God your posts are annoying to respond to.
Again I ask.
WHAT IS THE PROOF OF YOUR ARGUMENT?
repeating yourself that it wors, it works doesn't mean anything if you have yet to even PROVE it.
You missed my point. I was saying that the old ban criteria works. But we can improve it.
oh so because we are different we need different ban criteria?
mind you all of those respective games came to the exact same conclusion IN SPITE of the differences.
What part of that do you not understand?
(bold part) Um...it does kinda make sense ya o.O, we are different so let's create an individual ban criteria.
The part I don't understand is how it is infallible.
Cause clearly a little over 13% is CLEARLY affecting the metagame.
As ffor giving a line, I proposed it long ago so do not make such accusations.
Again, you missed my point. I didn't say it D3's infinite was overcentralizing the metagame.
And if YOU proposed it, why couldn't you just repeat it?
its lazy because you THINK there was no reasoning behind it.
Simply put, you are skimming and have not even bothered to read anything that was stated preceding your appearance in this topic.
Don't say I don't read, I do read. Not a one of you has gone into any more detail than repeating 'overcentralizing the metagame'. At least not for the past 3 days.
Give me reasoning.
Again then we should ban anything that forces characters to CP.
Let alone the Cp system was MADE for THIS very reason.
Again you exaggerate and make sweeping generalizations. We're not talking about anything. And the 'anything's you speak of don't force a character to CP. It just makes it a wiser decision. This is not the case with D3 and his infinite.
Read the rest of the topic or hell, look up Yuna's posts or adumbrodeus posts in this topic.
Accusations get you nowhere.
Sorry if I hesitate to read 200 pages. But after spending 3 days in this topic, and not seeing one person go deeper than repeating the same phrase over and over I'd say it's a safe bet to assume this.
Cry me a river and I'll get my canoe.
Again, you miss my point. I said 'it isn't fair' isn't the only, or even sole, argument we use. And I asked you to not think of it as whining.
The fact there is a solution to the problem already means we do not have to ban it.
banning is the LAST RESORT to problems.
Seriously why must I repeat something stated page, to page to page
You're taking banning far to seriously in this circumstance. You're acting as though if we ban this move we'll be **** near tearing the game apart, which is just not the case.
Sure, we have CPing as a solution, but there's no reason to jump to this. It juss seems lazy on anti-ban's side. We have the time and the resources to put thought into prospective broken moves, why should we just dismiss everything by CPing?
The fact you already ahve a solution and refuse to use it is a result of you being stubborn.
Stubborn is sticking to your guns regardless of how many times they've been picked away at for the sake of sticking to your guns. You, my friend, are stubborn.
I've, on several occasions, accepted and enforced CPing as a vaiable option, but when it becomes your only option (with something as harsh as a 95:5 match up), THAT is when we have a problem.
yes it is.
you are asking someone to completely change their style when facing another character just because it palces the otehr character at a disadvantage.
Shall I go ask the Old Sagat users not to fireball spam my E.Honda?
How about I ask every user of every character in GG to not zone my pooor baiken because I get a disadvantage?
How about I tell MK users to not use M ebcause it places my Sonic at a disadvantage.
You are asking the system to change to fit your own PERSONAL needs.
This is NOT how competitive gaming works.
We do not go out of our way to help individuals.
It is inconsistent and if we are to be consistent, leads to an unhealthy metagame.
Change their playstyle? They did that to begin with. Most every character requires a different playstyle to combat, none should be as easy as 'grab your opponent and win.'
Once again, you're taking this too lightly. It's not just a 'disadvantage', it's an impossible match up. And I suspect all the examples you use are no where near as severe as this matchup is.
(you seem to ramble here, are you tired? But if I get you right
Again, your analogies are weak and ineffective. They are not to the extent that this infinite is, and they do not relate to this discussion.
We are not talking about banning characters, we're talking about 1 move.
1 move that affects 6 characters, and we are asking for it to be removed, which will affect only these 6 characters. Hence, canceling out the overwhelming advantage in it's entirety.
That does not matter.
DDD's infinite is a factor into them having such a major advantage just like PIkachu's everything counters Fox.
It sure as hell does matter o.O. Does pikachu have a sure fire way to 0-death kill fox? Does he have a sure fire way to rack up gobs and gobs of % on him with little effort and little hope for fox of avoiding it?
Does he have an INFINITE on fox? If he does, ban it.
Do you ignore the point of everything stated on purpose?
Zzz
Clearly you do not read my posts.
the BURDEn of PROOF is on YOUR SIDE.
The argument of overcentralizing is a general rule that has not only governed in smash concerning bans, but many other games preceding it,
it has been tested, found to work best.
You are now challenging something that is already proven.
YOU must disprove it.
I do read your posts. Even though I regret it afterward.
The burden of proof does not rest solely on our shoulders, in case you haven't noticed 55% of the community believes differently than you. And if you fail to see that your side is not lacking obvious proof then I suggest you get your prescription glasses checked.
'Found to work best.'
I beg to differ.
Anything that would allow infinites into competitive gameplay is obviously not working best.
Don't fix what ain't broken.
about time one of you used this!
I been waiting and waiting...
How's this. D3's infinite is broken. Let's fix it
(Not to mention this is one lazy *** saying)
obviously you have no knowledge about any other competitive game because what I stated was a DEATH COMBO. Not an infinite.
Yes I'm a ******* yada yada yada, you're not helpin your case here bud =\
You're joing right?
The fact that it has worked for evry other game outside and including smash IS proof. It is VERY srtrong proof.
you basically said "So you have a million results saying 1+1=2 but that is weak!".
Everyone who is using anyone except a handful of characters is forced to CP.
Again if you ban DDD's infinite just to fix those matchups you must fix every other matchup that forces a CP.
I have already stated that it has worked. My argument is that it is not perfect, and could greatly be improved.
Again you exaggerate.
This is not a 60:40 force CP
It's not a 70:30 force CP
It's a **** near 100:0 force CP, stop grouping .001 with 49, it's weak.
You obviously have no clue what goes on.
EVERYONE except for MK has a character that counters them.
EVERYONE, which means you must ALWAYS have a secondary for when you are CP;ed.
Again, no Olimar in their right mind will stay as Olimar against Peach.
no Sonic will stay as Sonic against MK.
They are all forced to CP.
If you fail to have another character to cover you that is a flaw in yourself as a competitive gamer not a failure of the system.
More insults please.
'must always' implies that if you don't, you will lose. Which is NOT the case. Stop exaggerating jeeze.
All these examples you list have a way better chance than any of the 5 characters we list vs D3.
STOP USING THEM AS EXAMPLES, THEY ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THIS MATCH UP.
Why are you trying to justify people doing dumb things?
Dumb things? Like ignoring an obviously broken move for fear that it will open the flood gates and force us to ban everything till every match is reduced to 50-50?
I don't care what YOU will do.
Simple as that.
You have missed my point, again.
I was saying that 1 technique should not bring a matchup from a 60:40 to a 95:5.
And that if my character was generally just outclassed by another, I would have no trouble CPing, but when 1 move is stopping me from having a decent fight, I shouldn't have to CP, the move should be banned.
Except if G*W had KB to his bair like a warlock punch he would probably get banned because that would BREAK THE GAME because it is UNIVERSAL and it EXTREMELY POWERFUL.
So far, DDD's is just the latter it isn't the former.
Again you miss my point.
You said 'most likely' in regards to 129% being the % characters should be dying at any way
I spliced G&W's bair with falcon punch to equate to you the ease at which it is to land D3's grab and ensure death at this %.
Hard to land moves (or refreshed ones) are the only moves that should be killing you at 129%
unless you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Not easy moves like G&W's bair and D3's grab.
how does it NOT hurt DDD?
You just lowered his potential capability against those 5 characters.
Thats like telling an MK he can't use the shuttle loop.
You are taking a tool away from a character in order to benefit the other character.
It does hurt DDD.
But here's an analogy for you:
You're put in a room with 10 others
The only way to escape is over a wall
You and 2 others are given ladders to use to get over the wall.
Then the ladders are taken away.
You abilities to get over the wall are hurt-but your brought back down to speed with everyone else in the room.
Is it unfair that your ladders gotten taken away? Or was it unfair for you to get them in the first place?
You don't know how the CP system works.
Let us say I whip your *** as DK when you use MK.
You announce your stage CP.
I then announce my character
You then Cp.
pay attention to the bolded part.
That means you are capable of avoiding the 3 stock loss.
I can then switch to any other character who doesn't get *** ***** by DDD.
its not LOL I CP DDD YOU LOSE.
To be honest, I'm not confident in my knowledge of the CP system.
So let me get this straight. Hypothetical situation:
Samus vs. Wolf 1st match
Samus wins
Wolf CP's a stage
Then I announce which character I will use - let's say Marth
Then you announce your character.
Is this right?
Putting a penny in a donation box mens you aided the orphanage as mucha s Bill gates does if he donated two million dollars.
You missed my point again...
I was simply pointing out that this does affect the metagame some what. Do you disagree? I wasn't using this as an argument, I was just pointing it out.
That is what you are saying.
Which is wrong.
And stupid.
No, that's not what I was saying. Thanks for insulting me again though
Why is it ban worthy?
its easy to perform
It kills 5 characters.
Big deal. If ts just because it makes a nasty matchup thats not an issue.
That is a part of competitive gaming. here will ALWAYS be one technique or several that bone a character over.
They are not ban worthy though because of the fact that they do not hurt the metagame.
Once more you put sugar on the infinite
It's not a nasty match up, it is more than that, you know this, everyone knows this, stop trying to put it lightly.
1 technique? All and every fighting games that ever have existed, and every will existed have characters in which 1 technique seals the fate of another?
Are these common? Are these infinites common? No, they are not. This is a special case, this is not comparable to MK vs CF
THIS is ban worthy because it does precisely what you quoted:
its easy to perform
It kills 5 characters.
IT KILLS 5 CHARACTERS.
Let alone you can completely avoid it so anyone practicing DDD solely for the infinite is doing themself harm.
Look at that no more of an issue.
its like a Bowser user staying as Bowser when they know melee is going to be CP'ed against him.
Completely avoid getting grabbed? Do you propose we run around for 8 minutes? Want me to land a zair then stall on the edge? oh wait that's banned
Nope, it can't be avoided.
(Again you're kinda rambling 'look at that no more of an issue' 'bowser user staying as bowser when they know melee is going to be CP'ed' what?)
You have a solution, use the solution.
We have a solution (banning the move). Let's use that one instead. It's better.
Yet you neglect to quote my main argument. This is not a character ban, it's a move ban.
Apparently ths doesn't get through to you.
WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?
WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?
WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?
Why should it be changed? Because it does and should not encompass:
All games, ever
Characters
Moves
Items
That measly little sentence does not govern all of these aspects. Stop acting like it does
Can you not see that overcentralizing encompasses all those different aspects? -_;
Do you have no knowledge on competitive gaming?
It doesn't. It's a base to start from - All characters are affected equally by items, savvy? Any 1 character can potentially get lucky. This is not overcentralizing - we banned items to bring the game down to luck.
It is an rule imperfect for deciding individual characters and moves and should not be used as thus.
Zzzz
Overcentralizing is the summary of that contract.
So get me the gospel of what is and what is not ban worthy please.
Let alone you completely ignored my E. Honda example several pages back.
I don't recall this example, mind quoting it for me?
Which you have yet to prove should not be used.
It should not be used because it is not specific enough. It is not perfect
We can do better
You refuse to do better
Why?
I hear a WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE!
Competitive gaming is not there to let you use your favorite character.
Competitive gaming is about winning.
period.
You want to use your favorite character? Go ahead but don't expect people to go "oh lol let me not use this strategy that will give me he best chance of winning."
If competitive gaming was only about winning we would all be using metaknight.
We're not crying - we're stating our case which you so conveniently choose to ignore.
If you don't mind me asking - how old are you?
There is money and prizes on the line. And people should have the right to use what is available to them provided it is not harming the metagame as a whole.
The competitive gaming community does not cater to individual characters just because its "unfair" or "overpowered".
It has to be a very good reason otherwise, slippery slope applies.
Yes, they should be able to use what is available to them - But this infinite becomes unavailable when we ban it.
And here you go again falling back on that same old argument without elaborating Zzz
A very good reason? Removing 5 characters from playability is not a good reason?
And no - slippery slope does not apply
This argument has been refuted again and again, stop using it.
Bum's region is using it - it's working - nobody is getting ban happy - stop worrying (Although I don't actually think you believe this is a viable reason not to ban something so much as it is a last stitch effort to give some backbone to your side of this debate)
Yes, it is that simple.
1. Banning D3's infinite throw is very easy.
2. Infinite throw ban - 5 more characters viable. Plus!
3. No Infinite throw ban - Same characters viable.
That is all that needs to be considered, not some precious ideal.
I agree with you, it should be this simple
But it is not - because we have people who refuse to accept the fact that the tried and true guidelines they've grown accustom to might just not be infallible.