Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Pi]

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.

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'









Any way, I'm out of this place. Not one person has changed their opinion in the 5 days I've been in this thread.
And that big *** post I made on P. 252 took me like 2 hours or some ridiculous ammount

So goodbye, enjoy, have fun
But remember, on the internet - nobody is ever wrong.

 

[brinboy789]

[*]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.

did you make this up yourself? or did you find this somewhere? because if what you said above is true, then melee should be bannede -_-

 

[XxBlackxX]

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'









Any way, I'm out of this place. Not one person has changed their opinion in the 5 days I've been in this thread.
And that big *** post I made on P. 252 took me like 2 hours or some ridiculous ammount

So goodbye, enjoy, have fun
But remember, on the internet - nobody is ever right

fix'd....sadly its true lol

anyways, i disagree with a lot of this.
if we ban anything that's inescapable, we should ban CG's and combos >_>
other things i disagree with include...well, most of it.
why? because most of the things you mentioned should NOT be banned if they weren't universal. for example if wolf had a OHKO move on MK and only MK, it wouldn't be banned because you can always CP.
i still go with "over-centralize the metagame" over this criteria....

 

[ShadowLink84]

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.

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.

For saying I misunderstand the posts my opponent has made you made a rather large error.
Both players used the items. The items were not ignored.
In fact, within one match ken used 8 items within a match while CPU used only 3 items.
it is also known for a fact that both Ken and SK92 are players who are at a higher level than the others.
That was mentioned within the post of the one I addressed.

There were other high level players but those high level players (who are few in number mind you) did not rank.

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.

Sk92 and Ken were the only people who placed high and were high level players. They were the only ones who ranked in the top 8.
Let me use an analogy (apologies if it is inaccurate)
there are 10 people.
8 out of 10 people flip a coin. They get heads 50 times and tails 50 times.
2 out of 10 flip a coin. They obtain heads 100 times and tails 0 times.
Does that mean we should ignore the other results because of those two exceptions?

I apologize if I am strawmanning your argument but this is what it sounds like to me.

 

[da K.I.D.]

melee had infinites
and unviable characters
and they weren't banned
and it had a great metagame overall.

just wanted to say that melee, had unviable characters, yes, but they were unviable because they were actually bad characters, not just because they were really good characters, but fell victum to one excrusiatingly broken move.

also, Bum's region didnt ban it because of Bum, read the post at the top of this page, they banned because it was STUPID, UNFAIR, AND ANTI-COMPETITIVE! In the real world, things actually get banned for that.

One more thing, they only banned IC INFINITES, as in, the CGs that you could reverse direction with, the CGs that always kept you moving in the same direction seem to be perfectly fine.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I never knew that stupid, unfair were reasons.
As for being anti-competitive, proof please?

let alone that Hylians post destroyed the argument concerning the IC infinites.

 

[RDK]

just wanted to say that melee, had unviable characters, yes, but they were unviable because they were actually bad characters, not just because they were really good characters, but fell victum to one excrusiatingly broken move.

Uh, the characters that fall victim to D3's chaingrab are still bad; just under criteria that you don't want to acknowledge.

What makes a character "bad" besides having shortcomings? One of those shortcomings is having properties that make it nigh impossible to win against D3.

If you're going to continue this argument, you have to reconcile how subjective the term "bad" is.

 

[adumbrodeus]

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.

Because IC's is utterly inconsequential in the overall metagame. It doesn't make any character non-viable.

It actually hurts balance, because it removes the only thing making ICs BARELY viable.


If there is anything to suggest that more non-nonsensical bans are to follow, it's this.

 

[Yuna]

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.

They banned IC's infinites despite them not even being Top Tier with them (despite them being universal; works on everyone (except another IC's, unless Nana's dead). There's your slippery slope.

They banned something which made a character that isn't even Top Tier worse for no good reason other than to arbitrarily boost some other match-ups. They banned a strategy for no good reason, just as a consequence of banning D3's infinite.

Either they used almost all of the same reasoning for banning D3's infinites and then went "Ah, let's take out IC's infinites, too!" or they just went with "All infinites must be banned!" and to hell with anything else! This is a perfect example of a slippery slope.

Even if they have stopped, it's still a sloppery slope. They have already done down that slope. Something that are in no way destroying the metagame, over-centralizing anything or even making a character very good was banned for no good reason other than whining about not wanting to lose a stock to a single grab.

Tell me, do you know how good IC's are with their infinites? Barely viable. So they just arbitarily nerfed a character who doesn't stand that good of a statistical chance of winning, making them even worse.

Also, "They banned it and their scene is still healthy" =/= Relevant

We can ban tons of stuff and the scene will still be healthy. Doesn't mean banning them would be warranted.

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.

Stop whining about the number 6. The sixth character is D3. And no one in their right mind would argue that D3's infinite on himself breaks his match-up against himself.

There's absolutely no reason to ban it against D3 since if it's a ditto, both sides can use it, thus, no one's getting the short end of the stick.

For the rest of the characters, Bowser's is a short-step CG that will eventually end. It's almost an infinite since D3 barely has to move forward, so most people count is an infinite. D3's chaingrab on DK is always an infinite.

D3's chaingrab on Luigi, Mario and Samus is only an infinite past 135% or so since before that, they can break out.

So, it's only two characters. For the other 4, it's either a ditto or something that is in no way broken or that breaks the match-up to hell.

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

This is not a good reason to ban things. Oh, there's this glitch that makes something better. Well, hello Snakedashing. Ban nao?

Ensures the loss of a stock at any % in the match & can be performed on any surface on the map.

NTSC Melee Sheik's d-throw (with maybe an f-tilt or two in there) chaingrab from 0-death unless she just grabbed you right at the edge of a stage says "Hello". I think Ganondorf could 0-death some characters, as well (with his chaingrab).

• 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

Wow. Just wow.

Again the argument "Has no disadvantage or fewer than X amount of neutral match-ups!" resurfaces. I won't touch it this time.

And wow at the inane reasoning of "Should not be banned altogether, but at most limited to dittos". Horrible, horrible reasoning. Either ban it altogether or don't ban it at all.

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

This is the type of criteria you want. No one with insight into how Competitive gaming works and who are of sound mind would agree.

We don't care that Competitive gaming isn't 100% fair. We don't care that you cannot always play as your favorite character and still stand a chance at winning. This is not what Competitive gaming is all about. If you want to be able to win as whoever and instill tons of bans to ensure that, go back to Casual gaming.

just wanted to say that melee, had unviable characters, yes, but they were unviable because they were actually bad characters, not just because they were really good characters, but fell victum to one excrusiatingly broken move.

Ness and Lucas would be pretty viable if it weren't for grab releases. "It's one broken 'move'!" was used as a call to ban it. Do you support this?

Bowser is still bad. DK is kinda viable. Bowser? Not so much. Anyone who disagrees with this is wrong. There, I said it.

also, Bum's region didnt ban it because of Bum, read the post at the top of this page, they banned because it was STUPID, UNFAIR, AND ANTI-COMPETITIVE! In the real world, things actually get banned for that.

In the real world, this would never be banned. Bum's region is the only part of a Competitive gaming community that has ever banned something like this, as far as I know.

One more thing, they only banned IC INFINITES, as in, the CGs that you could reverse direction with, the CGs that always kept you moving in the same direction seem to be perfectly fine.

Yes, and the question would be: Why? Even with the infinites unbanned, ICs are still only Mid Tier. Why nerf a mid tier character?

 

[Ace Of Flames]

He doesn't have it on enough characters for it to break the game, so it should stay.

If he had it on like 20 chars then it would be a problem.

 

[1048576]

I don't like how the pro-ban side wants to make infinited characters better than nearly infinited characters. Dedede/DK should be worse for DK than Pika/Fox is for Fox. D3 has an infinite. Pika has a 0-80 with a Thunderflip.If the pro-ban side has its way, DK/Dedede will be 65-35, while Pika/Fox will still be 90-10. Why not just ban all techniques that give one character an advantage over another while you're at it, guys? I mean, you're drawing a ridiculous, arbitrary line as to what matchup ratios are unacceptable, boosting those ratios, and making the 2nd worst actually the worst. It's stupid.

 

[Yuna]

I don't like how the pro-ban side wants to make infinited characters better than nearly infinited characters. Dedede/DK should be worse for DK than Pika/Fox is for Fox. D3 has an infinite. Pika has a 0-80 with a Thunderflip.If the pro-ban side has its way, DK/Dedede will be 65-35, while Pika/Fox will still be 90-10. Why not just ban all techniques that give one character an advantage over another while you're at it, guys? I mean, you're drawing a ridiculous, arbitrary line as to what matchup ratios are unacceptable, boosting those ratios, and making the 2nd worst actually the worst. It's stupid.

Unsurprisingly, I've been asking the pro-ban side this very question for the past 6+ months. Unsurprisingly yet, for the most part, the "defendants" have mostly dodged the question or given non-answers in return. I have yet to hear a valid answer to this.

 

[karthik_king]

Obviouslt there is no logical answer

 

[Flayl]

Unsurprisingly, I've been asking the pro-ban side this very question for the past 6+ months. Unsurprisingly yet, for the most part, the "defendants" have mostly dodged the question or given non-answers in return. I have yet to hear a valid answer to this.

That's because you ignored them, just like you do with anything that's relevant and isn't suited for your finicky page-long responses to trivialities.

Come on, even Umbreon ****ing stated why that argument has been run into the ground: The point is that Fox can do something, Bowser and Donkey Kong cannot. The point isn't to remove the worst matchups in the game, like many of the anti-ban like to repeat over and over, it's to fix a tactic that renders the mathcup literally impossible, not hard, impossible. As in it's not even a matchup.

More people would rather see MK banned, who isn't impossible, over a technique that has 0 non-broken applications. I hate you all.

 

[Jos]

It's like... pretend that there's an arbitrary rule at your chess club that if you wear a red shirt, you can attempt to kick anyone that wears glasses in the crotch. Out of the thirty-six members of your chess club, only six of them wear glasses. You always wear a red shirt. Some of these glasses players are naturally better against you, and others are not. There are two results to this overall:

1. Everytime you play against a person wearing glasses, you kick them in the crotch until they forfeit, unless they are amazingly good and manage to beat you within a few turns before they collapse on the ground, crying.
2. You actually play against these people and gain matchup experience against them, helping you to understand how to deal with their strategies, their quirks, etc. so that if the crotch-kicking tactic is banned in the future, although some of them might have advantages vs. you you can still pull through if you're skilled and smart enough.

Dedede's infinite is number one. Number two is what will be forced if Dedede's infinite is banned.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you guys?

After this post, the thread should have ended and the infinite should have been banned.

How can anyone argue with this?

Besides all of the other great points made (Mostly by anther) this just shows how ******** the infinite is.

"But it's only 6 characters!"

So what? There are people that main those 6 characters. Anyone that enjoys those 6 characters needs to switch in order to enjoy competitive play?

Since everyone at a tournament is "playing to win", if your main gets completely destroyed by an amazing Luigi player, and that is his best character...

What part of you chosing D3 and winning with no effort or knowledge of the character is fair?

 

[Buuman]

That's because you ignored them, just like you do with anything that's relevant and isn't suited for your finicky page-long responses to trivialities.

Come on, even Umbreon ****ing stated why that argument has been run into the ground: The point is that Fox can do something, Bowser and Donkey Kong cannot. The point isn't to remove the worst matchups in the game, like many of the anti-ban like to repeat over and over, it's to fix a tactic that renders the mathcup literally impossible, not hard, impossible. As in it's not even a matchup.

More people would rather see MK banned, who isn't impossible, over a technique that has 0 non-broken applications. I hate you all.

I agree with you man. Even as a dedede main I feel it's just pointless. In essence grabbing someone immobilizes a character for a short amount of time so you can rack up damage and throw them in a spot that will benefit you. Infinite grabbing someone is the same thing above without the "short amount of time part". It immobilizes them until they are high enough for an instant kill. If I could vote to ban this again...I would >,>

 

[metaXzero]

As been said, anyone come up with a way to ban this WITHOUT banning other things like IC infinite? The last page showed an attempt somewhere to ban that also lead to IC infinite ban...

 

[Yuna]

That's because you ignored them, just like you do with anything that's relevant and isn't suited for your finicky page-long responses to trivialities.

Funny, you must not read my posts properly because I have addressed them all.

Come on, even Umbreon ****ing stated why that argument has been run into the ground: The point is that Fox can do something, Bowser and Donkey Kong cannot. The point isn't to remove the worst matchups in the game, like many of the anti-ban like to repeat over and over, it's to fix a tactic that renders the mathcup literally impossible, not hard, impossible. As in it's not even a matchup.

Fox can do something, but it's not much. Statistically, it's still a virtually impossible-to-win match-up (at least against Pikachu).

And my question, which you or anyone from your side, has yet to answer is:
Why D3's infinite and not Fox's various BS? Fox's match-ups are still statistically impossible to win due to a single "broken" technique per match-up (locks, chaingrabs). Why fix this and not that?

And why do we have to ban it just because it makes the match-up impossible? Why? Why must we make every match-up possible? Where were you when NTSC Melee Sheik was chaingrabbing Bowser into Fair in that 10-0 match-up?

This one just happens to be worse. Why ban this but not the others? Where do you draw your arbitrary threshold?

 

[LegendofLink]

So what? There are people that main those 6 characters. Anyone that enjoys those 6 characters needs to switch in order to enjoy competitive play?

Since everyone at a tournament is "playing to win", if your main gets completely destroyed by an amazing Luigi player, and that is his best character...

What part of you chosing D3 and winning with no effort or knowledge of the character is fair?

That might be true if it was possible to be successful in today's tournament scene without counter-picking, but every character (except for maybe MK, but thats a different argument) has bad match-ups that are improved by counter-picking. Most players using the characters that are infinited by DDD are likely to switch against their other bad match-ups if they want to have a decent chance of winning. If the player using DDD is only competent enough to infinite those few characters, then switch characters and get an easy win. If he is competent enough to do well outside of those few match-ups then it comes down to the time tested battle of skill vs. skill.

 

[Yuna]

That might be true if it was possible to be successful in today's tournament scene without counter-picking, but every character (except for maybe MK, but thats a different argument) has bad match-ups that are improved by counter-picking. Most players using the characters that are infinited by DDD are likely to switch against their other bad match-ups if they want to have a decent chance of winning. If the player using DDD is only competent enough to infinite those few characters, then switch characters and get an easy win. If he is competent enough to do well outside of those few match-ups then it comes down to the time tested battle of skill vs. skill.

But you see, someone people don't want to counterpick.

Seriously, more than one person has come into this thread arguing that it's unfair that they are forced to counter-pick and that they don't want to have to do it.

 

[Jos]

every character (except for maybe MK, but thats a different argument) has bad match-ups that are improved by counter-picking. Most players using the characters that are infinited by DDD are likely to switch against their other bad match-ups if they want to have a decent chance of winning.

Very good point, but i feel the way I do because while there are other Bad matchups, there are no other "Impossible" (assuming the D3 knows what he's doing) matchups.

Hurts the game IMO, I just wonder what D3 gameplay against these chars would be if this sure fire simple 100% effective tactic wasn't availible.

 

[Yuna]

Very good point, but i feel the way I do because while there are other Bad matchups, there are no other "Impossible" (assuming the D3 knows what he's doing) matchups.

Hurts the game IMO, I just wonder what D3 gameplay against these chars would be if this sure fire simple 100% effective tactic wasn't availible.

Why does it hurt the game to have impossible match-ups? Plenty of those exist! No Competitive game has tanked because of them unless it was just one single character Impossibling everyone else.

Whether something hurts the game is very subjective. And the question is: Should we get rid of everything that hurts the game? 80-20s hurt the game (Pikachu vs. Fox). Random elements of any kind (Peach, D3, Game & Watch, Luigi, etc.) hurt the game (ban those moves/those characters!).

Where does the line of "This hurts the game" get drawn? It's just two match-ups getting the short end of the stick. Ouuuh!

 

[da K.I.D.]

fox gets countered by pikachu because
pikas attribute are such that they specifically beat all of foxs attributes in all aspects of the match

D3 counters DK because
D3 can get an infinite CG on him

thats the difference.

 

[Tero.]

Guys STOP discussing this ban ****, let it be.

"Should MK be banned"
"Should IC alternate throws be banned"
"Should DDD be banned"

srsly >_>

 

[Jos]

Why does it hurt the game to have impossible match-ups? Plenty of those exist! No Competitive game has tanked because of them unless it was just one single character Impossibling everyone else.

Whether something hurts the game is very subjective. And the question is: Should we get rid of everything that hurts the game? 80-20s hurt the game (Pikachu vs. Fox). Random elements of any kind (Peach, D3, Game & Watch, Luigi, etc.) hurt the game (ban those moves/those characters!).

Where does the line of "This hurts the game" get drawn? It's just two match-ups getting the short end of the stick. Ouuuh!

I've read through a lot of this thread, and I've watched multiple people argue with you. They made much better and smarter points then I have, and you still argued with them.

They supplied great retorts and you reply as if they've said nothing.

This will be the last time I address you, I don't know you, and I don't wish to have a conversation with you. It seems you are unable to recognize that others have valid points.

 

[Fletch]

Come on, even Umbreon ****ing stated why that argument has been run into the ground: The point is that Fox can do something, Bowser and Donkey Kong cannot. The point isn't to remove the worst matchups in the game, like many of the anti-ban like to repeat over and over, it's to fix a tactic that renders the mathcup literally impossible, not hard, impossible. As in it's not even a matchup.

More people would rather see MK banned, who isn't impossible, over a technique that has 0 non-broken applications. I hate you all.

Stop stating this matchup is "literally impossible", it is not at all. Probably the worst matchup in the game, but not impossible. And more people would rather see MK banned (I don't agree with it) because he affects a lot more characters than this infinite, and he over-centralizes the game more. It's not hard to see that.

After this post, the thread should have ended and the infinite should have been banned.

How can anyone argue with this?

Anyone can easily argue with this because there is no point in not wearing a red shirt. Those who wear glasses should play be playing to win, and maybe do something like get contacts. I can't believe I'm even responding to this stupid analogy, and I can't believe you actually think it has some merit.

 

[Fletch]

fox gets countered by pikachu because
pika can get an infinite CG on him

D3 counters DK because D3s attribute are such that they specifically beat all of DKs attributes in all aspects of the match

thats the difference.

See what I did there? I didn't bother putting the [sic]'s in because there would be too many.

 

[da K.I.D.]

one grab does not equal all aspect of the match.

pika cgs fox
pika out prioritises fox
pika recovers on fox
pika combos fox to hell and back
pika edgeguards fox like nobodys buisiness
believe it or not, pika outranges fox,

DK has quite a few advantages on D3 but D3 grabs him and the game's over...

thats the diference.

 

[pure_awesome]

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

To the best of my recollection, you didn't. Shockingly, you aren't the only person arguing on the anti-ban side.

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

I would, except that's not my point. At all.

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.

What is this "you" stuff? I didn't even want Metaknight banned. When I say "we", I mean we as a community. Some of us actually have a sense of community here, believe it or not.

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

Officals counters are not the same as personal counters. I know many people who bring out DK as their personal Metaknight counter. That doesn't mean he has an inherent advantage in the match-up. Which he doesn't.

You're arguing nothing.

 

[Fletch]

one grab does not equal all aspect of the match.

pika cgs fox
pika out prioritises fox
pika recovers on fox
pika combos fox to hell and back
pika edgeguards fox like nobodys buisiness
believe it or not, pika outranges fox,

DK has quite a few advantages on D3 but D3 grabs him and the game's over...

thats the diference.

...

D3 has a lot of these same advantages on the characters he infinites as well, and one grab on Fox from Pika has the same effect as one grab on DK as D3. I don't know what you are arguing.

 

[Pi]

Nobody is going to change their stance.

Why would they?

Why would you choose to be wrong on the internet when you could just as simply choose to be right?

Screw logic, screw valid arguments, **** all opposition -- you're right and that's all that matters!
Aint it?


Even if you disprove one of their points it's never what they meant.
And if it was they'd never in a million years acknowledge it.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Nobody is going to change their stance.

Why would they?

Why would you choose to be wrong on the internet when you could just as simply choose to be right?

Screw logic, screw valid arguments, **** all opposition -- you're right and that's all that matters!
Aint it?


Even if you disprove one of their points it's never what they meant.
And if it was they'd never in a million years acknowledge it.

it took you wayyy to long to realise this, seeing as I told you this as soon as you got here.

 

[Yuna]

fox gets countered by pikachu because
pikas attribute are such that they specifically beat all of foxs attributes in all aspects of the match

Please tell us why we shouldn't ban the chaingrab to Thunderflip to help alleviate Fox's match-up against Pikachu. Because, really, what else does Pikachu have in the way of "attributes" that randomly destroys Fox?

D3 counters DK because
D3 can get an infinite CG on him

How is this not an attribute?

I've read through a lot of this thread, and I've watched multiple people argue with you. They made much better and smarter points then I have, and you still argued with them.

They supplied great retorts and you reply as if they've said nothing.

This will be the last time I address you, I don't know you, and I don't wish to have a conversation with you. It seems you are unable to recognize that others have valid points.

Wow, great refutation of none of my points! The reason why I've "disregarded" the others is because while they sounds like valid points to you, they aren't valid to anyone with insight into how Competitive gaming works.

"It's unfair!", "No one should have a guaranteed win" and "It's just one move which breaks the match-up!" has never been reasons for banning things.

To the best of my recollection, you didn't. Shockingly, you aren't the only person arguing on the anti-ban side.

Fine, quote 3 people or possibly even one person (who isn't a n00b, nameless nobody or an idiot) who has argued that it's the only reason. You spoke as if several people ("to the anti-ban side") have argued that when no one has (to my knowledge).

What is this "you" stuff? I didn't even want Metaknight banned. When I say "we", I mean we as a community. Some of us actually have a sense of community here, believe it or not.

The community is not a hive mind. Each member is actually capable of individual thought (even if some of those members should not be allowed to think individually). And the community disagrees on many things.

"You" = "Your side"

Officals counters are not the same as personal counters. I know many people who bring out DK as their personal Metaknight counter.

Nobody cares. Nobody cares if some people bring out DK because they feel that to them, DK is the best choice for MK! It's not a "counter" at all! It's just someone's counterpick.

Some people counterpick losing match-ups. Some people counterpick winning match-ups. Some people counterpick on random. It is irrelevant. Nobody cares if some people bring DK out as a personal choice against MK.

That doesn't mean he has an inherent advantage in the match-up. Which he doesn't.

Then why is it relevant? Why would it be relevant whether or not some people bring out Donkey Kong because of personal preference? Wow, people like playing as DK! Quickly, ban things which make him unviable!

You're arguing nothing.

I was thrown off by your lack of logic.

Stuff.

Try using valid arguments that are compatible with Competitive gaming once in a while. Also, read up on how Competitive gaming works.

It's not fair. It never has been.

 

[gantrain05]

there are "fair" competetive games yuna, you should play some starcraft maybe then you'll see some balance in a competetive game, bottom line is smash wasn't meant to be competetive, if we want it to be, we have to change the rules, thats the reason we ban things. You seem to think that because "so what if so-and-so destroys this character and infinites make the match unwinnable" that it should be allowed because competetive gaming isn't "fair" but in GOOD competetive games there are patches and modifications made to CREATE balance, so why not create an equal battleground?

 

[Jos]

Anyone can easily argue with this because there is no point in not wearing a red shirt. Those who wear glasses should play be playing to win, and maybe do something like get contacts. I can't believe I'm even responding to this stupid analogy, and I can't believe you actually think it has some merit.

In this case the "red shirt" is a character. And there are plenty of reasons to not play a certain character.

Again, the "Glasses" represent characters. So basically saying change your character.

We know that not being Luigi will prevent Luigi from being infinited...that's most definately not a valid argument.

This is basically a debate about Being forced to counterpick Vs. Not being forced to counterpick if you think about it.

 

[pure_awesome]

Fine, quote 3 people or possibly even one person (who isn't a n00b, nameless nobody or an idiot) who has argued that it's the only reason. You spoke as if several people ("to the anti-ban side") have argued that when no one has (to my knowledge).

No.

The community is not a hive mind. Each member is actually capable of individual thought (even if some of those members should not be allowed to think individually). And the community disagrees on many things.

The community considered a ban. If you disagree with that sentence, I can't help you. We debated. The SBR debated. Ultimately it was decided that he would not be banned. If there was no consideration, there would have been no debate.

Nobody cares. Nobody cares if some people bring out DK because they feel that to them, DK is the best choice for MK! It's not a "counter" at all! It's just someone's counterpick.

Good. So then you can see why me saying you could still bring out DK to counterpick Metaknight is a perfectly valid example of why DK doesn't become completely useless. After all, it's someone's counterpick.

Then why is it relevant? Why would it be relevant whether or not some people bring out Donkey Kong because of personal preference? Wow, people like playing as DK! Quickly, ban things which make him unviable!

If you stop spewing nonsense all over the boards for thirty seconds and went to re-read what I said, you would see that my entire point in saying that was agreeing with you and saying that it's fine for DK to become a counterpick character.
But no, you'd much rather argue with the points you want to argue, so why not just pretend I'm saying that?

I was thrown off by your lack of logic.

Or, you just instantaneously jump to the conclusion that if someone posts something that even slightly disagrees with what you're saying, he's attacking you personally.

 

[Yuna]

there are "fair" competetive games yuna, you should play some starcraft maybe then you'll see some balance in a competetive game, bottom line is smash wasn't meant to be competetive, if we want it to be, we have to change the rules, thats the reason we ban things. You seem to think that because "so what if so-and-so destroys this character and infinites make the match unwinnable" that it should be allowed because competetive gaming isn't "fair" but in GOOD competetive games there are patches and modifications made to CREATE balance, so why not create an equal battleground?

Competitive gaming is not about maximizing fairness or arbitrarily and artifically changing match-ups.

If the game company patches the game, yay. If not, no Competitive scene has walked into a game and randomly banned things that were character-specific just to randomly change that match-up.

Just because games can be fair does not mean they must be fair. Competitive gaming has never been about maximizing or ensuring "fairness". Just to ensure Competitive viability. Tell me, can you name me on single game which has banned something such as this?

No.

That's your answer? So you admit you spouted total baloney?

The community considered a ban. If you disagree with that sentence, I can't help you. We debated. The SBR debated. Ultimately it was decided that he would not be banned. If there was no consideration, there would have been no debate.

The community considers and does a lot of things. The community also considered not banning MK and ultimately decided not to. The community is divided and holds "conflicting" opinions if you look at it as a whole.

It's no hive mind which agrees 100% or even 75% with everyone else.

Good. So then you can see why me saying you could still bring out DK to counterpick Metaknight is a perfectly valid example of why DK doesn't become completely useless. After all, it's someone's counterpick.

Because they like him. And every character has some people who like them. Doesn't mean we need to make every character viable.

If you stop spewing nonsense all over the boards for thirty seconds and went to re-read what I said, you would see that my entire point in saying that was agreeing with you and saying that it's fine for DK to become a counterpick character.
But no, you'd much rather argue with the points you want to argue, so why not just pretend I'm saying that?

I'm arguing against your logic. It's irrelevant if some people like DK and want to play as him. People like Fox too. Ban Pikachu's BS?

Or, you just instantaneously jump to the conclusion that if someone posts something that even slightly disagrees with what you're saying, he's attacking you personally.

No, when did I ever say that? When, during this exchange, have I even implied that I think you've attacked me personally?

 

[cutter]

Starcraft is definately close to being a balanced game, but it is not perfect either. You just cannot acheive equality when you have three different races that are completely different from each other. You can get CLOSE, but not exactly equal.

Plus, you have different maps which favor Protoss/Zerg/Terrans in some way or another.

 

[pure_awesome]

That's your answer? So you admit you spouted total baloney?

Well it's hard. You asked me to go find one person who wasn't an idiot, who said that overcentalization was the all-encompassing ban criteria. All I could find was this, on page 241, only two pages before my post.

"It over-centralizes the game" is pretty much the universal ban criteria.

So I suppose that yes, I did spout total baloney, since this person is clearly an idiot.

The community considers and does a lot of things. The community also considered not banning MK and ultimately decided not to. The community is divided and holds "conflicting" opinions if you look at it as a whole.

It's no hive mind which agrees 100% or even 75% with everyone else.

Good to hear you agree with me.

Because they like him. And every character has some people who like them. Doesn't mean we need to make every character viable.
I'm arguing against your logic. It's irrelevant if some people like DK and want to play as him. People like Fox too. Ban Pikachu's BS?

Please explain to me how you managed to take me saying 'it's fine for DK to become a counterpick character' and turn it into 'DK mainers should not be forced to counterpick.'

No, when did I ever say that? When, during this exchange, have I even implied that I think you've attacked me personally?

I'm not going to argue whether or not you think I'm attacking you, because we both know it's impossible for me to prove it short of you saying "I think you're attacking me personally."

 

[person701]

I'm jumping into this debate 3800+ posts later, so here's my input.

I'm sure this has already been said, but IC's wobbling in Melee was usually allowed until a certain %. We could do this with D3. I say just ban it. We all know Brawl is being played more online and how exactly can you directly speak with someone over that midmatch? The person who breaks the "limit" says "Oh sorry, I forgot." Ban

I know this small little comment won't influence much though. I need to play Brawl again.