Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[RDK]

You've obviously never tried to shoot fish in a barrel

Not at a tournament level, no.

I do admit that my experience with competitive barrel-fish shooting is limited at best. However, my principle still applies.

 

[Niiro]

You sig is epic.
On topic, I voted for the ban =D

 

[IrArby]

IrArby
I hate people like you, your view on this game is completely unwarrented.

just because you doont like the way brawl was made doesnt not make it a bad game nor does it make it a poor fighter.

Brawl is bigger on mindgames moreso than most games out there. funfact. every fighting game out there is based on spacign and priority. thats how they work, and your negative connotations of this game are completely unsubstantiated because of it.

also you are using a horribly flawed definition of combo for the context. if you are only getting 1-2 hits at a time, you suck and you arent playing the game right. because in order to continue the string of consequtive hits (i.e. the combo) you have to use mindgames to force your opponent to do what you want them to do so that you can continue hitting them.

Mindgames and skill are just as important in brawl, just because it doesnt fit your conventions of what a "good" fighting game "should" be, that doesnt make it bad.

And just so you know, the better skilled player in brawl STILL WINS. why do you think M2K, DSF and Azen are still the best players in the country? cus they are the most skilled and they have the mindgames to supplement it. If brawl wasnt a skill ful game, any random nub of the street could come in and beat Azen, but they dont...

and heres a newflash for you, you ARE telling people to stop playing brawl, because you (incorrectly) think thats its not a skill ful game. And if you are losing to somebody less skilled than you, you probably arent as skilled as you thought.

Fun fact, I never said Brawl was a "bad game" or a "poor fighter" merely that an 80:20 matchup is lop sided in Melee just as it is in Brawl. The difference is an 80:20 matchup is really more like a 60:40 matchup in Melee if you and your opponent are decent players. In Brawl a 80:20 matchup stays a 80:20 matchup because the skill between highest levels of play and decent players is greatly decreased. People will sneer but the difficulty of the infinite is highly relevant to the ProBan side. If these guys were getting owned at every turn by a superior character than it'd be alright. Since the manner of pwnage is easy, they hate it.

No **** M2K still wins. I could be wrong but doesn't he play the best character? Oh wait, yea he does. MK right? And D3 who is pretty high up there as well. Undoubtedly, hes the best MK since he can space better and has better control over MK than probably anyone out there. He punishes well, and doesn't put himself in stupid situations. He does those things better than almost anyone. BTW Me saying this game isn't skillful and it being without skill are not the same thing. It isn't based entirely on skill or even mostly unless you're doing dittos.

If you are getting more than a few hits on someone consecutively without them remaining in hitstun you should play better people or at least tell them to airspotdodge. Sure you can predict the dodge and punish by which time there back onstage (or above it more specifically).

As RDK said, Brawl is more reliant or in other words dependent on mindgames. Its certainly not bursting at the seams with them. This dependency merely indicates a lack of depth. Lacking depth equals lacking applications of standard moves. Lacking applications equals less mindgames. Sure theres something to be said for minimalism, doing alot of new creative things with little to work with, but it ends as some point.

Most fighting games are about alot more than JUST Spacing and Priority. Otherwise, Super Mario 2 for the Super Nintendo would qualify as a fighter. (Your priority is at your feet, unless you come into contact with a disjointed hitbox like a spike. Bam! Fighter)

Thanks to RDK and fletch even if you didn't agree entirely with my post.

gaintrain: you may suck my balls. Yes this is useless flaming but you didn't exactly make any attempts at intelligent discussion either so please hang yourself with your controller and do the thread a favor.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Oh God, where do I start? This post is absolutely, 100% wrong.

Brawl does not require more mindgames at all; not by any stretch of the imagination. The real problem is that beecause the game is so vapidly shallow and lacks the kind of competitive spark that Melee had, more focus is put onto mindgames instead of a healthy combination of tech skill and mindgames.

The only difference is the game takes less tech skill because, let's be honest, the amount of tech skill required in Brawl is approximately the same as the amount required to shoot fish in a barrel.

And I can't express how wrong you are about Brawl being more mindgame-oriented than other fighters. Have you even played any given Street Fighter at a competitive level? How about Marvel? KoF? GG?

Any one of those requires more mindgames than Brawl, simply because there's so much more you and your opponent can do.

I have to take issue for this. When you reach the top of the metagame tech skill becomes functionally irrelevant, tech skill is a pass-fail thing, you can either do it reliably or not, so it's not really a quantitative factor, and emphasis on tech skill as an absolute measure of skill is a bad thing because the analysis breaks down at top levels of play.


On the other hand, ATs (that aren't pass/fail) generally improve DEPTH which adds dimensions to what is ultimately a game of Yomi skill, complicating it and ultimately increasing the gap between different skills, which is a good thing.


Really, if wavedashing was impossibly easy to execute it would still be an incredible tech, because it adds so much depth to the metagame by giving additional spacing options. At that point, the important thing about the techs are not IF they exist, but application, and application in terms of the finer points of the game (spacing, mindgames).

So, having more and harder ATs isn't what made melee better. What made melee better is the fact that it has more depth, period.

As RDK said, Brawl is more reliant or in other words dependent on mindgames. Its certainly not bursting at the seams with them. This dependency merely indicates a lack of depth. Lacking depth equals lacking applications of standard moves. Lacking applications equals less mindgames. Sure theres something to be said for minimalism, doing alot of new creative things with little to work with, but it ends as some point.

Yes, thanks for saying it, DEPTH. However, ultimately Yomi defines every multi-player game, but depth allows for more options to use said Yomi.

The problem with Brawl, Yomi is, "you just tripped into Ike's f-smash", whereas the much greater depth in Melee allows for far more and precise yomi, better traps, many more layers.*

Being reliant on mindgames is great, but being reliant on SIMPLE mindgames is bad.



*Obvious exegeration, I do appreciate Brawl, I just appreciate melee more.

gaintrain: you may suck my balls. Yes this is useless flaming but you didn't exactly make any attempts at intelligent discussion either so please hang yourself with you controller and do the thread a favor.

Ouch, go a bit overboard much?

Would probably be more annoyed if it wasn't for the obvious and rather amusing typo,

"so please hang yourself with you controller and do the thread a favor"

 

[IrArby]

Yes, thanks for saying it, DEPTH. However, ultimately Yomi defines every multi-player game, but depth allows for more options to use said Yomi.

The problem with Brawl, Yomi is, "you just tripped into Ike's f-smash", whereas the much greater depth in Melee allows for far more and precise yomi, better traps, many more layers.*

Being reliant on mindgames is great, but being reliant on SIMPLE mindgames is bad.



*Obvious exegeration, I do appreciate Brawl, I just appreciate melee more.




Ouch, go a bit overboard much?

Would probably be more annoyed if it wasn't for the obvious and rather amusing typo,

"so please hang yourself with you controller and do the thread a favor"

Lol I'll edit it. I remember this guy from Yuna's original Is Brawl more Balanced than Melee thread and he was equally annoying in that thread and I missed the chance to vent my feelings then.

I won't take the time to reread the whole post but from what I gleaned at first glance, I completely agree with you. Its depth over difficulty because difficulty becomes almost a non-issue at the highest levels. ProBan peeps can't stand the lack of difficutly to the infinite yet "Lack of Difficulty" permeats throughout the game. Execution of most everything is easy. Ease isn't important at the highest levels but noobs are now much closer to the highest levels and aren't used to coping with unwinnable matches.

As far as shooting fish in a barrel goes: if you're using buckshot (which many hunters do) you wouldn't have any problem shooting the fish. Whether the buckshot would actually go through the barrel is another thing entirely but either way you'd still kill fish extremely easily.

 

[RDK]

I have to take issue for this. When you reach the top of the metagame tech skill becomes functionally irrelevant, tech skill is a pass-fail thing, you can either do it reliably or not, so it's not really a quantitative factor, and emphasis on tech skill as an absolute measure of skill is a bad thing because the analysis breaks down at top levels of play.


On the other hand, ATs (that aren't pass/fail) generally improve DEPTH which adds dimensions to what is ultimately a game of Yomi skill, complicating it and ultimately increasing the gap between different skills, which is a good thing.


Really, if wavedashing was impossibly easy to execute it would still be an incredible tech, because it adds so much depth to the metagame by giving additional spacing options. At that point, the important thing about the techs are not IF they exist, but application, and application in terms of the finer points of the game (spacing, mindgames).

So, having more and harder ATs isn't what made melee better. What made melee better is the fact that it has more depth, period.

Yes, thanks for saying it, DEPTH. However, ultimately Yomi defines every multi-player game, but depth allows for more options to use said Yomi.

The problem with Brawl, Yomi is, "you just tripped into Ike's f-smash", whereas the much greater depth in Melee allows for far more and precise yomi, better traps, many more layers.*

Being reliant on mindgames is great, but being reliant on SIMPLE mindgames is bad.

When I mentioned tech skill I essentially was including any and all applications of advanced techniques along with it. That's what tech skill means; mastering the finer aspects of the game.

For the most part you're correct on it being a pass / fail thing, but my main point was that the depth that advanced techniques provides Melee with is what makes the game that much more engaging and skill-requiring. There's just that much more to do. Couple that with lots of room for mindgames and it's clear which game is better at fostering competition.

If you really want to delve into this whole "top of the metagame" thing, then we can go the route of tech skill being just as manipulative and basically creative as mindgames. What are mindgames but baiting and tricking your opponent? Tech skill can play a large part in that also; just not always at certain levels.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I won't take the time to reread the whole post but from what I gleaned at first glance, I completely agree with you. Its depth over difficulty because difficulty becomes almost a non-issue at the highest levels. ProBan peeps can't stand the lack of difficutly to the infinite yet "Lack of Difficulty" permeats throughout the game. Execution of most everything is easy. Ease isn't important at the highest levels but noobs are now much closer to the highest levels and aren't used to coping with unwinnable matches.

Agreed, it is applying a fundamental double standard.

I was really talking about tech skill though, because games with more depth are always more difficult. In that sense, it's not difficulty of execution that's important, but difficulty in proper application.

The reason is because, the more options you have, the more possible mistakes you can make ESPECIALLY the slight mistakes. Freedom to do more is first and formost, freedom to make mistakes. But as you become better, you understand better and better options at any given time as you improve and are thus able to use it better. The more freedom that a tech allows, the more options it gives both in whether to use it or not and how to use it.

That's one thing that I think is lacking in brawl, moves that offer that much freedom There are only a few characters with truly significant examples of this (Marth with his sweetspot/non-sweetspot options for every situation and spacing for that, Diddy with his Bananas, etc.).


On the other hand, in melee we had wavedashing for every character, possibly one of the best examples of this ever. And that's just one example.

As far as shooting fish in a barrel goes: if you're using buckshot (which many hunters do) you wouldn't have any problem shooting the fish. Whether the buckshot would actually go through the barrel is another thing entirely but either way you'd still kill fish extremely easily.

Playing to win right there.

"You didn't say no shotguns with buckshot!"

 

[Blad01]

seriously though, RDK is right, the pro-baners want to make brawl a more "competitive" game, but at the same time ignore the principles of competitive gaming.

Maybe because these principles need to be relative ? Or readapted to Smash ? Or simply need to be redefinied better.

I don't have a lot of time now to explain myself, but this argument is the same, over and over. If we want to make brawl a more "competitive" game (and that's what we want), the principles of 'competitive gaming' should be on our side, not against us. If they are against us, maybe they are not perfect.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Maybe because these principles need to be relative ? Or readapted to Smash ? Or simply need to be redefinied better.

I don't have a lot of time now to explain myself, but this argument is the same, over and over. If we want to make brawl a more "competitive" game (and that's what we want), the principles of 'competitive gaming' should be on our side, not against us. If they are against us, maybe they are not perfect.

we don't ban things to increase competitiveness either, but you're right, this IS the same **** over and over.

why should the criteria be different for smash? why do you guys want smash, or just brawl actually (if you played melee or 64 you would know this kinda stuff wouldn't warrant a ban), to be different? if our criteria worked in the past, why change it?

 

[adumbrodeus]

When I mentioned tech skill I essentially was including any and all applications of advanced techniques along with it. That's what tech skill means; mastering the finer aspects of the game.

For the most part you're correct on it being a pass / fail thing, but my main point was that the depth that advanced techniques provides Melee with is what makes the game that much more engaging and skill-requiring. There's just that much more to do. Couple that with lots of room for mindgames and it's clear which game is better at fostering competition.

If you really want to delve into this whole "top of the metagame" thing, then we can go the route of tech skill being just as manipulative and basically creative as mindgames. What are mindgames but baiting and tricking your opponent? Tech skill can play a large part in that also; just not always at certain levels.

Really, execution of tech skills is fundamentally different then applying them, because it's a pass/fail measure, not a qualitative measure.

While it's obvious that this is a purely semantic discussion, it is important to have a term for pure ability to execute a technique.

I can point you to Sirlin's explanation of the "plateaus" for the best reason why "tech skill" refers to execution, and not application (specifically stating that once you've mastered tech skill, at that plateau, you can't gain anything else from rote practice and instead you have to learn the finer points of the game).

Again, L canceling is a tech skill, but making it pass/fail adds nothing to depth. The answer to when to use L-canceling is "always", so it gives no bad decisions, only a good one.


So, in essence tech skill gives you the ABILITY to improve your trickery of the opponent, or to simply wall them. But the "how", that's not tech skill. That's actually part of spacing, Yomi, etc.

Maybe because these principles need to be relative ? Or readapted to Smash ? Or simply need to be redefinied better.

I don't have a lot of time now to explain myself, but this argument is the same, over and over. If we want to make brawl a more "competitive" game (and that's what we want), the principles of 'competitive gaming' should be on our side, not against us. If they are against us, maybe they are not perfect.

Or perhaps they're against you because banning is a trap in this case, and the principals are there to prevent you from falling into.


Which IS the entire point of that essay about banning, it IS a trap, it's the easy way out that in the long run, hurts the competitive scene.

 

[IrArby]

Or possibly because they want them to apply only for their characters. The exception should be made in the case of a high mid-tier character who has a good matchup against MK right? NO

Then again maybe the tried and true tested principles of competitive fighting should be changed. The 08er's think so at least and they obviously know better.

Seriously, the principles are not against Brawl or the ProBans, you all are against the principles. The principles are effective guidelines that don't take sides.

 

[da K.I.D.]

the needless descrimination of people based on their join date needs to stop.

The Brawl bashing needs to stop.

and the ad hominem needs to stop.

all I ever see here is "you dont go to tourneys or you dont play other games and therefore your opinions dont matter."

Have you people ever thought that the fact that if some people havent played other games before this one, that it gives them the ability to use their common sence to ascertain that this infinite is anti competitive (2nd criteria for banning.) where as people who grew up playing more trad. fighters. have this whole play to win and never ban anything mindset burned into them contrary to their better judgement just because thats how its always been.

Of course not. because all the 08 joiners were obviously born in the month of their join date and they cant possibl come up with a knowledgable idea in this debate, ESPECIALLY when they disagree with ME....


(close-minded) people really sicken me sometimes.

 

[RDK]

the needless descrimination of people based on their join date needs to stop.

The Brawl bashing needs to stop.

and the ad hominem needs to stop.

all I ever see here is "you dont go to tourneys or you dont play other games and therefore your opinions dont matter."

Have you people ever thought that the fact that if some people havent played other games before this one, that it gives them the ability to use their common sence to ascertain that this infinite is anti competitive (2nd criteria for banning.) where as people who grew up playing more trad. fighters. have this whole play to win and never ban anything mindset burned into them contrary to their better judgement just because thats how its always been.

Of course not. because all the 08 joiners were obviously born in the month of their join date and they cant possibl come up with a knowledgable idea in this debate, ESPECIALLY when they disagree with ME....


(close-minded) people really sicken me sometimes.

You're not getting what's fundamentally wrong with banning the infinite. We don't ban things to fix individual matchups. We ban things to make sure the game doesn't start to revolve around one character or one technique. Look at my previous post where I outlined the current ban criteria; overcentralization isn't the only one.

You need to realize that it's just a ****ty matchup. DK's built-in attributes make him susceptible to an infinite. It's exactly the same as any other character whose attributes make him suck in some way or another (Fox vs. Pika). It's just a matter of degrees, and DK drew the short straw on this one. Honestly, just get over it.

 

[XxBlackxX]

the needless descrimination of people based on their join date needs to stop.

i agree, though both sides of this argument used this.

The Brawl bashing needs to stop.

agreed

and the ad hominem needs to stop.

*ahem* you and gantrain seems like the people who started this needless flaming, so you only have yourselves to blame

all I ever see here is "you dont go to tourneys or you dont play other games and therefore your opinions dont matter."

where did anyone state that with one exception?(the guy clearly had no experience and backed up his arguments poorly though) and honestly, if someone does't even play brawl competitively, then what's the point of them arguing this?

Have you people ever thought that the fact that if some people havent played other games before this one, that it gives them the ability to use their common sence to ascertain that this infinite is anti competitive (2nd criteria for banning.) where as people who grew up playing more trad. fighters. have this whole play to win and never ban anything mindset burned into them contrary to their better judgement just because thats how its always been.

the infinite is not anti-competitive. i've been over this a couple times.
anyways, i don't get it. i just don't get it. you admit that if brawl was any other "trad. fighter", as you called them, this wouldn't be banned. so why should brawl be different if those fighters were successful?
you know what's common sense? "don't fix what's not broken" and i am NOT referring to the infinites, i'm referring to the ban criteria that you guys seem to be so eager to change.

(close-minded) people really sicken me sometimes.

they do. not to mention the fact that i happen to think you're close minded. also, didn't you just say we needed to STOP the needless flaming? CONTRADICTION!

 

[Melomaniacal]

O.o

...well, I'd just like to stop in and mention how I was at first for the ban, and I've actually been convinced to switch sides, essentially. I can understand both sides, but the more and more I think about it, the infinite doesn't seem like something we'd ban.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

2) But it would make the characters viable so we have more character diversity.

This was addressed a billion pages ago.

It doesn't make any more characters viable because, guess what? DK already is viable.

And it isn't the same, because it is not a move. It is an oversight that should obviously never exist. The programmers didn't see that you could do it so it is still in the game, but we can just ban it to fix it.

Anyone who knows anything knows that designer intent is utterly irrelevant. The game is what it is; you are arguing that wavedashing should be banned.

Sorry, but what the designer intends is always irrelevant. What matters is what we have.

3) Every matchup should have at least a chance to win for both characters.

And DK does have a chance. He just has to avoid being grabbed.

Guess what?

Every point in your post was already countered in this thread.

Ergo, you are trolling.

Go away. Its clear you have nothing intelligent or useful to say.

 

[salaboB]

You're not getting what's fundamentally wrong with banning the infinite. We don't ban things to fix individual matchups. We ban things to make sure the game doesn't start to revolve around one character or one technique. Look at my previous post where I outlined the current ban criteria; overcentralization isn't the only one.

This post is full of opinion.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

This post is full of opinion.

And so are most pro-banners' points.

Smooth Criminal

 

[salaboB]

And so are most pro-banners' points.

Smooth Criminal

That is why most ban discussions go nowhere, yes.

There is no fixed set of criteria in SSBB's tournament community for banning or not banning, both sides' frequent claims to the contrary.

 

[XxBlackxX]

That is why most ban discussions go nowhere, yes.

There is no fixed set of criteria in SSBB's tournament community for banning or not banning, both sides' frequent claims to the contrary.

we don't need the SBR to come out and say: "_____" this is the criteria. why? because if people have played any other fighting game competitively for a while, they should already KNOW the criteria. and the infinites don't fit them.

 

[RDK]

This post is full of opinion.

No it's not. Learn how competitive fighting games work.

And here's a novel idea--try actually supporting your claims instead of posting inane one-liners; maybe then people will think you're relevant.

Oh wait--you're not relevant because you don't know how competitive fighting games work. Oh well.

 

[salaboB]

No it's not. Learn how competitive fighting games work.

And here's a novel idea--try actually supporting your claims instead of posting inane one-liners; maybe then people will think you're relevant.

Oh wait--you're not relevant because you don't know how competitive fighting games work. Oh well.

Guess it's time to unban a bunch of stages that only significantly impact single characters or are just random, since they won't overcentralize the metagame to have present.

Oh wait, there's more to banning than just whether they overcentralize or not.

I didn't support my claims because there's no need -- you have no basis for your statements. Show me where there's any kind of official statement for the SSBB competitive community on what is required for banning, and I'll concede that you're not just stating what you believe.

 

[IrArby]

He didn't need to support his criteria-- you have no support for telling him to produce SSBB official rulesets for what we take to be common sense gaming. Why would there be a ruleset available to us anyway? SBR decides whats banned and whats not. The criteria has been the same for other games including Melee and it makes sense.

When you refer to unbanning stages that impact single characters its usually because the single character uses that stage to their advantage not the other way around. Its not done to make that matchup for that character easier. Its to stop the game and that character from being overcentralized on that stage. Over Centralization is one of the criteria. Makes sense and it works.

You've edited your post since I read it last time and now I'm rather confused by the first unbanning overcentralized part. Could you clarify what you're trying to say?

 

[da K.I.D.]

@black
i didnt contradict myself because i said I dont like close minded people.
Saying I dont like close minded people isnt really something i would consider flaming but feel free to disagree.
although I never stated that you specifically were close minded, and i dont believe that now, because I can see that you do tend to look at others point of view despite the fact that you disagree with them, some times you have bad reasonings for your disagreements but thats neither here nor there.

and personally i think brawl has the right to tweak the rules of whats acceptable and whats not seeing as its a vastly different game from other games that use the criteria you speak of.

@irarby,
common sence isnt so common anymore, its common sence to me that you would ban something that breaks matchups as severely as D3s infinite but obviously that sence isnt common among everyone.

also, stages dont over centralise as much as you think, thats why the counterpick system works, its the same system that anti banners use to justify DKs viability in a tourney setting.

you all need to find djbrowny's blog thread about banning tactics vs. playing to win. let me see if i can find it for you
EDIT: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=213602

 

[Luigi player]

In Melee you didn't lose all control of your character.
In Melee there was more hitstun and that's why those combos worked.

Brawl is different.
There are not many combos, because of less hitstun -> you can always do something, unless you're being infinited from Dedede.

 

[salaboB]

He didn't need to support his criteria-- you have no support for telling him to produce SSBB official rulesets for what we take to be common sense gaming.

I said it was his opinion.

If he has nothing to prove any differently, how are either of you saying I'm wrong?

 

[Pablo51]

This was addressed a billion pages ago.

It doesn't make any more characters viable because, guess what? DK already is viable.



Anyone who knows anything knows that designer intent is utterly irrelevant. The game is what it is; you are arguing that wavedashing should be banned.

Well he never said that wavedashing should be banned. He's saying that anything outside of designer intent CAN be banned and the infinite is more reasonable to do so than wavedashing because it is a technique from one character only. Wavedashing is performed by all characters in Melee; not much good banning that.

 

[IrArby]

da Kid: I do however possess the common sense (WTF is sence? lol) to realize you're obviously ego-centric enough to think people who don't agree with ProBanners lack common sense. No one would worry about banning D3's infinite if DK was in C.Falcon's spot. If we're gonna ban things that break matchups MK won't play half of the cast. This argument is dated. Besides, common sense wouldn't neccesarily apply to a competitve game as competitive gaming doesn't fall within the realms of common knowledge.

As far as the stage discussion goes I was reffering to saloB's post. He (I think) mentioned how we DO ban things because of individual characters. This is out of context corret, however he failed to mention that this usually applies to a single character owning on one stage not getting owned which is what the D3 infinite argument is arguing. Those of us with common SENSE already knew this.

 

[da K.I.D.]

EDIT: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=213602

Felt it needed reposting


the concept of this ban seems so basic and simple as to why it should be banned that, yes it seems like people who dont see it would lack common sense

but i am not so egocentric so as to think that its impossible to see it from the other side or have a different view, i just cant see how people wouldnt bann this.

sorry if that doesnt make sense, i dont know how to phrase it right...

 

[Yuna]

I TL;DR:ed everything after half-way down page 341.

It seems the pro-ban side seems to still be operating under the delusion that all characters need to have a fighting chances against every other character, even if this requires random BS bans that really only matter for that match-up. They also seem to think "It will make more characters viable!" and "It will allow for more diversity!" is valid criteria for a ban.

They are not. Not every character is viable, not all match-ups are winnable and why the Hell has none of you pro-ban people answered this:
If we want to maximize diversity or even just get some more of it into the game, why not ban all of Top Tier + some of High Tier because together they render a great portion of the cast unviable? We'd receive more characters back as viable characters should we ban all of these characters.

These characters also have plenty of match-ups where the other side is facing an unwinnable match-up, from 80-20 and up.

Tell me, why should we not employ your logic and ban them all?!

Well he never said that wavedashing should be banned. He's saying that anything outside of designer intent CAN be banned and the infinite is more reasonable to do so than wavedashing because it is a technique from one character only. Wavedashing is performed by all characters in Melee; not much good banning that.

Why not? If it affects all characters, it's actually more over-centralizing, has a greater impact on the metagame and the greater picture, thus banning it is more warranted than banning something which is character-specific.

 

[salaboB]

As far as the stage discussion goes I was reffering to saloB's post. He (I think) mentioned how we DO ban things because of individual characters. This is out of context corret, however he failed to mention that this usually applies to a single character owning on one stage not getting owned which is what the D3 infinite argument is arguing. Those of us with common SENSE already knew this.

The D3 infinite is one character owning against certain others, it can't just be certain characters being owned without one also doing well against them. You're not making sense.

Edit: My point remains, there is no fixed criteria for banning. There is also no "common sense" criteria laid out for banning. All that there is for banning or not is opinion -- bans in all games have been rare enough that nobody can say with certainty what it requires. All that can be said is what isn't ban-worthy, and even that is only comparable as much as Brawl is similar to the game it is being compared against. How many other games have infinites that certain characters can only perform against certain others, to compare Brawl to?

 

[Face124]

If we want to maximize diversity or even just get some more of it into the game, why not ban all of Top Tier + some of High Tier because together they render a great portion of the cast unviable? We'd receive more characters back as viable characters should we ban all of these characters.

I'm not pro ban, but I see a flaw in this argument. This characters don't make more characters almost competely unviable, whereas D3's infinite can.

I know its silly to argue with Yuna, especially when he has just made an angry sounding statement in the same post, but I'll risk my dignity

I'm anti ban simply because I believe in the ability to switch characters. The infinite doesn't make those characters unviable, it makes them almost unviable against D3.

 

[1048576]

Lol wut. If you believe in counterpicking, you should be anti-ban.

The top seven chars prevent everyone else from winning. If we banned them, then perhaps the next 12 characters would prevent the bottom tier from winning.

D3 doesn't make DK unviable, it just gives him one more bad matchup. Fox/Pika, Fox/ZSS, CF/MK, D3/Olimar (I don't really know about that one; I just assume it's easy sauce for Olimar), etc...

Bad matchups are part of any competitive fighter. Unwinnable matchups at high levels of play are part of any competitive fighter. If you want to ban unwinnable matchups, we'll probably end up with an unusable game.

 

[IrArby]

The D3 infinite is one character owning against certain others, it can't just be certain characters being owned without one also doing well against them. You're not making sense.

Edit: My point remains, there is no fixed criteria for banning. There is also no "common sense" criteria laid out for banning. All that there is for banning or not is opinion -- bans in all games have been rare enough that nobody can say with certainty what it requires. All that can be said is what isn't ban-worthy, and even that is only comparable as much as Brawl is similar to the game it is being compared against. How many other games have infinites that certain characters can only perform against certain others, to compare Brawl to?

Unless I'm very mistanken, thats what I said. Perfect example: Melee banned Hyrule not entirely but mostly because of Fox who could easily run away all day (the lower part where you could tech everything and live played some part aswell). This stage was a perfect place for Fox to shoot lasers and runaway to stall matches. Thats what I'm referring to. Also, said stage-dependent tactic (or any tactic really) would have to be broken against a large portion of the cast not one or two characters regardless of their high mid-tier positioning.

If theres a stage thats got alot of walls it probably should be banned because it makes for bad play and opens up infinites/semi-infinites for lots of characters.

Maybe there isn't laid out official criteria by the SBR or whatever but please let us all know if you can think of better criteria or good reasons why we shouldn't use the criteria that RDK already outlined. In part, thats what the thread is meant to define in particular how it relates to D3's infinite.

 

[Yuna]

I'm not pro ban, but I see a flaw in this argument. This characters don't make more characters almost competely unviable, whereas D3's infinite can..

Yes they do.

 

[ColinJF]

Brawl is different.
There are not many combos, because of less hitstun -> you can always do something, unless you're being infinited from Dedede.

More like... unless you're hit by a weak hit (< 2550 launch speed), in which case you can't do anything, not even DI.

Ban weak hits!

 

[Luigi player]

But you can always do something.

A weak hit is not a 0-death combo that always works.

 

[ColinJF]

Weak hits are completely broken because they take away your ability to control your character. All you can do is watch, helplessly.

 

[Yuna]

But you can always do something.

A weak hit is not a 0-death combo that always works.

So you wish to ban alll combos which are 0-death which "always works" (I'm assuming this to mean "As long as the person doing it doesn't make any mistakes")? Grab release infinites, various chaingrabs, certain locks?

 

[Luigi player]

So tell me what chaingrabs are 0-death and what locks are too. Grab release infinites? Don't they end at the edge?