Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[XxBlackxX]

I'm not talking about how easy it is to perform the input. Anything with difficult input can and will be mastered.

I'm talking about the ease to pull it off in a match against between two skilled opponents.

To further explain what I mean:
Pulling off a Warlock Punch. The input is obviously easy. Actually landing the move is so unlikely that it's incredible power is completely fair. Attempting this move is incredibly risky, but has a good reward.

Pulling off a grab with DDD is EASY. Attempting this move is not risky, and against some characters has a reward of taking a full stock. That is not balanced by any means. Heck, it's not even balanced that he has a chaingrab across the stage. Banning the character-specific infinite is completely reasonable, IMO.

You can say "Don't get grabbed" against the ICs, because their grab is far more avoidable. Telling someone not to get grabbed against DDD is nuts, even to a highly skilled player.

As an example, Azen VS M2K. We all know that Azen has INSANE spacing and is an incredible player overall. I watched a series of 5 amtches between them and DD just narrowly won. If DDD had an infinite against Lucario. Azen would have gotten 3-stocked most of the time.

*sighs*

okay, then..."land-ablility" doesn't factor in to whether things should be banned or not either.

if a move that was OHKO andwas guaranteed to hit MK 100 % of the time was discovered by...say wolf, and it ONLY works on MK, it still shouldn't be banned.

 

[M15t3R E]

Your whole argument is on the basis that if it only affects a few characters, it doesn't warrant a ban. Your argument is centered around an artificial banning criteria which you have formed in your head to satisfy your stance on this issue.

Your problem is that the SBR has never stated a banning criteria. They certainly need to.

And I have read the article on sirlin.net a few months ago.

*sighs*

okay, then..."land-ablility" doesn't factor in to whether things should be banned or not either.

if a move that was OHKO andwas guaranteed to hit MK 100 % of the time was discovered by...say wolf, and it ONLY works on MK, it still shouldn't be banned.

I completely disagree. You think even if an ability completely ruins another character to the point of them NOT being at all viable in tournaments, we need not do anything to help such characters. I don't understand your logic. It certainly doesn't sound logical...

 

[SkylerOcon]

We ban items because we want to make competitive smash based more on skill rather than luck. I agree with that. That is a good idea.

We ban certain stages for the same reason we ban items.

However, we haven't banned the Ice Climbers infinites because they are hard to pull off. This makes sense.

But Kind Dedede's infinite is completely different. It's easy to do and doesn't even need more than about ten minutes practice to be learned. This doesn't make the game based on skill, it makes it based on Dedede being lucky enough to get that grab in, and with his enormous grab range, isn't that hard.

King Dedede's infinite opposes actual skill and can completely ruin a game based on a single grab. One stupid downthrow destroying six characters. Not everybody can be Boss and avoid the infinite all match (and even then, he got killed by a Gordo).

 

[XxBlackxX]

Your whole argument is on the basis that if it only affects a few characters, it doesn't warrant a ban.
Your problem is that the SBR has never stated a banning criteria. They certainly need to.

And I have read the article on sirlin.net a few months ago.

not only that, but if it over-centralizes the metagame, making the tactic the only one competitively viable. it does neither of those things, nor does it break the game as whole.

sure, SBR never officially issued this criteria, however, it was used in melee.
and i agree they do need to...

@SkylerOcon

then just CP, just because it totally breaks those matchups doesn't mean it should be banned.
as long as it doesn't over-centralize, and doesn't break the game, no ban.

 

[TK Wolf]

if a move that was OHKO andwas guaranteed to hit MK 100 % of the time was discovered by...say wolf, and it ONLY works on MK, it still shouldn't be banned.

Seriously? You don't think something like that should be banned?

Well in that case there's no way we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this matter.

 

[Kinzer]

again "enertainment value" isn't why we ban things. many scrubs enjoy playing with items, many like playing at temple. what if i personally like infinites (not true, but an example)?

and so what if it is matchup-breaking.
many techniques are matchups-breaking, pika's cg against fox, falco's cg->against ike, for example. but both are not universal and both are not the only viable tactic in the whole game. so they aren't banned.

neither should the infinites.

it doesn't really matter, btw, whether you LIKE or DON'T LIKE CP'ing. this is just another thing you have to deal with if you want to win. CP'ing is a necessary part of the game. im sure no one would saty fox against a pika, no one would go sonic against MK, they may not LIKE CP'ing, but it is necessary to avoid a horrible(in this case **** near unwinnable) matchup. CP'ing is ALREADY necessary.

But if you don't like the ban, why are you for not banning it? Please don't answer that question, you have your reasons as it runs teh same way why I think it must be banned, so blegh...

Actually, Falco & Ike run at a 75:25 matchup respectively, however it's quite easy for Ike to just recovery from the Dair spike assuming he does, and the CG stops at somwhere above 40~55%... with that said, it is possible to work around that, but what do the unlucky 5 have against the D3 player...? unplug the opponents controller or unplug theirs and hope the thrown weapon gives the guy a concussion. It makes them unusable jokes aside, which is why this needs to be taken care of. It's also the same reason why the Pika CG isn't banned, it has a set limit and Fox can still "try" to win (I won't say he will, even without the CG Fox still has a bad matchup against Pikachu), and can come back. What's the unfortunate 5 gonna do, camp? DK can do that really well, so he's screwed if they have to resort to camping... So it Bowser to a lesser extent.

Shouldn't DDD be killing at 200% anyway?

It's D3. There is a problem if the opponent is living past 200% with D3, he is a powerhouse.

i find it even more funny that you think a game in which skill is the only factor will be achieved.

no, we banned items to take out the luck factor. the infinites have NOTHING to do with luck.

So it just happens to be that my opponent fails write into my hands... yeah that's not luck.

Moving away from the unlucky 5, it doesn't take luck for a Sonic player for example to hope that D3 messes up on the timing of the Chaingrab and allowing me to Spring away to safety. It doesn't take luck that the final hit of my Fair just broke through King D3s shield, tossing him into the air and away from me and being unable to restart the CG on my Fair ending lag. It doesn't take luck that I happen to have been charging up an angled FSmash while D3 was coming down with a charged Jet Hammer waiting to punish my lag on my FSmash had I released it beforehand/angled it forward.

Of course it doesn't take luck sometimes... right?

 

[M15t3R E]

You really have no idea if the SBR will only ban things that breaks the game as a whole. None of us do. Wobbling was not banned and it broke the game. Fortunately, most IC had some level of dignity and wouldn't use it.
Anyway, stop touting your artificial banning criteria which may turn out to be incorrect.

 

[Wylde]

If your gonna ban d3's infinites you should ban all characters accept the one you use, and start playing by your own rules. No edgehogging, thats broken too, AND IT WORKS ON ALL CHARACTERS.

We should take out Shielding too, cuz when you work so hard to attack him it really ruins it.

OH AND THEN THERES CHEAP CHARACTERS LIKE IKE. HE SHOULD BE BANNED.



Really though, there was a whole page on 'trying to help out the low tiers'.

It's pretty much these low tier players crying because they want to start winning.



Why would you ban dedede's infinite before metaknight anyway? Metaknight has an advantage on all characters, and makes for a smaller, less complex meta game.


All of those arguing that dedede is soooo ez omg I cant believe I lose its only cuz of infinite, cuz I cant space well and I get punished with grabs, and I cant change characters I only main _____ and he gets beat by dedede omg I cant cp stages either, stages like Rainbow cruise are stupid. . . .

Seriously, you have other problems than dedede's chaingrab.

 

[Pi]

okay i will indeed elaborate. however since i am tired, ill pull up a post i made a while ago:


If it overcentralizes the metagame or breaks the metagame.
This is the only ban criteria EVERY competitive community agrees upon.

this is how it's run. and it WORKS. in the end, the metagame might hurt a little from a bit less characters, but overall it is healthy because people aren't ban-happy and learn to deal with their own matchup problems instead of complaining for a ban. seriously, banning something that doesn't warrant one is just like telling the community "we'll give you guys the easy way out, instead of dealing with your own problems by thinking, we'll just ban it so your lives are easier". and you know what happens then? since we discouraged thinking and dealing with your own problems, OTHER groups (again, fox comes to mind) will come and complain: hey, you guys banned a tactic for a 9:1 matchups, why not a 85:15, realistic, there is still very minimal chance of winning. soon, all we'll see is BAN, BAN, BAN because people have forgotten to think themselves before asking for a ban.
^and all this HURTS the metagame. that's why the ban criteria HAS to be met before banning something. and trust me, if you HAVE been a part of some other competitive gaming community, you'll know, the ruleset that has the least restrictions while keeping the game as a whole playable is a ruletset that WORKS, and works well.

Tl;Dr

it hurts the metagame overall because it discourages players THINKING and solving their own problems, added to that is the slippery slope.

however, all that was basically explained on sirlin.net (which you should read sometime if you got the spare time and want to know why people are anti-ban).

Ah, thank ya sir

Yes, I agree that this works when you factor in CP's, and again--I understand how necessary CP's already are.

But, I do believe that this will work as well.
Assume that we didn't become ban happy-it would work yea?

Now, factoring in the whining and complaining that will surely go on around here (about **** near everything), this is where we should put our trust in the hands of the higher-ups.

In the end the ultimate decision is in the hands of the SBRoomers
And this is why I'm saying that becoming ban-happy is a moot argument =\
It just won't get to the point where we are seriously considering banning moves that are just not broken to the extent as this infinite is.

I completely agree with you and understand the severity of banning moves and characters.
I voted no in the ban MK poll because I think it is farrr to early to be making such a heavy decision, sure he's dominant, but FFS we are still finding new techniques!

But as far as this infinite goes...I just don't see anything being done about it and I don't think you do either. I get your fears and your reasons for being anti-ban, and they are logical
people are stupid, and people are lazy
But I think we can trust the SBRoomers enough to put their foot down when it becomes too much, and I don't think that this is too much =\

You say it sucks for those characters, and you seem like you would want to ban it if there weren't repercussions because it really wouldn't negatively affect the metagame if it were limited to just moves of this severity

Personally, I'm willing to trust the community, the admins the SBRoomers to make the final decisions and to be able to tell when someone is just being lazy and when a move truly is just impossible to combat.

*sighs*

okay, then..."land-ablility" doesn't factor in to whether things should be banned or not either.

if a move that was OHKO andwas guaranteed to hit MK 100 % of the time was discovered by...say wolf, and it ONLY works on MK, it still shouldn't be banned.

Whaaaa seriously?

I think that's a bit extreme not to ban that lol

Sure would shut down all the MK pro banners though xD

If your gonna ban d3's infinites you should ban all characters accept the one you use, and start playing by your own rules. No edgehogging, thats broken too, AND IT WORKS ON ALL CHARACTERS.

We should take out Shielding too, cuz when you work so hard to attack him it really ruins it.

OH AND THEN THERES CHEAP CHARACTERS LIKE IKE. HE SHOULD BE BANNED.



Really though, there was a whole page on 'trying to help out the low tiers'.

It's pretty much these low tier players crying because they want to start winning.



Why would you ban dedede's infinite before metaknight anyway? Metaknight has an advantage on all characters, and makes for a smaller, less complex meta game.


All of those arguing that dedede is soooo ez omg I cant believe I lose its only cuz of infinite, cuz I cant space well and I get punished with grabs, and I cant change characters I only main _____ and he gets beat by dedede omg I cant cp stages either, stages like Rainbow cruise are stupid. . . .

Seriously, you have other problems than dedede's chaingrab.

Come on now, you're exaggerating

I get you are trying to prove a point but try to be a little less sarcastic here





And also, I was using the comparison between items and this infinite very loosely
There are very thin strings of similarities between them and I wouldn't use this as my sole argument lol

 

[Wylde]

Reguardless, he only has infinites on himself {gee lets ban him now}, wolf <~ Ledge infinites
DK
Samus
Mario
and Luigi.


Even if you do end up with ONE of those 6 characters, you can:

CP
Dont Get Grabbed

Change characters

 

[M15t3R E]

Wylde- to edgehog you need to rack up a lot of damage on your opponent, then send them off-stage, then grab the edge at JUST the right moment. It is far from a broken tactic.
Shielding isn't broken and can be punished in many situations...

You can have your arguments but please no stupid comparisons to ledgehogging and shielding. That is just ridiculous.

I also think you don't understand what the infinite does. On some characters like DK it can be used to 300% and you can't break out. You are bound to get grabbed at some point no matter how well you space. DDD has insane grab range.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Whaaaa seriously?

I think that's a bit extreme not to ban that lol

Sure would shut down all the MK pro banners though xD

actually, all it would be is that MK can't against wolf. that's it. CP against wolf, and MK would still be a great character.
it still isn't universal, nor does it over-centralize, nor does it break the game as a whole.

as for your other point, i guess you're right. it was always up to the SBR to make ruleset decisions anyways.

however, if you didn't know already, the TO's still have ALL the power. sure, almost all of them follow the SBR's ruleset, but if you wanted to, you could host a tourney with infinites banned/whatever else you want. just point it out in case you didn't know.

So it just happens to be that my opponent fails write into my hands... yeah that's not luck.

Moving away from the unlucky 5, it doesn't take luck for a Sonic player for example to hope that D3 messes up on the timing of the Chaingrab and allowing me to Spring away to safety. It doesn't take luck that the final hit of my Fair just broke through King D3s shield, tossing him into the air and away from me and being unable to restart the CG on my Fair ending lag. It doesn't take luck that I happen to have been charging up an angled FSmash while D3 was coming down with a charged Jet Hammer waiting to punish my lag on my FSmash had I released it beforehand/angled it forward.

Of course it doesn't take luck sometimes... right?

sure luck will always have a affect on everything, but with items on, you may be leading 5% to 300%, smash ball pops up next to sonic. you are across the stage. he gets ball and wins.

we try to minimize the effect of luck.

 

[Wylde]

I also think you don't understand what the infinite does. On some characters like DK it can be used to 300% and you can't break out. You are bound to get grabbed at some point no matter how well you space. DDD has insane grab range.

CP Characters
CP stage
Plank

And I do realize what the infinite does. I main d3.

 

[M15t3R E]

I have an interesting question.

What if the game was so broken that every character had an infinite that worked on 2-3 other characters.

None of the infinites would, by themself, break the game as a whole. Would you still want the infinites to all stay unbanned?

CP Characters
CP stage
Plank

And I do realize what the infinite does. I main d3.

Ok, then don't say "don't get grabbed". Getting grabbed WILL happen in fighting a good DDD.
As for CP'ing, they should not have to counterpick. It's a broken match-up when skill cannot possibly get them the win. Broken match-ups need to be fixed. That's why they are called broken.

 

[Pi]

Reguardless, he only has infinites on himself {gee lets ban him now}, wolf <~ Ledge infinites
DK
Samus
Mario
and Luigi.


Even if you do end up with ONE of those 6 characters, you can:

CP
Dont Get Grabbed

Change characters

Lol yes, of course, we already know these are choices that we can make
But when it comes down to 'do this or lose' and the 'lose' part is no exaggeration
That's when we feel it's become a problem and needs to be addressed

actually, all it would be is that MK can't against wolf. that's it. CP against wolf, and MK would still be a great character.
it still isn't universal, nor does it over-centralize, nor does it break the game as a whole.

as for your other point, i guess you're right. it was always up to the SBR to make ruleset decisions anyways.

however, if you didn't know already, the TO's still have ALL the power. sure, almost all of them follow the SBR's ruleset, but if you wanted to, you could host a tourney with infinites banned/whatever else you want. just point it out in case you didn't know.

Idk, I think if it couldn't be performed on accident it should be banned


And yes, that's true, TO's are the ones to give the final decision


Any way, this'll be my last post for tonight, GOOD LUCK WITH THE DEBATE!

Try to keep things reasonable please ><
Overuse of exaggerations and sarcasm won't get you any where

You can't bully or humiliate people online =\
It just doesn't work=

 

[XxBlackxX]

I have an interesting question.

What if the game was so broken that every character had an infinite that worked on 2-3 other characters.

None of the infinites would, by themself, break the game as a whole. Would you still want the infinites to all stay unbanned?

in that case the tactic of using infinites would be over-centralizing.
get it, it will be "pick a character that can infinite your opponent's character, do the infinite, and win".
so yes, if a game was ever like that, infinites as whole should be banned.

but this is irrelevant as thankfully brawl isn't that bad of a game ^^

It's a broken match-up when skill cannot possibly get them the win. Broken match-ups need to be fixed. That's why they are called broken.

no they don't. if so, many of things need to be banned >_>

as long as there are other options, banning is the absolute last resort. in this case, CP is the solution.

 

[Wylde]

Broken match-ups need to be fixed.

Yeah lets give every character a secret moveset vs metaknight.

 

[Kinzer]

If your gonna ban d3's infinites you should ban all characters accept the one you use, and start playing by your own rules. No edgehogging, thats broken too, AND IT WORKS ON ALL CHARACTERS.

We should take out Shielding too, cuz when you work so hard to attack him it really ruins it.

OH AND THEN THERES CHEAP CHARACTERS LIKE IKE. HE SHOULD BE BANNED.



Really though, there was a whole page on 'trying to help out the low tiers'.

It's pretty much these low tier players crying because they want to start winning.



Why would you ban dedede's infinite before metaknight anyway? Metaknight has an advantage on all characters, and makes for a smaller, less complex meta game.


All of those arguing that dedede is soooo ez omg I cant believe I lose its only cuz of infinite, cuz I cant space well and I get punished with grabs, and I cant change characters I only main _____ and he gets beat by dedede omg I cant cp stages either, stages like Rainbow cruise are stupid. . . .

Seriously, you have other problems than dedede's chaingrab.

D***it, I'm going to fall for the flame-bait of a n00b, but here goes.

You sir, unless you really are trying to start a flame war or are being sarcastic, prepare to get roasted by Haunter and his Steak



Edgehogging can be worked around by not aimnig for the ledge and trying to land on the stage for example. If you think you got Gayed, then you were probably sent at an impossible angle to recover anyway, or you weren't expecting it. Learn to expect unexpected.

God you're an idiot by insisting we take out shielding, we might as well go play Street Fighter and make moving back to reduce damage banned too.

This is December, not March/April where Ike was seen as a God. People got smart, and started to avoid his FSmash. Reason he wasn't banned because he's not super Ike who can throw and FSmash every other millasecond, he doesn't break the game unless he is hacked to do that.

Low Tier characters on their own, I won't complain because people play to win, and people who choose to play low tier characters know that they are limiting themselves.

Because Metagay can still lose to other competant players, I heard Diddy/Olimar/Snake work wonders on MK now. I am ashamed to say I was pro-ban for MK until I figured out you just have to learn the matchup like anything else in this game. Seriously I get so much MK training with my Sonic I could really say the mathcpu doesn't even feel anymoret han 60:40 my disadvantage.

D3 himself has to be mastered like anybody else, the infinite just takes 10 minutes of your life away from a big reward. HELL NO SCREW THAT! Mario is limited by his lack of range, you tell me how he is going to space D3 other than Fireballs/F.L.U.D.D. ... Oh that's right, he ISN'T! He is gonig to have to go for the kill sometime sooner or later, because all his kill moves are up close, and even if he happens to rack up enough damage on D3, all the D3 player has to do is just hold up a shield and grab Mario in his lag. This is stupid and anybody for anti-ban are really beyond me, even if I took the time to try and see all of the sides.

Yeah, we have other problems, but those can be worked with, the infinite is just GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY.

Finally CPs work great, like Smashville doesn't set up the characters for the infinite like Final D right? Don't answer that question as a yes, because one platform makes a difference.

/sarcasm

 

[M15t3R E]

in that case the tactic of using infinites would be over-centralizing.
get it, it will be "pick a character that can infinite your opponent's character, do the infinite, and win".
so yes, if a game was ever like that, infinites as whole should be banned.

but this is irrelevant as thankfully brawl isn't that bad of a game ^^

Ah hah. So infinites are bad but they are okay as long as there are not too many or an infinite doesn't work on too many characters.

But the fact is infinites are broken tactics. They are bad for that reason and shouldn't be allowed to exist, regardless of how many characters they work on.

The basis of the anti-ban side is that something bad in the game is fine if taken in small doses. The basis of the pro-ban side is that if it's bad, don't let it exist.

 

[aeghrur]

Broken match ups exists rather you like it or not. Live with it.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Your whole argument is on the basis that if it only affects a few characters, it doesn't warrant a ban. Your argument is centered around an artificial banning criteria which you have formed in your head to satisfy your stance on this issue.

Your problem is that the SBR has never stated a banning criteria. They certainly need to.

The SBR is not the end of all knowledge concerning smash and certainly doesn't have the fianl word on what does or does not govern a ban period.

And I have read the article on sirlin.net a few months ago.

I suggest you read it again because the statement of overcentralizing and it being detrimental to the metagame ARE the standards for a ban.
Those were the stands for Akuma being banned.
They were the reason Ravager in MTG was banned.
It is the reason Red eyes darkness metal dragon is banned in yu-gi-oh
It is the reason several stages in smash were banned.

Artificial? Nay this is the conclusion that was reached by many competitive communities

I completely disagree. You think even if an ability completely ruins another character to the point of them NOT being at all viable in tournaments, we need not do anything to help such characters. I don't understand your logic. It certainly doesn't sound logical...

Except Donkey Kong doesn't fall to being not at all and no one has stated why at all.
Let alone that even if the character became completely unviable in play it would not matter because the loss of several characters does not matter as long as the metagame is not being oercentralized.

E.Honda in SF2 was rendered completely unviable in the face of fireball users. Which is ALOT of characters he goes 9-1 against them just because of their fireballs.
Should we ban fireball usage because it breaks his matches?
No

Unless it causes overcentralizing within the game by nature, it should not be banned.
Simply because as a result, the precedent that is set will determine what may or may not be banned.

As such if DDD's infinite is banned, we should ban several things on the basis that they cause terrible matchups. At which point we continue banning things to be consistent which makes the metagame unhealthy.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Ah hah. So infinites are bad but they are okay as long as there are not too many or an infinite doesn't work on too many characters.

But the fact is infinites are broken tactics. They are bad for that reason and shouldn't be allowed to exist, regardless of how many characters they work on.

no.

the ONLY reason i agreed to your scenario was because it WOULD indeed over-centralize. anyways, i think we need to agree to disagree. we are going in circles lol. if you find a new point and seriously thinks it will break new grouns for the pro-ban argument, by all means inform me, but other than that im getting tired and ill go off to do some other things than debating here.

@SL

wrong quotes.

 

[M15t3R E]

Broken match ups exists rather you like it or not. Live with it.

Why do they need to exist? We have the ability to easily center such broken match-ups more around skill, rather than broken tactics.

Can you please explain to me why you like the idea of broken tactics determining the winner of a match rather than skill?

 

[bobson]

Well.

I just finished a series of serious fights against a Dedede main who knew how to use the infinite and chaingrab effectively. After a match or so of perfecting my technique, I was able to break out with reasonable consistency under 100%, denying the prospect of 0-deaths or even 50-deaths. Despite this, Dedede can still get some ~50% off a grab by doing the five standing grabs into a running chaingrab and then segueing into a followup and edgeguard, which was certainly not pleasant. Still, though, I was better than him, and I was able to win seven out of ten matches because of that, despite his crutch. This decidedly breaks the idea that any random clod can show up with the penguin and infinite until the cows go home to win any matches against Mario, Luigi and Samus.

DK and Bowser still get the **** end of the plunger in this, though; easily a 95:5 matchup if not worse for them. But a thought came to my mind: we have precedent here. Lucas and Ness were 0-deathed helplessly by Marth (until EIDI came around) much in the same way DK and Bowser are 0-deathed helplessly by Dedede, and we didn't even bother to make a thread for it. If we didn't care about the momma's boys then, why do we care about the animals now? Tier bias for DK? Additionally, Dedede doesn't actually have an infinite on Bowser, just a chaingrab (which is not a guaranteed 0-death); banning that would also call into question other tactics, like Falco's chaingrab into spike on Link.

For these reasons, I'm changing my stance to be against the ban. The slippery slope is a very realistic prospect here, and I think a universal ban would be detrimental enough to the community to avoid doing so.

I am, however, still for its removal at a TO's discretion. It's an obviously imbalanced tactic that makes an otherwise very viable character worthless competitively, and its removal would have no negative effects on the metagame (unless you consider Dedede not having a free win against those two a negative effect). Removing it individually from tournaments instead of making a universal ban is a simple way to avoid the complications banning it would cause.

236 pages in, I am officially ceasing to pay attention to this thread. A rousing applause to all of you who've been debating so spiritedly, except to the ones who did more harm to their point than anything else (You know who you are. Actually, you probably don't. Well, everyone else knows who you are, anyway.).



Not like this actually had a chance of being banned in the first place, anyway.

 

[Flamingo]

Dangit. Its getting closer to even .

I would only support this dumb infinite if it worked on MK.

Quote this ^^^

 

[aeghrur]

The basis of the anti-ban side is that something bad in the game is fine if taken in small doses. The basis of the pro-ban side is that if it's bad, don't let it exist.

Why would you ban everything bad though? You can't take out everything "bad" just because it's "broken" when
A. Bad/Broken is subjective
B. Not everyone agrees it's bad or broken.
Besides, live in moderation people, don't be fundamentalists. xD

Why do they need to exist? We have the ability to easily center such broken match-ups more around skill, rather than broken tactics.

Can you please explain to me why you like the idea of broken tactics more than skill in determining the winner of a match?

Yes, because you can still win with skill. This broken tactic doesn't apply to every character. It applies to 6 match ups. Lern2CP. This broken tactic won't decide a match if you don't play this match up in the first place. Characters are unviable, deal with it. Match ups can be one sided, deal with it. We're not here to increase the number of characters viable for "fun." We're not here to fix match ups with banning, that's the community's job to find ways around these tactics.

 

[XxBlackxX]

@bobson

okay good. lol

anyways, you DO know that it was the TO's choice to make whatever rules they want in the first place right? SBR only makes RECOMMENDED rulesets, it's not the law.

 

[M15t3R E]

The point is, even with CP'ing, the infinited characters are still made unviable if the opponent knows how to infinite with DDD.

Why should we allow ANY characters to be completely unviable in tournaments? How is that fair?

I swear, it's like you have something against DK, Samus, Mario, Luigi, and Bowser...

 

[Devil Zars]

In my point of view, it's bad to ban DDD's infinite since it isn't our fault that different fighters that are affected to the infinite chain grab, but with any other character a player can be safer, not to mention that the chain grab isn't possible in all the stages, but if he counterpicks to a character that you are at a disadvantage, your life is pretty much ended lol, it would be a pity if it's ends banned since I use dedede

 

[aeghrur]

It's not fair, but DEAL WITH IT. THERE WILL BE UNVIABLE CHARACTERS. 2 characters are made unviable by this. Oh well, if the TO wants those characters, fine, ban the infinite. This should not be enforced though. I don't care if it's not fair, I don't care if you say there's more variety, I just say this:
It does not overcentralize.
It is not 100% agreed that it is broken
It is not agreed that it is bad.

 

[M15t3R E]

It's not fair, but DEAL WITH IT. THERE WILL BE UNVIABLE CHARACTERS. 2 characters are made unviable by this. Oh well, if the TO wants those characters, fine, ban the infinite. This should not be enforced though. I don't care if it's not fair, I don't care if you say there's more variety, I just say this:
It does not overcentralize.
It is not 100% agreed that it is broken
It is not agreed that it is bad.

I'm truly trying to understand why you have no problem with some of the cast being literally unviable in tournaments.

IMHO, it would be a great thing to have ALL characters usable in tournaments, not just most of them.
I can only conclude that you have some perverse grudge on the infinited characters. As for why, I do not know.

 

[bobson]

anyways, you DO know that it was the TO's choice to make whatever rules they want in the first place right? SBR only makes RECOMMENDED rulesets, it's not the law.

Yeah, but they're taken that way by a lot of people. The SBR's ruleset is the closest thing we have to a competitive standard.

 

[RDK]

I'm truly trying to understand why you have no problem with some of the cast being literally unviable in tournaments.

IMHO, it would be a great thing to have ALL characters usable in tournaments, not just most of them.
I can only conclude that you have some perverse grudge on the infinited characters. As for why, I do not know.

It has nothing to do with those characters specifically. We've already outlined to you why there's no reason to go meddling with the game to fix individual matchups.

If you want to cry about how your character sucks in Brawl, go and sit in the corner with the Kirby, Pichu, and M2 mains from Melee.

 

[aeghrur]

I'm truly trying to understand why you have no problem with some of the cast being literally unviable in tournaments.

Because there will always be those characters that are just unlucky enough to be unviable. Some just because they have bad matchups all around, some just get infinited, some have a mix of the two. =/ There will be bad match ups, there will be unviable characters, why should we fix it by going ban happy? Why don't we let the communities try to find a way to make the character they're dedicated to become viable?

IMHO, it would be a great thing to have ALL characters usable in tournaments, not just most of them.
I can only conclude that you have some perverse grudge on the infinited characters. As for why, I do not know.

Okay, that's great.

 

[M15t3R E]

It has nothing to do with those characters specifically. We've already outlined to you why there's no reason to go meddling with the game to fix individual matchups.

If you want to cry about how your character sucks in Brawl, go and sit in the corner with the Kirby, Pichu, and M2 mains from Melee.

Yes, you have outlined your reasons to me. And I've processed these reasons but I see them as illogical.

I cannot fathom why any smashers would like to see ANY characters 100% unviable. But apparently, the anti-ban side does. It would be better for a competitive game if more characters are viable. Isn't that obvious?

 

[Kinzer]

I just say this:
It does not overcentralize.
It is not 100% agreed that it is broken
It is not agreed that it is bad.

Eh, I can't argue with another Sonic mainer, but I will say this.

If one person wanted Akuma tourney legal, would that be fair?

I bet that one person was a scrub who just thinks he bada** or something. But that's why we have debates, to see who benefits more from the majority (although more people wanted MK banned and he still haunts the game, so I dunno what went on here :/)

 

[cutter]

Yes, you have outlined your reasons to me. And I've processed these reasons but I see them as illogical.

I cannot fathom why any smashers would like to see ANY characters 100% unviable. But apparently, the anti-ban side does. It would be better for a competitive game if more characters are viable. Isn't that obvious?

Let's ban Melee Sheik's chaingrabs then.

Spoiler

/sarcasm

 

[XxBlackxX]

Eh, I can't argue with another Sonic mainer, but I will say this.

If one person wanted Akuma tourney legal, would that be fair?

I bet that one person was a scrub who just thinks he bada** or something. But that's why we have debates, to see who benefits more from the majority (although more people wanted MK banned and he still haunts the game, so I dunno what went on here :/)

well first of all, the majority isn't always right, we want to chose the RIGHT decision.
2nd, the poll cannot be taken too seriously because im betting that at least 1/4 of the voters never attended a tourney.

EDIT: anyways, the SBR made a good decision to not ban MK despite the majority wanted him banned, but that's irrelevant.

 

[TK Wolf]

Saying "deal with it" isn't very fair. Some people are dealing with it by trying to fix it, lol.

My gripe isn't that this hurts a "bad character". It's that the characters affected are hurt specifically because of the counterpick system and DDD being the one character that shuts them down. THAT is what's broken.

This is NOTHING like crying about Kirby or M2 being bad in melee.

Edit: Actually... I shot myself in the foot with that. With the current CP system, you can change your character after an opponent CPs against you, so that was a moot point. Though this is still very different from crying about a bad character being bad...

 

[aeghrur]

Eh, I can't argue with another Sonic mainer, but I will say this.

If one person wanted Akuma tourney legal, would that be fair?

I bet that one person was a scrub who just thinks he bada** or something. But that's why we have debates, to see who benefits more from the majority (although more people wanted MK banned and he still haunts the game, so I dunno what went on here :/)

Eyyy, Kinzer, what's up, lol.

Kinzer overcentralizes.
Overcentralization is bad for the metagame. xD
An infinite does not overcentralize.
It makes 2-6 match ups unviable.

Err, deal with it in a broad sense, lol.
Like, Sonic sucks, deal with it.
Ike's recovery is bad, deal with it.
Snake's tilts are broken, deal with it.
etc etc. What do you do? either maximize the benefits from these or try to minimize the damage. Sonic mains try to minimize sonic's weak parts to make him better and try to win. Ike's try to do what Ike's can to stay on stage and recover? lol. Snakes abuse their tilts for maximum benefit and try to win. They're dealing with their weaknesses and strengths, not asking for a ban.