Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[RDK]

I stopped reading here.

If you are the best Smasher in Austria, then Austria must be a sad, sad place.

^ Siggable.

pretty sure he can infinite wolf over the edge.

Yay! Let's make tournaments a pain in the *** for TO's and ban grabbing at the edge of any platform or stage and make the parameters of this ban (and future ones) even more subjective and arbitrary!

The point is that all you guys bring to the table is nonsensical subjective garbage arguments. Most of you arguing for the ban don't have the slightest insight into how competitive fighting games work. If you went to SRK and tried this **** they'd laugh you out of town.

 

[da K.I.D.]

@Dsonic
not really,

you can CG him to the edge and right before he gets to the edge you can just do a running grab, and if you dont do anything after that D3 will slide to the edge in his grab.


and WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA at all you people.

the only reason i brought up wofl to beging with was because some guy was trying to get all the information straight and he missed that detail.

stop getting your panties in a bunch people...

 

[RDK]

the amount D3 has to move is so miniscule that he needs barely any stage to do a hell of a lot of damage. Not sure on the edge

If you're going to use ease of use as an argument then you guys need to first establish what's "easy" and what's "hard". Although seeing as how you failed miserably after the whole "roster majority line" debacle, it might prove impossible.

And da K.I.D., that particular post wasn't directed at you. I was addressing the people who are still arguing that the infinite effecting 1 character still warrants a ban.

 

[highandmightyjoe]

1st match:
The enemy knows that you use the character, so he uses D3. D3 doesn't has too bad matchups, so it's not really risky to use him because it could result in a 100 % win.

That goes both ways, if I know they main DDD I won't use DK either. Furthermore, if I were to travel to a region that had a large number of strong DDD players, I may not main him there at all.

That was a mispelling of "beat", not "break".

My bad then

How about the main argument:
It does not over-centralize the game, break it or make it unplayable (kinda the same thing as breaking, but not necessarily).

I'm pretty sure that the people who are still arguing that this should be banned, are doing so because they haven't accepted that as being the main argument yet. I'm pretty sure no one has attempted to say that two characters is overcentralized.

Originally Posted by Luigi player
I guess you're just an egoist. If your character(s) would be affected you'd want this banned too.

Hello.

 

[Yuna]

I'm pretty sure that the people who are still arguing that this should be banned, are doing so because they haven't accepted that as being the main argument yet. I'm pretty sure no one has attempted to say that two characters is overcentralized..

Sadly enough, yes they have. Some have argued that 5 (out of 39) is over-centralization. Others have actually argued that 2 is over-centralization.

So you still have hope for humanity. You must be new here.

 

[da K.I.D.]

once again i just want it to put it out there that I, CO18, and i think maybe Atomsk and Seibrik are all D3 players that advocate the ban.

also personally i never said that 1,2, or 5 characters is overcentralising, i just said that using overcentralising is subjective because everyone has different opinions and shouldnt be used as criteria.

 

[RDK]

once again i just want it to put it out there that I, CO18, and i think maybe Atomsk and Seibrik are all D3 players that advocate the ban.

also personally i never said that 1,2, or 5 characters is overcentralising, i just said that using overcentralising is subjective because everyone has different opinions and shouldnt be used as criteria.

So four D3 players out of the entire community advocating the ban means it must happen.

How is this even an argument? Saying "X person advocates the ban, so...." is completely the opposite of how this should work. Look past the person and look at the rationality behind their stance. Why do they think so?

It just so happens their reasoning is garbage and is anti-competitive.

Edit: overcentralizing is actually a simple concept. Not too hard to grasp, seeing as how if it effects a majority of the cast it's overcentralizing.

 

[Yuna]

once again i just want it to put it out there that I, CO18, and i think maybe Atomsk and Seibrik are all D3 players that advocate the ban.

3 D3's want it banned. And? And why should it matter if the D3's want it banned or not, even if they happened to be in the majority? Unless they come in here (or the SBR, I guess) and debate for their position with valid arguments that hold up to counter-arguments, it's just 3 more votes in the pile.

also personally i never said that 1,2, or 5 characters is overcentralising, i just said that using overcentralising is subjective because everyone has different opinions and shouldnt be used as criteria.

Yes, but the vast majority of credible people with insight into Competitive gaming would agree that 2 out of 39 match-ups / 2 out of 37 legit characters/39 including transformations is not, in any shape or form, over-centralizing.

 

[highandmightyjoe]

Sadly enough, yes they have. Some have argued that 5 (out of 39) is over-centralization. Others have actually argued that 2 is over-centralization.

So you still have hope for humanity. You must be new here.

I was probably subconsciously overlooking those posts, because I know that if I where to ever actually see such a thing, logic itself would explode. My hope is gone.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

Luigi Player, obviously you didn't understand the thrust of my post. In short:

1) Anyone who has a main is setting themselves up to be counterpicked round 1 if they know about it, and if they don't, then you don't have to worry about it so much.

2) If you force them to play DeDeDe round 2/3 (they lost round 1 and CP DeDeDe), you switch to an anti-DeDeDe secondary (which you should have, obviously, as that's your weakest matchup, and your secondary should shore up your weakest matchups). If they don't, then you play your main.

So no, its not horribly disadvantageous. Does it suck to face DeDeDe with DK? Sure. But at worst, you play DK whenever you pick second, and oftentimes you can simply pick him in the blind first pick unless you've been scouted or are well known (and if you are well known, then you shouldn't be scrubby enough to be that predictable).

As I pointed out, you have the advantage here if you're forcing them to go DeDeDe to counter your DK, as you simply don't play DK when they can CP DeDeDe, and if they pick DeDeDe preemptively, you pick a counter-DeDeDe character and pound on him. Moreover, as DeDeDe is the BEST counter for DK, you can probably trap a lot of people into a bad matchup in this way.

Yeah, it requires you to play two or three characters (DK, anti-DeDeDe, random other) but all tournament players should have at least that many characters they feel comfortable with precisely to prevent this sort of situation. And if you use a mixed first-round strategy (pick DK sometimes, pick anti-DeDede sometimes) then your foe is left in a position where they have to guess.

I probably know more about smash than you do because I don't do anything else than smashing at the moment.

Not really, no. I'm afraid how much time you spend doing it doesn't matter. What matters is how good you are at it and how well you understand it, as well as how scrubby you are.

Yeah of course everyone plays it because it's fun, but I'm sure everyone who started playing this game started to play it because his favourite characters were in it.

Not me. I just played it because it was hilarious and fun, as did most people who played it; indeed, I think the #1 reason people play the game is because it is fun, not because of their favorite character's presence.

This is Donkey Kong sliding almost nowhere from D3's dthrow. How far you slide depends on who you are. Some characters just happen to slide so little D3 can grab them again. It's simply D3's amazing grab range, D3's dthrow's mechanics + the inept sliding of certain characters.

This is the game doing 100% what it should be doing based on how it is designed.

TL;DR: Just because it is an error does not mean it is a glitch. This isn't even an error.

Its a badly programmed game. And yes, it is an error, a very bad one. However, unless the game is patched, officially, by Nintendo, its how it works.

pretty sure he can infinite wolf over the edge.

He can, but he's not the only character who can infinite over the edge. The moral of the story is "don't get grabbed on the edge".

So you still have hope for humanity. You must be new here.

They aren't real people, they're internet people!

once again i just want it to put it out there that I, CO18, and i think maybe Atomsk and Seibrik are all D3 players that advocate the ban.

This doesn't matter one whit, and the fact that you think it does is very silly. Because I don't play DeDeDe, and think it shouldn't be banned, does that make my opinion more valid? No.

 

[Surri-Sama]

They aren't real people, they're internet people!

I like this :o

 

[Luigi player]

You can say the exact same think replacing DK with any char except MK and replacing D3 with that char's counter.

No. You can still win with every other character. That's the big difference.

i know your on the pro-ban side, i am as well, but your not making the best of arguments lol, this scenario is what happens to pretty much everybody who is playing a better player, even most MK mains have a secondary, this is a situation where u should probably have a few backup characters, i play probably 10 characters at tourney level just for the sole reason of being able to counterpick any situation.

I don't get why it isn't a good argument. Look at what I wrote above. I know every character has counters, but everyone knows that it is still possible to win , and that is the big difference.

I wouldn't complain about anything if it would still be possible to actually win the match.

I don't even main DK, my main is Diddy. Falco has an advantage over Diddy. Other characters have advantages over Diddy. Does that mean I want Falcos chaingrab to spike, Olimars Pikmin or something else banned? NO.

It is still possible to win. If it wouldn't be we would only see MKs, Snakes, Dededes and maybe Falcos or whatever winning tournaments.

That is not how it is.

Everyone can still win.

You can NOT win with DK vs Dedede, because the infinite makes it impossible to win.


You may not know it, but I also play many characters. Heck, my main isn't even DK or Luigi. I main Diddy which even has an advantage over Dedede.

But I don't want to always play the same character and since I also like to play DK I play him too, but it takes a really stupid risk with it, a risk of a 100 % loss, because of a stupid infinite.

Of course there's always a risk, but not such a ****ing big one. You can still win tournaments with Lucas for example, if you're good enough. You can still win tourneys with Sonic, if you're good enogh.

You can still win tourneys with DK, if nobody plays Dedede.

If someone just picked Dedede, you will lose. No matter how good you are.

That goes both ways, if I know they main DDD I won't use DK either. Furthermore, if I were to travel to a region that had a large number of strong DDD players, I may not main him there at all.

You don't know if your enemy plays D3. Everyone could just use him if you use DK. Even if they just pick him up the first time. You will not lose to a great DK (if you know how the infinite works).




Yuna, I guess if you just think of "competitive gaming", then there's no real reason to ban it. It's just that I thought the smash community cared about them.

Also, I don't think many people just played Melee because they thought it's a good competitive game.
Many people bought Melee who played Smash 64 first and just wanted a fun fighting game.
Later the game evolved... but people who really like competitive games would most likely play fighters like street fighter or something else, and not Smash. The people that liked the game in the first place play it now. If people like "cool" games etc., they would probably not play Smash. (Mostly) Only people who like Nintendo play it, because it's with their characters.
If it wasn't with Nintendo characters I'm sure not many "Wii only people" would buy a console and the game just for the fighting system.

I'm sure everyone wants a larger scene and more characters that are viable, which we would probably have if we'd ban it.

 

[GofG]

No. You can still win with every other character. That's the big difference.

<snip>

I'm sure everyone wants a larger scene and more characters that are viable, which we would probably have if we'd ban it.

I think I understand your misconception. I want you to honestly hear what I have to say and think about it. Zen mind, Beginner's mind. Shoshin. Carry no preconceptions and look at yourself objectively.

You are under the impression that D3's infinite passes some threshold of brokenness, and because it has broken this barrier, it should be banned. You think that his infinite has certain qualities, attributes, that are required in order for it to be banned, and since it has met these criteria it should be banned.

In reality, we do not look for certain attributes to determine if a technique should be banned (beyond the first two of Sirlin's criteria, is it measurable and is it enforcable). We look simply at how broken it is. Brokenness can me measured linearly, and we can directly compare the brokenness of a technique on a scale as compared to other techniques.

How broken is D3's infinite? It is very broken. VERY. It makes the Donkey Kong vs D3 matchup nearly impossible.

However, it is still in the same group, the same ballpark, as other things which you seem to not particularly care about. Pikachu's chaingrab on Fox is similarly broken. Metaknight's ability to shut down characters like Captain Falcon and Link, also very very broken. These are broken tactics that we live with, and while these tactics do not epitomize brokenness to quite the same extent that D3's infinite does, you are a fool if you think that they aren't close enough to be in the same ballpark.

Metaknight shuts down quite a few characters, and he is easy to learn. Sure, maybe not as easy as getting a grab with D3 and then mashing the C-stick, but still easy enough that it's unfair (broken). There is talk of banning Metaknight, and has been for some time.

Pikachu's chaingrab on Fox takes a little more effort than D3's infinite, maybe. It requires some DI reading, so it isn't absolute, but it's still broken enough that the matchup isn't worth playing. It's less extreme than Metaknight and D3, but it is still in the same ballpark of brokenness.

Why, then, is D3's infinite so special? Just because it is the most broken of the hyperbrokens does not mean that it is different from them. It is not special, regardless of how many times you list its attributes. We could list the attributes of Pikachu vs Fox, too, and make it sound just as bad as you make D3's infinite sound.

Now, I would respect you and your argument if you also argued for the banning of Pikachu's chainthrow on Fox, and a large portion of Metaknight's moveset against certain low-tier characters, but you don't. You look at D3's infinite and say that it is so much better, so clearly different, that it deserves to be banned when these other broken tactics don't.

Now, if you reply to this post and say something about how D3's infinite IS more broken than these other tactics, it means you should go back and reread this post.

We do not care about the characters in Brawl. We don't care about Nintendo. We play Brawl because it is a decent 2-D Fighter. You should read this article, it will explain why we play Brawl. It has very little to do with the characters, or with our brand loyalty to Nintendo.


(I am making a lot of assumptions that I don't completely believe, here, though. I think if it weren't about brand loyalty and character loyalty, we would be playing Melee, the superior game. That is my opinion, but I'd like you to ignore that and pretend that I am a brawl player. I am speaking from what THEY believe.)

 

[XxBlackxX]

Yuna, I guess if you just think of "competitive gaming", then there's no real reason to ban it. It's just that I thought the smash community cared about them.

Also, I don't think many people just played Melee because they thought it's a good competitive game.
Many people bought Melee who played Smash 64 first and just wanted a fun fighting game.
Later the game evolved... but people who really like competitive games would most likely play fighters like street fighter or something else, and not Smash. The people that liked the game in the first place play it now. If people like "cool" games etc., they would probably not play Smash. (Mostly) Only people who like Nintendo play it, because it's with their characters. i don't like nintendo overall as a company(!). i liked smash64, melee, and brawl, omg impossible right? >_>
If it wasn't with Nintendo characters I'm sure not many "Wii only people" would buy a console and the game just for the fighting system.

I'm sure everyone wants a larger scene and more characters that are viable, which we would probably have if we'd ban it.

wow. shows you have no idea how "competitive gaming" is run. no one cares what everyone "wants" or "cares about". there is only one thing in competitve gaming, and that is "is this ban warranted". im sure plenty of people would have more fun with Brawl without MK, does that mean he should be banned? no, not unless he over-centralizes or breaks the game as a whole. fun factor and why people chose the game in the first place does not and should not ever be part of the criteria when deciding for a ban. first of all, both of those things are COMPLETELY subjective, and second of all, like Yuna said, this is competitive gaming, not some perfect world where everyone gets what they want and be happy. unviable characters and near unwinnable matchups happen. deal with it. the infinites do not over-centralize or break the game as a whole, so no ban is warranted.

 

[gantrain05]

stuff

ok, so you think that the DK vs DDD matchup is unfair? ok, yeah it probably is, but its still only ONE matchup, do you really think your going to a tourney of 25 people and 20 of them are going to be playing DDD? probablky not, i know you don't like the infinite, i don't either, but your points aren't helping the pro-ban side, you say its "unwinnable" or "impossible matchup" but really thats how some matchups are, when i first started playing brawl i mained lucas, i quickly found out that marth (and many other characters) would just abuse my grab-release animation and **** me for it, so i picked up another character, thats the nature of the game, there are bad matchups, but i DO agree that the infinite chain grab should not be allowed, but my reason is because the other player literally cannot do ANYTHING to get out, unless its a very low percent. I understand bad matchups, i know your frustration, but those aren't good reasons for a ban.

 

[GofG]

If possible, I'd like to keep the replies on hold until he responds to my post. Don't give him too much material to respond to or else he will ignore my post.

 

[gantrain05]

If possible, I'd like to keep the replies on hold until he responds to my post. Don't give him too much material to respond to or else he will ignore my post.

lol sorry, but if i may respond to your post?

i did argue metaknights ban, i do believe he is far above and beyond the rest of the cast, im not going into details here, this is not the thread for it, but anyways, the pika vs fox matchup is something we can directly compare to DDD's infinite, as it has many of the same properties, except for one, DDD's grab is infinite, there is no chance for escape unless your opponent drops his controller or something, it is just rediculously easy to initiate. while pikachu's CG on fox isn't infinite, it requires reading of DI, and can only be done, to i think around 70%? after that, fox is free, he's not at 200%+ and cannot be killed by a simple Bthrow when the percent gets high enough, i guess in my mind, what warrants the ban, is the inability for the person being infinited to do anything about it, which isn't the case for pika vs fox.

 

[da K.I.D.]

i just want to say that people are taking my arguments way farther than they should.

i only brought up a couple of D3 players to illustrate the fact that some people are putting forth the claim that the only people that are pro ban are those who main those 5 characters. and that is untrue, seeing as at least 4 four people who play D3 want this banned.

thats all im saying theres no need to take my points anywhere beyond what im saying. doing so would be strawmanning. it doesnt matter why they feel that way since the only point im trying to make is that there are people who play characters other than those 6 and even D3 himself that want the ban.

 

[Luigi player]

I think I understand your misconception. I want you to honestly hear what I have to say and think about it. Zen mind, Beginner's mind. Shoshin. Carry no preconceptions and look at yourself objectively.

You are under the impression that D3's infinite passes some threshold of brokenness, and because it has broken this barrier, it should be banned. You think that his infinite has certain qualities, attributes, that are required in order for it to be banned, and since it has met these criteria it should be banned.

In reality, we do not look for certain attributes to determine if a technique should be banned (beyond the first two of Sirlin's criteria, is it measurable and is it enforcable). We look simply at how broken it is. Brokenness can me measured linearly, and we can directly compare the brokenness of a technique on a scale as compared to other techniques.

How broken is D3's infinite? It is very broken. VERY. It makes the Donkey Kong vs D3 matchup nearly impossible.

Not nearly, it just is impossible.

However, it is still in the same group, the same ballpark, as other things which you seem to not particularly care about. Pikachu's chaingrab on Fox is similarly broken. Metaknight's ability to shut down characters like Captain Falcon and Link, also very very broken. These are broken tactics that we live with, and while these tactics do not epitomize brokenness to quite the same extent that D3's infinite does, you are a fool if you think that they aren't close enough to be in the same ballpark.

It is a much bigger difference. MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH. Captain Falcon might have a really bad matchup against Meta Knight, but he can win, because he can move.

The DK player can do NOTHING. It's like if you face ICs with an easier infinite and much bigger grab range (and you can't even hit nana away to be save).

Metaknight shuts down quite a few characters, and he is easy to learn. Sure, maybe not as easy as getting a grab with D3 and then mashing the C-stick, but still easy enough that it's unfair (broken). There is talk of banning Metaknight, and has been for some time.

Meta Knight is broken, but I don't want him banned. Why? Because I can beat him. Yes, it is theoretically also possible with Captain Falcon. Also, Meta Knight is a whole character. Dededes infinite is just ... an infinite (a "tactic").
I can not beat Dedede with DK, that's why I want it banned. It doesn't matter how good I am. I WILL lose to any Dedede player that is at least decent and knows how to infinite.

Also, Captain Falcon is not really a viable character anyway. Donkey Kong would be. Bowser is really good too. Don't forget about Luigi, Samus and Mario. They have an easier time avoiding it, and they aren't that bad. You can still be good with them. People could use them in tourneys. Their chance at winning would not be big, but it would be there, which makes it possible. It is impossible for them to beat a Dedede player though.

Pikachu's chaingrab on Fox takes a little more effort than D3's infinite, maybe. It requires some DI reading, so it isn't absolute, but it's still broken enough that the matchup isn't worth playing. It's less extreme than Metaknight and D3, but it is still in the same ballpark of brokenness.

I know that it is really bad. That you say it's about the same as DK vs D3 just shows that you don't know how it is.

Why, then, is D3's infinite so special? Just because it is the most broken of the hyperbrokens does not mean that it is different from them. It is not special, regardless of how many times you list its attributes. We could list the attributes of Pikachu vs Fox, too, and make it sound just as bad as you make D3's infinite sound.

Because it's an infinite.

Now, I would respect you and your argument if you also argued for the banning of Pikachu's chainthrow on Fox, and a large portion of Metaknight's moveset against certain low-tier characters, but you don't. You look at D3's infinite and say that it is so much better, so clearly different, that it deserves to be banned when these other broken tactics don't.

Meta Knight is beatable. Even with PT, Sonic, all of the low tiers. If they're just good enough for it. It doesn't matter how good the DK is. He just WILL lose. That's why I want it banned. I'm a pretty good player and my DK *****. Everyone could just use D3 and beat me. It just sucks ***.
I'm sure Fox can do much more against Pikachu. It sucks for Fox, but it is by far not as bad as DK vs Dedede.

Now, if you reply to this post and say something about how D3's infinite IS more broken than these other tactics, it means you should go back and reread this post.

lol.

We do not care about the characters in Brawl. We don't care about Nintendo. We play Brawl because it is a decent 2-D Fighter. You should read this article, it will explain why we play Brawl. It has very little to do with the characters, or with our brand loyalty to Nintendo.

I do not care about anything from a "Sirlin" guy or whatever.
We all (yeah I know not EVERYONE) started to play Brawl, because it has our favourite characters. That is how it is. Of course we would NOT play it long enough if it wasn't what it is.
We love the community and the competitiveness. But I'm sure most people started to play it as Nintendo "fanboys".

Melee player.

That's the proof that you don't even know how bad it really is. It is much worse for DK than anything Pikachu can do to Fox. It is in no way comparable, because it's that much worse.

 

[da K.I.D.]

also, it seems that RDK and yuna have come to an agreement that a broken tactic must affect at least 51% of the cast in order to be banned since they both use the word "minority" in their posts. is this true?

i just want to make sure I have my facts straight

 

[Cervial]

Not really, no. I'm afraid how much time you spend doing it doesn't matter. What matters is how good you are at it and how well you understand it, as well as how scrubby you are.

Actually, it does. He said "probably". Playing a game on a regular basis(i.e. a lot) makes it more probable that you know more about said game than someone that plays less than you. Probability isn't the same thing as reality.

Dig it. <.<

*leaves*

 

[SCOTU]

I've seen you against his TL before actually, so I'm sure you've played.
He recently posted in the Best Vids of Each character thread that it's not easy what he does.
I know it to be true, I use IC's too.

But who do you think it's easier for?
Obviously, him due to experience right?
What's stopping him from getting it just like how wavedashing was for us in Melee?



We all try. We're all getting better too.
I just yesterday saw one of Lain's matches against Noj(Needle of Juntah).
I know Niko was kidding but it's titled Lain(IC) vs NoJ (Doesn't Matter).

That's how well he is able to pull it off as of 12-12-08.

During the second match in the vid every initial grab was a 0-death.

Lain is no lame. And this has got to be getting easier on him as expected through experience. I hope to play him one day.



That's the thing though, isn't it?
End result--worth.

Jab is one of the easiest things to do in every game.ZSS has a 1st frame jab. You can push a so fast the controller catches fire in all it's technical difficulty, but if all it's doing is not as effective as B spam and side B spacing despite being easier, it's no point in using it.

Why spend money to have a girl with you every night when you can work a bit harder to get a girl friend and have her exclusively(hopefully) with less or no money( it won't be hourly but unless you find one that's not material god help you if you forget anniversary gifts)?





I'm easily impressed and greatly entertained.(lulz wombo combo)
Send me a vid if you ever get one.

I'm more Brawl these days, but I will always love Melee.




If it works as well as you say, and it gets out it will be mastered. Not like it's gonna hurt those Fox dittos and EPIC Falco v Fox matches.
(:


And Melee smashers are some of the most competitive people on the planet imo.
If it's worth it's weight it's done.





I know.
<3 Touhou.


My response was actually a quote from Portal, the game is hilarious.

My point is that Melee Players (such as I still am) DON'T use aforementioned shine infinite because its too hard to be consistent with, where you can do something else that's more consistent. EVEN THOUGH THE RESULT WAS AN INFINITE, NO ONE DOES IT CAUSE IT'S TO****HARD. Not that they would if they knew about it or anything, they just don't. This has been around for more than a year, and no one uses it.

Moral of the story: if you can do something, doesn't necessarily mean that someone will master it, EVEN IF IT'S GOOD.

Also, at a previous point: MK IDC was banned because its a stalling technique, and it would be impractical to have judges watching every MK game to determine if the MK is using it for stalling vs "safely retreating". When does one become the other? TOs would have to monitor all MK matches because of this, and it's just not reasonable. That's why it's banned. Not because people can exploit this to invariably win matches (unless you're talking about stalling).

The thing stopping something difficult from being like wavedashing in melee? Melee's wavedash has a several frame window, with only 5 different timings for the whole cast (1 timing is for bowser alone). Something like a JC shine infinite has a 1 frame window, and must be repeated at a reasonably fast rate. Something like alt-grabbing requires different timing for the whole cast. There things are on a totally different magnitude of technical skill from a wavedash. SOME THINGS WON'T BE MASTERED, EVEN IF IT IS BENEFICIAL TO DO SO.

also: how did i NOT catch the portal reference the first time?

 

[Cervial]

Now, if you reply to this post and say something about how D3's infinite IS more broken than these other tactics, it means you should go back and reread this post.

Not to butt in or anything, but correct me if I'm wrong.

According to the dictionary, there is a big difference between escapable and inescapable, so I don't quite see how his disagreeing with you based upon the definitions found in the dictionary means he needs to reread your post. >_>

 

[supersupersuperguy]

Yes, yes it should be banned. I hate things that can turn the tide of a battle just by itself. If you can use DeDeDe's infinate chaingrab you have very little use of other moves, except to lure you opponent into your trap.

 

[j00t]

Why should this question even have to be asked? Yes. Ban it. It takes no skill at all to perform.

 

[SCOTU]

Why should this question even have to be asked? Yes. Ban it. It takes no skill at all to perform.

What does skill needed to perform have anything to do with whether or not it should be banned?

what matters is whether it breaks the metagame. And does it? NO.

DDD isn't in charge of the metagame. He's up there because he can cg a lot of the cast, but not even because of his infinite CG. DDD, however, gets sorely ***** by MK, and therefore does not come close to breaking the metagame at all.

His infinite cg is there simply to afflict a few matchups. it's inconsequential in the DDD ditto, since they can both do it. DK, wolf, samus, luigi, mario, are all characters that don't see much play anyways. DK has decent matchups against the high tiers, so it matters a little against DK, but he makes up for it for not being ***** by MK and snake.

The Only reasons to ban a technique are for
1) it's used for stalling
2) It breaks user control of their character (i.e. IC's freeze glitch in melee)
3) It doesn't allow the game to finish (i.e. sheik's chain glitch in some instances)
4) It makes the game not able to be played competitively

does the infinite chain throw violate any of these reasons to ban? No. Should it then be banned? No. There is no reason to ban it.

 

[Luigi player]

What does skill needed to perform have anything to do with whether or not it should be banned?

what matters is whether it breaks the metagame. And does it? NO.

DDD isn't in charge of the metagame. He's up there because he can cg a lot of the cast, but not even because of his infinite CG. DDD, however, gets sorely ***** by MK, and therefore does not come close to breaking the metagame at all.

His infinite cg is there simply to afflict a few matchups. it's inconsequential in the DDD ditto, since they can both do it. DK, wolf, samus, luigi, mario, are all characters that don't see much play anyways. DK has decent matchups against the high tiers, so it matters a little against DK, but he makes up for it for not being ***** by MK and snake.

The Only reasons to ban a technique are for
1) it's used for stalling
2) It breaks user control of their character (i.e. IC's freeze glitch in melee)
3) It doesn't allow the game to finish (i.e. sheik's chain glitch in some instances)
4) It makes the game not able to be played competitively

does the infinite chain throw violate any of these reasons to ban? No. Should it then be banned? No. There is no reason to ban it.

... isn't that the case with every infinite?

 

[gr8ape]

This thread is now about how melee kicks ***.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72lxqiwzbBA&feature=related

 

[RDK]

also, it seems that RDK and yuna have come to an agreement that a broken tactic must affect at least 51% of the cast in order to be banned since they both use the word "minority" in their posts. is this true?

i just want to make sure I have my facts straight

That would pretty much constitute overcentralizing, yes.

Basically: if it comes down to play as this person or lose, that's when it's gotten too out of hand. That's why the whole ban MK debate wasn't even really debatable at this point.

Edit: Scotu did a good job outlining ban criteria in his post; missed it.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

... isn't that the case with every infinite?

You die with an infinite (you have to kill them once you're over 300%) so you regain control of your character. Your character is frozen via the IC freeze glitch and they can just sit there doing nothing.

The reason stalling rules are enforcable whereas stuff like this isn't is because with stalling, if someone is stalling and you call over a judge, your opponent will either be DQed or stop stalling. But with something like an infinite grab combo, you call over the judge and your foe just stops doing it at that point and there's no evidence it was happening.

 

[Luigi player]

You die with an infinite (you have to kill them once you're over 300%) so you regain control of your character. Your character is frozen via the IC freeze glitch and they can just sit there doing nothing.

The reason stalling rules are enforcable whereas stuff like this isn't is because with stalling, if someone is stalling and you call over a judge, your opponent will either be DQed or stop stalling. But with something like an infinite grab combo, you call over the judge and your foe just stops doing it at that point and there's no evidence it was happening.

Yeah but... isn't that a stupid rule? If this rule that you have to kill the enemy once he's reached 300 % wouldn't be there, then this could get banned, lol.

 

[CRASHiC]

If we ban this then we open up discussion for the ban (or major limitation) of ice climbers grab as well. So no, don't ban. Adding a rule opens up the way for another rule. Remember this.

 

[RDK]

Yeah but... isn't that a stupid rule? If this rule that you have to kill the enemy once he's reached 300 % wouldn't be there, then this could get banned, lol.

The rule is there so you don't stall the match indefinitely.

 

[XxBlackxX]

@luigi player...i do believe you completely skipped over my posts two days in a row....answer my point, which is the MAIN point of the anti-ban argument. whether or not the matchup is truly impossible or not DOESN'T MATTER.

wow. shows you have no idea how "competitive gaming" is run. no one cares what everyone "wants" or "cares about". there is only one thing in competitve gaming, and that is "is this ban warranted". im sure plenty of people would have more fun with Brawl without MK, does that mean he should be banned? no, not unless he over-centralizes or breaks the game as a whole. fun factor and why people chose the game in the first place does not and should not ever be part of the criteria when deciding for a ban. first of all, both of those things are COMPLETELY subjective, and second of all, like Yuna said, this is competitive gaming, not some perfect world where everyone gets what they want and be happy. unviable characters and near unwinnable matchups happen. deal with it. the infinites do not over-centralize or break the game as a whole, so no ban is warranted.

^this was a reply to your post to yuna.

 

[adumbrodeus]

So you want to tell me that most people who have a Wii hate Nintendo and don't care about it? You're making a fool of yourself.

Stop strawmanning, I asked you to prove that the vast majority of players decided to play the game because of the characters.

I'm not saying that they consciously dislike the characters, I'm not even saying that they don't like the characters a lot.

BUT, you made the assertion that the vast majority of players chose to play the game simply because they liked the characters.


Quite frankly, I'm fed up with you making sweeping statements like this with no proof whatsoever.

So prove it.


You're missing the issue that there are many possibilities beyond picking up the game simply because you like the characters and hating the characters but liking the game anyway.

I'm a game programmer myself. Maybe I just didn't know what exactly a glitch is.
(I'm sorry, but english isn't my main language) Well it's still not intentional and should not be in the game.

The fact that it's unintentional doesn't in any way factor into it's ban-worthiness.

Yeah, that's why I want to ban it?! Because it's unfair.

I think you misunderstood, a competitive player should take advantage of any way to avoid unnecessarily expending mental energy.

I don't understand how everyone can be so heartless.

In the night I hear 'em talk,
The coldest story ever told,
Somewhere far along this road
He lost his soul
To a woman so heartless...
How could you be so heartless... oh
How could you be so heartless?


But seriously, it's not about being heartless, the problem is, emotional responses are rarely the right ones in situations like this.

For example, my emotional response to Ganondorf being completely nonviable in this game is to ban everything that gives him a 20-80 match-up or worse. I could very easily classify anyone who disagrees with me as heartless, I mean he IS one of my favorite characters, and it's just not fair that he's not tournament viable, right?

Unfortunately, the cost in depth for the metagame just simply isn't worth it, so I can endure, and hope that Ganondorf is better next game.

It would actually make the D3 players better, because they don't just have to move 2 controlsticks over and over (which requires no skill).
If they never have a hard match to win they will get worse. Overall at least.

It's like if you use MK and start to only use upB and/or the tornado.
Because it works you can just do if over and over.
If you don't have to change your playstyle you will get worse if you have to ever face someone where it doesn't work.

It's not a good example... I hope you get what I want to say >_<

But, if it works against everyone that you ever face, why is it bad?

The game knows only one measure of skill, winning or losing. If you beat everyone you ever face every time you face them (and you face them on multiple occasions) you're better then, or at least better then they were last time you faced them.

Nothing else matters.

Well of course no matchup is totally equal unless it's a ditto.
But DK vs D3 is not just unfair. It is totally unfair and a decent player can beat a very very good DK.

That's what hard counters are.

I see everyone from the anti-ban as heartless =/
I mean, how can you care about the game if you just poop on those 5 characters?

5 CHARACTERS?!

Let me say this once more...

LUIGI, SAMUS, AND MARIO AREN'T INFINITED UNTIL 130+ DAMAGE! THE INFINITE IS BASICALLY USELESS AGAINST THEM!



If you miss that, you're hopeless.

Yeah and since it isn't the only matchup D3 will get worse if he's used more on DK than others. I know my example sucked. Anyway, the skill that is needed to perform it is not irrelevant, because if ICs was really easy to do then their infinites would get banned. Even if grabbing an opponent isn't really easy. If their chaingrabs would be as easy as the D3 infinite I'm sure they would totally dominate the smash scene.

If D3s infinite was difficult and mess-up able, DK players would not really complain that much, because they could get free. But this just doesn't happen because it's really really easy to do.

I've pointed this out before, there are plenty of ICs players that can infinite on command, the reason that they don't have good match-ups is because THEY CAN'T GRAB ANYONE!

lol?

I'm counting either 3 or 4 viable characters - depending on whether you count Luigi as viable (I do ... some don't): DK, Bowser, Wolf and ... well Luigi.
Samus and Mario are atm not really viable, as long as nobody proves otherwise. Boss is the only player who does really well with Mario and Samus is ... completely underused (to say the least). I think Yuna is exaggerating, when he says only two of them are viable...Wolf and DK might be the only high tiers who get infinited but Bowser is perfectly viable and Luigi is also good enough imo.

Either way, I really stopped caring. I voted "Yes" but I perhaps shouldnt've...it doesn't matter in the end 'cuz nobody cares about that vote anyways.

No, two.

It's not a question of viability, he can only infinite himself and DK, everything else requires a wall or something else that makes it way too situational.

People do toss in the small-step chaingrab on bowser just because it gives a very bad match-up.

More like, more reason for you to come down to NC and play Melee with Foxy and I in the mountainhouse.

Eh, you are pretty much right on this, this is definately the reason I prefer melee competitively.

My point is that Melee Players (such as I still am) DON'T use aforementioned shine infinite because its too hard to be consistent with, where you can do something else that's more consistent. EVEN THOUGH THE RESULT WAS AN INFINITE, NO ONE DOES IT CAUSE IT'S TO****HARD. Not that they would if they knew about it or anything, they just don't. This has been around for more than a year, and no one uses it.

Moral of the story: if you can do something, doesn't necessarily mean that someone will master it, EVEN IF IT'S GOOD.

I maybe I'm going out on a limb and it's really not humanly possible to maintain for an extended period of time, but it does strike me as rather lazy to not learn an essentially auto-win tech just because it's difficult.

Granted, I play Marth and Sheik in melee...

also: how did i NOT catch the portal reference the first time?

Please note that we have added a consequence for failure. Any contact with the chamber floor will result in an "unsatisfactory" mark on your official testing record, followed by death. Good luck!

Yeah but... isn't that a stupid rule? If this rule that you have to kill the enemy once he's reached 300 % wouldn't be there, then this could get banned, lol.

Because it's a discrete enforceable way to prevent stalling while avoiding banning the technique entirely.

That way we can decide based on the merits of the tech instead of whether or not it stalls. If such a thing is impossible, then we ban, no questions asked.

 

[RDK]

And just for the record, I have a Wii and I hate Nintendo. Since when was not owning something made by a company a requirement for hating that company?

Melee was a great game. It just so happens that Nintendo blows.

 

[XxBlackxX]

And just for the record, I have a Wii and I hate Nintendo. Since when was not owning something made by a company a requirement for hating that company?

Melee was a great game. It just so happens that Nintendo blows.

i second this.
in fact, i don't even like my wii, the xbox 360 is just so much better imo, and the only game i really play on the wii is brawl.

 

[Brinzy]

Thirded.

+1

 

[Kamikaze*]

Why should this question even have to be asked? Yes. Ban it. It takes no skill at all to perform.

I lol'd. Skill it takes to perform something is not a factor.

 

[Kamikaze*]

Anyway, to answer the Q, I don't think it should. He has it on only 5 characters. If he had it on more, then banning it may be a possiblility.