentially never see the stage. Also, even if you had a 95% chance of losing there by picking a chain grabable character, you could overcome it by winning the other two matches. But you don't even have to worry about this because you get the chance to switch characters when the stage is announced. Also if someone picks it you can pick a character that doesn't get chain grabbed and its a much larger FD. If you can get camped it's your characters fault for being able to get camped - pick Pit if DDD takes you there.

 

[link6616]

I don't dodge questions.

You have dodged answers though.

 

[Yuna]

And I changed my mind. Shocking, eh?

It's still wholly your fault. Stop blaming others for your own mistakes.

Not at all. Optimize implies an effective balance. Maximize is simply making it as big as possible. They are two completely different things.

They both mean to take something to the highest degree. In this particular context, they are the same.

Except they are not synonyms. Like I said, optimization would be the balancing of different factors. Maximization would be taking one factor to the highest possible level.

The English language disagrees:
1. to make as effective, perfect, or useful as possible.
2. to make the best of.
3. Computers. to write or rewrite (the instructions in a program) so as to maximizeefficiency and speed in retrieval, storage, or execution.

If you optimize something, you take it to the highest possible factor.

English is my third language. Isn't it supposedly your first language? Or are you saying the English language is wrong?

Oh look, bold! I feel special. Now then, tell me why optimizing the emphasis on skill would be bad. Remember, balancing of different factors...the difference between optimization and maximization is that optimization is about finding the best level, not necessarily the greatest.

How do you suggest we do this? Walk around banning one jillion things to optimize the emphasis on "skill"? Artifically balancing each match-up 'til they're as close as 50-50 as possible? This one tactic is not allowed against this one character, etc., etc., etc.?

We play the game we have. Some characters are not viable. Some are really, really good. Deal with it.

Well, I wouldn't feel comfortable finding that definition. I think someone with more metagame experience and insight would be the one to do it. I propose a challenge to find said definition...but I do not believe I am the person to find it.

You're making this argument. You could at least try.

As you have yet to define competitiveness, by the way. The difference being, I didn't try to dismiss it with a BS definition.

Why is this relevant?

Stuff.

So... everything I've been saying for the past 10 pages is 100% correct while all of your assumptions and theories were wrong. Good to have settled that then.

Bowser is unviable anyway. DK gets rendered unviable by this one match-up, same as several other characters. Your point being?

What makes them so special?

How about every single benefit each character has? How about the fact that each one has a very unique moveset? The characters are VERY special to those who have commited to maining them!! Bowser is not unviable in the eyes of pros who main him..sliq's bowser is one special bowser if i have ever seen one.

Many characters are rendered unviable because of many things. Why should we care?

Sliq's Bowser is just one very good Bowser... which has never won or placed high at any major tournaments, as far as I know.

And that's why Bridge of Eldin should be on! It's the characters fault for being able to get chain grabbed, the character is bad for being able to get chaingrabbed off the stage. for the loss of a stock.

Bridge of Eldin is banned because it causes over-centralization. It makes D3 "too good". The standing infinite only works on 2 characters (well, it also works on D3 himself, but nobody cares about that). On Bridge of Eldin, 1 grab = death for 27 characters. That's over-centralization.

Not to mention that walk-offs over-centralize the metagame around, well, walk-offs. We had a several pages long discussion on this already. If you're gonna join it, at least try a little bit of backtracking.

No it doesn't. You can ban the stage, and it's only a counterpick. You could potentially never see the stage.

Doesn't matter, it's too powerful a counterpick for D3 (and others). It's "too good".

You have dodged answers though.

This makes no sense.