Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[WastingPenguins]

a)The infinite does have non-broken uses against Mario, Samus and Luigi

The infinite has non-broken uses against characters who... it can't be used on? We already agreed that Mario, Samus and Luigi can escape the infinite, didn't we? That means that they aren't subject to the infinite. It also means that the infinite still has zero non-broken applications.

Unless I've misunderstood. Are there certain situations where Mario, Samus and Luigi can't escape from the infinite?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I never said that DDD was unviable against half the cast. I said he was unviable against the characters who could not only not be chaingrabbed by him, but also had a reliable way of setting up their infinite. He's still an ultimate counterpick against all the characters he could chaingrab, and he's still got a fair fight against those he can't chaingrab, if they can't infinite him in return.




Diddy's banana lock is much harder to set up than DDD's chaingrab, so DDD eliminates Diddy too.

But yes, you do get that triangle, given that Pikachu. But that's essentially all that you get, since every other character would be a dangerous choice (it just so happens that most of the characters that DDD can't chaingrab are ones who don't have a wall infinite of any sort.)

You'd essentially be taking a huge risk by picking those other characters. You give up ability to abuse the stage in order to gain immunity to DDDs chaingrab, but by doing so you make yourself susceptible to any character that can abuse the stage.

Thus the metagame would devolve to these 3 characters, and in the event of a double blind pick (if any of these were neutral stages) then you'd still have a 33% chance of running into your hard counter, with the counterpicks from then on already being pre determined (thanks to advanced slob counterpicks). The winner in this case is always determined by the first match, because in every scenario your opponent will be able to hard counter you on thier counterpick.

Overcentralizing yet?

No, it would not devolve into 3 characters if there are eight characters that can be viable. Besides, those stages with walk offs and walls would not be neutral because they do favor certain characters above others significantly. However, the game is STILL balanced because there are rock-paper-scissor matchups - no character significantly dominates all the others enough to always be the best choice. In addition, these tier matchups only qualified in the matches with walk-off edges or walls - you could still main whoever you wanted in the neutral and when you counterpick your opponent.

I propose it is inconsistent to ban these stages AND follow the guidelines of Sirlin and competitive gaming - doing so was an attempt to "fix" something that was not broken to make the game better.

 

[JohnAnon]

Anything infinite should be banned. Don't give me that "Hurp it takes skills so it's the victim's fault." That doesn't justify giving the abuser a distinctive advantage.

Hell, I'd be against IC's grab combos, too, but at least that's easy to screw up.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Anything infinite should be banned. Don't give me that "Hurp it takes skills so it's the victim's fault." That doesn't justify giving the abuser a distinctive advantage.

Hell, I'd be against IC's grab combos, too, but at least that's easy to screw up.

LOL at the blatant contradictions. first, you say skill DOESN'T matter, then you say IC's infinites don't count because it's easy to screw up >_>

anyways, no skill doesn't matter in banning something. whether or not it breaks the game as a whole is what does. and the infinites aren't even close to breaking the game/over-centralizing.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

LOL at the blatant contradictions. first, you say skill DOESN'T matter, then you say IC's infinites don't count because it's easy to screw up >_>

anyways, no skill doesn't matter in banning something. whether or not it breaks the game as a whole is what does. and the infinites aren't even close to breaking the game/over-centralizing.

Neither are the stages with walls and walkoff edges.

 

[Yuna]

Well, overcentralization is sought to be prevented so that there is a more rewarding experience than if it were to happen. I suppose the difference would be whether it's the most rewarding experience as opposed to being rewarding at all, but this still kinda bugs me.

You see, I specifically said that the rules are not written to create the "most rewarding" experience. This means that the rules are not written to maximize "reward".

Which means that we won't ban every little thing that could be viewed as rewarding were it banned. This in no ways means the rules are never ever written to make the game more rewarding. Not over-centralizing the game can be argued as meaning more rewarding than an over-centralized game.

So stop trying to strawman/twist my words/try to confuse the less clear-headed. I said what I said. You clearly know what I meant, judging by your reply.

OH come on. I think I gave myself more credit in these last thirty pages. Making it 'more fair' is not at all what I'm about. I'm considering this purely from the perspective of making the field more competitive, as in, trying to figure out which groups of tourneys I wanted to go to if my goal was to face the most challenging competition over time.

Banning things to artifically get rid of huge weaknesses on the part of characters with huge weaknesses, in essence giving them a handicap = More Competitive?

I get that you see a lot of crap 'arguments' that look like what I just said, but please read me seriously.
I don't care about making more characters viable. At the time of that writing, I considered viability of characters a means to a diverse field, and as such, of utility to increasing degree of competition.

See, this is also an old argument. We just haven't seen it around here for a while.

The rules are not written to maximize "diversity", either. They are written to prevent the minimization of diversity (i.e. over-centralization). But we're not banning stuff to make the game more "diverse".

And the question would be: What would the threshold be? What would qualify as making the game more diverse if we ban it? Do we stop at "diversifying" a match-up once it's 80-20? 70-30? 60-40? 50-50?

How do we do this for characters that just suck in general? Captain Falcon has a crap recovery. Banning edgeguarding against him would make him a much better character. No edgeguarding CF? No edgehogging tether recoveries?

And I thought I meant 'rewarding experience' in just the sense of 'the rewards of the competitive game which are precisely the reason competitive gaming communities exist, because there is a common sensation of enjoying. . . contest, of enjoying competition, and because of this, and in (functional) worship of this end, do we think very carefully on deciding what to shape our games into, and form normative judgments of the scrub, and so on, because what we are trying to build is a system to maximize competition.'

Did you just argue we should ban the infinite to make the game more "fun"?

Or have I completely misunderstood the thesis of competitive gaming?

Competitive gaming is Competitive gaming. We play games Competitively. What is enjoyable for one person is not necessarily enjoyable for someone else.

Me, I find it highly, eh, not-enjoyable, that the community has descended into Ban Trigger Happy La La Land where things need to be "Fair", "Diverse" and "Fun" and if they aren't, well, bring in the Ban Hammer! A metagame where we banned D3's infinite would make me enjoy the Competitive scene less because of my values and principles and my view that we would have sunked to low depths of Scrubbinness. Subjective stuff!

No point arguing this. Yuna has it handled. *leaves*

Hey look, Captain, another D3 who's against the ban! Important stuff!

Wait, what?

There are VARIOUS chaingrabs, cargo throws, wall-infinities/all that stuff. I don't believe your arguement is all that viable, simply because so many characters have those options, overcentralization would be impossible.

How would overcentralization caused by so many tactics break the game? It's like saying stages without walkoff edges break the game with their emphasis on off-stage combat.

1) There are various cargo throws?
2) You're not reading what I'm actually saying. There are few very characters who have chaingrabs that are viable for chaingrabbing people off the stage (at least not chaingrabs that work on the majority of the characters), not everyone has a jab lock (like, 12 or something have a jab lock), but that's not the point.

The point is that with walls and walk-offs around, the metagame would be over-centralized around the walls and walk-offs. We'd camp the walk-offs, we'd develop our metagame around the walk-offs, walk-offs would be the center of the metagame.

People would pick one of the (not as many as you seem to think) characters with viable ways of walk-off killing people and then run around and concentrate on abusing the walk-offs.

The metagame would be over-centralized around the walk-off.

The game centralizes around a lot of characters with tactics that can work on those stages. Characters that become popular are those who are viable on both stages with and without walkoff edges and walls. There is no reason to ban these stages that is consistent with the understanding of what constitutes a ban in competitive gaming, simply because while those tactics will centralize the game, there are so many of them, no particular character will be overcentralizing, and the game itself will be about the ability to set up and pull off these many, many combos, rather than what it currently is.

I have no reply to this. You're talking out of your tuchas again.

D3 is already 4th best in the game. Give him walk-offs and walls and watch the metagame suffer and revolve around him. Doesn't matter if there are some others who can abuse walk-offs and walls as well. He just abuses them so well and he just chaingrabs most other characters who are good with walk-offs and walls, anyway.

Wow. You make so many assumptions in there. If D3 is unviable against half the cast, he can't make the other half unviable against himself, because he himself is unviable.

D3 is not unviable against anyone (I think). His worst match-up is a 70-30, IIRC. And there's, like, one of them.

much like MK is the safest option

MK has nothing on walk-offs.

Pikachu counters D3

O RLY?

D3 counters Marth

In what alternate universe? Stop talking out of your **** behind! Do you even know the match-ups? I very much doubt you do. Have you read up on any of the things you throw around as "facts"?

Fact: D3's match-up against Marth is a 55:45. Read that: 55-45.

What is a 55-45? Most credible people (i.e., not some of the people in this thread) count 55-45s as even match-ups (I certainly do). Some wouldn't. However, no one credible would ever claim a 55-45 to be a counter.

In addtion, there is still the option of non-walk-off stages (typically neutral), which means Pikachu is not the best choice in the first matchup.

Yeah, the problem is that there are so many walk-offs, you cannot stage strike them all. So you would have to face a walk-off should the opponent choose one for a counterpick. Which means that in order to win, one would have to use a character and tactics viable on walk-offs to counter walk-off-loving characters.

Thus, the game would become over-centralized around walk-offs. Also, you're talking out of your tuchas. I just wanted to reiterate it.

"D3 is a Marth counter" my tuchas!

Even if it were entirely walk-off edges and walled stages, there is nothing wrong with the metagame you described. It is competitively consistent with what is appropriate.

We could unban the various circle stages while we'e at it! Then it'd be a game of running away from each other and running the clock out while attempting to laser each other for more damage! There's nothing really wrong with that either, it'd just be boring!

Also, I just have to repeat this:
The Halloween Captain just claimed that King DeDeDe is a Marth counter!

THC, please stop talking about things you have absolutely no clue of. At least not in threads I frequent. Because I will undoubtedly read it and feel compelled to mock you openly for it.

Stop talking out of your behind. You might think that you'll get away with it, that the ignorant masses who don't know any better will just assume that you have a clue and that what you say is true. However, I will be around.

I will be ticked off by your incessant need to spew bovine manure about things you know nothing about and I will have to give you a solid verbal ***-kicking for it.

Again, I must ask you, where do you get all of these notions from? Either you're lying, making stuff up as you go or you actually believe the stuff you say. And if it's the 3rd option, why the hell do you believe in it?! Where the hell are your sources?! Where did you get the facts that you base crap like this from? Where could you possibly have gotten it?

Are you just using flawed sources or are you actually talking out of your tuchas every other (and sometimes every two out of three) post?

And just to drive the point home:
The Halloween Captain just claimed that King DeDeDe is a Marth counter!

 

[RDK]

I love the smell of someone getting called out in the morning.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Neither are the stages with walls and walkoff edges.

lolwut?

if wall/walk-offs were allowed the metagame WOULD over-centralize around D3, actually.
for a couple reasons.
1. he's already a good character, so if opponent CP's a different stage he wouldn't be screwed.
2. no hard counters.

sure, there are other characters who can wall-infinite/walk-off, but D3 does it as well as any and has advantages #1 and #2. any smart player would see that he's the natural choice for best character. therefore over-centralizing.....

and anyways, since if it's allowed, it becomes "pick character that can abuse walk-offs or lose". it is over-centralizing.

 

[Yuna]

Attempt to debate against The Halloween Captain

Did you or did you not just read that THC claimed that King DeDeDe is a Marth-counter?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

You see, I specifically said that the rules are not written to create the "most rewarding" experience. This means that the rules are not written to maximize "reward".

Which means that we won't ban every little thing that could be viewed as rewarding were it banned. This in no ways means the rules are never ever written to make the game more rewarding. Not over-centralizing the game can be argued as meaning more rewarding than an over-centralized game.

So stop trying to strawman/twist my words/try to confuse the less clear-headed. I said what I said. You clearly know what I meant, judging by your reply.


Banning things to artifically get rid of huge weaknesses on the part of characters with huge weaknesses, in essence giving them a handicap = More Competitive?


See, this is also an old argument. We just haven't seen it around here for a while.

The rules are not written to maximize "diversity", either. They are written to prevent the minimization of diversity (i.e. over-centralization). But we're not banning stuff to make the game more "diverse".

And the question would be: What would the threshold be? What would qualify as making the game more diverse if we ban it? Do we stop at "diversifying" a match-up once it's 80-20? 70-30? 60-40? 50-50?

How do we do this for characters that just suck in general? Captain Falcon has a crap recovery. Banning edgeguarding against him would make him a much better character. No edgeguarding CF? No edgehogging tether recoveries?


Did you just argue we should ban the infinite to make the game more "fun"?


Competitive gaming is Competitive gaming. We play games Competitively. What is enjoyable for one person is not necessarily enjoyable for someone else.

Me, I find it highly, eh, not-enjoyable, that the community has descended into Ban Trigger Happy La La Land where things need to be "Fair", "Diverse" and "Fun" and if they aren't, well, bring in the Ban Hammer! A metagame where we banned D3's infinite would make me enjoy the Competitive scene less because of my values and principles and my view that we would have sunked to low depths of Scrubbinness. Subjective stuff!


Hey look, Captain, another D3 who's against the ban! Important stuff!


1) There are various cargo throws?
2) You're not reading what I'm actually saying. There are few very characters who have chaingrabs that are viable for chaingrabbing people off the stage (at least not chaingrabs that work on the majority of the characters), not everyone has a jab lock (like, 12 or something have a jab lock), but that's not the point.

The point is that with walls and walk-offs around, the metagame would be over-centralized around the walls and walk-offs. We'd camp the walk-offs, we'd develop our metagame around the walk-offs, walk-offs would be the center of the metagame.

People would pick one of the (not as many as you seem to think) characters with viable ways of walk-off killing people and then run around and concentrate on abusing the walk-offs.

The metagame would be over-centralized around the walk-off.


I have no reply to this. You're talking out of your tuchas again.

D3 is already 4th best in the game. Give him walk-offs and walls and watch the metagame suffer and revolve around him. Doesn't matter if there are some others who can abuse walk-offs and walls as well. He just abuses them so well and he just chaingrabs most other characters who are good with walk-offs and walls, anyway.


D3 is not unviable against anyone (I think). His worst match-up is a 70-30, IIRC. And there's, like, one of them.


MK has nothing on walk-offs.


O RLY?


In what alternate universe? Stop talking out of your **** behind! Do you even know the match-ups? I very much doubt you do. Have you read up on any of the things you throw around as "facts"?

Fact: D3's match-up against Marth is a 55:45. Read that: 55-45.

What is a 55-45? Most credible people (i.e., not some of the people in this thread) count 55-45s as even match-ups (I certainly do). Some wouldn't. However, no one credible would ever claim a 55-45 to be a counter.


Yeah, the problem is that there are so many walk-offs, you cannot stage strike them all. So you would have to face a walk-off should the opponent choose one for a counterpick. Which means that in order to win, one would have to use a character and tactics viable on walk-offs to counter walk-off-loving characters.

Thus, the game would become over-centralized around walk-offs. Also, you're talking out of your tuchas. I just wanted to reiterate it.

"D3 is a Marth counter" my tuchas!


We could unban the various circle stages while we'e at it! Then it'd be a game of running away from each other and running the clock out while attempting to laser each other for more damage! There's nothing really wrong with that either, it'd just be boring!

Also, I just have to repeat this:
The Halloween Captain just claimed that King DeDeDe is a Marth counter!

THC, please stop talking about things you have absolutely no clue of. At least not in threads I frequent. Because I will undoubtedly read it and feel compelled to mock you openly for it.

Stop talking out of your behind. You might think that you'll get away with it, that the ignorant masses who don't know any better will just assume that you have a clue and that what you say is true. However, I will be around.

I will be ticked off by your incessant need to spew bovine manure about things you know nothing about and I will have to give you a solid verbal ***-kicking for it.

Again, I must ask you, where do you get all of these notions from? Either you're lying, making stuff up as you go or you actually believe the stuff you say. And if it's the 3rd option, why the hell do you believe in it?! Where the hell are your sources?! Where did you get the facts that you base crap like this from? Where could you possibly have gotten it?

Are you just using flawed sources or are you actually talking out of your tuchas every other (and sometimes every two out of three) post?

And just to drive the point home:
The Halloween Captain just claimed that King DeDeDe is a Marth counter!

D3 might be a Marth counter on stages with walk-off edges.

Besides, how can a game be overcentralized around a method of playing it? That's like saying Melee was overcentralized around ledge-guarding and ledge guarding should be banned. Even if there are too many people picking those stages, SO WHAT?

P.S. I believe what I said - To ban stages with walk-off edges/walls is inconsistent with Sirlin and the general rules that govern bans in competitive gaming.

 

[RDK]

D3 might be a Marth counter on stages with walk-off edges.

Besides, how can a game be overcentralized around a method of playing it? That's like saying Melee was overcentralized around ledge-guarding and ledge guarding should be banned. even if there are too many people picking those stages, SO WHAT?

P.S. I believe what I said - To ban stages with walk-off edges/walls is inconsistent with Sirlin and the general rules that govern bans in competitive gaming.

Yeah, and the fact that everyone can ledgeguard has nothing to do with it.

That's not overcentralizing the game.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Did you or did you not just read that THC claimed that King DeDeDe is a Marth-counter?

i guess i must have missed that the first time he posted it. but i couldn't have missed your post xD. anyways i play marth and i personally believe it's 55-45 in D3's favor. definitely not "counter".

D3 might be a Marth counter on stages with walk-off edges.

Besides, how can a game be overcentralized around a method of playing it? That's like saying Melee was overcentralized around ledge-guarding and ledge guarding should be banned. Even if there are too many people picking those stages, SO WHAT?

P.S. I believe what I said - To ban stages with walk-off edges/walls is inconsistent with Sirlin and the general rules that govern bans in competitive gaming.

lol now it's "might be" huh?
if you yourself didn't really believe it, why did you state it as fact in the first place?
i don't see how it is inconsistent, it over-centralizes on walk-offs >_>
the ledge-guarding example is stupid. if every character could abuse walk-offs that worked on everyone, then it would be a "method of playing". but as of now, only a select few can do it, therefore over-centralizing....

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Yeah, and the fact that everyone can ledgeguard has nothing to do with it.

That's not overcentralizing the game.

True, but some characters are much easier to ledge-guard than others.

Compare Pikachu to Fox.

Likewise, some characters get kills with walls and walk-offs much more easily than others.

EDIT: XxBlackxX - I was refering specifically to stages with walk-off edges concerning Marth. Maybe walls.

EDIT2: "select few?"

There were eight characters mentioned. That is more than the entire viable cast of some games. Not only that, but they can only do it when specific stages are selected.

 

[XxBlackxX]

True, but some characters are much easier to ledge-guard than others.

Compare Pikachu to Fox.

Likewise, some characters get kills with walls and walk-offs much more easily than others.

EDIT: XxBlackxX - I was refering specifically to stages with walk-off edges concerning Marth. Maybe walls.

red-so? everyone can do it to an extent. NOT everyone, not even close, can abuse walk-offs.
blue- o rly? someone who can abuse both walk-offs and walls have an advantage over someone who can't! this isn't obvious at all!

if anything, i think what you said actually proves that walk-offs over-centralize >_>

 

[Yuna]

D3 might be a Marth counter on stages with walk-off edges.

Then we could argue whether or not Pikachu really gets countered by Marth on walk-offs and walled stages because Pikachu excels more at them than Marth. Much more.

Besides, how can a game be overcentralized around a method of playing it?

Why wouldn't it be able to?

That's like saying Melee was overcentralized around ledge-guarding and ledge guarding should be banned. Even if there are too many people picking those stages, SO WHAT?

Because we view it as detrimental to Competitive play. And it would be something ever-present, something constantly concentrated on. The metagame would revolve around it (for counterpicks). It's not like edgeguarding, which was just a major factor.

This would be the factor.

P.S. I believe what I said - To ban stages with walk-off edges/walls is inconsistent with Sirlin and the general rules that govern bans in competitive gaming.

Sirlin does not dictate how the world of Competitive gaming works. Also, please quote us where he says things that go against the banning of stages.

1) Saying that this only applies in 6/740 matchups is a fallacy.

1) Who said 740? It's 780.

Why? Because of counterpicking and DDD's popularity. If all characters were randomly picked by both parties, then this argument would be valid. However, DDD is rather popular, making the odds of your opponent being DDD much more likely. Also, because of counterpicks, choosing any of these 6 characters would compel the opponent to pick DDD. For that game, this brings the probability of the opponent choosing DDD closer to 734/740.

Do you possess any shred of logic, at all? Do you know what a match-up is? No matter how popular D3 is or how likely you're going to get him as a counterpick, it will still only be 5 out of 780 match-ups.

The "Slippery-Slope" effect could be avoided very simply: Alter the rules so that DDD cannot use the throw in question more than (insert arbitrary number here) times in a row against the 6 characters. If you only ban the maneuver when there is a possibility of an inescapable 0~death combo, then the slope becomes a lot less slippery.

And then the question would be:
Why this number? And what of all of the other infinites, quasi-infinites, locks and chaingrabs? Should they all adhere to this number as well?

3) Claiming that the CG should be kept because "the characters aren't viable in a tourney anyway" is a logical fallacy because the character's tier placement is irrelevant.

No one credible is making that argument. It's a counter-argument to the claim that the Sucky 5 would magically all become viable were the infinite banned.

The assumption that this argument is based on is that the infinite chain-grab makes these characters useless against DDD.

Various things make various characters useless against certain other characters. Ban?

Saying "it only effects 6 characters, so it isn't grounds for banning" is purely subjective. Indeed, I would say that 2 characters is too much, but that is subjective as well.

The difference here is that nobody would care about your opinion.

Okay, I'm done for now. Respond, please.

If I'm being overly harsh, it might be because you somehow managed to misread 5/780 as 6/780 and then claim that the fact that D3 is popular makes it 769/780.

You showed yourself lacking in both reading comprehension and logic.

The infinite has non-broken uses against characters who... it can't be used on? We already agreed that Mario, Samus and Luigi can escape the infinite, didn't we? That means that they aren't subject to the infinite. It also means that the infinite still has zero non-broken applications.

Unless I've misunderstood. Are there certain situations where Mario, Samus and Luigi can't escape from the infinite?

At a certain point, they can no longer escape from it. At that point, Uthrow and/or Bthrow will KO them.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

red-so? everyone can do it to an extent. NOT everyone, not even close, can abuse walk-offs.
blue- o rly? someone who can abuse both walk-offs and walls have an advantage over someone who can't! this isn't obvious at all!

if anything, i think what you said actually proves that walk-offs over-centralize >_>

Marth does have tools for manipulating these stages.

Besides, how do you define "overcentralizing?" I think that the competitive standard of "overcentralization" allows these banned stages, as they do not make the game "unplayable," and a large enough number of characters are still viable to allow for these stages, especially since these stages will not always be selected - as a requirement of the double blind, you would still be required to play on neutral stages, which these are not.

 

[RDK]

True, but some characters are much easier to ledge-guard than others.

Compare Pikachu to Fox.

Likewise, some characters get kills with walls and walk-offs much more easily than others.

Holy crap, that sounds a lot like....OMG, isn't that how matchups work?

Imagine that. God forbid a character be at a slight disadvantage. The rest of the metagame must be blasted to hell.

 

[Yuna]

Besides, how do you define "overcentralizing?" I think that the competitive standard of "overcentralization" allows these banned stages, as they do not make the game "unplayable," and a large enough number of characters are still viable to allow for these stages, especially since these stages will not always be selected - as a requirement of the double blind, you would still be required to play on neutral stages, which these are not.

In what alternate universe does the term "Over-centralizing" equal "Unplayable"? Stop claiming to how the inner workings of Competitive gaming when so you clearly do not.

We not ban things merely if they making the game "unplayable". What is that, anyway? Who are you say that the game wouldn't be unplayable if the metagame revolve around who could abuse the walls and walk-offs the most?

 

[WastingPenguins]

At a certain point, they can no longer escape from it. At that point, Uthrow and/or Bthrow will KO them.

So at the point at which a grab COULD lead into the infinite, that same grab could kill them instantly.

I'm not sure I'd call that a non-broken application. I'm not really inclined to call it an application at all. It actually sounds more like stalling than anything else.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Then we could argue whether or not Pikachu really gets countered by Marth on walk-offs and walled stages because Pikachu excels more at them than Marth. Much more.


Why wouldn't it be able to?


Because we view it as detrimental to Competitive play. And it would be something ever-present, something constantly concentrated on. The metagame would revolve around it (for counterpicks). It's not like edgeguarding, which was just a major factor.

This would be the factor.


Sirlin does not dictate how the world of Competitive gaming works. Also, please quote us where he says things that go against the banning of stages.

I do not actually know what sirlin said about banning stages, just what he said about bans in general.

The game is concentrated on stage selection - SO WHAT? The game is perfectly playable, and there are several different available stages and characters. The game would revolve around tactics for those stages, but no one stage would be the only choice, and no one or even three characters would completely dominate.

 

[Yuna]

I do not actually know what sirlin said about banning stages, just what he said about bans in general.

Yes. And I asked you to please quote Sirlin where what he says makes a case against stage bans.

The game is concentrated on stage selection

No, the metagame would be over-centralized around walk-offs and walls specifically. And D3 would rule.

SO WHAT? The game is perfectly playable

Did I or did I just not say that we do not ban only if the game becomes unplayable unless we ban it? Try reading people's posts once in while before quoting them and replying to them.

and there are several different available stages and characters.

Name some who would still be viable against D3.

The game would revolve around tactics for those stages, but no one stage would be the only choice, and no one or even three characters would completely dominate.

D3 would dominate. With Pikachu a close 2nd. MK and Marth get scewed over by the walk-offs and walls while they gain nothing big themselves.

 

[Uffe]

Well it looks like nobody really wanted to respond to what I had to say. So if you don't ban the IC's chain grab first, then I know what my vote on the D3 chain grabbing is.

 

[Yuna]

Well it looks like nobody really wanted to respond to what I had to say. So if you don't ban the IC's chain grab first, then I know what my vote on the D3 chain grabbing is.

1) You didn't really say much of substance.
2) http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6081611&postcount=2987

 

[The Halloween Captain]

For Yuna:

^^And yet there are very, very few characters that can actually combo into their locks or easily set up their wall infinites. Off the top of my head?

locks that can be combo'd into: Sonic (inconsistant because the setup is DI dependent), Pikachu, Falco (only if the shine trips I think, or maybe if it doesn't trip. I don't remember), Diddy Kong

True Wall infinites; Marth's d-tilt, DDD chaingrab, Ike' f-throw chaingrab (lol?), I don't particularly know anymore that didn't fit into the first one.

So we have Sonic, Pikachu, falco, Diddy Kong, Marth, DDD, and Ike that can take full advantage of these stages. Of this group, Sonic, Marth, Ike, and Diddy Kong are all eliminated by DDD's chaingrab, so if you pick any of them the oppponent can just pick DDD. So what you have left are Falco, Pikachu, and DDD, however DDD is unable to take advantage of the stage against these characters, so all you really have left are Falco, and Pikachu.

I don't know for sure, but doesn't Pikachu have the advantage on both Falco? If that's true, then there goes that matchup, and even if not, it's still overcentralizing around two characters.

edit: Does Shiek have a lock of any sort?

P.S. - You really can't argue that something would be overcentralized around walls. That's just silly. I suppose right now the metagame is overcentralized around flat-stages with flat platforms. Also, infinites are a perfectly acceptable method of victory in many fighting games, and many fighting games have walls that can be comboed off of.

EDIT: please note that while his matchup understanding IS flawed, pretty badly actually, because he fails to take into account that Pika and Falco's countering of D3 would result in D3 not being in every battle to counter the others. Also, I question his Diddy knowledge a bit.

 

[Yuna]

For Yuna:

Not a single one of those things contracted anything I've said.

Also, infinites are a perfectly acceptable method of victory in many fighting games, and many fighting games have walls that can be comboed off of.

I'm sorsy, are you saying we shouldn't ban the infinite since other fighting games have perfectly acceptable infinites?

Hear that, guys? THC's lack of logic just had him admit defeat.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Not a single one of those things contracted anything I've said.


I'm sorsy, are you saying we shouldn't ban the infinite since other fighting games have perfectly acceptable infinites?

Hear that, guys? THC's lack of logic just had him admit defeat.

I did that pages ago.

EDIT: But I do not understand how we are being consistant in banning walled stages/stages with walk-off edges.

 

[Moseythepirate]

source? i can see you're pulling info outta your *** already...

Please, there is no need to get personal about this, and indeed, that particular line is completely irrelvant to the actual points of my argument. But if you want me to elaborate, I shall. Let me put it this way: I have only played against one person who is clearly and unambiguously better than me at Smash, but I have also never been apart of the tournament scene. Given that only a very small percentage of Smash Bros players take part in the tournament scene, I don't think my number is too far off. Also, my language made it clear that my number was simply an estimate, so please don't yell out "CITATION NEEDED," especially if it is completely irrelvant to the main points.

few things have ZERO % chance of being wrong. a counter-argument is a counter. there is no point in arguing with you if you don't accept it >_>

First, there are things that can be proven wrong. For example, if I said that one could escape DDD's infinite CG with DK by, say, shielding, I would be wrong, plain and simple. Also, where did I say that I would never accept a counter-argument unless it is 100% true? I merely requested that if I make any points that can be proven wrong, somebody would notify me so that I would stop wasting everybody's time.

The fact that those 6/740 matchups happen MORE than certain other matchups doesn't not mean it's a fallacy.

What I meant is that using that ratio is misleading in an argument, because the actual chance that your opponent will pick DDD on the first go is probably better than .82% Previous posters were using that ratio in order to make it look like DDD's CG has almost no effect.

also, 734/740? stop pulling "facts" outta your *** please.

Apparently you misunderstood. That number was indeed "pulled out of my ***." I never meant for it to be taken as a fact, so stop claiming that I did. What I meant is that using the 6/740 ratio in this debate is useless, as the ratio has no real relevance in the metagame. Surely you would agree with that. (By the way, I only used the ratio 734/740 because it is the reverse of 6/740, it is very close to 100%, and has a nice symmetry with the other ratio. The reason why I chose a ratio close to 100% is because, as you said, it very likely that your opponent would choose DDD as a counterpick to DK.)

and anyways, even if the matchupss happen more often still doesn't change the fact that this DOESN'T over-centralize. and of course

But it does centralize.

you should expect an opponent to CP D3 against DK if you win first match. (and stick with him). that's why the CP system EXISTS, you know.

I agree completely. That's exactly what I was saying.

that adds more problems than it solves.
scenario
DK player: "OMG, ref! the D3 dthrow-ed me ___ times! "
D3 player " no, i dthrowed up, then _____(insert attack here), THEN regrabbed. therefore you COULD have escaped and it's not an infinite."
see? this has to be really carefully watched by refs, and that's stupid imo.

I do not see the problem with that situation. If the CG was escapable, then this debate wouldn't even exist. And why not have the game be closely watched by refs?

this doesn't change the fact that the technique doesn't over-centralize or break the game as a WHOLE.

I don't think anything breaks the game as a whole. And may you please define the "over" part of over-centralizing? In your opinion, at what point does something centralize too much? How much centralizing is okay?

no. there IS already a non-subjective way to decide. basically ask "does it over-centralize or break the game as a WHOLE" and the answer is no.

That is, in fact, subjective. To prove this, precisely define "overcentralizing," tell me exactly what the "game as a whole" is and exactly what "breaking" it means. Furthermore, present it in a form that is indisputable. Unless I am very much mistaken, you can't. Therefore, it is subjective. Indeed, choosing centralization as the main issue in banning is a subjective decision.

the infinites aren't universal. and if you TRULY think 2/37 is over-centralizing, then honestly, you're an idiot. falco's cg->spike (0-death, btw) works on more chars than that. >_>

Please, stop turning my arguments into something they are not. I never said that 2/37 0~death combos is over centralizing, and indeed it is not over centralizing in my view. I said that, in my opinion, a character having a 0~death combo that works on 2 characters is too much. To elaborate on my beliefs, I believe that 0~death combos that are as easy to pull off as DDD's should not be allowed at all. I just don't like them, that's all, and if I had my way, they would be removed altogether. That, by the way, is an opinion, and is not the subject of my argument.

Also, please cease the personal attacks. Also, my questions are not rhetorical. I actually want to know your personal answers to the questions I have asked. Among those who know me, I am famous for changing sides in an argument. I am not the kind of person who would stick to an argument like a leech to Steve Irwin's inner thigh. I don't care who "wins" this argument. I just want to help make sure that the decision made is the right one, or at least, the one closer to right. If you can convince me that to not ban the CG is the right move, I would change sides in a heartbeat.

 

[Yuna]

I did that pages ago.

EDIT: But I do not understand how we are being consistant in banning walled stages/stages with walk-off edges.

Link, please.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Link, please.

Link to what?

EDIT: Oh, you mean me giving up.

Here:

Well, Kirio pretty much had the only guiding principle so far that is consistent with the pro-ban argument. To have any other fundamental principle is to have a flawed one or one that you have not yet shared. the ability to counterpick simply means you do not wish to fix a matchup that you openly recognize is broken, in this case by a single attack. Thus, unless there were an actual reason that could cause a detriment to the metagame, your arguement cannot make sense. My only issue with Kirio's is that I'm kinda too tired right now to think of any real counterpoint. All I've got is that a lot of people think D3 is a special case, I'm sure they had their reasons, which they most likely detailed here somewhere.

 

[Yuna]

Link to what?

Oh I see. You were saying that what I replied to was said "pages ago" (which is a lie, it was said one page ago), not that you had already quoted Sirlin where his "teachings" does against stage bans, despite me having asked you to do so twice now.

So, this will be the third time. You claim Sirlin's "teachings" contradict our stage bans. Prove it. Now. Or admit to being a huge tuchas-talker.

 

[WastingPenguins]

Can someone tell me at what percent D3 is capable of using his infinite on Samus, Mario and Luigi? I'm assuming it's under the 300% cap?

Here's what I don't like: that a D3 player, who is fighting one of these three and has achieved a position where he could score a KO, is instead allowed to choose to stall the match. At that point, if you choose to infinite, you are stalling the match and nothing more. There is no other explanation, rationalization, or otherwise. This is very different from, for instance, ledge-stalling, where there are plenty of other possible reasons that you don't immediately choose to return to the stage. Doesn't this stand in stark contrast to the precedent set by other pure-stalling tactics that have been banned? Can someone else name a pure-stalling tactic that you are allowed to use for a certain period of time, and THEN have to either stop or forfeit the match?

Why the hell did we ban Meta Knight's cape stall outright? Why didn't we allow the MK player to use it... only under certain circumstances, and only just for a little while, THEN tell them to stop?

 

[ColinJF]

The general mentality regarding stage bans in the smash community is definitely not sirlin-esque. Lots of non-broken stages are routinely banned in tournaments on account of people not liking them. Rumble Falls, for example, is not a broken stage (this stage does not have walk off edges by the way which is why I selected it for this example... although not all stages with walk offs are broken either). It is a very reasonable counterpick stage. Most people who ban this stage have probably never even played on it.

However, stages are a less important part of the game than characters and techniques, so naturally we are more protective of the latter than the former... but if this were a thread about banning certain non-broken stages I would advocate not banning them just the same.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

First:

Well, Kirio pretty much had the only guiding principle so far that is consistent with the pro-ban argument. To have any other fundamental principle is to have a flawed one or one that you have not yet shared. the ability to counterpick simply means you do not wish to fix a matchup that you openly recognize is broken, in this case by a single attack. Thus, unless there were an actual reason that could cause a detriment to the metagame, your arguement cannot make sense. My only issue with Kirio's is that I'm kinda too tired right now to think of any real counterpoint. All I've got is that a lot of people think D3 is a special case, I'm sure they had their reasons, which they most likely detailed here somewhere.

Second, Yuna, YOU being on the side that wants something banned, needs to prove that YOUR undersanding correlates with the competitive one. I simply have to disprove that your points are the criteria for a ban. The number one way the stages bans violate the criteria for a ban is that we did not use them long enough to judge them, and decide they were broken.

Third, this is the spot where the info SHOULD be - http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/intermediates-guide/what-should-be-banned

That makes looking up information slightly more difficult for me.

 

[ColinJF]

Walk offs are not broken per se. Something like 1/3 of the cast is immune to Dedede's chaingrabs to start with, and this is a sizable portion. Moreover, many of the walk off stages also include hazards which frustrate chaingrabs; for example, the cars on Mario Circuit hit Dedede out of a chaingrab even if they are travelling on the top rather than the bottom. Some INDIVIDUAL walk off stages may be broken... say, Bridge of Eldin. But I think it's wrong to say that walk offs as a whole are broken.

Shadow Moses Island on the other hand is obviously broken... the gameplay there is obviously centred around the walls, and removing the walls just leaves walk offs that you can't very well work around.

However, whether banning walk offs just for being walk offs is a mistake (and I think it is) is totally irrelevant to whether Dedede's infinites break the game. They clearly don't.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Walk offs are not broken per se. Something like 1/3 of the cast is immune to Dedede's chaingrabs to start with, and this is a sizable portion. Moreover, many of the walk off stages also include hazards which frustrate chaingrabs; for example, the cars on Mario Circuit hit Dedede out of a chaingrab even if they are travelling on the top rather than the bottom. Some INDIVIDUAL walk off stages may be broken... say, Bridge of Eldin. But I think it's wrong to say that walk offs as a whole are broken.

Shadow Moses Island on the other hand is obviously broken... the gameplay there is obviously centred around the walls, and removing the walls just leaves walk offs that you can't very well work around.

Actually, one could argue Shadow Moses is the least broken. No random elements whatsoever, and perfectly symetrical. The only factor is character choice - the stage may even be a neutral pick if it were allowed.

 

[ColinJF]

The "random elements" (read: stage hazards) actually make some walk off stages PLAYABLE, for example Mario Circuit. Not having them doesn't make the stage better. The fact that Shadow Moses alters the odds of certain characters of winning from their average chance of winning on an arbitrary stage already removes it from consideration as a neutral. The fact that this alteration is RADICAL and moreover that the gameplay on the stage is completely degenerate is what makes the stage broken.

 

[Moseythepirate]

1) Who said 740? It's 780.

I apologize. Thank you for pointing out that I was using that wrong number.

Do you possess any shred of logic, at all? Do you know what a match-up is? No matter how popular D3 is or how likely you're going to get him as a counterpick, it will still only be 5 out of 780 match-ups.

That is exactly my point. Credible or not, people have been using that argument. The ratio of match-ups will always be 5/780. However, the actual probability that a DK player will be play against a DDD player is much higher than that.

And then the question would be:
Why this number? And what of all of the other infinites, quasi-infinites, locks and chaingrabs? Should they all adhere to this number as well?

These are all valid questions, and that is exactly why I didn't propose a number. However, that is not the subject of this argument. This argument is about DDD, and only DDD. Other characters apart from DDD and the chars he can CG have no bearing on this argument whatsoever. All situations are different, and each should be looked upon with an open mind and fresh perspectives.

No one credible is making that argument. It's a counter-argument to the claim that the Sucky 5 would magically all become viable were the infinite banned.

What I'm saying is that which characters it works on is irrelevant. If the CG worked on only the Top Tiers, it would still be completely irrelevant. Whether or not the player would win if the ban was induced has no bearing on this argument, as it cannot be determined until such a ban is employed.

Various things make various characters useless against certain other characters. Ban?

I repeat: those situations have no bearing on this debate. Stick to the subject, please.

The difference here is that nobody would care about your opinion.

Well, yeah. That's a given. My opinion there was merely an aside, and it had no bearing on my argument.

If I'm being overly harsh, it might be because you somehow managed to misread 5/780 as 6/780 and then claim that the fact that D3 is popular makes it 769/780.

You showed yourself lacking in both reading comprehension and logic.

Please, stop the personal attacks. In the future, please ask for elaboration in a polite manner if my stance is unclear, and if, after elaborating, you still disagree with me, please respond in a civil manner--rather than calling me an idiot immediately. I want to learn.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

The "random elements" (read: stage hazards) actually make some walk off stages PLAYABLE, for example Mario Circuit. Not having them doesn't make the stage better. The fact that Shadow Moses alters the odds of certain characters of winning already removes it from consideration as a neutral. The fact that this alteration is RADICAL and moreover that the gameplay on the stage is completely degenerate is what makes the stage broken.

Can you prove that the radical change of game play itself is broken?

Simply because a system of gameplay is different than what you are accustomed to does not make the system broken. If anything, the lack of an attempt makes one a scrub, such as I was myself in melee when I choose not to learn wave-dashing and L-canceling.

 

[ColinJF]

I don't really understand your argument. You're a scrub... so other people must be scrubs as well? Makes sense!

By the way, I said it was broken because it radically altered the odds of certain characters winning, and because the gameplay was degenerate.

 

[Yuna]

The general mentality regarding stage bans in the smash community is definitely not sirlin-esque. Lots of non-broken stages are routinely banned in tournaments on account of people not liking them. Rumble Falls, for example, is not a broken stage (this stage does not have walk off edges by the way which is why I selected it for this example... although not all stages with walk offs are broken either). It is a very reasonable counterpick stage. Most people who ban this stage have probably never even played on it.

Rumble Falls makes the match all about running and climbing the stage for your life, it has those spikes which can be comboed into, the kill zones are almost at the very edge of the visible stage.

All in all, it makes for broken matches and we don't like that. Also, it's kinda random. The speed-ups happen at random. And nobody wants to play a Competitive fighting game where you spend half of the match trying not to die due to the scrolling stage, not to mention the camping the stage allows for (when it's not sped up).

First:

Second, Yuna, YOU being on the side that wants something banned, needs to prove that YOUR undersanding correlates with the competitive one. I simply have to disprove that your points are the criteria for a ban. The number one way the stages bans violate the criteria for a ban is that we did not use them long enough to judge them, and decide they were broken.

I just did to ColinJF. Some stages are broken, some over-centralize the game (which is among the criteria according to Sirlin).

Your inability to grasp this does not change the facts.

Third, this is the spot where the info SHOULD be - http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/intermediates-guide/what-should-be-banned

That makes looking up information slightly more difficult for me.

You claimed what Sirlin says goes against our banning of stages. You pull the quotes you. You made the claim, you substantiate it.

Walk offs are not broken per se. Something like 1/3 of the cast is immune to Dedede's chaingrabs to start with, and this is a sizable portion. Moreover, many of the walk off stages also include hazards which frustrate chaingrabs; for example, the cars on Mario Circuit hit Dedede out of a chaingrab even if they are travelling on the top rather than the bottom. Some INDIVIDUAL walk off stages may be broken... say, Bridge of Eldin. But I think it's wrong to say that walk offs as a whole are broken.

Too bad the other walk-offs have other broken things going for them, like, say, the cars on Mario Circuit + the camping.

The problem with many of the stages banned is that they allow for too much camping. The metagame on those stages revolve around camping. This was the reason why, for example, Super Mario Bros. 2 had to go in Melee.