Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[beamswordsman]

I guess thats why people debate, because they want to prove that their side is "right" and educate the misimformed. But it's really hard to remove opinion from a debate. One thing these polls need are "In the middle" options. People aren't always on the extreme side of things.

 

[XxBlackxX]

The debate then regresses to: Is this the best criteria for making the ban decision? <-- Answer to this question is a totally subjective opinion. My opinion is that it is not. This is my opinion; you see, we are not debating facts, but rather the merits of our individual opinions. The unyielding Sirlin attitude is something that many people here subscribe to. My opinion is that it is usually a good but not perfect model, and that exceptions are fine as long as we agree that they are warranted.

Clearly the majority should make the ruling decision here, but a majority consensus doesn't mean we're doing it the "right" way or even the best way. It just means that we're doing it the way we've chosen.

that's a BS argument and you even admitted it yourself.
the "majority" doesn't mean ****. im willing to bet than 1/4 of the people who voted never been to a tourney. even if EVERYONE in the poll made a informed decision, the majority isn't always right, this isn't like the presidential election, we chose what is RIGHT, not "what the majority thinks". if that was true, MK would be banned and he ovbiously doesn't need to be banned.
by your thinking, if the majority of SWF users think you're an idiot and should be banned on SWF, it might not be the right choice, but we should still go with it "because it is the way we've chosen"....>_>

 

[Pi]

Hi, I'm back for more.

Better one. The same 10 people go to the desert, but 6 people get more water than the other 4. Does it affect just those six people?

You still have to do it correctly. Can everyone do it?

Laziness...is counter-picking so hard?


When it gets to the point of "Pick DDD or lose", it's banworthy.

Ease of a ban doesen't matter. It has to be very reasonable.

I don't fully understand what you mean by 6 people getting more water than 4
Does it affect only those 6? Physically, yes, mentally no

I don't think you're fully understanding the situation...

Dedede's INFINITE is only harmful to 6/39 characters of the cast
Pro-ban is hoping to eliminate this harmful effect
There is no effect on the other characters in the roster o.O
The other characters in the roster are the 6 people with water
And the 6 characters affected by the INFINITE are the 4 without
We're bringing the 6 characters up to speed with every other character, leveling the playing field


Can everyone do it? No
Does everyone have the ability to do it? Pretty much, it's not real hard =\
(Also, difficulty of use is not up for debate here, so please just ignore it ^.^)

Counterpicking is not hard lol
But when it becomes NECESSARY...another analogy:
Required reading at schools
Do you like to read? It's a different story when you're told what book to read and when to read it

We shouldn't HAVE to counterpick when we have the power to prevent this

And I do believe to some extent 'ease of ban' is a factor

Do you acknowledge that it would be such a simple thing to monitor in tournaments? To prevent yourself from doing?

You really have to consciously know what you're doing to preform this infinite =\

 

[cutter]

We shouldn't HAVE to counterpick when we have the power to prevent this

This is where the pro-ban side strikes me as lazy. Why do you want to resort to banning when you can just play another character or counterpick and solve the problem? Characters are just going to have bad matchups. DEAL WITH IT. That's the nature of gaming.

We ban things only when they grossly warp and overcentralize the metagame, and D3's infinites do not do this.

 

[bobson]

This is where the pro-ban side strikes me as lazy. Why do you want to resort to banning when you can just play another character or counterpick and solve the problem? Characters are just going to have bad matchups. DEAL WITH IT. That's the nature of gaming.

We're lazy in the sense that taking a brick wall out of your driveway is lazy because you could always just drive around it.

And, for the record, that's only the nature of this type of gaming. Plenty of games routinely patch out obvious imbalances like this.

 

[Luigi player]

The better player should win the matches. Why do you want to force us to never pic those characters against Dedede if you could just ban it? It should not be possible to have a 100 % loss if you're chooing those characters against a other one. This is totally unfair.

This is reason enough to ban it.

 

[Big Red]

We're lazy in the sense that taking a brick wall out of your driveway is lazy because you could always just drive around it.

Not a fair analogy, of course it makes sense to take out the brick wall because it takes more energy to get around it everyday then to get rid of it once. This is not the case with D3's infinite. It is simply part of the game that some people think is "unfair" and should be gotten rid of.

 

[cutter]

The better player should win the matches. Why do you want to force us to never pic those characters against Dedede if you could just ban it? It should not be possible to have a 100 % loss if you're chooing those characters against a other one.

Stop throwing out this 100% win/loss garbage. A 100-0 matchup means you will always, always, always, ALWAYS, ALWAYS WIN. Hell you could suicide down to your last stock and still win, because, you know, you will ALWAYS WIN NO MATTER WHAT.

Also, Melee Sheik did the exact same thing by making a ton of characters unviable; FAR more than DDD. I don't think we banned anything then.

This is totally unfair.

This is reason enough to ban it.

Sorry, but "unfair" is not a criterion for banning something.

Once you pro-banners prove that D3's infinites warp and overcentralize the metagame becoming the ONLY viable tactic to win in tournament play, then it can be banned.

 

[Plum]

I don't fully understand what you mean by 6 people getting more water than 4
Does it affect only those 6? Physically, yes, mentally no

I don't think you're fully understanding the situation...

Dedede's INFINITE is only harmful to 6/39 characters of the cast
Pro-ban is hoping to eliminate this harmful effect
There is no effect on the other characters in the roster o.O
The other characters in the roster are the 6 people with water
And the 6 characters affected by the INFINITE are the 4 without
We're bringing the 6 characters up to speed with every other character, leveling the playing field


Can everyone do it? No
Does everyone have the ability to do it? Pretty much, it's not real hard =\
(Also, difficulty of use is not up for debate here, so please just ignore it ^.^)

Counterpicking is not hard lol
But when it becomes NECESSARY...another analogy:
Required reading at schools
Do you like to read? It's a different story when you're told what book to read and when to read it

We shouldn't HAVE to counterpick when we have the power to prevent this

And I do believe to some extent 'ease of ban' is a factor

Do you acknowledge that it would be such a simple thing to monitor in tournaments? To prevent yourself from doing?

You really have to consciously know what you're doing to preform this infinite =\

I'm among the people who like counterpicking. I like not being able to win with just one character. Having to know who fills out your character's weaknesses is part of the game.

Trying to limit counterpicking goes against one of the main factors in any fighting game.

When you select a character you factor in everything from how much you like the character in general, to how fun they are to play, to how well they play and how well they do against the cast and who can solve their problems.

Now I would prefer for those who use these characters to not go the MK way out to solve counterpicks, but is it unreasonable for the player to pick up a character who can beat DDD? And let's be honest, how well will these characters do even if DDD didn't have the infinite? Most good DDD's don't need the infinite to beat these characters; it is more of an icing on the cake.

If DDD was able to dominate the metagame with his infinite then this would be completely different, but taking out only 6, some of whom are unreasonable even without it, does not come close.

It is easy to pick up on in an hour or so, less if you have a knack for timing, and then putting it into your gameplay takes even less but if you are already maining DDD or play him often you won't find yourself having to rely on this much to win unless the other person is just higher skilled than you.

Then some of us might argue about how the infinite allows lower skilled players to beat much better players, but if they are truly much better than they can switch characters the next match and win with a new character no problem.

 

[bobson]

Not a fair analogy, of course it makes sense to take out the brick wall because it takes more energy to get around it everyday then to get rid of it once.

Who are you to say it makes sense to take out the brick wall? It clearly doesn't overcentralize your driveway or you wouldn't ever be able to leave. If you take the brick wall out of your driveway, what's to stop every kid and their dog from taking out the pothole or unsightly row of grass growing in a crack in their driveway? Some people don't even have driveways, and we never modified anything for their sake. It's a weakness inherent to your driveway; deal with it or get out. We don't need more whining.
You act like you can't just counterpick a helicopter and fly over it.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I don't know how to vote right now. I don't main main anyone who gets infinited by him (Although Lucario doesn't like fighting DDD's) so I haven't been on the receiving or giving end of it.

I don't know how to vote. On one hand the infinite takes away skill and gives DDD grossly unfair match-ups. On the other hand that happens normally in fighting games.

It's just people don't like how DDD gets his good match-ups.

 

[XxBlackxX]

The better player should win the matches. Why do you want to force us to never pic those characters against Dedede if you could just ban it? It should not be possible to have a 100 % loss if you're chooing those characters against a other one. This is totally unfair.

This is reason enough to ban it.

first of all, gimme proof that it is 100% win/loss or stop spouting it.
2nd, "unfair" isn't why we ban things. CF vs. MK is "unfair", ban?
we only ban things if they over-centralize or break the metagame, and since it isn't universal, no ban.

 

[PK-ow!]

I guess thats why people debate, because they want to prove that their side is "right" and educate the misimformed. But it's really hard to remove opinion from a debate. One thing these polls need are "In the middle" options. People aren't always on the extreme side of things.

No, persons older than 14 (you know, decent people) debate to find Truth. They tend to do this by supposing that they have good reasons for believing themselves to be right, but being open to the possibility that they are wrong. They then present their ideas as though to try to convince others that they are right, on the idea that if their belief is reasonable (and the other guy is), they should succeed. And the scrutiny of the other guy should make one more confident in his belief if it stands up, or give up his belief if the other guy can poke holes in the backup for it.

That's debate.

Anyone who is debating "to prove their side is right" - i.e., debating "because they want" to prove their side is right - is not debating. They're shouting. Or trying to teach someone. But the classroom is not a debate (not even Socratic teaching is a debate). If you know you're right there's no argument. It's just a matter of getting the facts down in the right form to make all your airtight inferences.

Also, I just want to say bobson's most recent post is absolutely the right move in response Bid Red's reply.
You're still wrong, bobson, but that's not how Big Red should have defended the point, and you (amusingly) zinged him on it. *thumbup*

 

[link6616]

You have to support your argument

Why is it broken enough

It's obviously broken enough for those 2 or 6 characters

But does it affect the game enough on the WHOLE to warrant a ban

At least those are the arguments I was faced with.


Personally, I see no problem in banning it's use on the characters in question
It pretty much removes them from play, and it's such an easy thing to ban
The game on a whole would be affected equally ban or no ban

But I'd venture to say that banning the move would affect the game in a more positive way (allowing more characters eligible for competitive play)

It only removes from play if everyone ALWAYS choose DDD.

 

[da K.I.D.]

i think it should be banned just because of Bum.

he wins the majority of weekly tourneys that he holds,

and every time i hear about him winning a tourney, I have to sift through "well, he wouldnt have won if the infinite was banned, and if people feel that its ok to not only demean somebodys accomplishments like that, but to do it just because you dont feel DK should be allowed to win tourneys because of this one broken move, than you really dont have the spirit of competition with in you

 

[WastingPenguins]

that's a BS argument and you even admitted it yourself.
the "majority" doesn't mean ****. im willing to bet than 1/4 of the people who voted never been to a tourney. even if EVERYONE in the poll made a informed decision, the majority isn't always right, this isn't like the presidential election, we chose what is RIGHT, not "what the majority thinks". if that was true, MK would be banned and he ovbiously doesn't need to be banned.
by your thinking, if the majority of SWF users think you're an idiot and should be banned on SWF, it might not be the right choice, but we should still go with it "because it is the way we've chosen"....>_>

First, I should have been clearer. I wasn't referring to the whims of the masses. I was referring to the people ultimately in charge of making these decisions (in this case, the back room). Thus, MK isn't banned because the majority of SBR folk voted against the ban.

Second, you're dead wrong anyway. There is no *right* and *wrong* here, just different philosophies. If the majority (of people with authority) want to be strict Sirlin adherents, then so be it. That doesn't mean that Sirlin is the definitive and correct model of competitiveness. It's one model among many. The people in charge like it so we stick to it, but something isn't automatically right (i.e. the best way to do things) just because the SBR decides it is.

And to repeat myself to avoid confusion: I think the Sirlin model is generally excellent, but I am a pragmatist. I am not an ideologue who lumps together dissimilar circumstances, makes false analogies and clings to flimsy slippery slope arguments. And as a pragmatist, I do think there is room for exceptions when we can agree they are warranted. Clearly here we cannot agree, as much as I wish we could.

 

[Yuna]

We shouldn't HAVE to counterpick when we have the power to prevent this

Fox shouldn't have to counterpick against Pikachu when you can just ban his chaingrab! Lucas and Ness shouldn't have to counterpick against Marth and Pokémon Trainer just because of their grab releases! Donkey Kong (yes him again) shouldn't have to counterpick against Meta Knight because his Tornado just shuts DK down.

Tough luck! This isn't La La Land. Not all characters can be used in all match-ups. If you're not willing to counterpick but still want to be able to win all match-ups, switch to a character which doesn't need to counterpick. Or play another game!

Whining about your character sucking and then not wanting to counterpick is just fanboyism, playing a fighting game for the sake of a certain character and not because of the game itself.

And, for the record, that's only the nature of this type of gaming. Plenty of games routinely patch out obvious imbalances like this.

Plenty of games don't. I don't see why this is relevant.

If a game is so broken it's unplayable, people don't play it. Imbalance =/= Unplayability. Plenty of the world's most Competitive games throughout history are imbalanced and have never been patched. Some people have even argued that since some games are patched, we should start banning and hacking the game. Don't give them inane fodder.

The better player should win the matches. Why do you want to force us to never pic those characters against Dedede if you could just ban it? It should not be possible to have a 100 % loss if you're chooing those characters against a other one. This is totally unfair.

This is reason enough to ban it.

Refuted, refuted, refuted.

This is totally unfair.

So is life. I suggest you try to ban it.

i think it should be banned just because of Bum.

he wins the majority of weekly tourneys that he holds,

and every time i hear about him winning a tourney, I have to sift through "well, he wouldnt have won if the infinite was banned, and if people feel that its ok to not only demean somebodys accomplishments like that, but to do it just because you dont feel DK should be allowed to win tourneys because of this one broken move, than you really dont have the spirit of competition with in you

Bull**** reasoning.

Why should we ban this because of Bum? So he chose to play a character with a ****ty match-up, and? Plenty of really good players have chosen ****ty characters with ****ty match-ups. Why should things be banned for their sake?

Bum could do well if he switched to a better character. He just chooses to play as DK. Why should the rules be written to make his life easier? Why him? What makes him so **** special?! If M2K started maining Fox tomorrow, should we ban Sheik's F-tilt lock and Pikachu's chaingrab then? Bum made his bed, let him get infinited in it.

Hey, there were several Bowsers who did pretty well as him in Melee! I say we should've gotten rid of Sheik's chaingrab on Bowser years ago! I mean, they were winning local tournaments and placing well as him!

BS logic! Don't make me get eloquent, da K.I.D..

 

[Radiation]

WOAH

totally unrelated but yuna I wouldn't mind if shiek infinited me in bed

even if she only technically has an f-tilt lock

Anyway, TO's should just start doing tourneys without these infinites if there's that much interest in having them banned. They're non-integral to the characters, nobody uses them except for dickweeds, and it's a small enough issue that the SBR should probably be worrying about other things so this falls under the category of "does the TO care." To be honest as much as I am opposed to the infinite chaingrab it is not really that big of an issue, it's a very specific matchup but it's still stupid and unfair. We need to go to microcosm level to accomplish something, we're not gonna get anything done going 50-50 on some forums when like 2% of these people even play Dedede anyway.

Yeah, since I haven't read this thread I'm just stating the obvious without an argument. But really, talk to those TO's, pretend you're not coming if it's not banned and then if you can't get them to change then go anyway, say that the infinites broke your car but you fixed it.

but shiek

seriously

 

[Yuna]

WOAH

totally unrelated but yuna I wouldn't mind if shiek infinited me in bed

even if she only technically has an f-tilt lock

DK does not even F-tilt locked or infinited by Sheik. He "gets it" from D3. Bum made his bed. Now he'll just have to get ***** by D3 in it. Besides, when Zelda transforms into Sheik, her magic makes her go through a sex change, including all sexual organs.

 

[Fletch]

So is life. I suggest you try to ban it.

I love the "but it isn't fair!" argument, and this is the best/funniest reply I could possibly think to it. By the way, don't you ever sleep Yuna?

 

[Yuna]

I love the "but it isn't fair!" argument, and this is the best/funniest reply I could possibly think to it. By the way, don't you ever sleep Yuna?

Yes, but I'm Swedish. I'm in another time zone. I have been known to pull all-nighters, but today was not such a day. It is currently 2 P.M.

 

[Fletch]

Yes, but I'm Swedish. I'm in another time zone. I have been known to pull all-nighters, but today was not such a day. It is currently 2 P.M.

Ya I know you're Swedish, but the way you hawk threads sometimes is ridiculous.

 

[Yuna]

Ya I know you're Swedish, but the way you hawk threads sometimes is ridiculous.

I believe in quashing stupidity as soon as it manifests itself. The world will be a better place that way.

 

[Luigi player]

So is life. I suggest you try to ban it.

Well we could ban this unfair tactic though. You just don't care about the characters.

Why shouldn't you ban this unfair thing if you could make it more fair? Because some people are egoists and don't care about those characters? >_>

"so is life" Is not a good argument. What about Akuma? He's unfair, no? Well that's life.

"Oh noo, you unplugged my controller!"
-No that shouldn't be banned, that's life.

 

[adumbrodeus]

If the community could agree on a ban, a slippery slope situation is defeated as easily as saying "No precedent has been set except for techniques exactly like this one, of which none exist. Other techniques are unique and occur under their own sets of special circumstances, and any ban considerations must be made independently.

In other words, being totally arbitrary...

We talked about this already.

The better player should win the matches. Why do you want to force us to never pic those characters against Dedede if you could just ban it? It should not be possible to have a 100 % loss if you're chooing those characters against a other one. This is totally unfair.

This is reason enough to ban it.

Ultimately all counters hurt that principal.

This is a fighting game, imbalances exist, that's why we have advantagious and disadvantagious match-ups.

Best way to remove them is ban every character except one.

Heck, even ridiculous match-ups existed in the past, what Sheik can't chaingrab bowser? Fireballers can't use fireball on E. Honda?

Come on, why are we playing match-up surgery?

We're lazy in the sense that taking a brick wall out of your driveway is lazy because you could always just drive around it.

And, for the record, that's only the nature of this type of gaming. Plenty of games routinely patch out obvious imbalances like this.

Your analogy isn't correct because taking the brick out of your drive-way is the minimalist solution that only effects you, that's like counter-picking.


What you're trying to do is ban all bricks so there can never be a brick in your driveway...

Well we could ban this unfair tactic though. You just don't care about the characters.

Why shouldn't you ban this unfair thing if you could make it more fair? Because some people are egoists and don't care about those characters? >_>

"so is life" Is not a good argument. What about Akuma? He's unfair, no? Well that's life.

"Oh noo, you unplugged my controller!"
-No that shouldn't be banned, that's life.

And remove personal responsibility as well as remove depth from the metagame? Sorry, no.

Akuma wasn't banned because he was unfair.

What's unfair about the "infinite" is that it's annoying for a few characters, but nowhere near banworthy, so you have to live with it.

Unlike controllers being unplugged which is part of the default ruleset because it's an out of game factor, and banned for that reason.


While probably "unfair" in your view, none of those things were banned for that reason.


The infinite however, I see no reason for banning beyond that it's unfair.

So is life, I suggest you take Yuna's suggestion and try to ban it.

 

[PKNintendo]

Fox shouldn't have to counterpick against Pikachu when you can just ban his chaingrab! Lucas and Ness shouldn't have to counterpick against Marth and Pokémon Trainer just because of their grab releases! Donkey Kong (yes him again) shouldn't have to counterpick against Meta Knight because his Tornado just shuts DK down.

Tough luck! This isn't La La Land. Not all characters can be used in all match-ups. If you're not willing to counterpick but still want to be able to win all match-ups, switch to a character which doesn't need to counterpick. Or play another game!

Whining about your character sucking and then not wanting to counterpick is just fanboyism, playing a fighting game for the sake of a certain character and not because of the game itself.


Plenty of games don't. I don't see why this is relevant.

If a game is so broken it's unplayable, people don't play it. Imbalance =/= Unplayability. Plenty of the world's most Competitive games throughout history are imbalanced and have never been patched. Some people have even argued that since some games are patched, we should start banning and hacking the game. Don't give them inane fodder.


Refuted, refuted, refuted.


So is life. I suggest you try to ban it.


Bull**** reasoning.

Why should we ban this because of Bum? So he chose to play a character with a ****ty match-up, and? Plenty of really good players have chosen ****ty characters with ****ty match-ups. Why should things be banned for their sake?

Bum could do well if he switched to a better character. He just chooses to play as DK. Why should the rules be written to make his life easier? Why him? What makes him so **** special?! If M2K started maining Fox tomorrow, should we ban Sheik's F-tilt lock and Pikachu's chaingrab then? Bum made his bed, let him get infinited in it.

Hey, there were several Bowsers who did pretty well as him in Melee! I say we should've gotten rid of Sheik's chaingrab on Bowser years ago! I mean, they were winning local tournaments and placing well as him!

BS logic! Don't make me get eloquent, da K.I.D..

I loled at everything you said. Blunt as ever, eh Yuna?

 

[Luigi player]

You said "so if life" again, but I already said that this doesn't work.


Why isn't it ban worthy? So in your eyes we should just forget about those 5 characters and never play them anymore? ...great.

Um.. depth? That is no depth. That is an unskilled and unfair tactic, and the better player should win. You can overcome matchups, but not with those characters.

What's unfair about the "infinite" is that it's annoying for a few characters, but nowhere near banworthy, so you have to live with it.

Why isn't it ban worthy, if it makes 100:0 matchups? It isn't just "annoying" it means that you WILL lose to 99.99999999999 %.


Just because it doesn't affect your character makes it not ban worthy in your eyes.

And this is true for 95 % of the pro-ban people.

If your character would suffer from this you'd like it banned too, because it means: your enemy is Dedede? You lose. There's no way around it.

People just don't get it and don't care about the characters, because they don't like/use them.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Why isn't it ban worthy? So in your eyes we should just forget about those 5 characters and never play them anymore? ...great.

... TWO

For F***'s sake, pay attention, Luigi, Samus, and Mario cannot be infinited till unreasonable percents.

Heck, even the bowser one is pretty situational, if you're too close to the edge you can't do enough damage because it's not a true infinite.

Um.. depth? That is no depth. That is an unskilled and unfair tactic, and the better player should win. You can overcome matchups, but not with those characters.

Every lost technique is lost depth unless it's a pass-fail tech that is automatically incorporated, it's something you cannot do.

"The better player should win" is a good general principal, but it gives no protection against running into stupid match-ups.

Why isn't it ban worthy, if it makes 100:0 matchups? It isn't just "annoying" it means that you WILL lose to 99.99999999999 %.

And what makes that ban-worthy?

Just because it doesn't affect your character makes it not ban worthy in your eyes.

And this is true for 95 % of the pro-ban people.

If your character would suffer from this you'd like it banned too, because it means: your enemy is Dedede? You lose. There's no way around it.

Ad Hominem logical fallacy, just because my character doesn't get affected doesn't take anything from my argument.


But let me point this out, the greatest barrier to Marth players winning tournaments is MK, and by my estimation, Marth would be the best character were MK banned. I'm a Marth main, so if your logic is right, I should've wanted MK banned right?

Wrong, I don't let personal feelings for characters get in the way of making intelligent consistent ban decisions.

Even if this effect Zelda, Sheik, Marth, and Ganondorf (the 4 characters I play the most), I'd still be anti-ban, because it's not ban-worthy. And you can quote me on that if something does happen like this.

People just don't get it and don't care about the characters, because they don't like/use them.

Or people know how to separate personal feelings from ban-worthyness. Prove otherwise.

 

[Yuna]

Well we could ban this unfair tactic though. You just don't care about the characters.

Why shouldn't you ban this unfair thing if you could make it more fair? Because some people are egoists and don't care about those characters? >_>

Why should we ban things to make things more "fair"? And where do we stop? Will we ban things only when every character stands a chance at winning major tournament? Will we stop only when every character stands an equal chance of winning?

We do not ban things to make the game more "fair". We only ban things if they make the game so "unfair" it's unplayable. This only makes 2 characters unplayable. Well tough luck.

"so is life" Is not a good argument. What about Akuma? He's unfair, no? Well that's life.

Akuma breaks the game. Akuma makes the entire game unplayable unless you play as Akuma.

I loled at everything you said. Blunt as ever, eh Yuna?

I've actually toned down a bit as of late. That was actually a more subdued me. Certain parts of that post was not so subdued, but as a whole, pretty subdued (for me).

Why isn't it ban worthy? So in your eyes we should just forget about those 5 characters and never play them anymore? ...great.

Yes. Because they obviously suck.

Also, three of those characters can break out. If you didn't know that, then you're not qualified to argue this.

That is an unskilled and unfair tactic

"Unskilled" and "Unfair" has never been a valid reason to ban anything.

and the better player should win.

If you want that, then ban all characters besides one. Then it will really be about who's the better player.

You can overcome matchups, but not with those characters.

I'd like to see you overcome my NTSC Melee Sheik as Melee Bowser.

Why isn't it ban worthy, if it makes 100:0 matchups? It isn't just "annoying" it means that you WILL lose to 99.99999999999 %.

If you can beat my Melee Sheik as Melee Bowser on Final Destination (in Melee), then we'll ban it.

Just because it doesn't affect your character makes it not ban worthy in your eyes.

No, because we have insight into how Competitive gaming works. I could care less if this worked on Zelda, Marth or Toon Link. I would still not ban it.

And this is true for 95 % of the pro-ban people.

Could it be because the players playing as the Doomed 2 (yes, 2) are more biased and therefore more likely to whine their butts off about this?

If your character would suffer from this you'd like it banned too, because it means: your enemy is Dedede? You lose. There's no way around it.

No, if D3 could do this against a vast majority of the cast, while still winning against everyone else, which made the game unplayable as a whole unless you played as D3 himself, then I'd ban him.

People just don't get it and don't care about the characters, because they don't like/use them.

No, you just don't have any insight or knowledge about how Competitive gaming works.

 

[PKNintendo]

You can quote me on this but...

I didn't happen in 64 where DK could infinite Cargo Jiggs
It didn't happen in Melee where Fox had his Shine infinite on Link/Peach, and Sheik had some disgusting CG on pretty much everyone in bottom tier. (she pretty much SHAPED bottom tier)
And I doubt it will happen in Brawl with it's multiple infinites.

Kinda sad that the more we progress from sequel to sequel, the more infinites are uncovered.

 

[Luigi player]

... TWO

For F***'s sake, pay attention, Luigi, Samus, and Mario cannot be infinited till unreasonable percents.

Yeah, but Dedede only has to grab them 2 times and the second time it's an infinite. I know Luigi, Mario and Samus have projectiles that they could spam and run away the whole time, but DK can't do anything.

Heck, even the bowser one is pretty situational, if you're too close to the edge you can't do enough damage because it's not a true infinite.

Yeah Bowser could maybe try to stay on the edge and have his flame protect him for a short time or something, but it won't help much, because if Dedede is too far away Bowser can't deal damage and Dedede can spam Waddle Dees to get the damage advantage.
Bowsers might not be 100:0, but it's still REALLY REALLY bad and probably about 99:1 or something.

Every lost technique is lost depth unless it's a pass-fail tech that is automatically incorporated, it's something you cannot do.

Yeah, but it's just a skillless and totally unfair "technique". It actually would help the Dedede player if he'd have to fight normally (to make the player better), but he can just grab someone and win the game like that.

"The better player should win" is a good general principal, but it gives no protection against running into stupid match-ups.

Yes, but matchups shouldn't be THAT bad. The only thing holding this back is just Dedede's infinite. You could just ban it and nobody would say anything anymore about it. The characters even have a disadvantage against Dedede without the infinite, but IT CAN BE OVERCOME. If only matchups would say who'll win we'd only see Meta Knights and Snakes in winning tournaments, but that's not the case.

You cannot win if you're playing DK against a Dedede though, and that is unfair and shouldn't be possible.

And what makes that ban-worthy?

Your chance at winning is smaller than 1 %. Something like that should not be possible.

Ad Hominem logical fallacy, just because my character doesn't get affected doesn't take anything from my argument.


But let me point this out, the greatest barrier to Marth players winning tournaments is MK, and by my estimation, Marth would be the best character were MK banned. I'm a Marth main, so if your logic is right, I should've wanted MK banned right?

Wrong, I don't let personal feelings for characters get in the way of making intelligent consistent ban decisions.

Yeah, but if MK would be banned it would also help other characters. MK is also not as unfair as Dedede vs those characters. And you'd ban a whole character here, not just a totally skillles thing that makes your chance to win 0 %.

Even if this effect Zelda, Sheik, Marth, and Ganondorf (the 4 characters I play the most), I'd still be anti-ban, because it's not ban-worthy. And you can quote me on that if something does happen like this.

Yeah, of course >_> we'll never know though. And it would never be a 0 % chance to win. If it would be THAT bad, I'm sure everyone who uses those characters would want it banned.

Or people know how to separate personal feelings from ban-worthyness. Prove otherwise.

It is ban worthy, because you have no chance at winning.

 

[bobson]

Yeah, but Dedede only has to grab them 2 times and the second time it's an infinite. I know Luigi, Mario and Samus have projectiles that they could spam and run away the whole time, but DK can't do anything.

What? 2 times? Where are you getting this from?

 

[PKNintendo]

Your sig is looking good Luigi player. Santa DK XD.

 

[Luigi player]

What? 2 times? Where are you getting this from?

1 grab = ~ 50 %, and then it doesn't work anymore. After that Dedede has to grab them again and then he can always do a grab attack so the grab doesn't get stale.

Your sig is looking good Luigi player. Santa DK XD.

Thanks. ^^

 

[Yuna]

"It's unfair."

Nobody cares.

1 grab = ~ 50 %, and then it doesn't work anymore. After that Dedede has to grab them again and then he can always do a grab attack so the grab doesn't get stale.

1: Since when?
2: The infinite only starts working at around 147% or so.
3: Since when does the grab magically not get stale "after that"?!

 

[Luigi player]

Nobody cares.


1: Since when?
2: The infinite only starts working at around 147% or so.

And since when does the grab magically not get stale "after that"?! It always stales (except against DK).

The Dededes said that you can infinite Luigi etc. if he's getting grabbed at 50 %. Also, I don't want to ruin my controller just because you don't want to ban this lol.

Yes, but it doesn't work on Luigi, Mario and Samus after 5 regrabs, because it's getting stale or something. You can refresh it by doing a grab attack, which you can do after the characters have 50+ %.

It doesn't matter for DK and Bowser, because the grab will always work at them.

 

[Yuna]

The Dededes said that you can infinite Luigi etc. if he's getting grabbed at 50 %.

Which DeDeDes?

Also, I don't want to ruin my controller just because you don't want to ban this lol.

Nobody cares what you want. Aren't you being a huge egoist? "I don't want this! Therefore, it needs to be banned!".

Yes, but it doesn't again on Luigi, Mario and Samus after 5 regrabs, because it's getting stale or something. You can refresh it by doing a grab attack, which you can do after the characters have 50+ %.

The pummel is slow as hell. You can break out if you have les than 147% or whatever the treshold was! So, no, it's not an infinite until 147%.

It doesn't matter for DK and Bowser, because the grab will always work at them.

Sucks to be them.

 

[Luigi player]

Which DeDeDes?


Nobody cares what you want. Aren't you being a huge egoist? "I don't want this! Therefore, it needs to be banned!".


The pummel is slow as hell. You can break out if you have les than 147% or whatever the treshold was! So, no, it's not an infinite until 147%.

The Dedede players from the Dedede character boards.

So every Luigi, Mario and Samus player has to ruin their controller? So who's the egoist here? >_>
Well, it isn't that bad for them, because they could avoid a grab with projectiles, so it shouldn't be THAT bad for the controller, but the thing is with DK or Bowser you can't get out.

So you can get out of the pummel if you don't have more than 146 %? I hope you know that you'd need to destroy your controlstick & Cstick for this to happen o_X

Sucks to be them.

Egoist?


Every Mario, Luigi, DK, Samus and Bowser player should stop playing them for a month, maybe then some people realize that it is unfair to those players...

 

[Yuna]

"It's unfair!"

It's not egiostic, it's Competitive. Isn't it more egoistic to demand things be banned to suit your character? Why not just switch mains? Why demand to be allowed to use a specific character at the expense of a ban?

Also, why aren't you demanding other infinites and BS chaingrabs from hell be banned? Sheik 0-death:ed a whole slew of characters in Melee due to her chaingrab. Were you demanding that be banned?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Yeah, but Dedede only has to grab them 2 times and the second time it's an infinite. I know Luigi, Mario and Samus have projectiles that they could spam and run away the whole time, but DK can't do anything.

What the heck do you mean?

He only has to grab them once... when they're at like 130.

Yeah, but it's just a skillless and totally unfair "technique". It actually would help the Dedede player if he'd have to fight normally (to make the player better), but he can just grab someone and win the game like that.

So we remove part of the character's game, and screw over their match-ups because... it'll help the player get better?

Yes, but matchups shouldn't be THAT bad. The only thing holding this back is just Dedede's infinite. You could just ban it and nobody would say anything anymore about it. The characters even have a disadvantage against Dedede without the infinite, but IT CAN BE OVERCOME. If only matchups would say who'll win we'd only see Meta Knights and Snakes in winning tournaments, but that's not the case.

You cannot win if you're playing DK against a Dedede though, and that is unfair and shouldn't be possible.

Why shouldn't they be that bad?

That's the way the game was designed.

The only reason I see that they should be like that is if there is a sufficient number of them, at least 12.

Your chance at winning is smaller than 1 %. Something like that should not be possible.

WHY?

Yeah, but if MK would be banned it would also help other characters. MK is also not as unfair as Dedede vs those characters. And you'd ban a whole character here, not just a totally skillles thing that makes your chance to win 0 %.

So?

Actually, DDD losing his infinite would make him less viable which means I can stick with Marth more instead of pulling out Zelda.


My point is it's pretty obvious I didn't chose this side because the infinite didn't hurt me.

Yeah, of course >_> we'll never know though. And it would never be a 0 % chance to win. If it would be THAT bad, I'm sure everyone who uses those characters would want it banned.

You have a very low opinion of the users of those characters. The Marth boards are very big "accept your weaknesses", so everyone who's not currently pro-ban would almost definitely not switch if it was them in the same spot. And Ganondorf's would never bother, another horrible horrible match-up, ho-hum. Zelda/sheik is somewhat less homogeneous, so it's possible, but I don't think the majority would fight for it.

Point is, there's no way to prove it, and it doesn't matter in the long run. Even if people are hypocritical it doesn't hurt the point that it's defenders are hypocrits.

It is ban worthy, because you have no chance at winning.

That's impossible. The only way you would have no chance of winning is if his grab encompassed the entire screen and went through invincibility, and out prioritized everything.

It's just a bad match-up, bad match-ups HAPPEN, everyone has to deal with them.

The Dededes said that you can infinite Luigi etc. if he's getting grabbed at 50 %. Also, I don't want to ruin my controller just because you don't want to ban this lol.

Yes, but it doesn't work on Luigi, Mario and Samus after 5 regrabs, because it's getting stale or something. You can refresh it by doing a grab attack, which you can do after the characters have 50+ %.

It doesn't matter for DK and Bowser, because the grab will always work at them.

It doesn't ruin your controller....

The damage doesn't build up fast enough at 50%, and to make up for the missed pummels, you have to pummel more before 5, which will destroy it.