Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[bobson]

On a related note, I infinited a King Dedede off the edge online today.

It was cathartic.

 

[Kinzer]

Eh, I was just going by what the facts, nothing wrong with that, right? Ah well, maybe the poll results were skewed, I knew a little while I went pro-ban for MK I wanted to change my vote, but impossible.

 

[RDK]

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?

Yeah, the matchup isn't 100:0, so I don't know what your point is.

100% unwinnable is if you automatically lost at the beginning of every match.

 

[XxBlackxX]

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

no, all they're doing is complaining for a ban, which is the "easy way out".
but seriously, if you chose to main someone who has problems like these, then man up and deal with it. whether it be CP'ing or discovering something new.

 

[M15t3R E]

Yeah, the matchup isn't 100:0, so I don't know what your point is.

100% unwinnable is if you automatically lost at the beginning of every match.

95:5... close enough.

This over-centralization argument is getting on my nerves.
Over-centralization isn't a criteria for banning. Therefore, your point of view is no more right than ours when we say it should be banned because it makes a few characters completely unviable.


What if, hypothetically, a new technique was discovered with Pikachu in Melee that made C. Falcon, Marth, Fox, and Sheik all completely unviable. That's only 4 characters, so who cares right?

 

[aeghrur]

This over-centralization argument is getting on my nerves.
Over-centralization isn't a criteria for banning. Therefore, your point of view is no more right than ours when we say it should be banned because it makes a few characters completely unviable.

Over-centrilization or damaging the metagame is the only set criteria, as in the only criteria for a ban that everyone agrees on.
We've tried to give a criteria for banning on this infinite, it didn't work. We even tried matching it up, too much debate and doubt, lol. With doubt, your case falls as you do have the burden of proof here.

2 things for your other paragraph.
1. Beyond the scope/speculation. Like, purely speculation, lol.
2. Okay, then Pikachu now joins the high/top tier, so? It doesn't overcentralize, lol, it's just adding another competitor. You can still counterpick pikachu with falco or jigs or ICs if you wanted, lol.

 

[XxBlackxX]

This over-centralization argument is getting on my nerves.
Over-centralization isn't a criteria for banning. Therefore, your point of view is no more right than ours when we say it should be banned because it makes a few characters completely unviable.

did you even play melee or any other competitive fighting game (SF for example)?
the ruleset that had the least bans while keeping the game playable as A WHOLE was a ruletset that worked well and kept the metagame healthy.

as for unviable argument, **** like that happens all the time, and the affected 6 aren't the only ones with that problem. take CF for example. so yeah, it's not sympathizing thing to say, but deal with it.

What if, hypothetically, a new technique was discovered with Pikachu in Melee that made C. Falcon, Marth, Fox, and Sheik all completely unviable. That's only 4 characters, so who cares right?

right.

 

[RDK]

95:5... close enough.

This over-centralization argument is getting on my nerves.
Over-centralization isn't a criteria for banning. Therefore, your point of view is no more right than ours when we say it should be banned because it makes a few characters completely unviable.


What if, hypothetically, a new technique was discovered with Pikachu in Melee that made C. Falcon, Marth, Fox, and Sheik all completely unviable. That's only 4 characters, so who cares right?

What? Overcentralization is virtually the only criteria for bans.

And as for your analogy, sucks if you're a CF, Marth, Fox, or Sheik main. That's basically what it comes down to. Does it overcentralize the game? No. Does it make the majority of the cast unviable? No. No reason to ban it.

And before we start slinging loaded terms around, you should probably define "unviable", because it seems you don't know what it is. Going with what's been said so far in the discussion, 95:5 is not unviable.

 

[aeghrur]

What? Overcentralization is virtually the only criteria for bans.

And as for your analogy, sucks if you're a CF, Marth, Fox, or Sheik main. That's basically what it comes down to. Does it overcentralize the game? No. Does it make the majority of the cast unviable? No. No reason to ban it.

And before we start slinging loaded terms around, you should probably define "unviable", because it seems you don't know what it is. Going with what's been said so far in the discussion, 95:5 is not unviable.

Listen to this guy. He posts in red. he must be important and red.
Look, even his name is pink. ooooooooooooo.

 

[M15t3R E]

Over-centralization, over-centralization, over-centralization....................



Why hasn't the SBR verbally stated this to be a criteria for banning yet?

 

[da K.I.D.]

banning is a LAST RESORT, not a first, we don't ban to "better the game"
and no, it's not taking D3's handicap away, the infinites were already in the game, therefore to artificially help these matchups would be giving handicaps.

hanenbow plox!

 

[Kinzer]

Uhm guys... you are aware that a lot of Melee revoles around those four characters, and by that point, only Pikachu would probably be used... right?

Ah why do I care, this might be a wrong move, but I don't even play Melee, and afaik, those characters are the ones running the tournament schene in melee. There are already championships decided by the better player of dittos, like marth dittos for example, and then if Mr. E's idea came to be true, they would get ruined by simply CPing. Melee had a lack of character variety... in brawl, no one character is a clone... except for Like Fox~Falco and C.Falc~Ganon and Mario~Luigi to an extent for example. (And this might be me, but Kirby is awfully similiar to MK.

Hear me out.

Kirby has a Fair with three hits, so does MK.

Kirby's jumps go about as high as MKs.

Kirby's Up-B makes him go up, but since he doesn't have wings can't glide like MK, and has a sword.

Kirby's Uair is like MK's Uair hitbox, except with his legs, same with Nair.

Kirby gets protection in Stone, MK gets invincibility in DC... and Mk can use that banned tech to make it last longer like stone )

Go ahead, flame me and tell me I am a smash scrub, but if I wanted to play Melee I would, but I don't.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Uhm guys... you are aware that a lot of Melee revoles around those four characters, and by that point, only Pikachu would probably be used... right?

Ah why do I care, this might be a wrong move, but I don't even play Melee, and afaik, those characters are the ones running the tournament schene in melee. There are already championships decided by the better player of dittos, like marth dittos for example, and then if Mr. E's idea came to be true, they would get ruined by simply CPing. Melee had a lack of character variety... in brawl, no one character is a clone... except for Like Fox~Falco and C.Falc~Ganon and Mario~Luigi to an extent for example. (And this might be me, but Kirby is awfully similiar to MK.

Hear me out.

Kirby has a Fair with three hits, so does MK.

Kirby's jumps go about as high as MKs.

Kirby's Up-B makes him go up, but since he doesn't have wings can't glide like MK, and has a sword.

Kirby's Uair is like MK's Uair hitbox, except with his legs, same with Nair.

Kirby gets protection in Stone, MK gets invincibility in DC... and Mk can use that banned tech to make it last longer like stone )

Go ahead, flame me and tell me I am a smash scrub, but if I wanted to play Melee I would, but I don't.

i dont really see what "OMG Kirby iz liek MK!" has to do with anything....but for your earlier point....

so what if all the characters affected were top tier/ high tier? it STILL isn't over-centralizing. just CP pika with falco or something and play those characters when you can safely do so.
again, **** like that happens, you gotta deal with it

 

[RDK]

Wow.

Just wow.

 

[Kinzer]

Nothing really, I was just throwing my stupid idea of how Kirby was a lesser MK clone.

 

[aeghrur]

Over-centralization, over-centralization, over-centralization....................



Why hasn't the SBR verbally stated this to be a criteria for banning yet?

Because it's more of a criteria for banning for all competitive games rather than simply smash bros.

Kinzer, Falco is in there too. Top chars in melee are like, Fox, Falco, Marth, Cfalcon, and shiek right? Peach, Jiggs, ICs and stuff are viable too.

 

[Kinzer]

Well I just know the four for their high placement in tournaments, but yeah I also heard about Jiggs, Falcon, Peach, and ICs.

I wonder though what their matchup against Pikachu was, assuming everybody would be forced to CP the other four if Mr. E's idea came true.

 

[M15t3R E]

Over-centralization may be a criteria for banning that the SBR takes into special consideration, but what makes you think it's the only criteria for banning?

Also I mentioned that hypothetical situation to better understand your sort of thinking. I now understand that you don't care if a game is made undeniably worse by certain tactics, so long as it doesn't break the game completely.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Over-centralization may be a criteria for banning that the SBR takes into special consideration, but what makes you think it's the only criteria for banning?

but if you willing to admit over-centralization IS a criteria, all the reasons you posted conflict with it.

 

[M15t3R E]

but if you willing to admit over-centralization IS a criteria, all the reasons you posted conflict with it.

How so?
All I'm saying is that even if DDD's infinite doesn't over-centralize the entire game, the fact that the infinite makes skill completely irrelevant may still be something that makes it a candidate for banning.

 

[RDK]

How so?
All I'm saying is that even if DDD's infinite doesn't over-centralize the entire game, the fact that the infinite makes skill completely irrelevant may still be something that makes it a candidate for banning.

But it doesn't make skill completely irrelevant. It's not 100:0.

And even if it did, it would only make skill completely irrelevant if you stubbornly chose to use a character you knew would completely blow in that matchup. Know your matchups. It's part of being a good player.

 

[M15t3R E]

But it doesn't make skill completely irrelevant. It's not 100:0.

And even if it did, it would only make skill completely irrelevant if you stubbornly chose to use a character you knew would completely blow in that matchup. Know your matchups. It's part of being a good player.

The match-up is like 95:5. That makes skill irrelevant enough. Your skill really isn't getting you through that match-up.

And you wouldn't stubbornly use the character vs. DDD. You'd never use your character because they can be dominated every time by DDD. IMO, tactics that make any characters completely unviable are up for scrutiny and are a candidate for banning.

 

[RDK]

The match-up is like 95:5. That makes skill irrelevant enough. Your skill really isn't getting you through that match-up.

And you wouldn't stubbornly use the character vs. DDD. You'd never use your character because they can be dominated every time by DDD. IMO, tactics that make any characters completely unviable are ban-worthy.

So where's the line for when skill starts to "not matter" in matchups? It's always amusing listening to the pro-ban side argue amongst themselves on what the criteria is for an acceptable ban parameter.

If only you guys could actually agree with each other, then maybe you'd stand a chance at disagreeing with us.

 

[M15t3R E]

So where's the line for when skill starts to "not matter" in matchups? It's always amusing listening to the pro-ban side argue amongst themselves on what the criteria is for an acceptable ban parameter.

If only you guys could actually agree with each other, then maybe you'd stand a chance at disagreeing with us.

When have we argued with each other?
I have only been arguing with your side over that over-centralization argument and have tried to open your eyes that there is more to the ban criteria than just "does it over-centralize the game".

 

[da K.I.D.]

i agree with mister E


BURRRRRRNNNNNN

 

[RDK]

When have we argued with each other?
I have only been arguing with your side over that over-centralization argument and have tried to open your eyes that there is more to the ban criteria than just "does it over-centralize the game".

You have yet to explain just what else constitutes the ban criteria besides overcentralization.

Poking holes in a time-tested and established policy isn't a good way to change people's minds about something. Arguing from incredulity is not an argument.

 

[M15t3R E]

Specific tactics that dominate a character all by itself that makes the given character utterly unviable in tourneys, whereas the character would be viable otherwise, are up for banning. Skill is not needed to win against DK and Bowser if you use DDD. Why were items banned? Because it reduces the need for skill. It's along the same lines.

 

[RDK]

Specific tactics that dominate a character all by itself that makes the given character utterly unviable in tourneys, whereas the character would be viable otherwise, are up for banning. Skill is not needed to win against DK and Bowser if you use DDD. Why were items banned? Because it reduces the need for skill. It's along the same lines.

That's definetely not the reason items were banned, but that's fine; try agian.

 

[M15t3R E]

That's definetely not the reason items were banned, but that's fine; try agian.

Granted, items also add randomness and luck, but banning it accomplishes the goal of making the game more about skill, which is exactly the same basis for banning DDD's infinite.

 

[Kinzer]

Uhm... yes it does...

What skill does it take to make you trip into Ike's FSmash in sudden death mode and have 3 bob-ombs implode on your path, adding insult to injury? Why do you think the real sudden death matches aren't played out? Because for example, Sonic can gay you really easy, what with the camping and the under-stage HA stalling.

Luck =/= skill/random occurances, hence why tripping is frowned upon so much people are hacking Wiis just to get rid of it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

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.

Whoever said that there was anything wrong with infinites?

It just so happens that DDD's crazy grab range gives him a massive advantage against characters he can infinite, unlike most characters with true infinites oddly enough (try pulling off the grab release infinite Ganondorf has on Wario).

Anti-ban sees no issue with a few horrible match-ups just because it's NATURAL for fighting games to have a few horrible match-ups. Especially with such a large cast.

Only if there's a very large number of independant horrible match-ups clustered around a single tech or character does it amount to a problem. As I said before, character nonviability is not an issue necessarily.



Also, that's a short-sighted view in general. Without proper consideration of unintended consequences you generally cause more harm then good when doing things like that. In life in general, most minor issues simply are not worth solving at high levels, and are best left to individuals solving them.

Why? Because knee-jerk reactions tend to cause more problems in the long run, a lesson governments have had to learn time and time again. Heck, even many MAJOR issues have proven unfeasible to solve.

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.

Yay! Conversion!

Nice point on the tier bias, how come this fuor didn't appear when Marth infinite'd the Mother boys? Especially since marth also has a long grab range (not quite DDD's but long).

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 and Bowser...*

*Fixed

Stop pointing to characters that can reliably break out as infinited characters, they don't get infinited till unreasonable percents.

Because it's natural for fighting games to have characters that are unviable. We recognize this is natural, and say, "move on".

You on the other hand, feel like we must fix every minute detail in every match-up to make them as winnable as possible.


Heck, Ganondorf is one of my beloved secondaries, also the second most unviable character in the game, I shrug my shoulders and say "whatever, that's the way the game is" and move on. He's been my often-played secondary since melee, and that's not gonna change, but I know that he's not gonna improve unless a major AT is found for him.

And you know what, that's ok, it sucks for me, but that's the way the game is.

What if, hypothetically, a new technique was discovered with Pikachu in Melee that made C. Falcon, Marth, Fox, and Sheik all completely unviable. That's only 4 characters, so who cares right?

Sucks for them, and me cause two of them are my melee mains. That would royally suck, especially with all the work I've put into Marth and Sheik over the years, and I'm just starting to be able to play fox well, so that would suck too.

But, that doesn't overcentralize the metagame. I guess I'd pick up ICs or Peach to counter-pick Pikachu, but beyond that I'd stick with my current formation.

Nothing I can do about it, so, oh well.

Granted, items also add randomness and luck, but banning it accomplishes the goal of making the game more about skill, which is exactly the same basis for banning DDD's infinite.

Except items are a competitive standard, we're forced to make a choice (and yes, leaving the default settings is just choosing the default settings). Smash lacks an arcade standard so for the discrete pre-game "off or on" options (of which items, stamina, damage ratio, etc are a part of) require very limited justification, before accounting for actual effects they are all equally valid. So any advantage is allowable to make a choice.


Banning a technique prevents a player from being able to choose an otherwise valid option while playing. That is a very significant effect, and requires a great deal of justification.

 

[Kinzer]

^^

I liked everything about your post, UP UNTIL THIS:

Sucks for them, and me cause two of them are my melee mains. That would royally suck, especially with all the work I've put into Marth and Sheik over the years, and I'm just starting to be able to play fox well, so that would suck too.

But, that doesn't overcentralize the metagame. I guess I'd pick up ICs or Peach to counter-pick Pikachu, but beyond that I'd stick with my current formation.

Nothing I can do about it, so, oh well.

So you're still alright, knowing that you have to put a bunch of extra work just because your mains are null to one broken matchup? You're either a non-sexual masochist, or you're unaware of all the extra effort that has to be put up with upon the victims of the broken technique just because they happen to have a flaw in their design that makes them unsable against Pikachu... but then again, MK fits this this same description with everybody, so baaaaaaw...

I still think the infinite needs to be taken care, some way or another.

Oh BTW don't come up with that "but Bowser sucked compared to Sheik, so they would just have to CP, too bad" bull, because that was back in Melee and that was back then. It wasn't looked into, and I doubt the SBR is going to do that now, but this is Brawl, and the SBR cares, so we have to decide RIGHT NOW what has to be, so that whatever choice we make, we want to try to benefit the future of Brawl/Smash.

 

[Wylde]

I'd like to point out that even if Dedede's standing infinite was banned, the characters it works on would still suck.

 

[adumbrodeus]

So you're still alright, knowing that you have to put a bunch of extra work just because your mains are null to one broken matchup? You're either a non-sexual masochist, or you're unaware of all the extra effort that has to be put up with upon the victims of the broken technique just because they happen to have a flaw in their design that makes them unsable against Pikachu... but then again, MK fits this this same description with everybody, so baaaaaaw...

I still think the infinite needs to be taken care, some way or another.

Maybe, I didn't explain my reaction well enough.

I'd be f***ing P***ed off.


BUT, I'd recognize that it doesn't overcentralize the metagame enough for a ban, so there's nothing I could do about it besides picking up pikachu's own 10-90 disadvantaged match-up and ****** the heck out of him with ICs whenever somebody was foolish enough to counter-pick my marth with him.

Sure, I'd be pissed about the extra time, but what choice do I have? Quit? Not doing that. Argue for a ban even when I know it's not warranted? The metagame doesn't bend to my wishes.

So, in my usual style, I'd be extremely p***ed off, and nobody would be able to tell. I'd be privately cursing pikachu's guts while arguing vehemently against a ban.


Because that's just the way I am, I REFUSE that consider my personal advantage in these discussions. Otherwise I would've been pro-mk ban long ago.



Basically, I just explained my "acceptance" stage, cause that's all smashboards would ever see, and that would be the position I would take in the inevitable debate, so I didn't see my overwhelming anger (if it ever happened) as relevant.

 

[Sesshomuronay]

So you're still alright, knowing that you have to put a bunch of extra work just because your mains are null to one broken matchup? You're either a non-sexual masochist, or you're unaware of all the extra effort that has to be put up with upon the victims of the broken technique just because they happen to have a flaw in their design that makes them unsable against Pikachu... but then again, MK fits this this same description with everybody, so baaaaaaw...

MK doesnt fit the description you said. MK doesnt own anyone as much as Dedede crushes donkey kong and bowser.

I think this should be banned because its cheap and takes away the skill from the matchup. Some people say "but other fighting games have broken matchups too!" but thats other fighting games which doesnt mean that brawl has to be the same.

I'd like to point out that even if Dedede's standing infinite was banned, the characters it works on would still suck.

Donkey kong is good. And perhaps if the infinate was banned then maybe these characters could have a better chance at placing in tournaments promoting a more diverse metagame.

 

[Kinzer]

I'd like to point out that even if Dedede's standing infinite was banned, the characters it works on would still suck.

So give them a fighting chance why don't you?

I bet you would like it so much if somebody was literally grabbing you and bodyslammin' their *** on you over and over again.

Be careful it's a trap!

Yeah but no seriously, the characters are more viable with the infinite banned, the anti-ban afaik has yet to prove how not banning it does not negatively affect the metagame, let alone BENEFIT IT!

Still, are you too d*** lazy to work on matchups that even with the infinite banned are still neutral or in your advantage? Good Golly get some posts before you try and make a point.

I'd recognize that it doesn't overcentralize the metagame enough for a ban, so there's nothing I could do about it besides picking up pikachu's own 10-90 disadvantaged match-up and ****** the heck out of him with ICs whenever somebody was foolish enough to counter-pick my marth with him.

Sure, I'd be pissed about the extra time, but what choice do I have? Quit? Not doing that. Argue for a ban even when I know it's not warranted? The metagame doesn't bend to my wishes.

Basically, I just explained my "acceptance" stage, cause that's all smashboards would ever see, and that would be the position I would take in the inevitable debate, so I didn't see my overwhelming anger (if it ever happened) as relevant.

Hmm, but do recall that nobody mentioned Pika had a broken tech against him, just against Marth/Fox/etc. With this, you're telling me that you would go ICs and start working on the CGs? I would say Pikachu is hard to grab, doesn't Pikachu hav QAC in Melee? but let's move away from ICs and go to Peach, if somebody would PLEASE tell me the ratio for these two, I will further say my opinion.

BTW if you want to, you can make a difference, you've heard of that silly little thing were people say "one vote makes a difference", right? If you wanted to make it bend to your will, I guess you could go ahead and try to make it happens, it's not as if you don't have any power in this matter.

If you wanted to, you could fight for what you think is right, but it seems to me you don't want to.

That is your opinion, however, if I were to say you were too lazy to change something you did not see right. At least now you're working to keep the infinite around, correct?

MK doesnt fit the description you said. MK doesnt own anyone as much as Dedede crushes donkey kong and bowser.

I think this should be banned because its cheap and takes away the skill from the matchup. Some people say "but other fighting games have broken matchups too!" but thats other fighting games which doesnt mean that brawl has to be the same.

Donkey kong is good. And perhaps if the infinate was banned then maybe these characters could have a better chance at placing in tournaments promoting a more diverse metagame.

I was just using MK as an example, and even then I heard that he has some nasty matchups against certain characters, like C.Falcon and Ganon. Although there's nothing that can be done about that other than banning MK, because there isn't anyway to fix the characters without having to make a hacked standard. They'll have to either deal with it, or change a character... or get MK banned. the third one isn't gonna happen at this rate.

Finally, somebody else who thinks we should fix this game to our liking, because obviously Sakurai didn't do it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Hmm, but do recall that nobody mentioned Pika had a broken tech against him, just against Marth/Fox/etc. With this, you're telling me that you would go ICs and start working on the CGs? I would say Pikachu is hard to grab, doesn't Pikachu hav QAC in Melee? but let's move away from ICs and go to Peach, if somebody would PLEASE tell me the ratio for these two, I will further say my opinion.

Grabs are a LOT more powerful in melee, a lot of it has to do with the speed of the game. One of the major things that make the top tiers top? They're AWEFUL to grab.

Pikachu, not so much. He doesn't have the spacing or the raw speed to really aboid them, and plus, ICs force him to use air to ground approaches because of their projectiles and set-ups, which just aren't his thing. In practice, it ends up being an amazingly difficult pikachu match-up.

As for peach, about equivilent to 70-30, you can check phanna's chart on that but it is somewhat outdated.

BTW if you want to, you can make a difference, you've heard of that silly little thing were people say "one vote makes a difference", right? If you wanted to make it bend to your will, I guess you could go ahead and try to make it happens, it's not as if you don't have any power in this matter.

If you wanted to, you could fight for what you think is right, but it seems to me you don't want to.

Huh?

Where the heck did you get that idea?

The "nothing I could do", was a statement of principal, it's not that I wouldn't do it because I think that I couldn't make a difference. Quite the opposite, I WOULDN'T WANT TO, except by attacking the inevitable "let's ban this" group, rhetorically of course.

What I mean by "not bending the community to my will" is not asking for them to adopt a rule that is unwarranted because it just happens to help me.

Because it is unwarranted, again, I would fight against any such rule.

That is your opinion, however, if I were to say you were too lazy to change something you did not see right. At least now you're working to keep the infinite around, correct?

Then you misunderstood. I was explaining why my behavior would be no different, even if it was pikachu making those 4 nonviable, not that I'd just accept the community's decision.

If A ban discussion, you can bet that I'd be there, just like with this one explaining, "not overcentralizing enough, no ban".


Because that's what I do, I debate for the positions I find most logical, not the ones that advantage me the most.

 

[M15t3R E]

I think if a character was discovered to have a technique that made all those top tiers in Melee nonviable, it would have to be banned. Those 4 characters are too popular and there would be an outcry to ban the technique to keep the game the way it is, to prevent people from swarming to Pikachu for free wins and creating an unnecessary CP frenzy in tournaments nationwide. It would just be hell until it's banned.

Now put yourself in the shoes of our friends at the DK and Bowser character boards. They are living in a hellish environment whenever they attend tournaments because they cannot use their favorite character at all. They are probably dying to see this infinite banned. We shouldn't not listen to them, just because they represent only a couple of the game's cast of characters.

 

[Kinzer]

Fair enough, than it is up to the SBR to come up with a ban-criteria of their own, because by this point in the debate it's all morals of different people, and just however many are on one side is going to decide what happens.

There will be people who think we need to balance by bans and think they see no other way, and then there are people who think there are other options out there that might right now be unknown.

I see no more reason to keep up-to-date with this thread. It's just playing the waiting game, because it is hard to convince the other side.

 

[M15t3R E]

Agreed with Kinzer.

It's what I've been saying for quite some time now. Neither side is technically right or wrong.
We need the SBR's ruling immediately, and along with it an official ban criteria for all to see and accept.