Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[WastingPenguins]

I'd also like to point out that because of this the infinite actually does have some non-broken uses. I point to Luigi, who could not be chaingrabbed by DDDs running chaingrab. However this "infinite" allows DDD to get up to 5 regrabs on him before his D-thow becomes to stale to use without pummeling, essentially serving as a substitute for a running chaingrab.

Thanks god someone finally responded to this concern. This is all I needed to know, thanks! Now everyone: just quit arguing, leave the infinite alone and continue playing your broken, stupidly unbalanced game.

 

[Magus420]

Thanks god someone finally responded to this concern.

I responded awhile ago a few posts below your original post about it =P

Edit: Thought about it. If Mario or Samus or any of the others can truly mash out of the infinite, then they are in the same boat as every other character-- the boat that includes characters who are not subject to the infinite in the first place. This does not break my argument at all. In this case, the fact holds: any matchup in which the infinite can be used is a broken matchup, and the technique still hasn't any non-broken applications.

?

The 1-5 standing regrabs without grab hits (depends how stale it already is) are still used for extra damage before going into something else (such as the normal CG for Mario/Samus) when they're too low to infinite, and the infinite is a guaranteed KO move from a successful grab starting somewhere in the 90-150% range as long as the d-throw is somewhat fresh.

 

[da K.I.D.]

I really wish people would stop claiming that 5 characters are completely destroyed by this infinite.
I wish people would stop claiming this.

Mario, Luigi, and Samus cannot be infinited 0-death. In fact, so far we know for a fact that they cannot be infinited until they already have accumulated at least 130%! That's right, we've seen a breakout occur after one pummel at 129%, so we know for a fact that it is possible. We have video evidence of Reflex doing it with Wario, and we have frame data confirming that all characters break out at the same speed, with the only factor being the character's percentage.
But weve never seen somebody get out of an infinite at those levels, show me a vid of that being done consistently, because if you only want to use 1 vid as your proof, that doesnt prove all that much cus its possible to have been some kind of glitch that wasnt supposed to happen that way. You need several vids of this happening consistently in order to pass it as fact, because as of the tourney results and experience its still a 0-death on them.

We have not tested to see if the threshold is actually higher than this. For all we know, it might still be possible to break out of the "infinite" at 150%, or even 200%. But for now that's not that important to us.
we havent even tested to see if it is consistently possible to break out over 50

What is important is that the infinite simply does not work on Samus, Mario, and Luigi until they have already accumulated a lot of damage, at which point the DDD player should already be focusing on refreshing kill moves and trying to land those kill moves (I think a fresh uptilt kills all of them at 130% doesn't it?) This infinite factors very little into those matchups, and it's quite possible that Luigi actually still has an even matchup with DDD (Mario and Samus are still disadvantaged, but not because of the infinite!)
but once they hit 130, they can use the infinite to get them up to 300 and kill with a back throw, but since that could have been with an up tilt, its nothing more than stalling the time to get from 130-300 which is minutes out of the match, to the point where D3 could time out any character he has this infinite on

I'm so tired of people skipping over this when they quote people. Especially when they specifically identify this in their quote.
and Im tired of people spewing this like its fact when its not proven to be done consistently

I'd also like to point out that because of this the infinite actually does have some non-broken uses. I point to Luigi, who could not be chaingrabbed by DDDs running chaingrab. However this "infinite" allows DDD to get up to 5 regrabs on him before his D-thow becomes to stale to use without pummeling, essentially serving as a substitute for a running chaingrab.

this one ill give you though...

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

we havent even tested to see if it is consistently possible to break out over 50

Then why are we talking about banning anything?

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=209846
We have ****ing frame data! Is that not enough?
A+B+X+Y+L+Z+2 oposite diagonals on the control stick=80 frame reduction in one cycle requireing absolutely no change in hand placement. At 0%, that's a 10 frame breakout! (90-80)

Even accounting for higher percentages you'd just have to do this cycle twice and you'd be able to break out 160 frames earlier than normal (that's 2.66 seconds). Just 3 cycles breaks you out at up to at least 100% in only 20 frames! Grabbing and pummeling take well over a second, so you've got plenty of leeway!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm8z4O24CvI&feature=related
6:20 Broke out at 129% right after the pummel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ovHARCOHaQ&feature=related
0:13 Broke out during the pummel (as Wario is forced to air release for all other circumstances) at 48%
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raDIZvv7bHY&feature=related
2:01 Broke out right after the pummel at 97%
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QdXc6MuDw&feature=channel_page
2:51 Broke out right after the pummel at 114%

He did it in every match of that set against M2K! He did it in the last match in winner's finals too! Is that not enough video evidence? Well I'm sorry that I don't have a million videos of people grab breaking efficiently, instead of trying to grab break by pressing 2 or 3 buttons over and over (which is pretty dumb when you think about it). But then again, we don't have a million videos of people SDIing out of jab locks either, or a million videos of people SDIing out of wall infinites, but we have 2 or 3 videos and that seems to be more than enough for those.
We've proved it in theory, we've seen it in practice, and you're still doubting it?

 

[Pikaville]

It shouldnt be banned because its not a gamebreaking technique.

There shouldnt even be talks of banning it.

DONT GET GRABBED!

 

[Yuna]

It does more than create bad match-ups. I think of a bad match-up as one that can still be overcome by showing excellent skill. DDD's infinite creates match-ups which require no skill for him to win, and lets him win regardless of the other player's level of skill. That doesn't sound very good for a competitive game.

Banning something just because it makes for a bad match-up, no matter how bad, is not Competitive. It's like saying it's OK for a character to have good match-ups as long as none of those pass a certain threshold because then it'd be "unfair" and we can't have that (it would be valid to ban him if he had good match-ups against way too many people, over-centralizing the game around himself, becoming "too good". This is not one of those cases)!

Also, you're still comparing DDD's infinite to other tactics that are FAR less intense. The tactics you mentioned don't dominate the entire match-up by themselves like DDD's infinite does.

I told you specify exactly why D3's infinites have to go, but not these other tactics. You tell me why they should not be banned despite yielding similar results.

Keep your pointless over-centralizing argument and irrelevant melee comparisons if you will, I have to get to work. See ya.

Whatever.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere...now...why is order good in the competitive scene? That question I think I can answer on my own. Order is there to promote an environment that maximizes (oh, the irony XD) the importance of skill in determining the winner.

No it's not. If we wanted to maximize the importance of skill in determining the winner, we'd play on only on stages where the stage itself couldn't possibly influence the game.

Yoshi's Island (Brawl) has to go because of the randomly rising platform. So does Smashville. Anything with moving and damaging hitboxes and anything random would have to go.

If we really wanted to maximize skill, we'd also ban every single character except one, because then it'd be the best player who won and not the character.

Tell me, what possible proof do you have for that the Competitive ruleset is written to maximize the importance of skill? What are you basing this on?

AThat is why items were banned, that is why counter-picking exists, that is why stages are restricted. And the disadvantage forced upon the forbidden 2, arguably 5, is, in the words of Mister_E:

Creating an environment where skill is important =/= Maximizing the importance of skill

ASorry if you object to me quoting you, btw. Anyway, this shows that not banning the technique goes against the basic philosophy of competitive gaming: that skill should be the last word in deciding the winner.[/quote9
No, it shows more or your lack of logical thinking.

AHmm. Partially maximize. That's an oxymoron. I'll have to remember that.

Maximizing certain parts/things. At least I just didn't claim the Competitive rules of Smash are written to maximize the importance of skill without any kind of proof whatsoever.

I wish people would stop claiming this.

Why, because it's detrimental to your argument? It's the truth, after all.

But weve never seen somebody get out of an infinite at those levels, show me a vid of that being done consistently, because if you only want to use 1 vid as your proof, that doesnt prove all that much cus its possible to have been some kind of glitch that wasnt supposed to happen that way. You need several vids of this happening consistently in order to pass it as fact, because as of the tourney results and experience its still a 0-death on them.

You never having seen it =/= It has never been seen.

We've been telling you this for days, but I bet you didn't even bother trying to look it up. There's even a new thread on grab beak-out percentages!

we havent even tested to see if it is consistently possible to break out over 50

Yes they did. Your credibility is slipping (again).

but once they hit 130, they can use the infinite to get them up to 300 and kill with a back throw, but since that could have been with an up tilt, its nothing more than stalling the time to get from 130-300 which is minutes out of the match, to the point where D3 could time out any character he has this infinite on

But before that, D3 can get 5 grabs in on Luigi to rack his damage up since he cannot running chaingrab him. If you want to whine about this, crusade for there to be a lower threshold for KO:ing off of D3's infinite instead of demanding it be banned because it "wrecks 5 characters".

and Im tired of people spewing this like its fact when its not proven to be done consistently

I'm tired of you not nothing anything about Smash and refusing to educated yourself. You seem to think what you know is all there is to know about the game and if you haven't seen it, it couldn't possibly be true.

9.

 

[Moseythepirate]

What a delightfully fun time last night, Yuna. You know, now that I have woken up and am alert, I realize how incredibly amusing your argument style is. Endless ad hominem and question dodging FTW.

Tee hee. "Partially Maximize." I love it.

Now, I gotta go, so I may continue "arguing" with you in the future, but for now I have a few things to say:
1) By your own reasoning, creating an environment where skill is important is the same as maximizing the importance of skill. Well, partially maximizing, at least
2) I based it on what more or less every pro player has told me when I asked him/her why all items and many stages are banned or restricted. I did not make it up.
3) The reason why neutral/neutralish stages and all characters are kept is because of one laughably simple reason: If only one stage and character were allowed, it would destroy the competitive scene. Why? Because, (and I know that you will yell "PRRRRROOOOOOFFFFFF" and "SSSSSCCCCRRRRUUUUUUUBBBBBBBB" until you're blue in face after hearing me say this) it wouldn't be fun anymore. The fact is, when people pick up and play smash for the first time, and go back to it again and again, it is not for the winnings, at least not at first. It's because the game is fun. If you take away that factor by forcing players to choose 1 character and stage, that element of fun would be gone. And with it, the main reason people play smash at all, not just competitively.



4)

I'm tired of you ====>not nothing anything<==== about Smash and ====>refusing to educated yourself.<==== You seem to think what you know is all there is to know about the game and if you haven't seen it, it couldn't possibly be true.

Teh grammorz! TEHY BURN!!!! Seriously, take a nap, man. You must be really tired to make that kind of grammar error. That's worse then Cookie Monster reading Jack Kerouac.

 

[Yuna]

What a delightfully fun time last night, Yuna. You know, now that I have woken up and am alert, I realize how incredibly amusing your argument style is. Endless ad hominem and question dodging FTW.

I don't dodge questions. Your question is too annoy to answer fully and it'd be pointless in the context, anyway.

1) By your own reasoning, creating an environment where skill is important is the same as maximizing the importance of skill. Well, partially maximizing, at least

No it isn't.

2) I based it on what more or less every pro player has told me when I asked him/her why all items and many stages are banned or restricted. I did not make it up.

Did they say "We removed items to maximize Competition and that is the reason why we have rules, to maximize Competition"?

3) The reason why neutral/neutralish stages and all characters are kept is because of one laughably simple reason: If only one stage and character were allowed, it would destroy the competitive scene. Why? Because, (and I know that you will yell "PRRRRROOOOOOFFFFFF" and "SSSSSCCCCRRRRUUUUUUUBBBBBBBB" until you're blue in face after hearing me say this) it wouldn't be fun anymore.

We don't ban to maximize "fun".

The fact is, when people pick up and play smash for the first time, and go back to it again and again, it is not for the winnings, at least not at first. It's because the game is fun. If you take away that factor by forcing players to choose 1 character and stage, that element of fun would be gone. And with it, the main reason people play smash at all, not just competitively.

This is Competitive gaming. if you want to maximize "fun", go back to playing the game Casually.

Teh grammorz! TEHY BURN!!!! Seriously, take a nap, man. You must be really tired to make that kind of grammar error. That's worse then Cookie Monster reading Jack Kerouac.

Replace the 1st nothing with "knowing". And wow, an extra D. It's called mistyping. At least after 24+ hours of no sleep, I'm still able to stay logical and string together coherent and fact-based posts, as opposed to most people.

4.

 

[Sesshomuronay]

It shouldnt be banned because its not a gamebreaking technique.

There shouldnt even be talks of banning it.

DONT GET GRABBED!

^worst argument ever. Avoiding the grab is impossible.

 

[Yuna]

^worst argument ever. Avoiding the grab is impossible.

It's not impossible. It's not probable. But not impossible.

1.

 

[bobson]

1.

Here it comes! Hit the deck!

 

[Moseythepirate]

I don't dodge questions.

lol

Did they say "We removed items to maximize Competition and that is the reason why we have rules, to maximize Competition"?

Actually, they said that they removed items because, in a tourney setting, with money on the line, it is unfair to have random chance, rather then skill, decide the game. Upon this, they added that the purpose of most tourney rules is to, and this is a quote, "to make sure that skill is what determines the winner, more than any other factor."

We don't ban to maximize "fun".

Now that's just misstating my argument, podner. I never said you should. Indeed, my example was merely stating that a hypothetical "ban all but one of the cast" situation would be no fun.

This is Competitive gaming. if you want to maximize "fun", go back to playing the game Casually.

You're right. It's competitive GAMING. But tell me, if you had no fun playing Smash, would you? I wasn't saying that fun should be considered at all when writing rules. What I was saying is that, even if it shouldn't be taken into account when writing the rules, one should remember that without the fun of the game, smash, competitive or not, wouldn't exist.

Replace the 1st nothing with "knowing". It's called mistyping.

Don't forget the tense inconsistency! Seriously, though, that was me expressing concern. How much sleep did you get?

 

[Sesshomuronay]

It's not impossible. It's not probable. But not impossible.

1.

Alright its not impossible but nearly impossible.

Now anyone who says "dont get grabbed" is a ****** who clearly doesnt know that dedede grab range is over 9000.

 

[Moseythepirate]

It's not impossible. It's not probable. But not impossible.

It also is not impossible that someday we will see eye to eye. It is, however, highly improbable.

****, I'm beginning to actually like you. This is fun!

 

[TheReflexWonder]

I have a question.

Can you buffer grab break inputs? I mean, do they count towards the break-out time cut?

 

[adumbrodeus]

What a delightfully fun time last night, Yuna. You know, now that I have woken up and am alert, I realize how incredibly amusing your argument style is. Endless ad hominem and question dodging FTW.

Tee hee. "Partially Maximize." I love it.

Now, I gotta go, so I may continue "arguing" with you in the future, but for now I have a few things to say:
1) By your own reasoning, creating an environment where skill is important is the same as maximizing the importance of skill. Well, partially maximizing, at least

Wrong.

It's a difference of DEGREES, under your suggestion, you interfere and ban everything that doesn't result in a 50-50 match-up for the entire cast (which maximizes skill), you're also ignoring the skill present in counter-picking.

2) I based it on what more or less every pro player has told me when I asked him/her why all items and many stages are banned or restricted. I did not make it up.

I agree with this proposal, because I heard it from a particularly well informed American...

Yeah, appeals to authority suck, especially when the authority isn't named.

The only exception is when somebody is an established authority in the field AND that doesn't make the observations unimpeachable.




edit: Cookie to anyone who gets the "well-informed American" reference.

3) The reason why neutral/neutralish stages and all characters are kept is because of one laughably simple reason: If only one stage and character were allowed, it would destroy the competitive scene. Why? Because, (and I know that you will yell "PRRRRROOOOOOFFFFFF" and "SSSSSCCCCRRRRUUUUUUUBBBBBBBB" until you're blue in face after hearing me say this) it wouldn't be fun anymore. The fact is, when people pick up and play smash for the first time, and go back to it again and again, it is not for the winnings, at least not at first. It's because the game is fun. If you take away that factor by forcing players to choose 1 character and stage, that element of fun would be gone. And with it, the main reason people play smash at all, not just competitively.

If fun were our concern, and content equated with fun, then we'd never have banned items.

DEPTH is an advantage, and for the vast majority of competative players, they enjoy playing games with more depth, but guess what? Allowing for as much depth as possible requires being as stringent with bans as possible, because it encourages the development of ATs.

edit:

lol


Actually, they said that they removed items because, in a tourney setting, with money on the line, it is unfair to have random chance, rather then skill, decide the game. Upon this, they added that the purpose of most tourney rules is to, and this is a quote, "to make sure that skill is what determines the winner, more than any other factor."

"More then any other factor", which is different from maximizing it's effect.

Again, counter-picking is part of skill.

You're right. It's competitive GAMING. But tell me, if you had no fun playing Smash, would you? I wasn't saying that fun should be considered at all when writing rules. What I was saying is that, even if it shouldn't be taken into account when writing the rules, one should remember that without the fun of the game, smash, competitive or not, wouldn't exist.

And protecting depth in general does that, in some cases it doesn't, but overall, depth is more important then protecting "fun".

 

[Yuna2]

BTW, from now on, all of my posts will be posted through this account, Yuna2. No, I wasn't banned, like someone thought.

It's to delay a certain event.

 

[Luigi player]

I have a question.

Can you buffer grab break inputs? I mean, do they count towards the break-out time cut?

I think you cannot... only the grabber.

 

[Moseythepirate]

Hmm. You've given me stuff to think about. And yes, I know my appeal to authority is logical fallacy. I was just saying that I did have a source other than myself, and that more than one person said this. I couldn't tell you the names of these people, only it was during the hubub after release when them BR people *shoots a thumb's up at Yuna* were deciding on whether items should still be allowed, and were explaining their decision to all them whinin' youngins.

Anyhoo, Yuna, you were talking about whatjamacallit...competitiveness is pro gaming, and that fostering competitiveness is why Pro Games have rules. Define competitiveness in this context for us, please. I just want to see how "competitiveness" is distinguished from "skill."

 

[Yuna2]

Hmm. You've given me stuff to think about. And yes, I know my appeal to authority is logical fallacy. I was just saying that I did have a source other than myself, and that more than one person said this.

Funny, you didn't actually answer my question.

Did they say the rules were written to maximize Competition as opposed to just banning items because they are anti-Competitive and banning them makes the game more Competitive?

Making the game more Competitive =/= Maximizing Competition.

I couldn't tell you the names of these people, only it was during the hubub after release when them BR people *shoots a thumb's up at Yuna* were deciding on whether items should still be allowed, and were explaining their decision to all them whinin' youngins.

Keep in mind that I'm a former SBR-member. I lost my membership due to inactivity.

Anyhoo, Yuna, you were talking about whatjamacallit...competitiveness is pro gaming, and that fostering competitiveness is why Pro Games have rules. Define competitiveness in this context for us, please. I just want to see how "competitiveness" is distinguished from "skill."

Competitive viability is the viability of a game Competitively. As in a game (or sport, if you will) which allows for Competition.

Yes, this means that "skill" plays a huge factor. I never denied this. However, we do not write to rules to maximize the importance of skill or anything.

If we did, we'd ban everyone but one character and one stage. Because then it'd be all about who's better at the game, not who's abusing match-ups better. My argument has and will always be:
The rules are not written to maximize anything.

Don't try to strawman it into anything else.

 

[Uffe]

BTW, from now on, all of my posts will be posted through this account, Yuna2. No, I wasn't banned, like someone thought.

It's to delay a certain event.

Good. I thought someone was trying to be like you.

 

[Fatmanonice]

BTW, from now on, all of my posts will be posted through this account, Yuna2. No, I wasn't banned, like someone thought.

It's to delay a certain event.

Dear God... Yuna now has two accounts... You did it so that you could debate with yourself, didn't you?

 

[Yuna2]

Dear God... Yuna now has two accounts... You did it so that you could debate with yourself, didn't you?

Don't pretend like it wouldn't be epic and entertaining. In fact, that's a very good idea. I might enter a debate in the future with Yuna taking one side and Yuna2 taking the other and then start debating the tar out of myself.

"Can you even read?!" - "Obviously, but you possess no logic!" - "What, quote me where I said that!" - "Stop strawmanning yourself!".

 

[Moseythepirate]

Please, don't accuse me of strawmanning. You're the one who started the whole "maximizing" (tee hee. Bold font makes us sooooooo superior) business and started accusing me of doing it. I don't think that truly maximizing any aspect of a game is a good thing. Partially maximizing (never gets old for me, sorry), maybe. I think that optimizing the importance of skill should be the goal. By which I mean, going to all reasonable lengths to secure skill as the most important factor. Exactly what "reasonable" implies is down more to one's individual beliefs than anything else. And "Competitive viability is the viability of a game Competitively" is perhaps the most obviously circular definition I've ever seen. Oh, and as for your question...no. They did not. They never used the word "Competitive" at all, in my memory. Mostly they used "skill." And talked for a very long time about how skill should be the most important factor.

Also, so you're a former SBR member? Hmm. So the little grimer symbol is a permanent thing? Interstin.'

P.S. Seriously, how well did you sleep?

 

[Fatmanonice]

Don't pretend like it wouldn't be epic and entertaining. In fact, that's a very good idea. I might enter a debate in the future with Yuna taking one side and Yuna2 taking the other and then start debating the tar out of myself.

"Can you even read?!" - "Obviously, but you possess no logic!" - "What, quote me where I said that!" - "Stop strawmanning yourself!".

Granted, it would be epic but this forum, nay, the whole internet would probably implode if it were to happen.

On topic:

Is the SBR actually planning to make a decison on this or was this a thread a "hey guys, I was just curious what most people think" thing? Regardless, I made my arguements a long time ago:

1. Banning it would only truely benefit one character, DK, who's already high tier as it is while the other four still get wrecked by most of the top/high tier characters anyways and wouldn't really gain viability from the decision.

2. Counterpicking... enough said. If you use the other four, chances are you already have at least one secondary already if you're serious about placing. Also, there are stage counters for it. If all else fails, choose Falco and find a tournament that allows Skyworld as a counterpick.

3. Banning this may trigger a chain reaction for people wanting to ban other things that could be labeled as just as gay like Olimar's "perfect" camping, Snake's "grenade jackets", Diddy's banana chain grabs, the Ice Climber's chain grabs, etc. (I made a big list earlier of other things and I don't feel like retyping it.)

4. I still see Metaknight as the elephant in the room when it comes to many of the things that make Brawl an "inferior", as some people put it, competitive game.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

BTW, from now on, all of my posts will be posted through this account, Yuna2. No, I wasn't banned, like someone thought.

It's to delay a certain event.

Why do you want to avoid being over 9000?

Also, how the heck did you lose membership through inactivity?

EDIT: MK is an interesting case. He's an elephant but he's a small one.

Although technically walkoff edges and walls > MK, but this probably isn't the thread to discuss that anymore.

 

[Yuna2]

Please, don't accuse me of strawmanning. You're the one who started the whole "maximizing" (tee hee. Bold font makes us sooooooo superior) business and started accusing me of doing it.

Even I were to be a strawmanner, that doesn't mean I can't accuse you of doing it.

Also, strawmanning.

I never said you're personally advocating maximizing anything. I said that banning this to make more characters viable using the "It'd give us more characters" is in essence trying to maximize something.

Oh, and as for your question...no. They did not. They never used the word "Competitive" at all, in my memory. Mostly they used "skill." And talked for a very long time about how skill should be the most important factor.

Should, isn't always. If we wanted true skill to be the most important factor, we'd ban all characters besides one, as I said. Then you'd really have to be the best player to win.

Also, so you're a former SBR member? Hmm. So the little grimer symbol is a permanent thing? Interstin.'

The Grime is for the Back Room, not the Smash Back Room.

P.S. Seriously, how well did you sleep?

Well. Ish.

Why do you want to avoid being over 9000?

What part of the word "delay" is confusing you here?

Also, how the heck did you lose membership through inactivity?

There was a purge in 2006 or 2007 where tons of inactive users got their membership rescinded, I hear.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

What part of the word "delay" is confusing you here?

O.K., why do you want to "delay" being over 9000?

 

[Yuna2]

O.K., why do you want to "delay" being over 9000?

Because I want the post to be meaningful, not one of a jillion in a thread full of spam.

 

[Grunt]

awwwwwwwwww.
B&

 

[TheReflexWonder]

1. Banning it would only truely benefit one character, DK, who's already high tier as it is while the other four still get wrecked by most of the top/high tier characters anyways and wouldn't really gain viability from the decision.

2. Counterpicking... enough said. If you use the other four, chances are you already have at least one secondary already if you're serious about placing. Also, there are stage counters for it. If all else fails, choose Falco and find a tournament that allows Skyworld as a counterpick.

1. I was under the impression that at least Bowser and Luigi had pretty decent matchups in general against the high tiers. Nothing too great, but certainly winnable. I can't vouch for Samus and Mario, though they might be decent in a top-level player's hands. (I'm going to make Samus good~) Also, let's start talking about just Bowser and DK, 'cause if you can't break out of it as Mario, Luigi, or Samus, you deserve to be KO'd in one way or another.

2. The real issue is whether or not it affects the DK/Bowser matchup enough to warrant an auto-use of Dedede against them. That's centralization, but the question is whether or not it's overcentralization. Melee Bowser can beat Melee Sheik, just like Brawl DK can beat Brawl Dedede. Sure, it's incredibly time-consuming, and realistically way too much effort to bother attempting in your spare time, but competitive gaming isn't necessarily about exciting matches being played. Either way, it's very frustrating for DK and Bowser players, I'm sure. I hate getting CG'd five times as Samus regardless of where I am on the stage, but that's life.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

1. I was under the impression that at least Bowser and Luigi had pretty decent matchups in general against the high tiers. Nothing too great, but certainly winnable. I can't vouch for Samus and Mario, though they might be decent in a top-level player's hands. (I'm going to make Samus good~) Also, let's start talking about just Bowser and DK, 'cause if you can't break out of it as Mario, Luigi, or Samus, you deserve to be KO'd in one way or another.

2. The real issue is whether or not it affects the DK/Bowser matchup enough to warrant an auto-use of Dedede against them. That's centralization, but the question is whether or not it's overcentralization. Melee Bowser can beat Melee Sheik, just like Brawl DK can beat Brawl Dedede. Sure, it's incredibly time-consuming, and realistically way too much effort to bother attempting in your spare time, but competitive gaming isn't necessarily about exciting matches being played. Either way, it's very frustrating for DK and Bowser players, I'm sure. I hate getting CG'd five times as Samus regardless of where I am on the stage, but that's life.

We don't actually know if it can be done in a tournament setting. I heard the system for the breakout involves turning your controller upside-down and pressing Z, L, all the directionals, and all the face buttons on different frames. It also doesn't work at all if D3 simply uses D-throw without a pummel. D3 can still chaingrab these characters even with move decay. And when you hit around 130%, the infinite becomes unescapable again.

DK and Bowser alone would be like Ness and Lucas for Marth, which means it might not be enough for a ban.

EDIT: What did Yuna just do?

EDIT2: NVM

 

[adumbrodeus]

We don't actually know if it can be done in a tournament setting. I heard the system for the breakout involves turning your controller upside-down and pressing Z, L, all the directionals, and all the face buttons on different frames. It also doesn't work at all if D3 simply uses D-throw without a pummel. D3 can still chaingrab these characters even with move decay. And when you hit around 130%, the infinite becomes unescapable again.

DK and Bowser alone would be like Ness and Lucas for Marth, which means it might not be enough for a ban.

It's supposed to be an infinite, there's plenty of time to setup.


And 130 isn't when it becomes a true infinite, 127 is just the highest it's been escaped from SO FAR, keep in mind that was off first pummel.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

It's supposed to be an infinite, there's plenty of time to setup.


And 130 isn't when it becomes a true infinite, 127 is just the highest it's been escaped from SO FAR, keep in mind that was off first pummel.

Yes, and SO FAR, I have not seen a tournament video where this was successfully implemented.

Actually, my real concern isn't the setup of the break, but rather the return to default. I could see one major limitation being the need to turn the controlled right-side-up before a D3 re-grab.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

We don't actually know if it can be done in a tournament setting. I heard the system for the breakout involves turning your controller upside-down and pressing Z, L, all the directionals, and all the face buttons on different frames. It also doesn't work at all if D3 simply uses D-throw without a pummel. D3 can still chaingrab these characters even with move decay. And when you hit around 130%, the infinite becomes unescapable again.

DK and Bowser alone would be like Ness and Lucas for Marth, which means it might not be enough for a ban.

EDIT: What did Yuna just do?

EDIT2: NVM

Different inputs on the same frame count. Trust me.

I have a hand position that I use that I find quite efficient, which doesn't involve fingers to be on "unnatural buttons". I'm the one who set the standard for "around 130%".

And, as for getting grabbed at very high percentages, I think they had a rule; 300+% is stalling, I think it was.

(Yuna made another account to save his 9001'th post.)

 

[QNZ_RAFA]

D3's chaingrab PERIOD should be banned...

its the ONLY **** CHAINGRAB or MOVE/THROW in ALL OF THE SMASH BROS. GAMES that DEFIES SMASH BROS. LOGIC.

When your at a higher damage.... any move you do will cause a harder knock back correct? that's how ALL the games were made??

NOW i dont give a $H1T about .. ooo but if you take this away from D3 then he wont be as good. I DONT CARE.

In smash bros. when your at a higher percent a move should have more knock back. this is the only FREAKING MOVE/CHAIN GRAB that you can do at 999% and it'll still have the same knock back than when it wuz at 0%...BROKEN! ban that $H1T! HOW CAN U ALLOW A CHAINGRAB/ INFINITE that can last till 999%. wack.

 

[Fletch]

Because I want the post to be meaningful, not one of a jillion in a thread full of spam.

Why do you have a second account now, and how the hell did you get banned?

 

[TheReflexWonder]

its the ONLY **** CHAINGRAB or MOVE/THROW in ALL OF THE SMASH BROS. GAMES that DEFIES SMASH BROS. LOGIC.

Yoshi D-Tilt had set knockback.

Ness F-Throw.

Fox's down-angled F-Tilt in N64.

There are lots that work this way...

 

[Fletch]

Yoshi D-Tilt had set knockback.

Ness F-Throw.

Fox's down-angled F-Tilt in N64.

There are lots that work this way...

How could you forget Fox's shine?