Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Pi]

Okay - you guys will have to give me like an hour to respond to all this @.@

 

[Fasano]

I think it's really quite simple. If you're going to ban something for being overpowered, ban MK.

 

[ShadowLink84]

stuff

I shortened it since my reply will be short.
The main issue with that argument is that the only high level players that placed high at evo 2008 were Ken and SK92.

Every other high level player did not place in the top 8. Many of them were knocked out early.

So while you have 2 cases where a high level player who uses items poorly does do well, you have many others who did not place yet are of considerable skill to Ken.
Do they not count?

 

[Dark Sonic]

It would not be stupid to do so -- we are having a theoretical discussion in which difficulty is NOT a factor.

Difficulty of performance is not a factor. That is, we assume that they will be able to do it 100% consistantly.

and so are the methods of set up (They just haven't been found)

There may not be methods of set up. It is quite possible that Ice Climbers will have no reliable way to set up the infinite. You cannot prove that they will find a method. You can only prove that they will practice an already discovered method.

That is why ease of performance is not a factor, but ease of setup is. It is because we have no way of knowing if it will actually have any better setups. If better setups are found, then the debate reopens with the new knowledge. That's how debates work.

I agree with you that ease of use and ease of set up are different things, but neither have a place in this discussion because it's all theoretic

Yes it is theoretic, but you are making one big assumption.

You are assuming that there are actually setups to be found!. You are assuming that the infinite will become more problematic than it currently is and using that to base a ban.

'disable' more like 'make it more difficult' It doesn't completely negate the IC's infinites.
Sure there are ways to 'counter' most things, hell I could zair/fireball the whole match VS D3 -- but it isn't a sure fire way to avoid the infinite.

Actually, it really is against Ice Climbers. If you kill Nana they can't infinite you, and that's that. Hell if you hit Nana, they can't infinite you, since Nana is required to be standing next to Popo to initiate the infinite.

But just because they are an option doesn't mean they should be your only option. This was my argument with CPing.
We have the ability to remove a technique, instead of a character, from the game -- why shouldn't we take it?

Because the techniques has not proven itself broken in theory or in practice?

I understand this, but it is irrelevant. It exists, people will find ways to use it

This is not true. There may simply be no ways to reliably set it up. There may simply not be enough hitstun for any of Ice Climber's better ranged moves to combo into a grab. Nana may simply lag behind to much for powershield grabs to work (actually, this is true. It is impossible to make both Ice Climber's powershield).

If you're only argument is that 'it is too situational' to be banned
it's a flimsy one indeed.

It hasn't been winning, and people are doing it right. Looks like they're just not actually landing it enough right? Or else...they'd be winning. But why aren't they landing it enough? Because they have no setups!

Especially in a theoretical discussion

Theoretical discussions require reasonable assumptions. Assuming that they will magically obtain a reliable setup for their infinite when there is no evidence suggesting this is not a reasonable assumption.

And if it is SO situational then how large of an impact could it make on the IC's game?

1. I never said that
2. Ice Climbers are bad characters. It's really one of their few good points

Look at Chu's melee matches; There are matches where he never pulls it off
Matches where he gains 1 stock, 2 stock, 3 stocks, 4 stocks from it
How can you determine what move is 'too situational' to be banned?

1. Landing grabs with Ice Climbers was much easier in melee
2. Landing grabs with Ice Climbers was still hard to do.
3. Wobbling was never universally banned and never banned by the SBR
4. Show me the multiple videos of him 4 stocking good players with it. If the best Ice Climber's player in the world (in melee) couldn't do that, then how can you possibly say it's broken?

Here's how; by waiting for it to become a problem. Why wait? We already know it has the potential.

NO WE DON'T. There is no evidence to suggest that Ice Climbers will ever get a reliable setup for this. Blizzard->grab? SDI the blizzard. Jab->grab? Not a combo (do a really fast move or jump) They don't even have footstool combos to land their grabs!

There are only two courses of action as it stands now;
1) Nobody perfects the infinite and the IC's become a low ranking character because their playstyle is based on the opponents mistakes only.
2) Somebody DOES perfect the infinite -- and it get's banned.

You're forgetting
3)Somebody DOES perfect the infinite, but they still don't win because they never actually land it on good players.

So say we do ban it, IC mains now no longer have to rely on their opponents mistakes, and have to switch to a less grab-happy playstyle. No big deal.

Or we don't ban it, non IC mains now learn how to not make mistakes, and Ice climbers have to switch to a less grab-happy playstyle, but with a nice ace up their sleves if they ever fulfill the infinite conditions.

I just don't see where you are coming from on this.
We don't have proof that it will become a problem
We don't have proof that it won't become a problem

Yep, so the defualt position is to leave it the way it is, as per the "burden of proof." You have not proven that it is broken enough to ban, thus we leave it unbanned.

If it were the other way around (if it was already banned and I was trying to get it unbanned), then I would have to prove that it is worthy of being unbanned, or else it would stay banned.

Interesting stuff huh.

If you want to factor in ease of use and ease of set up
Then why shouldn't we ban D3's infinite? It's easy to use and easy to set up. So let's ban it.

You're basically saying if the IC's infinite was easy to use and easy to set up, it would be banned, are you not?

You're missing the point again. If the IC's infintie was easy to use and easy to set up, it would be banned BECAUSE it would overcentralize the metagame. It would not be banned because it's easy to use and easy to set up. It would be banned because it applies to the vast majority of the cast and would make the only viable tournament character...Ice Climbers. Every single other character would get destroyed by the infinite on every stock and they would always land it, and the entire metagame would be Ice Climbers vs Ice Climbers.

In other words, overcentralization.

The IC's were late bloomers in melee too, if you'll recall.

So? And back then there was nothing to suggest that they would be better. Few people expected them to be high tier material. And you know what? When we found out what they could do debates re-opened.

You do not assume that something will be found when debating, you work with what is already known.

Decide now, do you want to factor in difficulty of use AND set up
Or do you want to leave them out.

It can't just be the one that benefits your argument, otherwise I would be throwing ease of use all around.

No you don't understand. Difficulty of set up is not dependent on difficulty of use.
There is no decision to be made, difficulty of set up is the only one of the two that actually matters.

Let's say we have one zero to death combo that works on every character, but it requires your opponent to teetering over the edge of the stage with you standing next to them to start it up.

Now we have another zero to death combo that works on every character, but it only requires that your opponent be standing (or shielding) while you are next to them.

Now we have another zero to death combo that works on every character, but all the opponent as to do is be in line with you (I don't know, he's got a stun laser or something, it's really not important how)

Now it's time to talk about matchups, in the first case, everybody completely disregards the zero to death because it will not be landed. Their reply will simply be "we will not teeter ourselves over the edge while you're next to us" and that will be the end of discussion. No character has trouble against it.

In the second case everybody is freaking out because if they ever land or shield next to you then they can get killed, and that is a fairly common circumstance, but they come up with the solution of "space attacks and camp him" The characters that have longer ranged moves (including projectiles) or better aerial movement will have an easier time with this and their matchups will be less affected, but those who have poor air->ground games will have a lot of trouble.

Finally, in the third case we have a scenario that happens all the time and every character is dominated by this technique, and as a result the only way to win against someone who does this...is to do it first. The only way to win in this scenario is to pick that character and beat them to the punch.

"Ease of Setup" is what determines whether or not a powerful technique becomes overcentralizing. "Ease of use" really doesn't mean anything unless the technique is simply humanly impossible (such as using the 1 invincibility frame of Fox's shine to dodge attacks consistently) Now if you find better setups, then we would re-open discussions later, but you do not assume that better setups will be found for the current discussion.

edit: I'm going to be. And I won't be able to reply tomorrow because I'm hosting a game day. If you really want me to reply send me a P.M and I'll get back to you on Sunday.

 

[Hylian]

If you guys are talking about set-ups then lol. The IC's have zero set-ups for a grab that actually work. None of their moves combo into grab. Blizzard you can just DI up and jump away. They don't have anything to pressure with reliably, they have an extremly slow running speed and one of the worst grab ranges in the game not to mention a slow grab in itself. Set-ups are not going to be "discovered". They still have the same moveset.

 

[ShadowLink84]

If you guys are talking about set-ups then lol. The IC's have zero set-ups for a grab that actually work. None of their moves combo into grab. Blizzard you can just DI up and jump away. They don't have anything to pressure with reliably, they have an extremly slow running speed and one of the worst grab ranges in the game not to mention a slow grab in itself. Set-ups are not going to be "discovered". They still have the same moveset.

You should try unplugging the opponents controller. Guaranteed grab .

 

[SkylerOcon]

ICs infinite should not be banned. I don't even know why it's being discussed/why Hylian is bringing it up.

However, King Dedede's are a different story.

In a fighter, there should NEVER be an instance where one attack is a certain death for any character. While yes, the IC chaingrabs can do this, how many people in your area do you know that can pull it off 100% of the time? I'm guessing none, or at the most, one person.

The King Dedede infinites are to easy to do (It took me about 10 minutes to pick it up and have it become second nature). They take away the viability of five characters. Not everybody can be Boss and avoid the infinite the whole match (and even then, he got killed by a Gordo).

 

[Hylian]

Someone asked me to come in here and shed some light reguarding the IC infinites.

I'm just going to make a few solid points so I won't go really in depth unless I need to.


Here we go:

- First of all I'm going to point out how you would justify banning D3's infinite and not IC's. Personally, I don't think D3's infinite should be banned I'm just providing reasoning for people who think it should be but the IC infinite is fine and are at a loss of words. Basically, the D3 infinite is always present in the match-up. The IC infinite is not. IC's cannot infinite if they are seperated or nana is dead. That means you have options to shut down the infinite and it actually adds depth to the matches which start to focus on strategizing ways to seperate the climbers and keep them so. The only option the 5 characters have against D3 is to not get grabbed which is pretty hard considering D3's amazing grab range and longevity. Note: I don't think D3's infinites should be banned.

- The IC infinites are not broken. The have not proven to be broken in any region, they have never upset a top player(M2K/Azen/DSF), they have never dominated a tournament. IC players struggle to make top 5 at tournaments much less win. I can't think of the last tournament an IC player won. Logically, there is no reason to remove a tactic and make a character not viable in tournaments when they are hardly viable in the first place according to results.

- Yes the Infinites are hard. That doesn't matter though. I can do them pretty much 100% and I know a few others that can as well. People shouldn't argue about how hard something is unless it dwells on the realm of impossibility in reguards to consistancy. Just pointing this out.

- Even though the IC's are able to 0-death every character they still have horrible match-ups. Rob,MK,Diddy, and a lot of other characters have significant advantages vs the climbers and are able to seperate them and avoid being grabbed at viatle moments. This have been proven true through tournament results.

- Not only do the IC's have many bad match-ups, they also are one of the easiest characters in the game to counterpick. Did you know the simple tilting of Lylat can completly throw off a chaingrab? The slants on Yoshi's island don't allow for Dthrow fair to IceBlock regrab? Any moving stage or stage with Hazards is potientially horrible for the Ice Climbers. They have so many bad stages that it's almost impossible for them to ban a stage and play on one they don't mind. Combine this with character match-ups and smart play and you have a character that can't even place high in tournaments with the ability to 0-death the entire cast.

- You have options to dismantle and shut down the infinite. The IC's can not infinite if they are not by each other when they grab an opponent. If you make it a point to seperate the climbers you create options for yourself. When you seperate them attack the CPU as it cannot DI and dies easily. As long as you can effectivly seperate them then they cannot infinite you. You have options to shut it down. Use them. Kill nana.

- You cannot feasibly ban the infinites. It is almost impossible to create a rule the covers all variations of the IC infinites(I can think of over 20 off the top of my head and that doesn't include the alt grabs.) without just banning them from grabbing in the first place. That in itself is impossible to control in a tournament setting so you would just have to ban the character alltogether. If you do manage to take away every combo they have(the infinites which can only be banned by banning pretty much every IC combo) then you just killed the character. IC's already preform horribly in tournament and you just took away the only thing they can actually use to gain leverage against their opponents. Congrats.

Feel free to copy and paste this post anyone who wants to show someone why the IC infinites shouldn't be banned. I didn't even go in depth with this either . I'm saving that for a topic I'm going to make reguarding all chaingrabs and infinites.

-Hylian.

Skyler I'm not bringing it up. They were already talking about it and someone PM'ed me asking for my input. This was my post which has yet to be refuted.


Edit:

Here's something for you guys to fight about:

I have perfected the IC infinites.

All of them. Even some you don't know about. I also discovered how to grab from a bthrow without a pivot. I was the first person to do these consistantly in tournament. I was the first person to WIN a tournament with IC's I believe even.

I don't dominate tournaments with them now as all my opponents litterally just don't get grabbed by me. My GW does better.

 

[Dark Sonic]

@Skyler-I'm sure there are some IC players that can do it without messing up. I think the most important part is that it will never become a big problem because it's easy to just avoid it if you know what you're doing.

edit: Okay now I'm going to bed.

edit: edit: ****nnn Hylian. Could you make a video of some of the more obscure infinites? (I mean, when you have the time) I have a feeling that some of them look pretty sweet.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Okay. I agree with you on the Ice Climbers infinite, so no worries there.

EDIT:

@Skyler-I'm sure there are some IC players that can do it without messing up. I think the most important part is that it will never become a big problem because it's easy to just avoid it if you know what you're doing.

I agree with that also.

 

[DanGR]

Hylian, no one in their right mind is going to argue against the points you made.

 

[Hylian]

Hylian, no one in their right mind is going to argue against the points you made.

LOLL I want to sig that so badly .

Really though I am very intrested to see if anyone can refute my points . I already expect certain counter-arguments and I'm ready to tear them apart .

I probably won't even need to as my simple points posted above are pretty solid.

Edit: Seriously though, just copy and paste my previous post for every arguing the IC infinites so I don't have to go and repeat myself in other topics XD.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I understand this, but it is irrelevant. It exists, people will find ways to use it
If you're only argument is that 'it is too situational' to be banned
it's a flimsy one indeed. Especially in a theoretical discussion
And if it is SO situational then how large of an impact could it make on the IC's game?
Look at Chu's melee matches; There are matches where he never pulls it off
Matches where he gains 1 stock, 2 stock, 3 stocks, 4 stocks from it
How can you determine what move is 'too situational' to be banned?

Here's how; by waiting for it to become a problem. Why wait? We already know it has the potential.

There are only two courses of action as it stands now;
1) Nobody perfects the infinite and the IC's become a low ranking character because their playstyle is based on the opponents mistakes only.
2) Somebody DOES perfect the infinite -- and it get's banned.

So say we do ban it, IC mains now no longer have to rely on their opponents mistakes, and have to switch to a less grab-happy playstyle. No big deal.

The infinite HAS been perfected. There are right now, IC players that can 0-death anyone they grab. Not just professionals either, I know at least one at my school who learned how to pull it off against any character period.

You don't seem to understand the "ease of set-up" issue.


It's based on match-ups, with the core question being, "does this ability change the match-up at all", and the fact is that in many match-ups a grab is so difficult to pull off that having an infinite DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL. A lot of ICs match-ups are like that, so is Ganondorf's match-up vs. wario.

Let's go back to the match with this guy at my school, I haven't lost to his ICs with my Marth yet.

Why?

Because HE HASN'T GRABBED ME, not once.

Why?

Because grabbing Marth is so horrendiously difficult that the infinite doesn't matter, at all.


That's the point of ease of set-up, "is a human player going to fall into this reliably at the top levels of play"?

If no, then it doesn't matter.


Basically, it's like Ganondorf's warlock punch, really high pay-off, but really hard to set-up. Same principal, both moves are very situational and thus don't effect match-ups much, thus in spite of their power, aren't ban-worthy.

I just don't see where you are coming from on this.
We don't have proof that it will become a problem
We don't have proof that it won't become a problem

If you want to factor in ease of use and ease of set up
Then why shouldn't we ban D3's infinite? It's easy to use and easy to set up. So let's ban it.

You're basically saying if the IC's infinite was easy to use and easy to set up, it would be banned, are you not?

Watch who you're asking, Shadow doesn't want D3's infinite banned either.

And no, if it effects enough characters in a manner that overcentralizes the metagame (part of the criteria being that it actually gives them bad match-ups), then it should be banned.

Ease of set-up decides whether it actually effects match-ups, therein lies the critical factor.


Ease of use however, is another matter. If it's humanly possible, then with enough practice, people will learn how to do it if the payoff is high enough.

Look at the crazy stuff Silent Wolf can pull off. Heck, look at the technical ability required to PLAY melee fox at any reasonably high level. Given enough practice, technical skill is just a barrier and strategy and the character's ability is all that matters.

 

[Pi]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Hylian~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- First of all I'm going to point out how you would justify banning D3's infinite and not IC's. Personally, I don't think D3's infinite should be banned I'm just providing reasoning for people who think it should be but the IC infinite is fine and are at a loss of words. Basically, the D3 infinite is always present in the match-up. The IC infinite is not. IC's cannot infinite if they are seperated or nana is dead. That means you have options to shut down the infinite and it actually adds depth to the matches which start to focus on strategizing ways to seperate the climbers and keep them so. The only option the 5 characters have against D3 is to not get grabbed which is pretty hard considering D3's amazing grab range and longevity. Note: I don't think D3's infinites should be banned.

I'm gonna assume this doesn't apply to me because I'm saying both should be banned.

- The IC infinites are not broken. The have not proven to be broken in any region, they have never upset a top player(M2K/Azen/DSF), they have never dominated a tournament. IC players struggle to make top 5 at tournaments much less win. I can't think of the last tournament an IC player won. Logically, there is no reason to remove a tactic and make a character not viable in tournaments when they are hardly viable in the first place according to results.

Not BEING broken and not being broken YET are different things.
Do you agree or do you not agree that they have the potential to be broken
-How far off from being broken do you think they are
-Do you think it's possible for this ever to dominate a tourney scene

- Yes the Infinites are hard. That doesn't matter though. I can do them pretty much 100% and I know a few others that can as well. People shouldn't argue about how hard something is unless it dwells on the realm of impossibility in reguards to consistancy. Just pointing this out.

This doesn't apply to set up though? You couldn't base your game around getting off the grab and be successful? It's not possible?

- Even though the IC's are able to 0-death every character they still have horrible match-ups. Rob,MK,Diddy, and a lot of other characters have significant advantages vs the climbers and are able to seperate them and avoid being grabbed at vital moments. This have been proven true through tournament results.

And thus these are now facts that these characters are impossible to chain grab
Right?
Suspect information based on player skill is not exactly a solid argument.

- Not only do the IC's have many bad match-ups, they also are one of the easiest characters in the game to counterpick. Did you know the simple tilting of Lylat can completly throw off a chaingrab? The slants on Yoshi's island don't allow for Dthrow fair to IceBlock regrab? Any moving stage or stage with Hazards is potientially horrible for the Ice Climbers. They have so many bad stages that it's almost impossible for them to ban a stage and play on one they don't mind. Combine this with character match-ups and smart play and you have a character that can't even place high in tournaments with the ability to 0-death the entire cast.

Are you saying it's humanly impossible to 3stock opponents consistently under any circumstances as the IC's? Using 0-death grab infinites?


- You have options to dismantle and shut down the infinite. The IC's can not infinite if they are not by each other when they grab an opponent. If you make it a point to seperate the climbers you create options for yourself. When you seperate them attack the CPU as it cannot DI and dies easily. As long as you can effectivly seperate them then they cannot infinite you. You have options to shut it down. Use them. Kill nana.

So it's situational, yes, we know, we've discussed this. Every move is situational to an extent, where's the line.

And if you wanna start nit picking as a samus I could just zair the whole match
as a mario I could just fireball the whole match
as a luigi I could just fireball the whole match
Etc. etc. etc.

- You cannot feasibly ban the infinites. It is almost impossible to create a rule the covers all variations of the IC infinites(I can think of over 20 off the top of my head and that doesn't include the alt grabs.) without just banning them from grabbing in the first place. That in itself is impossible to control in a tournament setting so you would just have to ban the character alltogether. If you do manage to take away every combo they have(the infinites which can only be banned by banning pretty much every IC combo) then you just killed the character. IC's already preform horribly in tournament and you just took away the only thing they can actually use to gain leverage against their opponents. Congrats.

So we take a few hours, sit IC users and the SBR down and have them discuss a criteria that encompasses all the IC's infinites and how to eliminate them (should we decide to ban them)
I doubt it's nearly as impossible as you say.
Many characters perform horribly in tournaments
And I really don't think a seemingly VERY situational set of infinites is what's holding the IC's moderate position in the tier list.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cease Tick~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lol at slippery slope logic. Just because they're both factors doesn't mean they're equally important. Ease of use hardly matters in high-level play, ease of setup can totally alter a tactic's usefulness.

So D3's infinite is easy to use and easy to set up why not ban it?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Dark Sonic 1st post~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why do you believe that criteria is valid.
So? DDDs chaingrab on bowser does exactly the same thing. It's just not technically infinite. You just said that Bowser's situation is okay, but DK's is not. I'm asking why?

Why do I belive that the criteria is valid;
Because this will remove a tactic that renders (let's just say DK) a character at a nigh impossible match up. Just this 1 technique does that.

It's 1 technique vs 1 character -- seems valid to me. Especially without a downside.

Why?

Because it removes character(s) from play.

So if they only move slightly foward very slowly it's okay? Or if at the end they chain it into an Iceblock lock (and thus reset) and combo that into a charged smash for a guranteed kill...it's okay?

So because it's not "infinite," but does the same thing it's okay?

And what about the combos that are not actually infinite, but just require the opponent to do some specific action (like smash DI a jab to get out of grab range or something). What if he has Popo do a back throw and have Nana do a blizzard in the other direction (or some other crazy setup since I don't know that much about Iceclimber's backthrow lag) and then has popo grab them again? Is it banned? It's technically not an infinite since it's escapable.

Now lets say that it's something that happens fast enough that you can't humanly react to it (as in, it happens in less than the average reaction time of .2-.25 seconds). If you see it comming you'd be able to escape, but if you don't then it's inescapable. Ban? It gets really arbitrary and as a result there are many ways to "get around" then rule without ever actually breaking it.

I honestly can't go into specifics on the matter, I'm not fully educated in every CG/infinite the IC's posses.

But I do believe we (the community/SBR) could come up with some general criteria governing all of them.

If there is a humanly possible escape to it -- I'd say keep it.

But when your input matters not is when we're in a trouble zone.

Once again (since you dodged my question) why are infinites bad.

If I dodge your question I apologize, it is not my intention.

(I really do feel like I'm repeating myself here)
Because (in this situation) it removes characters from play
It renders human input useless
It guarantee's a stock
(Assuming it's performed correctly, which we are)

I believe that infinites and guaranteed zero to death combos are pretty much the same thing. They both cause death to the opponent with the opponent not being able to do anything. I also believe that both are perfectly acceptable in their nature. "Infinites" are not inherently bad. The only thing that matters is how often they actually come into play, which in the Ice Climber's case, is not very option.

What zero death combo's are you referring to?
And what is the line for how often they come into play?

And? Landing a grab, while Nana is next to you, on a warry opponent, with Ice climber's grab range, is just as situational and just as easy to avoid really. If you're having trouble "not getting grabbed under those conditions" then just kill Nana.

Is it impossible for the IC user to land the grab under these circumstances?

Ease of set up is a part of ease of use by definition.

What I think you are reffering to is "ease of performance" (how hard something is to do, such as multishining vs waveshining)

Um, yes, that is what I was referring to.

But what you are forgetting is that this is not easy to set up. This is not something that you'll actually be seeing often. This is not something that is swaying matchups or even winning. People can do the infinite. Several people have already perfected it in multiple forms. So why aren't they winning?!?!

I recognize that it's not easy to set up, no worries.

But it's by no means impossible, and for the most part if you watch IC matches you can critique and go through and say 'oh if he shielded sooner or reacted faster he could have set up for this grab' or whatever.

Just because it hasn't been found YET, just because someone hasn't perfected the playstyle YET doesn't mean it's impossible.

The reason? Because they are not being given the chance to actually do the infinite. You really can have several matches against Ice Climbers without ever fulfilling the conditions for their infinite. You might get grabbed sometimes, but rarely when Nana is around.

You can also have several matches against the IC's in which you do get infinited to death. There have been situations of both, at this point I would call this information suspect.

Ease of performance is a factor of ease of use. What you mean is "ease of performance" which would be the other factor of ease of use.

Why didn't you say this sooner?

And I thought we were clumping ease of use and ease of set up together.

NO WE ARE NOT!!!! It would be stupid to do so. People can practice doing the infinites, because the methods are already known and fleshed out. They already know what to do, so all they have to practice is doing it

However, setting up the infinites is a completely different matter, as actually setting up the infinite in the first place can be very difficult. As Hylian said, picking a stage with angles, focusing on Nana, avoiding their terrible grab range, ect. are all simple ways to disable Ice Climbers from performing the infinite on you. So far there is no sure fire method for Ice Climbers to get around this except "be better than them."

'disable' is not the word. It makes the match ups more difficult. If you mean that the IC's cannot perform the infinite's on these stages that would be a different story.

Ease of use is made of
1. Ease of setup (how often the situation presents itself)

and

2.Ease of performance (how consistently it can be done when the situation presents itself)

As long as ease of performance is humanly possible (to do consistently) then it is assumed to be 100% (as in, they won't mess up) so the only thing that matters at that point is ease of setup. In the Ice Climber's case, it is not easy to set up and shows no evidence of becoming easy to set up, so it will continue to be a zero to death guaranteed grab combo....that is rarely landed on competent players.

Alright - I got it, I'll use ease of performance from now on.

So why should we assume that ease of performance is more possible than ease of set up? They are both humanly possible. I get where you are coming from -- but this is a theoretical discussion.

I'm reffering to d-tilting over and over with Marth along the walls on delfino plaza. But sorry, 300% was misleading. How about 200% to a d-smash?

You proposing a ban on the move or the stage?

Marth can perform this technique while the stage is in a certain position
He can perform it when his opponent is in this certain position
And he can't perform it indefinitely.

It's similar, but it's no true infinite like the IC's and D3's are.

You're new system is flawed and you have yet to prove that the current system is flawed.

My new system is flawed, I created it during math class

But the old system is flawed (and again I feel like I'm repeating myself)
because any system that would allow characters to be eliminated from play is certainly not perfect.

Says who? You?

If I go to training mode and beat up on the CPU (who's set on stand) is that competition?

Pretty much every other community disagrees. Heck a lot of people in this community disagree. Again, explain why this isn't competitive. Unlike other games with infinites you have multiple stocks and a ridiculously large amount of room to maneuver in. And the conditions for a lot of infinites are extreme (Gannondorf grabbing a Wario?) Infinites are no different than zero-death combos, because they really just accomplish the same goal. Killing the opponent. What you're essentially saying is that killing an opponent with an infinite loop is bad, but killing your opponent with a semi-infinite loop is okay. (in both cases they have no control over their character and in both cases they die).

A lot of people in this community disagree with your side as well (55% to be more precise), that's not a factor, in case you haven't noticed the majority of people are stupid.

What 0 death combo's are you referring to?

"Stalling" with the infinite so far has been the only issue, but in reality, we're already being lenient by putting a damage cap on. In every other fighting game, when you are caught in an infinite you simply lose the match. But in smash, for some reason people just can't handle this concept, and I suppose it is reasonable given that fulfilling the conditions for some of these infinites is pretty easy, so we put a cap on it to ensure that pulling off the infinite one time does not win you the match (like it would in other games).

The only issue? Hardly, we're removing characters as playable here, that is an issue.

Just because other games do it doesn't make it infallible...

Are you saying the system is perfect? It can't be improved? Because it can.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Dark Sonic 2nd post~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Difficulty of performance is not a factor. That is, we assume that they will be able to do it 100% consistantly.

Why would difficulty of performance be assumed to be 100% and difficulty of set up assumed to be nigh impossible?

There may not be methods of set up. It is quite possible that Ice Climbers will have no reliable way to set up the infinite. You cannot prove that they will find a method. You can only prove that they will practice an already discovered method.

That is why ease of performance is not a factor, but ease of setup is. It is because we have no way of knowing if it will actually have any better setups. If better setups are found, then the debate reopens with the new knowledge. That's how debates work.

We might as well be debating religion then because we can't prove it one way or the other

In a theoretical discussion we should assume the worse case scenario.

Yes it is theoretic, but you are making one big assumption.

You are assuming that there are actually setups to be found!. You are assuming that the infinite will become more problematic than it currently is and using that to base a ban.

It's not that big a deal for the reasons I listed;
Either someone perfects it and gets it banned
Or nobody perfects it and the IC's remain a mediocre character -- which they would be even without the infinites.

Actually, it really is against Ice Climbers. If you kill Nana they can't infinite you, and that's that. Hell if you hit Nana, they can't infinite you, since Nana is required to be standing next to Popo to initiate the infinite.

What IF you don't do those things.
What IF you get into the grab 3 times.
What IF I spend the whole match spacing zairs
What IF the IC's perfect shield
What IF the IC's spot dodge

Because the techniques has not proven itself broken in theory or in practice?

In practice no. In theory yes.

This is not true. There may simply be no ways to reliably set it up. There may simply not be enough hitstun for any of Ice Climber's better ranged moves to combo into a grab. Nana may simply lag behind to much for powershield grabs to work (actually, this is true. It is impossible to make both Ice Climber's powershield).

Then again there may very well be reliable set ups
There may very well be enough hitstun for any IC's better ranged moves to combo into a grab

You can still space yourself in such a way that you can get the grab.

It is NOT impossible -- stop acting like it is.

It hasn't been winning, and people are doing it right. Looks like they're just not actually landing it enough right? Or else...they'd be winning. But why aren't they landing it enough? Because they have no setups!

Because the game is still infantile? Because they haven't been exposed to as many situations, had enough practice setting up grabs? Because they haven't focused their game around getting the grab enough?

Neither your word nor mine is fact, everything is suspect.

Theoretical discussions require reasonable assumptions. Assuming that they will magically obtain a reliable setup for their infinite when there is no evidence suggesting this is not a reasonable assumption.

I'll admit that the majority of the current evidence we have suggests that the IC's grabs are hard to set up. But again - not impossible

Do you truly believe that in however many years we have with this game people won't be able to improve their chances to get off the right grab?

Wobbling was found pretty late in melee, we know about this now, we have years ahead of us for someone to perfect it

And statistics show that someone will.

1. I never said that
2. Ice Climbers are bad characters. It's really one of their few good points

You have mentioned on numerous occasions how situational it is.
IC's are no MK's
But they're no Cfalcs either.

If people are using a playstyle around getting grabs off, and the IC's are low tier
What would happen to the IC's if people stopped focusing on that and started focusing more on other aspects of their characters.
Hell, the IC's might even move up in the standings.
It's not like you factor in infinite when you do match up statistics do ya? 'Oh this character is easier to infinite so he's an easier match up'
Or do you?

1. Landing grabs with Ice Climbers was much easier in melee
2. Landing grabs with Ice Climbers was still hard to do.
3. Wobbling was never universally banned and never banned by the SBR
4. Show me the multiple videos of him 4 stocking good players with it. If the best Ice Climber's player in the world (in melee) couldn't do that, then how can you possibly say it's broken?

Was the set up in melee easier? Cause I certainly don't see it pulled off more than these.

It was never universally banned because it wasn't affecting the higher end tournaments
There is a video on youtube in which the commentators say that wobbling is a new move
and that they didn't know why it wasn't banned because chu 3/4 stocked several people earlier

I didn't say multiple, I said they existed. Which they do.
And chu may have been the best IC player, but he was no ken or M2k or PC Chris
He didn't have the mindgames those guys did, which would have surely helped in setting up the grabs. Look at some of the tech chasing they do, it's insane.

NO WE DON'T. There is no evidence to suggest that Ice Climbers will ever get a reliable setup for this. Blizzard->grab? SDI the blizzard. Jab->grab? Not a combo (do a really fast move or jump) They don't even have footstool combos to land their grabs!

Tech chase to grab? spot dodge to grab? mindgames to grab?

There's no evidence suggesting the IC's will NEVER get a reliable setup for this. And they don't need a reliable set up if they have good prediction.

You're forgetting
3)Somebody DOES perfect the infinite, but they still don't win because they never actually land it on good players.

K change 'perfect the infinite' to 'gets good at the set up for the infinite'

Or we don't ban it, non IC mains now learn how to not make mistakes, and Ice climbers have to switch to a less grab-happy playstyle, but with a nice ace up their sleves if they ever fulfill the infinite conditions.

I'm **** near ready to say I agree to this.

Yep, so the defualt position is to leave it the way it is, as per the "burden of proof." You have not proven that it is broken enough to ban, thus we leave it unbanned.

If it were the other way around (if it was already banned and I was trying to get it unbanned), then I would have to prove that it is worthy of being unbanned, or else it would stay banned.

Interesting stuff huh.

It has the potential to be 'broken enough'. Does it not?
and I'm gettin kinda sick of all this 'burden of proof' crap - it's not even relevant here.

We're arguing religion again.

You're missing the point again. If the IC's infintie was easy to use and easy to set up, it would be banned BECAUSE it would overcentralize the metagame. It would not be banned because it's easy to use and easy to set up. It would be banned because it applies to the vast majority of the cast and would make the only viable tournament character...Ice Climbers. Every single other character would get destroyed by the infinite on every stock and they would always land it, and the entire metagame would be Ice Climbers vs Ice Climbers.

In other words, overcentralization.

Or we could decide on a criteria that would NOT neglect 6 characters on the roster and would STILL cover overcentralization WITHOUT provoking ban-happy community members to propose we ban MK's tornado.

Which is probably something I've been arguing for previously. We have no need to neglect characters. 'overcentralization' is too vague, we could get more specific, we should get more specific, because we're neglecting characters. Not people, characters, when we don't have to. I haven't heard 1 reasonable argument against the banning of D3's infinite other than speculating that people will get ban happy -- which with the right criteria would NOT happen.

So? And back then there was nothing to suggest that they would be better. Few people expected them to be high tier material. And you know what? When we found out what they could do debates re-opened.

You do not assume that something will be found when debating, you work with what is already known.

But we've already found the infinite...we've already seen what it's capable of...it's not a new discovery it's a matter of waiting for 1 guy to put it into practice consistently...it's either going to become a problem or it's not...and I'd put money on it becoming one in the next few years.

No you don't understand. Difficulty of set up is not dependent on difficulty of use.
There is no decision to be made, difficulty of set up is the only one of the two that actually matters.

No, it's the only one that's stopping the IC's from 0-deathing the whole cast. If a move was so difficult to perform but easy to set up, you would be saying difficulty to perform was the only factor here.

Set up takes practice just as much as performance does. You just have more time to practice performance than set up.

Let's say we have one zero to death combo that works on every character, but it requires your opponent to teetering over the edge of the stage with you standing next to them to start it up.

Snakes infinite

Now we have another zero to death combo that works on every character, but it only requires that your opponent be standing (or shielding) while you are next to them.

D3's infinite

Now we have another zero to death combo that works on every character, but all the opponent as to do is be in line with you (I don't know, he's got a stun laser or something, it's really not important how)

okay

Now it's time to talk about matchups, in the first case, everybody completely disregards the zero to death because it will not be landed. Their reply will simply be "we will not teeter ourselves over the edge while you're next to us" and that will be the end of discussion. No character has trouble against it.

Criteria: Can't be performed on any point of the stage - not banned

In the second case everybody is freaking out because if they ever land or shield next to you then they can get killed, and that is a fairly common circumstance, but they come up with the solution of "space attacks and camp him" The characters that have longer ranged moves (including projectiles) or better aerial movement will have an easier time with this and their matchups will be less affected, but those who have poor air->ground games will have a lot of trouble.

Criteria: Can be performed at any % or point on the map (aside from air, you have to land some time) - banned

Finally, in the third case we have a scenario that happens all the time and every character is dominated by this technique, and as a result the only way to win against someone who does this...is to do it first. The only way to win in this scenario is to pick that character and beat them to the punch.

Criteria: Can be performed at any % or point on the map - banned

"Ease of Setup" is what determines whether or not a powerful technique becomes overcentralizing. "Ease of use" really doesn't mean anything unless the technique is simply humanly impossible (such as using the 1 invincibility frame of Fox's shine to dodge attacks consistently)

We can and should go more specific here to be sure we are truly limiting the game as little as possible. The current criteria does not ensure this for we are allowing 1 technique to wreck 6 characters.

Criteria for banning:

General

• Anything that can, within reason, be removed from the game to reduce the luck factor should be removed.

Offensive Technique

• Increases in power due to a glitch in the game. (Ex. If we could some how glitch a move to do more damage than normal)
• Renders opponents input (within reason of human ability) ineffective for an indefinite length of time. (Inescapable)
• Ensures the loss of a stock at any % in the match & can be performed on any surface on the map.

Defensive technique

• Renders user invincible for an indefinite length of time
• Allows user to evade interaction with their opponent, without fail, for an indefinite length of time. (Stalls, and MK's IDC)

Stages

• Has features which can be taken advantage of to ensure the loss of a stock at any % in the match.
• Reduces matches to a more luck than skill, or to an unreasonable amount of luck:skill ratio
• Has features which can be taken advantage of to 'lock' the opponent - rendering their input (within reason of human ability) ineffective.

Character (Only after a reasonable amount of playtime has passed)

• Has no matches at which said character is at a disadvantage OR has fewer than X amount of neutral match ups
• Has 1 or more moves that guarantee a stock at any % in the match (if TL's down A glitch was able to be reproduced accidentally, effectively, and consistently) WHICH cannot be banned or monitored.
  [Note]Characters should NOT be banned altogether, but at the very most limited to ditto's.

This is more like the type of criteria we should have
Not 'overcentralize the metagame'


Going to bed, toodles~

 

[adumbrodeus]

No, it's the only one that's stopping the IC's from 0-deathing the whole cast. If a move was so difficult to perform but easy to set up, you would be saying difficulty to perform was the only factor here.

Set up takes practice just as much as performance does. You just have more time to practice performance than set up.

*facepalm*

No, if it was god-easy to set-up (aka, ICs had DDD's grab range), but was very difficult (but humanly possible) to perform, Hylian would be taking every tournament and DarkSonic, Shadow, Yuna, myself, and the entire smash community would be calling for it's ban in all probability.


It would overcentralize the metagame, and therefore be broken and banworthy.


Nobody cares about ease of performance unless it's not humanly possible to perform, except evidently you. If you can't perform an AT, PRACTICE IT, that's something everybody can do.


However, getting a grab off against a Marth of an equal skill level is something just about nobody can do with ICs, and no amount of practice will change that.

 

[Hylian]

Wow. Just...wow.

It's almost insulting that you would reply to my post like that. Seemingly no thought went into your retort and it amazes me how you misread and dodged several of my points. Your logic is horribly flawed and you contradict yourself in various ways. You should look over your reply to my post and realize you didn't honestly address almost anything I said.

If your going to just be stubborn and not even put effort or thought into your retorts while just throwing out slippery slope arguments and strawmans then I'm just going to leave.

My origional post still stands and has not been logically refuted.

Au revior.

 

[kackamee]

How about we just ban it when it DOES become a problem >.>; Simple mirite?

 

[cutter]

How about we just ban it when it DOES become a problem >.>; Simple mirite?

Except IC's infintes WILL NOT be banned. They HAVE NOT and will not cause a problem in tournament play enough to warrant a ban.

 

[Deleted member]

Umm IC infinate definately shouldnt be banned, i know a few people who can do them consistantly, and it does give some characters tough matchups, but MK is a lot more character destroying than IC infinates(i dont think either shud be banned). D3 infinates im not sure about, i think they should, D3 really makes those matchups, quite literally, unwinnable.

 

[camzaman]

I know it's been posted dozens of times, but Smash seems to be alive and well in Bum's area (which bans it), contrary to the anti-infinite ban crowd's claims of slippery slope ban-happy anarchy that will destroy smash as we know it. Why do people make it so complicated? This is way different than MK, just ban it. Simple.

 

[Sosuke]

While I haven't read most of the posts in all these pages, I'm just gonna throw my opinion out there. >_>
I don't really take a side to this, as I don't have much experience with these match ups. Anyway, here is just some stuff I've thought up.



The players who main the characters that can get infinited basically have to resort to either counter picking, or picking up a secondary that they have a better chance with (or playing insanely well). Counter picking sometimes works, but there is only so far you can go with counter picking. Secondaries usually have to be picked. Its sorta-kinda like going up against Falco as CF in Melee. You can do it, but I mean... come on. Its not as much of a "forced" counter pick as for DK against DDD in Brawl because Falcon actually has a good chance if he plays well. DK has to have his "not get grabbed" game at near perfection to avoid losing to a skilled DDD based just on not getting grabbed. That doesn't even include all of DDD's other moves and whatnot.

DDD- LOL
Not only is it a hard matchup already because of high priority backairs and chaingrabs. But now because DDD could end all his chaingrabs in uptilts or upsmashes, its just become alot worst. If a DDD knows perfectly how to abuse Warios it isn't hard at all for them to win. Lol fits this matchup well. Nearing 25-75 if you want to get technical.

lol indeed.
Wario is a viable tourney charecter, and so having another viable tourney charecter basically screw him over just makes for counter picks. Some other high/whatever tier charecter that does well (or at least OK) against DDD can be picked. Now Wario can actually stand a chance because his spacing tools can help him avoid being in DDD's grab rage quite often, but all DDD really needs is that one grab. Now this is why I can't really decide if it should get banned as a whole; It really screws some of the characters that can get chain grabbed, while others have a decent chance if they space really well the whole match. But then again, isn't that one of the reasons they're lowered on the tier list?

While you CAN not get grabbed the whole match, that is very unlikely. DK and Bowser have an especially have time imo because they're spacing tools are basically parts of their body. If they had some good disjointed hit boxes or projectiles, this wouldn't really be a problem, but they don't. They're pretty much screwed unless they pull off an amazing performance.



Well.... yeah. >_>
I guess I'm leaning on the no-ban side a lil. Maybe limit to 5 re-grabs or something? >.>
I don't see that working well though. =/

 

[Brinzy]

I know it's been posted dozens of times, but Smash seems to be alive and well in Bum's area (which bans it), contrary to the anti-infinite ban crowd's claims of slippery slope ban-happy anarchy that will destroy smash as we know it. Why do people make it so complicated? This is way different than MK, just ban it. Simple.

Everyone always goes "Bum's area, Bum's area", etc. I have no doubt that he is skilled... but the fact that they banned the infinite there only goes to show that part of Bum's success comes from being in an anti-infinite environment. It's a pretty "lame" way to play I guess, but if my characters had infinites against the cast, I'd probably want to keep them just to win money, as shallow as that's gonna sound to people who think I only play to win.

I don't think it should be legal, but in all honesty, I'm fortunate enough to play a character who never has to deal with that, so I don't really care all that much.

 

[PK-ow!]

I shortened it since my reply will be short.
The main issue with that argument is that the only high level players that placed high at evo 2008 were Ken and SK92.

Every other high level player did not place in the top 8. Many of them were knocked out early.

So while you have 2 cases where a high level player who uses items poorly does do well, you have many others who did not place yet are of considerable skill to Ken.
Do they not count?

You know you almost had something against me. If you had said Ken and SK92 were significantly better than everyone else there, then you could put some complications into the counter raised against you.

But, yet again, you have mistaken the very relation of the debate. You've actually given me weapons to use against you - which isn't so bad, except you thought they were for your own conclusion. Again, quite funny.
If Ken and SK92 are comparable to the other players (something I have to take peoples' word for, since I wasn't there and I don't know), then that all the more backs up how very impotent items are on the gameplay - that's as surely far from overcentralization as you can get. The items were there, two players non-outliers in the spread of skill levels present ignored the items, and yet they climbed up the ranks. Clearly, overcentralization was not the case.

So, to answer your question:

NO, 'they' do not count. They are irrelevant. What matters is that Ken and SK92 exist (with the relevant properties I pointed out). The existence of other entities does not remove the fact that Ken and SK92 exist, alter the properties of Ken or SK92, nor throw doubt on the validity of the argument form I presented to you which requires only certain existences as its premises.

It is not damaged by the affirmation of any other existence claims whatsoever. Only a negation (or a universal of a negation) could be manipulated into denying one of the premises.

I really am straining my (though vast) cognitive capacities to figure out how you don't see this keep screwing yourself over.

I don't think it should be legal, but in all honesty, I'm fortunate enough to play a character who never has to deal with that, so I don't really care all that much.

Yes, ee're all free to wish it weren't true that it's in the game. We're all free, to wish "**** it, why'd Brawl have to be released with this trap character in it (DK)?" But it's here as-is, and that binds us by the principles of our kind, competitive gaming.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I know it's been posted dozens of times, but Smash seems to be alive and well in Bum's area (which bans it), contrary to the anti-infinite ban crowd's claims of slippery slope ban-happy anarchy that will destroy smash as we know it. Why do people make it so complicated? This is way different than MK, just ban it. Simple.

...

Perhaps you haven't noticed but this is a LONG-TERM concern, and guess what? Brawl hasn't even been around long enough to qualify as a test time for that, let alone the period that it's been banned there.



However, I will note that Atlantic North tends to be highly liberal with their stage ban lists, I doubt this is a coincidence.

You know you almost had something against me. If you had said Ken and SK92 were significantly better than everyone else there, then you could put some complications into the counter raised against you.

But, yet again, you have mistaken the very relation of the debate. You've actually given me weapons to use against you - which isn't so bad, except you thought they were for your own conclusion. Again, quite funny.
If Ken and SK92 are comparable to the other players (something I have to take peoples' word for, since I wasn't there and I don't know), then that all the more backs up how very impotent items are on the gameplay - that's as surely far from overcentralization as you can get. The items were there, two players non-outliers in the spread of skill levels present ignored the items, and yet they climbed up the ranks. Clearly, overcentralization was not the case.

So, to answer your question:

NO, 'they' do not count. They are irrelevant. What matters is that Ken and SK92 exist (with the relevant properties I pointed out). The existence of other entities does not remove the fact that Ken and SK92 exist, alter the properties of Ken or SK92, nor throw doubt on the validity of the argument form I presented to you which requires only certain existences as its premises.

It is not damaged by the affirmation of any other existence claims whatsoever. Only a negation (or a universal of a negation) could be manipulated into denying one of the premises.

I really am straining my (though vast) cognitive capacities to figure out how you don't see this keep screwing yourself over.



Yes, ee're all free to wish it weren't true that it's in the game. We're all free, to wish "**** it, why'd Brawl have to be released with this trap character in it (DK)?" But it's here as-is, and that binds us by the principles of our kind, competitive gaming.

I believe you are missing his point.

His point seems to be that Ken and SK92 were anomalies, which is a fair point.

Realistically in a tournament setting where the overcentralizing factor is inherently a random factor, it does make sense for a few anomalies to appear in the course of the tournament (such as a person with no understanding of items placing well).


I believe he's trying to say, "if they didn't overcentralize, there should have been more high-leveled players that placed well".

 

[Manic_1]

The infinite should not be allowed. There isn't any real reason to debate this.

- It stalls matches.
- It takes complete control away from the opposing player.
- It is extremely low risk, extremely high reward
- Unlike Ice Climbers, King Dedede has no requirements to achieve the infinite
- It takes a single grab per stock to win, with the best grab range in the game (excluding tethers)
- It distorts match ups

There really isn't any competitive benefit for keeping it. At all. Removing it would increase the likely hood of use for five other characters, and it wouldn't make King Dedede any less of a beast then he already is. Many tournaments I attend are removing it, or already have.

^^This^^
"bu bu but teh counter pics! Its just a few bad match ups! Dont get grabbed"

They arent bad matchups. They are game breaking match ups. It is almost an autoloss unless the D3 you are playing against sucks. In other words. You cannot main any of those characters unless you are ok with starting one match down against a D3 main, and there are alot of D3 mains. And saying dont get grabbed is just ludicrous. D3s grab is insane.

 

[Tony_]

Heres an idea...

If were banning D3's infinite, were also banning the Fox infinite, the Marth infinite he has on the EB characters, and any other infinites we don't know about k? Its completely illogical to ban a characters move because, what, it affects not even a quarter of the roster? Cry more. Banning D3s infinite doesn't do a **** thing to change the gameplay. At all.

 

[brinboy789]

Heres an idea...

If were banning D3's infinite, were also banning the Fox infinite, the Marth infinite he has on the EB characters, and any other infinites we don't know about k? Its completely illogical to ban a characters move because, what, it affects not even a quarter of the roster? Cry more. Banning D3s infinite doesn't do a **** thing to change the gameplay. At all.

marths infinite on the EB's can be avoided

 

[Pi]

Wow. Just...wow.

It's almost insulting that you would reply to my post like that. Seemingly no thought went into your retort and it amazes me how you misread and dodged several of my points. Your logic is horribly flawed and you contradict yourself in various ways. You should look over your reply to my post and realize you didn't honestly address almost anything I said.

If your going to just be stubborn and not even put effort or thought into your retorts while just throwing out slippery slope arguments and strawmans then I'm just going to leave.

My origional post still stands and has not been logically refuted.

Au revior.

I am very much so taking a side. IC infinites should not be banned. Respond to my points please. If you cannot then at least agree with me.

Keep in mind the ?'s are questions. (In my response)

Heres an idea...

If were banning D3's infinite, were also banning the Fox infinite, the Marth infinite he has on the EB characters, and any other infinites we don't know about k? Its completely illogical to ban a characters move because, what, it affects not even a quarter of the roster? Cry more. Banning D3s infinite doesn't do a **** thing to change the gameplay. At all.

Yes it does...it affects those characters you mentioned GREATLY
And it's 1 technique -- 1 technique should not decide a match over and over and over again. Especially not when it's use is limited to those characters and banning it will have NO downside.

 

[beamswordsman]

Um, yes, of course. I said this in response to what he said about IC's infinite's not being banned. The only reason is because people haven't been using them (mainly because they are difficult to pull off).

If they were easier to perform and set up they would be banned. Kay.

Of course not, otherwise we'd all be playing the same character.

But nobody who plays competitively with the 'play to win' mindset who plays the IC is going to ignore their infinite's

Are you sure you're not just arguing for the sake of it?

Nope, but you know yourself people won't ignore things that work on a competitive level. That's why DDD mains even use the infinite. Also I'm trying to run from this thread.... >.<

 

[YagamiDark]

If you're upset about infinite's then just CP Imo.

 

[The_Altrox]

DDD's chain grabing is evil, but I say keep it in. I don't think it breaks the game that much *FLAMESHEILD* I say keep it. There are still many DDD counters out there.

 

[kackamee]

Except IC's infintes WILL NOT be banned. They HAVE NOT and will not cause a problem in tournament play enough to warrant a ban.

Exactly, so then I don't understand why people are arguing over it. If it does even EVER get to that point, It will most likely just be limited to an extent but I doubt it will be truly banned

 

[Pi]

DDD's chain grabing is evil, but I say keep it in. I don't think it breaks the game that much *FLAMESHEILD* I say keep it. There are still many DDD counters out there.

Why not ban it?

Banning it != bad...
Nobody has even tried to say it would be bad -.-
other than 'slipper slope' being thrown around -- which has been disproved because it's working swimmingly in BUM's region -.-

 

[XxBlackxX]

Why not ban it?

Banning it != bad...
Nobody has even tried to say it would be bad -.-
other than 'slipper slope' being thrown around -- which has been disproved because it's working swimmingly in BUM's region -.-

BUM region banned it for the wrong reasons. it doesn't really matter whether they did or not. if you hate it that much, be a TO(or convince a TO) and ban them. however, in the official ruleser, there should be no ban because it doesn't fit the criteria.

if you want to argue, PROVE to me that the criteria is flawed.

 

[cutter]

I dug this up in the thread here:

ok this is what happened in ny. Bum didnt warrant the ban. I did. I said to ban all infinites except for wall infinites bein the legal stages doesnt have steady walls. This includes Marths Choke Chain Grab on lucas/ness/wario, D3's walking and standing CG and the ICs bthrow infinite. NJ banned it D3's standing and walking in October cause they noticed how ridiculous it is.

Yes it favors Bum in some way even though theres only like 2-3 D3s in NY but he wasnt the one who mentioned it. I found out about the infinite so i decided it was unfair. BTW theres a way out of the choke chain grab now anyway so that isnt much of a problem anyway.

They didn't just ban D3 infinites. They banned A LOT of infinites. They banned IC's infinites.

So I'd say the slippery slope argument is pretty valid here.

Also notice the reason for banning infinites:

it was unfair

Wow. Can we ban Pikachu's chaingrab on Fox next? Please?

Spoiler

/sarcasm

 

[Yuna]

Just like how items were banned and stuff like planking was banned we should fix this game to however we please.

If it's so horrible, why are you even playing it?

Random stuff.

And we're telling you those reasons are insufficient. None of the mare valid, either by themselves or put together. Disagree on this. We can only agree to disagree on it.

And Yuna, what tha hell

You admit sakurai made mistakes
You say that good fighters have teams working to develope them

But you seem more than ready to resign us to the game as it was given to us

We can be the team to refine the game

You don't want balance any more eh?

This is this and that is that. The fact that Sakurai is incompetent at balancing games does not mean we should go in and randomly re-balance things that do not need re-balancing.

To the anti-ban side: Over-centralization is not, in any way, the only criteria for a ban. If it were, items would not be banned.

Quote me where I've ever said that it's the only criteria for a ban.

Also, items randomize the results. It's anti-competitive. So they had to go. Prove how this, in any way, randomizes anything.

We weren't considering banning Metaknight because he "over-centralized the game". We were considering banning Metaknight because he broke the counterpick system.

Yes. And I told you guys how very, very wrong you were for months. Like it or not, the SBR agreed with me (whether or not they cared about the stuff I said does not matter).

They agreed that the arguments you put forth to ban Meta Knight were bad and insufficient.

So you just pretty much said "Oh, I supported this other than with insufficient reasoning and facts to back it up and the SBR ended up disagreeing with me". Yes, and? Do you want a cookie?

You were considering this and that. Well, it was ruled insufficient. So all you have is a court case you brought forth that was eventually thrown out/you lost because your evidence was insufficient or faulty.

We are not automatons. We are capable of critical thought. We do not have to say that banning this technique doesn't look like anything we've ever done before, and therefore we can't do it.

Yes, but the facts, evidence and reasoning the pro-ban side has presented are insufficient (IMO). And I've argued that as well.

You seem to think "It doesn't over-centralize" is the only counter-argument. It is not.

You can still bring him out to wreck Metaknight.

DK does not wreck Meta Knight. Please educate yourself on Brawl more before speaking about important issues such as bans.

Exactly you fools. Stop the 'slippery slope' BS, stop the 'let's not do something rash' BS. Has Bum's region started sliding down the slippery slope into oblivion? No, it's the best in the country.

Yes, but then that makes this an arbitrary ban. Bum's region only banned it because of Bum. Bum is a DK mainer, thus he's highly biased. His fanboys supported him and wanting him to be able to stick with DK no matter what.

It's not a coincidence that his region banned D3's infinite very, very fast. It was an arbitrary ban just because it wrecked the character of one of their most treasured players.

Their reasoning for banning it could be employed to ban tons of other things. But it isn't. Because they made an arbitrary decision to instate an arbitrary ban. Yes, this is obviously what we want for our scene.

Also, what Cutter just said in the post preceding this one. They didn't even have a debate on it (or so it seems). Some "higher ups" just went "This is unfair!" and banned a whole bunch of things.


This endeth the posts on page 243 I felt needed replying to. I then skipped forward to page 253.

 

[Pi]

I dug this up in the thread here:



They didn't just ban D3 infinites. They banned A LOT of infinites. They banned IC's infinites.

So I'd say the slippery slope argument is pretty valid here.

Also notice the reason for banning infinites:



Wow. Can we ban Pikachu's chaingrab on Fox next? Please?

Spoiler

/sarcasm

The banning of all infinite's helps support the slippery slope theory?
Why? Are they trying to ban MK's tornado? Snakes Nades?
No, they banned infinites, and they are a healthy tourney scene.
If anything this supports the anti-slippery slope argument.

BUM region banned it for the wrong reasons. it doesn't really matter whether they did or not. if you hate it that much, be a TO(or convince a TO) and ban them. however, in the official ruleser, there should be no ban because it doesn't fit the criteria.

if you want to argue, PROVE to me that the criteria is flawed.

Any criteria that would neglect several characters from the roster is obviously flawed.
We can do better.

I could understand if maybe D3's chain down throw grab performed the same way on all characters had an effect on only 6 characters.
But this is a whole different technique - remove it and it doesn't harm anything.

 

[WastingPenguins]

The banning of all infinite's helps support the slippery slope theory?
Why? Are they trying to ban MK's tornado? Snakes Nades?
No, they banned infinites, and they are a healthy tourney scene.
If anything this supports the anti-slippery slope argument.

Yep. Take the infinites out. Where's the slippery slope? I musta missed it, seems like the bans stopped pretty quickly after "infinites." Some people need to learn what slippery slope means.

That the great thing about Brawl tourneys-- the back room really has no control over how anyone sets up their own rules. Take out the infinites, and what do you get? A vibrant gaming community that is no less competitive than any other. These rules and principles and competitive philosophies ain't set in stone people. They're just preferences and opinions.

There is no true competitive philosophy. Sirlin isn't THE competitive philosophy. It's one. If you believe in it unyielding value, then great! Use it! But some of us think it could use some revisions.

 

[rathy Aro]

The banning of all infinite's helps support the slippery slope theory?
Why? Are they trying to ban MK's tornado? Snakes Nades?
No, they banned infinites, and they are a healthy tourney scene.
If anything this supports the anti-slippery slope argument.





Any criteria that would neglect several characters from the roster is obviously flawed.
We can do better.

I could understand if maybe D3's chain down throw grab performed the same way on all characters had an effect on only 6 characters.
But this is a whole different technique - remove it and it doesn't harm anything.

What criteria are you using to determine whether something should be banned? Make sure the criteria is more general than "its an infinite" because infinites aren't inherently bad, its what they do to the metagame that is potentially harmful.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Yep. Take the infinites out. Where's the slippery slope? I musta missed it, seems like the bans stopped pretty quickly after "infinites." Some people need to learn what slippery slope means.

That the great thing about Brawl tourneys-- the back room really has no control over how anyone sets up their own rules. Take out the infinites, and what do you get? A vibrant gaming community that is no less competitive than any other. These rules and principles and competitive philosophies ain't set in stone people. They're just preferences and opinions.

There is no true competitive philosophy. Sirlin isn't THE competitive philosophy. It's one. If you believe in it unyielding value, then great! Use it! But some of us think it could use some revisions.

then PROVE to me WHY it is wrong. both you and knihT haven't proved anything, you just STATED that you think it is wrong.
look, Sirlin's "rules" WORKED in the past, and they WORKED well, getting us healthy metagames. if you want a new criteria, prove that the old one is wrong.
or else i will take a saying from the madden games: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (notice how that applies to the infinites as well. )

Any criteria that would neglect several characters from the roster is obviously flawed.
We can do better

im sorry but this just doesn't work for me. i mean, looking at games like melee and SF, anything that didn't break the game as a whole wasn't banned, and all those games turned out with great metagames, would you not agree?
melee had infinites
and unviable characters
and they weren't banned
and it had a great metagame overall.