Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Flayl]

Really now?
Can you explain in what way you feel I established a line?
an you show that the numbers I used are completely subjective?
That anything over 50% would not be equal to a majority?

Let me give you a hint, when you said the figures are far from significant, what does significant mean?

Witless one liners do nothing to prove me wrong.
Prove that DDD's infinite makes Dk's viability equivalent to that of a bottom tier character.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=6197985#post6197985
I think you're underestimating just how easy the infinite is to pick up and use in a competetive environment.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Let me give you a hint, when you said the figures are far from significant, what does significant mean?

Show that 13.5%=50.0000000000000000000001%

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=6197985#post6197985
I think you're underestimating just how easy the infinite is to pick up and use in a competetive environment.

Doesn't matter how easy it is to use.
Again look at Sheik's CG on Link and Bowser.
instant death grab.

But wait lets entertain this line of thinking.
Then why are the IC's infinite banned? They are incredibly hard to perform yet they are banned. So why is it okay to ban one infinite and not another when they are both infinites? Just something to entertain myself with you do not have to respond to it.

 

[Flayl]

Show that 13.5%=50.0000000000000000000001%

There we go, that's your arbitrary line. Half the cast.

Doesn't matter how easy it is to use.

No, but it sure helps to remove DK and Bowser as viable characters. You'd have to be stupid/honorable not to CP Dedede.

 

[salaboB]

Doesn't matter how easy it is to use.
Again look at Sheik's CG on Link and Bowser.
instant death grab.

Maybe it should have been banned, but it's a little late to revise history for Melee.

Ease of use doesn't matter, ease of setup does. That's the primary difference between DDD's infinites and the IC's infinites.

 

[ShadowLink84]

There we go, that's your arbitrary line. Half the cast.

Really now?
So anything more than half the ast isn't a majority and therefore wouldn't show an impact on the metagame.
dear me.

No, but it sure helps to remove DK and Bowser as viable characters. You'd have to be stupid/honorable not to CP Dedede.

Again how does one terrible matchup remove DK as a viable character?
A in, how does it prevent him from being used at all.
I am awaiting your response.

 

[Flayl]

Really now?
So anything more than half the ast isn't a majority and therefore wouldn't show an impact on the metagame.
dear me.

What? Wow, I just walked you through on this, and you reply with something that makes no sense. Half the cast is YOUR arbitrary line on how many characters it would take for this infinite to get banned. According to YOU, if it affected half the cast - 1, it would no longer overcentralize the game and thus would not be valid for a ban.

Again how does one terrible matchup remove DK as a viable character?
A in, how does it prevent him from being used at all.
I am awaiting your response.

I gave you the link, what do you want me to do, copy-paste it? Also you do know not viable != never ever used.

 

[Yuna]

But let's just say that the inifinite worked on EVERY character except say Captain Falcon, would that call for a ban? you could always just CP C.falcon to fight D3's right?

No, because that would be over-centralizing. If the only possible counterpick with a reasonable chance of winning is CF, then the game would be over-centralized around D3.

What we're saying is a technique which makes a matchup impossible (in a competetive environment, nobody cares if you can win against your 4 year old brother) should be banned.

And you have yet to tell us why.

Why, really? Plenty of match-ups are unwinnable. Many are unwinnable due to a single technique/tactic/move. Why should we ban things just because it's one thing and not, say, five? Just because we can? Just because of a misguided delusion that match-ups need to be fair and if we can ban things to achieve that, we should?

What about match-ups that are unwinnable due to more than one move/tactic/technique? Two? What if a match-ups in unwinnable due to two such things? Why should we arbitrarily ban things when it's just one TTM (technique/tactic/move) but not two TTMs? Why draw an arbitrary threshold there?

And hey, let's take it further. 3 TTMS? 4 TTMS? 5? TTMS? Why one and only one?

So how come when we thought that Ness and Lucas couldn't escape from Marth's "infinite", we didn't ban that?

The answer? Tier bias.

And blatant fanboyism. Let's not forget that the Ness and Lucas players whined about how it should be banned when it was first discovered.

The thing is that they were fewer in numbers. They were only two characters, two characters who were rarely played (due to tier bias, yes). Thus, the number of whiners were limited.

This was originally thought to affect 5 characters (because it doesn't really affect D3), one of which is a High Tier (and thus played more). Also, blatant fanboyism for Bum. I mean, how many Nesses and Lucases are there who stand a chance of winning a major tournament if the grab release combos against them were banned?

Bum stands such a chance, thus he has fanboys who believe he is entitled to playing as his favorite character and that we should ban things to make it possible for him to do so.

So it all comes down to fanboyism. It's no coincidence that Bum's regions banned D3's infinites (among other things) almost immediately upon its discovery. It's no coincidence the TOs in his region immediately deemed it "unfair" and "too good" without even discussing it or researching it with anyone else. Because they know Bum, they've seen him play, they're biased.

Let me tell you a story about what a real Competitive gamer does:
Soul Calibur II - Xianghua is Top Tier (I only found this out after choosing her as a main) -> Soul Calibur - Xianghua is still Top Tier -> Soul Calibur IV - Xianghua is Mid and sucks, I'm probably going to switch to Sophitia
Super Smash Bros Melee - Peach is High Tier and has good to decent match-ups against everyone in the game -> Super Smash Bros Brawl - Peach is Low and sucks, I immediately (within days) switched to Marth, then Toon Link and ultimately Zelda (as my main main, see my sig for more info on this)

If your main is unviable and you want to be able to win when playing Competitively, then switch mains. Don't demand things be banned to make things easier for your main. If you can't deal with either sticking to your very unviable main and not win or simply switching mains, then go back to being a Casual player.

No, no. Un-winnable match-ups are just...a given when it comes to competitive gaming, particularly fighting games. I was just hoping that somebody could expand on that point.

Where have you been? I've been repeating that phrase (sometimes with elaboration and often bolded) for months.

You can also be like the AN and ban grab releases and Ice Climbers' infinites as well. lol

Or the tournament(s?) which ban all of D3's chaingrabs (including those who require you to move forward quite a bit).

You have yet to show us how this ban would be warranted. You hide between platitudes like "There's no reason to not ban it!" or some such very flawed arguments.

Who cares if it's a "horribly flawed technique"? That doesn't mean the ban is warranted. And please enlighten me on how you crushed the "Pikachu vs. Fox"-argument. You claim to have done so, support that claim.

It wasn't made as big of an issue because it was a lesser number of characters, the Earthbound players didn't get enough people to care, because they weren't vocal enough.

This affects only two characters, that affects only two characters. Really, there's no difference. Even after it was discovered this only affects two characters, people still whined about this much more than they ever whined about the Earthbounders.

Also, answer the question head on:
Do you think a ban on the infinite grab release (which I believe Charizard can still perform infinitely) against the Earthbounders would be warranted had it indeed been infinite?

Also, what is your position on Wario-infinite which many characters possess?

Just to point out, the numbers don't tell the whole story. If DDD infinited not just DK and some lowish tiered characters but instead had an infinite on DK, MK, Snake, Falco, Olimar, and himself, your numbers would look the same but the impact on the metagame would be huge.

Sheik's downthrow had a huge impact on the metagame in Melee. Ban?

Whether or not something impacts the metagame is irrelevant. It is only relevant if they over-centralize or break the game. Guess what would happen if MK, Snake, Falco and Olimar were infinitable by D3? They would no longer be viable.

Thus, people would stop playing as them, thus, other characters (ones not suffering horrendous match-ups) would become Top Tier and life would go on. If a character is found to be unviable, he drops in tiers.

This debate started with the infinite occuring to 6 characters.

Yet it's still going strong, stronger than the Earthbounder debate ever came close to being.

theres also wolf who he can CG to the edge and than infinite him over said edge.

No, he cannot just waltz across the stage with Wolf and then infinite him at the ledge. It's too situational for that. And if we're gonna talk about that, let's ban Snake's infinite on every tall character in the game, because that certainly warrants a ban if anything if we're gonna whine about a very situational infinite only doable at the ledge.

No, but it sure helps to remove DK and Bowser as viable characters. You'd have to be stupid/honorable not to CP Dedede.

Or lazy. Many people do not care enough to always counterpick the best counterpick against their opponents if their main already has a good match-up against them.

 

[highandmightyjoe]

And blatant fanboyism. Let's not forget that the Ness and Lucas players whined about how it should be banned when it was first discovered.

The thing is that they were fewer in numbers. They were only two characters, two characters who were rarely played (due to tier bias, yes). Thus, the number of whiners were limited.

This was originally thought to affect 5 characters (because it doesn't really affect D3), one of which is a High Tier (and thus played more). Also, blatant fanboyism for Bum. I mean, how many Nesses and Lucases are there who stand a chance of winning a major tournament if the grab release combos against them were banned?

Are you suggesting that DK is popular? Theres like 5 of us!

 

[salaboB]

What? Wow, I just walked you through on this, and you reply with something that makes no sense. Half the cast is YOUR arbitrary line on how many characters it would take for this infinite to get banned. According to YOU, if it affected half the cast - 1, it would no longer overcentralize the game and thus would not be valid for a ban.

It's okay, according to SL even if it affected the entire high and top tiers it wouldn't overcentralize the game.

The problem is that ShadowLink is only looking at his numbers in a vacuum. Sure, if DDD could land his easy-grab infinite on the entire high-top tiers you'd CP against him...but he does quite well against pretty much everyone else. So while it would seem like there's an easy solution (Just don't play any of the 6 best characters in the game against DDD except another DDD...which sounds ridiculous on its own) when you look at his matchups against the rest of the cast the problem starts to emerge.

Saying that not banning the infinite is reasonable because it only affects 6 people and it doesn't matter who those 6 people are is unrealistic. There are in fact 6 characters that an already strong character with an easy infinite against would cause overcentralization.

But good luck arguing it with him, he's stuck on his "If it doesn't directly work on a majority it's not overcentralizing" argument, and since you can't get a majority out of 6 characters I don't think you'll convince him otherwise.

ShadowLink: You're the only one who has said "Majority". Expecting everyone else to draw their lines at 50% just because you use a term is silly.

 

[Axel.EmO]

I don't feel it should be
Yes it's unfair
But it was built into the game
The creators surely know that this could happen
There must be a way to beat it :D

 

[ShadowLink84]

What? Wow, I just walked you through on this, and you reply with something that makes no sense. Half the cast is YOUR arbitrary line on how many characters it would take for this infinite to get banned. According to YOU, if it affected half the cast - 1, it would no longer overcentralize the game and thus would not be valid for a ban.

*facepalm*
Really its like I am speaking binary. -_-;

You believe we should ban something affecting 5 characters.I believe whatever i believe (I never stated what was the line and I never will.).
At which point I brought up the numbers and tallied them up.
At which point the objective line of reasoning is to determine if those numbers are significant enough.
At which point this means we cannot agree on what is significant. This means we would ahve to go with somethig that is undeniably significant, something that affects the majority which would mean we would consider anything over the 50% because anything less would fall down to be called arbitrary.

Do you understand now?
Numbers do not lie.

I gave you the link, what do you want me to do, copy-paste it? Also you do know not viable != never ever used.

I am starting to wonder if you are trolling.
Answer the question and stop dancing around the issue.

HOW DOES DK BECOME UNVIABLE WITH THE DDD INFINITE BEING LEGAL?

It's okay, according to SL even if it affected the entire high and top tiers it wouldn't overcentralize the game.

Can you prove that it does?
prove your claims rather than simply making them.

The problem is that ShadowLink is only looking at his numbers in a vacuum. Sure, if DDD could land his easy-grab infinite on the entire high-top tiers you'd CP against him...but he does quite well against pretty much everyone else. So while it would seem like there's an easy solution (Just don't play any of the 6 best characters in the game against DDD except another DDD...which sounds ridiculous on its own) when you look at his matchups against the rest of the cast the problem starts to emerge

Let us say we ban the infinite.
4 of the characters who get infinited end up as 60:40 to 6535 matchups.
So how is that better than Cping to a character who goes 60:40 or goes 50:50?
DDD has to be at a disadvantage when you have a solution?
because frankly, thts where your line of reasoning is leading.

Saying that not banning the infinite is reasonable because it only affects 6 people and it doesn't matter who those 6 people are is unrealistic. There are in fact 6 characters that an already strong character with an easy infinite against would cause overcentralization.

overcentralizing means when the game starts to centralize on that one character/technique.
obviously DDD cannot infinite more than those 6 characters and you also ahve 12 that he cannot even Cg period.
So how in the hell does that cause overcentralizing?
Seriously I asked this repeatedly earlier and no one answered the question.
in fact rarely does anyone do so.

But good luck arguing it with him, he's stuck on his "If it doesn't directly work on a majority it's not overcentralizing" argument, and since you can't get a majority out of 6 characters I don't think you'll convince him otherwise.

Which has yet to be disproved.
Disprove me.
Why should I secede my argument when the most you have done is state "Sl84 disagrees with me."

ShadowLink: You're the only one who has said "Majority". Expecting everyone else to draw their lines at 50% just because you use a term is silly.

I had to re-read this because it was too funny.
Go back to my posts, read through them, you'll notice that the conclusion I came to was by using the most objective route as possible. Which is by numbers.
Oh and you have yet to disprove over a decade of evidence that supports the basic argument from the anti-ban side concerning over-centralizing.

Address the arguments, disprove them, and I''ll admit you are right.
however you're simply wasting my time if all you are going to do is baw about me not agreeing with you because you haven't disproven what I stated.

 

[Yuna]

Are you suggesting that DK is popular? Theres like 5 of us!

I'm suggesting DK has more supporters who are not DK players themselves because of, among other things, Bum.

Flawed stuff.

It would not over-centralize the game. No matter which 6 characters were involved, the game would not be over-centralized around D3 or the infinite if we didn't ban it. It would merely be affecting the metagame to different degrees depending on who is infinitable.

Refer to the following post for more on this:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6282705&postcount=5368

 

[Brinzy]

You're making it sound like I want to ban combos.

You want to ban a 10/15/20-hit combo right now.

 

[salaboB]

Numbers do not lie.

Numbers themselves don't lie, but the way they're presented lies all the time. Just ask anyone who has to massage data to make it give the impression they want it to. The numbers are always accurate but the end results sure look different.

You have to demonstrate you've selected a good criteria for your numbers to mean anything. You haven't shown that at all.

To be in line with your "I won't tell you what I really feel" though, I'm not saying the infinite should be banned. I'm just saying your arbitrary "It only affects 6 characters directly so it shouldn't be banned" number selection is meaningless.

 

[highandmightyjoe]

HOW DOES DK BECOME UNVIABLE WITH THE DDD INFINITE BEING LEGAL?

I have mentioned this before but to me this is an important aspects of this debate. The difference between theory and practice.

In theory DK is unviable, because anytime he wins a match his opponent should counter DDD and win from there. DK should never be able to place well in a tournament. In practice however, not everyone counters DK with DDD. In fact in my experiece they rarely do. So in practice he is still viable. For that matter even if it was always used as a counter to DK, he would still be viable as a counter to certain chatracters and could still be mained so long as you had a confident secondary, which really you should anyway.

 

[Flayl]

*facepalm*
Really its like I am speaking binary. -_-;

You believe we should ban something affecting 5 characters.I believe whatever i believe (I never stated what was the line and I never will.).
At which point I brought up the numbers and tallied them up.
At which point the objective line of reasoning is to determine if those numbers are significant enough.
At which point this means we cannot agree on what is significant. This means we would ahve to go with somethig that is undeniably significant, something that affects the majority which would mean we would consider anything over the 50% because anything less would fall down to be called arbitrary.

Do you understand now?
Numbers do not lie.

For the love of the internet, if you cannot seriously grasp what's wrong with your logic, I have nothing furhter to add.

I am starting to wonder if you are trolling.
Answer the question and stop dancing around the issue.
HOW DOES DK BECOME UNVIABLE WITH THE DDD INFINITE BEING LEGAL?

What the hell, are you blind? I linked you to a post that explained in detail how somebody could not main DK (hence he is unviable) in a non-ban environment.

 

[Krnxmatt7]

It's kind of unfair, but there are ways to get out of it...except those 5 characters.

It wouldn't affect me that much. Not a big fan of banning it, but who knows.

 

[ShadowLink84]

For the love of the internet, if you cannot seriously grasp what's wrong with your logic, I have nothing furhter to add.

Sometimes people do not see the elephant in the room because they simply do not see it.
Can you do me a favor and point out what is wrong and proving them?

What the hell, are you blind? I linked you to a post that explained in detail how somebody could not main DK (hence he is unviable) in a non-ban environment.

The link you gave me sends me to the beginning of the topic it doesn't send me to such a person.

I have mentioned this before but to me this is an important aspects of this debate. The difference between theory and practice.

In theory DK is unviable, because anytime he wins a match his opponent should counter DDD and win from there. DK should never be able to place well in a tournament. In practice however, not everyone counters DK with DDD. In fact in my experiece they rarely do. So in practice he is still viable. For that matter even if it was always used as a counter to DK, he would still be viable as a counter to certain chatracters and could still be mained so long as you had a confident secondary, which really you should anyway.

I must disagree.

First round I choose Dk and you use MK.
I beat you.
Now let us say I stay as DK.
you counter and murder me.
At which point its my turn to CP.
if you stay as DDD I have every other characters besides DK to use, I also have Olimar and Diddy, characters who give DDD a hard time.
You must also remember that I also get to change the stage so I can also choose a stage that has a slope which makes it impossible for you to CG me.

This is where you believe that DK cannot be used correct?
Since at this point as long as the opponent stays as DDD they can kill off Dk. but the thing is that they cannot risk placing themselves at such a disadvantage and so will simply switch. Usually.

I do think it wors in theory but only because from the way I work it out, the DDD user can either switch allowing DK to be used, or place himself at a disadvantage and they will simply switch to someone else.

Numbers themselves don't lie, but the way they're presented lies all the time. Just ask anyone who has to massage data to make it give the impression they want it to. The numbers are always accurate but the end results sure look different.

You have to demonstrate you've selected a good criteria for your numbers to mean anything. You haven't shown that at all.

To be in line with your "I won't tell you what I really feel" though, I'm not saying the infinite should be banned. I'm just saying your arbitrary "It only affects 6 characters directly so it shouldn't be banned" number selection is meaningless.

Then do show me what criteria other than what I have provided is better without it falling to being considered arbitrary.

Showme a criteria that is much more accurate than what I provided.

 

[highandmightyjoe]

I must disagree.

First round I choose Dk and you use MK.
I beat you.
Now let us say I stay as DK.
you counter and murder me.
At which point its my turn to CP.
if you stay as DDD I have every other characters besides DK to use, I also have Olimar and Diddy, characters who give DDD a hard time.
You must also remember that I also get to change the stage so I can also choose a stage that has a slope which makes it impossible for you to CG me.

This is where you believe that DK cannot be used correct?
Since at this point as long as the opponent stays as DDD they can kill off Dk. but the thing is that they cannot risk placing themselves at such a disadvantage and so will simply switch. Usually.

I do think it wors in theory but only because from the way I work it out, the DDD user can either switch allowing DK to be used, or place himself at a disadvantage and they will simply switch to someone else.

That was actually my point. I main DK, I think he is viable, I wouldn't play him if I didn't. My point was simply that this is far worse in theory than it is in practice. I think that if a lot the pro ban players actually used DK in a tournament and saw how rarely this is actually an issue they may change their minds.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Ah okay understood then Joe.
Hmm I need to pick up Marth as a secondary.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Ah okay understood then Joe.
Hmm I need to pick up Marth as a secondary.

Marth has trouble against DDD.

A lot of trouble.

It's like his second worst match-up.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Marth has trouble against DDD.

A lot of trouble.

It's like his second worst match-up.

I have sonic for DDD.

<_<

 

[RDK]

For the love of the internet, if you cannot seriously grasp what's wrong with your logic, I have nothing furhter to add.

The concept of overcentralization is not a hard one to grasp, yet you seem to be struggling with it. And you're calling him a ******?

More than half the cast means the majority of the cast. That's overcentralizing. What are you not understanding about this? It's about as objective as you can get.

The infinite doesn't even violate a single ban criteria, let alone all of them.

 

[salaboB]

More than half the cast means the majority of the cast. That's overcentralizing. What are you not understanding about this? It's about as objective as you can get.

Overcentralizing actually requires more than a simple majority. Otherwise the game is overcentralized around the top tiers and they should all be banned, and that's just not the case.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Overcentralizing actually requires more than a simple majority. Otherwise the game is overcentralized around the top tiers and they should all be banned, and that's just not the case.

And yet DDDs infinite can't even manage that.

 

[Yuna]

Overcentralizing actually requires more than a simple majority. Otherwise the game is overcentralized around the top tiers and they should all be banned, and that's just not the case.

No, not really.

There's centralization, when something just centralizes the metagame around something. Then there is over-centralization. It is when something is over-centralizing that it might warrant a ban. Simple centralization does not warrant a ban.

Also, I can't help but notice how you refuse to even reply to my posts refuting yours.

 

[salaboB]

And yet DDDs infinite can't even manage that.

It could overcentralize the metagame if it only worked on six characters -- pick the top six in the game, and try a tournament with good money where as soon as DDD grabbed any of the top six they had to go suicide for that stock. Let me know what the results look like, if people are given time to practice in preparation for it. That's what it would look like if it naturally worked on them.

Related, DDD could probably have a standing infinite on the bottom half of the cast and he wouldn't be significantly more used in tournaments because the characters that give him the worst trouble would still be around, popular, and able to do so. So even a standing, easily executed CG infinite against a majority of the cast doesn't ensure overcentralization of the character that can perform it.

It's just a matter of which characters it impacts, working on a majority or not does not directly relate to overcentralized or not.

 

[RDK]

Overcentralizing actually requires more than a simple majority. Otherwise the game is overcentralized around the top tiers and they should all be banned, and that's just not the case.

Are the top tiers the majority of the cast? No. That's just centralization.

The game is not overcentralized around D3's infinite.

Edit: Yuna beat me.

 

[salaboB]

Are the top tiers the majority of the cast?

No, the top tiers have favorable matchups against the majority of the cast. IT MUST BE OVERCENTRALIZATION.

My point is, and remains, that a simple majority impacted has nothing directly to do with overcentralizing. It's going to frequently be involved in a case of overcentralization, but someone having a majority <whatever> does not mean they're overcentralized in the least.

 

[RDK]

No, the top tiers have favorable matchups against the majority of the cast. IT MUST BE OVERCENTRALIZATION.

My point is, and remains, that a simple majority impacted has nothing directly to do with overcentralizing. It's going to frequently be involved in a case of overcentralization, but someone having a majority <whatever> does not mean they're overcentralized in the least.

Yes it does, because the game becomes effectively about play D3 or lose. That's what we mean when we say overcentralization.

The majority is just a good benchmark, because that's what it has become in that instance--the majority.

 

[highandmightyjoe]

Favorable matchups and "shutting them down", are very different things. Only a few characters are actually shut down by the top characters, they just have bad matches, thats fine. Even if they did shut most of the cast down though, you could still argue how much justifies "over centralization".

 

[salaboB]

Yes it does, because the game becomes effectively about play D3 or lose. That's what we mean when we say overcentralization.

The majority is just a good benchmark, because that's what it has become in that instance--the majority.

Do you even understand what you're arguing with me about? I know perfectly well what overcentralization actually is, but you don't seem to quite grasp that.

You're arguing with my posts that are responses to ShadowLink, but you're misreading them because you're not taking their context into account. I can't answer you because the parts of your posts that make sense are saying nothing I don't already know, and the rest I can't figure out at all what you're even trying to get at.

I will give you a hint for my most recent post (Which was defending my post talking to ShadowLink that you did misread): When bold and caps are in use, it's probably sarcasm. Thus the post reads "Majority does not automatically mean overcentralization." Which as near as I can tell is exactly what you're saying too.

 

[Dark Sonic]

It could overcentralize the metagame if it only worked on six characters -- pick the top six in the game, and try a tournament with good money where as soon as DDD grabbed any of the top six they had to go suicide for that stock. Let me know what the results look like, if people are given time to practice in preparation for it. That's what it would look like if it naturally worked on them.

Simple solution? Don't pick them!!. Those top 6 would no longer be the top 6. They would drop in tiers and only be mid or high tier characters. Do you know who would take their place? Other characters who are good against DDD or good against those characters (kinda like the metagame now, with characters who are decent against Metaknight or decent against those characters).

The metagame would change! But it would not break and would not devolve to DDD and a few of his bad matchups. In fact I dare say that the metagame would become more diverse, since it just happens that the top 6 characters are top 6 because together they **** most of the characters below them.

Imagine a metagame where Game and Watch, Snake, and Metaknight (who all have rediculously **** matchups from pretty much mid tier and down) have a solid hard counter!

Related, DDD could probably have a standing infinite on the bottom half of the cast and he wouldn't be significantly more used in tournaments because the characters that give him the worst trouble would still be around, popular, and able to do so. So even a standing, easily executed CG infinite against a majority of the cast doesn't ensure overcentralization of the character that can perform it.

A majority is far too small to cause overcentralization. Shadowlink has made an error in that regard. Overcentralization would be if it worked on nearly everyone. "Nearly everyone" becomes a little arbitrary, but surely you'd agree that 1 character is far from that (since it really only works as a zero to death on DK)

It's just a matter of which characters it impacts, working on a majority or not does not directly relate to overcentralized or not.

If it works on the top half, then they become the bottom half and the bottom rises up. If it works on the bottom half, then they stay where they are and nothing really happens.

However, there could be the rare case where it works on enough characters to ensure that DDD hard counters the entire cast (infinite or otherwise) in which case the game would over centralize because DDD would have too many **** matchups and everyone would be forced to play DDD or lose. So yes, which characters it affects does matter somewhat. For it to cause overcentralization, it would have to work on every or nearly every character that DDD doesn't have a **** matchup against (cause then he'd have all **** matchups...just like Akuma).

 

[RDK]

Do you even understand what you're arguing with me about? I know perfectly well what overcentralization actually is, but you don't seem to quite grasp that.

You're arguing with my posts that are responses to ShadowLink, but you're misreading them because you're not taking their context into account. I can't answer you because the parts of your posts that make sense are saying nothing I don't already know, and the rest I can't figure out at all what you're even trying to get at.

I will give you a hint for my most recent post (Which was defending my post talking to ShadowLink that you did misread): When bold and caps are in use, it's probably sarcasm. Thus the post reads "Majority does not automatically mean overcentralization." Which as near as I can tell is exactly what you're saying too.

I do agree that majority is not the end-all be-all criteria for what falls under overcentralization. Mainly, I was just trying to establish that there's a difference between the game becoming centralized around something vs. becoming overcentralized.

Of course it's going to become centralized around the best characters; that's natural, and even morseo when the community tierwhores the hell out of the game.

 

[ShadowLink84]

tierwhores play to win n00b! XD

 

[The Irish Mafia]

NO-HO-HO.

If you're referring to the wall infinite, sure. Team infinite, put a 250 cap on it. but just the chaingrab, you might as well go ahead and ban waveshining too. It's a key part of his metagame.

 

[1048576]

NO-HO-HO.

If you're referring to the wall infinite, sure. Team infinite, put a 250 cap on it. but just the chaingrab, you might as well go ahead and ban waveshining too. It's a key part of his metagame.

Why did you not read before you posted?

 

[IrArby]

If D3's infinite worked on the top six then we'd have a more balanced game. They still **** low, mid, and most of the highs except for D3 who has bad matchups with a few characters. Still, D3 would probably rise to top spot. The tier list would be way more out of whack since it already is much better described by matchups not tiers.

Thing is though the infinite only works without any stipulations on 1 character. If we assume MK is the single ***** character than he'll have one solid counter (yipeee!). Lets have Snake as our small step chaingrab char. He can still camp around the edge which decreases how long he can be infinited substantially. Then the three below him still have to be in excess of 130% to get infinite which is a formidable near kill percent anyway so whats the big deal. Falco still has lasers, and his own CG so he definetly wouldn't auto-lose. G&W has great priority to rack up damage and stands a good chance until 130%. (Skips D3 in the tier list) And, Marth already has a very bad matchup against D3 so I can't see this making a huge differece.

Also, presenting a bunch of "If . . . then" situations isn't the best way to argue. Since this one in particular involves characters who are susceptible to an infinite that are big and floaty. Big and Floaty characters rarely top tier lists. Big targets who move slow either on the ground or in the air aren't great characters usually. And besides, there are other games in which some of the best characters are comboed more than anyone else, yet they manage to do alright anyway. Therefore, its not a good comparison, there are to many factors. To answer your question though, it still wouldn't overcentralize the game.

If were going to throw around "What if" analogies lets take them to their conclusions or as far as we can without big time speculation. In this case it really wouldn't warrant a ban. Just because the ProBans buy into Ethical TierBiased Fanboyism doesn't mean we all will. This argument doesn't hold water either. Please work out your argument before making it.


D3's infinite, a CG that only severly kills off one character, is a competitive element and its probably a bad idea to take competitive elements out of this game in particular.

 

[cot(θ)]

K, I think this argument is losing its focus a bit and is just onto the semantics of "centralization" and "overcentralization". This is more or less irrelevant. The fact is, that you can say "It's only against one character, so why ban it?", but really you should be asking: "If it's only against one character, why NOT ban it?" It's not a significant part of DDD's metagame, and if you don't ban it, you're literally removing that matchup from tournament play by forcing the DK player to CP, which, though perhaps to a limited extent, decreases the game's variety at a proffesional level.

To summarize, the infinite isn't fun or important, but it does break the matchup, so we should ban it, at the very least against DK.

 

[IrArby]

You can't ban and infinite against one character or for one character. Why ban it is the question as its already there. Lots of matchups won't take place in tournament play that competitive gaming. You put your finger on it. It breaks the matchup and anyone who's played competitive games enough knows changing the game for one matchup between 36 characters (37 with ZSS) isn't a good idea.