DDD's standing infinite should not be banned.

cutter · Sep 9, 2009

Even though the SBR does not ban DDD's standing infinite, I have seen the vast majority of tournaments ban the infinite anyway to this day.

As a person who has been against banning the infinite since day 1, it continues to perplex me to this day why exactly the infinite warrants a ban from the majority of the community. I am generally a conservative person when it comes to taking action in the form of stage bans or rules changes, and I am just not seeing the criteria that DDD's infinite meets that should warrant a ban.

It's not broken or overcentralizing.

The infinite only works on 4 characters; Mario, Luigi, Samus, and DK. (Technically against Bowser, it is a finite chaingrab) For Mario, Luigi, and Samus, they are able to break out of the required pummel past 125% before it becomes a true infinite. This means the only characters that actually get screwed by the infinite are DK and Bowser. This infinite only adversely affects 2 matchups, and probably 3 more. 5 skewed matchups certainly does not meet the criteria for overcentralizing the game due to the massive amount of other characters that don't get infinited. King Dedede has clearly proven that he is not a broken character, and his infinite only works on 2 characters and 3 more when you're WELL past killing percents.

Why ban something that isn't broken?

We had this same situation in Melee. Sheik's Dthrow chaingrab created literally unwinnable matchups for even MORE characters than Dedede could ever hope to shut down. Yet in Melee, we told those characters, "Sucks to be you, just accept the fact that you'll never win against a competent Sheik." Why must we have such a shift in mentality for Brawl when Dedede's infinite victims suffer pretty much the same fate as Sheik's chaingrab victims did? Sheik's chaingrab did the exact same thing as DDD's infinite does; it limits character selection, but ultimately it doesn't break or overcentralize the game as a whole to warrant a ban.

To me, DDD's infinite does cause frustration for a few handful of characters. I can understand that, because I mained G&W in Melee and I understood I just cannot beat Sheik that knows what to do and understands the matchup. However, a tournament ruleset should not have to cater to the very small minority.

SuSa · Sep 9, 2009

Because then Mario/Luigi/Samus/DK mains want to actually show up to the tourney, increases turnout, and DDD still has the advantage on them without the infinite.....

So have a better turnout at the cost of...........taking away something that basically means nothing in the matchup?

That's how I see it. Obviously it's a pretty scrub thing, but I see nothing wrong with it. The TO makes a few more off the venue, and the people who win make more because of the larger turnout. Larger expected turnouts also seem to pull in more people.... which is a win-win situation for the TO and the people who place/participate.

BSP · Sep 9, 2009

i dont think it should be banned. But now that i think about it, it shouldnt make much of a difference...well maybe except for luigi and DK. Mario and Samus still have problems, and luigi still has some bad matchups. Not too sure about DK though, but the matchup without the infinite would still be in D3's Favor. I dont think it'd make a huge difference.

Sinz · Sep 9, 2009

cutter said:
Even though the SBR does not ban DDD's standing infinite, I have seen the vast majority of tournaments ban the infinite anyway to this day.

The SBR doesn't force tournaments to use their rules.

As a person who has been against banning the infinite since day 1, it continues to perplex me to this day why exactly the infinite warrants a ban from the majority of the commhunity. I am generally a conservative person when it comes to taking action in the form of stage bans or rules changes, and I am just not seeing the criteria that DDD's infinite meets that should warrant a ban.

It's not broken or overcentralizing.

Easy to 0-death isn't broken? Sure it isn't on every character, but it invalidates the characters it is on. Luigi and DK would be much higher in the tier list if it weren't for this move.(And on DK's part the small step chaingrab as well.)

The infinite only works on 4 characters; Mario, Luigi, Samus, and DK. (Technically against Bowser, it is a finite chaingrab) For Mario, Luigi, and Samus, they are able to break out of the required pummel past 125% before it becomes a true infinite. This means the only characters that actually get screwed by the infinite are DK and Bowser. This infinite only adversely affects 2 matchups, and probably 3 more. 5 skewed matchups certainly does not meet the criteria for overcentralizing the game due to the massive amount of other characters that don't get infinited. King Dedede has clearly proven that he is not a broken character, and his infinite only works on 2 characters and 3 more when you're WELL past killing percents.

It still gets a heck of a lot of damage for little no risk. And even then, past 45% one pummel can get in safely(most of the time.), so why not above 125%. Are you saying 0-125% isn't broken?

Why ban something that isn't broken?

we banned food.

We had this same situation in Melee. Sheik's Dthrow chaingrab created literally unwinnable matchups for even MORE characters than Dedede could ever hope to shut down. Yet in Melee, we told those characters, "Sucks to be you, just accept the fact that you'll never win against a competent Sheik." Why must we have such a shift in mentality for Brawl when Dedede's infinite victims suffer pretty much the same fate as Sheik's chaingrab victims did? Sheik's chaingrab did the exact same thing as DDD's infinite does; it limits character selection, but ultimately it doesn't break or overcentralize the game as a whole to warrant a ban.

You could DI vs Sheik. You have no control whatsoever vs D3s standing infinite.

To me, DDD's infinite does cause frustration for a few handful of characters. I can understand that, because I mained G&W in Melee and I understood I just cannot beat Sheik that knows what to do and understands the matchup. However, a tournament ruleset should not have to cater to the very small minority.

Melee =/= Brawl

SuSa · Sep 9, 2009

Sinz pretty much wins more then I did.

Sinz · Sep 9, 2009

Nah Susa, you always win more than I do.

Dekar173 · Sep 9, 2009

Incorrect fellows, my sig says it all.

On topic: Sinz said everything so I wouldn't have to, it's a broken tactic that need not have ever even been implemented into the game, though because it was, we need to limit it! Get over it

Dark 3nergy · Sep 9, 2009

theres a problem when i cant see your sig champ ^^^^^

BSP · Sep 9, 2009

D.E. said:
theres a problem when i cant see your sig champ ^^^^^

I cant see it either :dizzy:

#HBC | Red Ryu · Sep 9, 2009

When do we draw the line with infinites?

Zero suit can infinite 2 characters, Peach has a walking grab release grab on Wario, Pikachu can CG a lot of characters to the mid 40%, gives all of the spacies a bad match-up.

Wario can CG DK to the 100%+ from what I've read.

So let's say we do ban the infinites, what about these characters?

/Devils advocate.

Dekar173 · Sep 9, 2009

It's a shame this thread isn't important enough for me to post enough characters for everyone to see my sig, I'm terribly sorry for the inconveniece, and I'll be sure to type more FLUFF in my posts so you can see.

Hopefully that did it!

Then again, probably not LOL

DanGR · Sep 9, 2009

Simply put, TOs ban it because they want bigger attendance at tournaments; and considering a couple of the characters affected by the infinite are actually usable at decently sized tourneys, and that DDD still has an advantage on all those characters anyways, I'd say it's totally understandable- though I disagree with the concept. *shrugs*

Katakiri · Sep 9, 2009

Two words:

Ice Climbers

bobson · Sep 9, 2009

SuSa said it. People ban it because it pisses people off enough that they might get a few more entrants if they do and very little is lost by doing so.

Silfa · Sep 9, 2009

BlazingKatakiri said:
Two words:

Ice Climbers

Ice climbers don't have a massive grab range and usually have to do a little more than just press down and grab.

Other characters don't have the same tools available in order to set up their infinites as easily as Dedede.

itsthebigfoot · Sep 9, 2009

ddd also infinites wolf, ddd and wario

wolf and ddd on the ledge, wario by grab release into pivot grab on the ledge. and he can easily set up all three with proper cging

not going to post an opinion, just going to correct you in saying that it's 8, not 5, and has been for a while

demonictoonlink · Sep 9, 2009

This didn't need its own thread and it should feel like a misplaced post.

Kinzer · Sep 9, 2009

demonictoonlink said:
This didn't need its own thread and it should feel like a misplaced post.

...Where else would this be if it isn't in the tactical board?

Nanaki · Sep 9, 2009

Kinzer said:
...Where else would this be if it isn't in the tactical board?

Floating somewhere in the nether, as this dead horse has been beaten to a bloody pulp several times already. There have already been 2 enormous poll threads on it from Panda. We always come to the same conclusion, and of course, there are many who disagree. Here, I'll try to save some time.

-DDD's infinite isn't metagame-breaking or overcentralizing.
-It's extremely low risk-high reward with DDD's huge grab range.
-It's not hard to do, therefore it's more bannable than other infinites (scrub excuse, I know).
-It totally invalidates 2 characters (the others...it's really not a huge deal for. L2mashout).
-Invalidating 2 characters removes some players from tournaments (scrubby, yes, but $ is $).
-DK would be higher on the list if it was banned (there isn't much real proof of this, but w/e).
-IC's infinites will be brought up somewhere, and everyone will tell you that because they're harder to do and to initiate and have a pre-requisite (Nana), they're not bannable.
-Stalling will be brought up somewhere, and 20 people will respond by saying there's a stalling rule in place anyway (300%).
-DDD has an advantage on the infinitees anyway, so banning it isn't a huge deal (yes, it goes against all notion of 'don't ban unless you have to').
-Other infinites aren't generally true infinites, but 0-deaths (unless there's a wall). Somehow, this isn't as bad (you can't stall with it, maybe? It's harder to do? idk...).
-There'll be some stuff about Fox and ROB and maybe even Sheik, but nobody will care because the D3 infinite is just him sitting on you over and over and doesn't look cool or hard to do.
-Blah blah blah.

Seriously, it's all been said before. Nothing has changed to sway opinions on this since the last time.

Banning it is a pretty 'What's the downside?' type move to make TO's slightly more money, while not banning it is a 'Don't be a scrub' type move to keep the 'integrity' of the brawl metagame sound.

They both sound like bad excuses to me, and I don't give a crap either way.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Sep 9, 2009

SuSa said:
Because then Mario/Luigi/Samus/DK mains want to actually show up to the tourney, increases turnout, and DDD still has the advantage on them without the infinite.....

So have a better turnout at the cost of...........taking away something that basically means nothing in the matchup?

That's how I see it. Obviously it's a pretty scrub thing, but I see nothing wrong with it. The TO makes a few more off the venue, and the people who win make more because of the larger turnout. Larger expected turnouts also seem to pull in more people.... which is a win-win situation for the TO and the people who place/participate.

This.

Red Ryu said:
When do we draw the line with infinites?

Zero suit can infinite 2 characters, Peach has a walking grab release grab on Wario, Pikachu can CG a lot of characters to the mid 40%, gives all of the spacies a bad match-up.

Wario can CG DK to the 100%+ from what I've read.

So let's say we do ban the infinites, what about these characters?

/Devils advocate.

We have to look at each infinite one by one. Grab Release infinites on wario should not be considered a problem; a good wario, unlike a good DK, will not ever get grabbed by anyone. The ZSS infinites... How easy are they to start on the characters? Pika's CG is just as bad as falco's on chars where it goes up to 40-50, but on the spacies... meh, I don't know how to handle that one.

BlazingKatakiri said:
Two words:

Ice Climbers

Nope

Okay, DDD mains, let me explain why it is actually GOOD for you that the TOs have standing infinites/shortstep chaingrabs banned. When this is banned, the people who play DK, Bowser, Mario, etc. feel like they can step out of the closet and participate without getting CP'd by DDD. They all already have bad matchups against DDD! You face up a good DK, a good Mario, and a good Bowser in brackets; even without the infinite, you still have the advantage.

Honestly, it seems to me like this should be a non-issue. Rule phrasing: "If king DDD wishes to regrab after a down-throw, it must be a running shieldgrab or a dashgrab." Boom. Skewed matchups are suddenly less skewed, less chars get absolutely gayed out, everyone except king DDD wins, and DDD doesn't really lose. Am I right?

And don't pull that stupid counterpick argument; that banning this makes the counterpick system make less sense. That is bull****; the counterpick system is to give you an advantage in an otherwise bad match, not guarantee a win against someone way better than you (AKA what happens in DK vs. DDD). It's not only saying "You can't go it alone with your character" like most characters have it (snake can barely fight olimar at all, DDD gets destroyed by falco and pikachu, Wario gets ***** by marth); it's "You can't go it alone with your character against someone who doesn't even know how to play your counter". AKA, "You can use your character when you know your opponent will not and cannot pick king Dedede". At least in other "insta-counterpick" matchups, the opponent needs slight skill (okay, I'll put in an exception; fox vs. Pika is pretty unwinnable and easy to learn; even then, Pika doesn't have an obscene grab range).

blakinola · Sep 9, 2009

If I was the TO, I'd ban all infinites

D3, ZSS on ROB, IC's (to 50%)

For one less stupid-*** low-skill infinite limited, that's 10 more people that have a better chance of winning when it comes to straight skills. Not how many times you can grab, step forward and grab again. More character representation=more money=more people coming out overall.

I'll take one person not coming if it means 10 more can.

xXTACXx · Sep 9, 2009

As a Samus main I completly agree, if I wanna win against a DeDeDe I use a old skill, don't get grabbed. Its all the same vs the ice climbers for every character anyway, whats one more?

RDK · Sep 9, 2009

Budget Player Cadet_ said:
Okay, DDD mains, let me explain why it is actually GOOD for you that the TOs have standing infinites/shortstep chaingrabs banned. When this is banned, the people who play DK, Bowser, Mario, etc. feel like they can step out of the closet and participate without getting CP'd by DDD. They all already have bad matchups against DDD! You face up a good DK, a good Mario, and a good Bowser in brackets; even without the infinite, you still have the advantage.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. So instead of having a near-instant win against those characters, let's voluntarily make it harder for DDD to beat Mario, DK, etc.

We don't ban things to make individual matchups better; we ban things because they adversely effect the game as a whole. Two, three characters is not enough reason to ban an entire move.

MK's Infinite Dimensional Cape? Yes. DDD's standing infinite? No. Mario and DK mains, stop being whiners and simply accept you have a ****ty matchup against DDD. I don't see Captain Falcon mains crying in a corner because their character sucks.

Honestly, it seems to me like this should be a non-issue. Rule phrasing: "If king DDD wishes to regrab after a down-throw, it must be a running shieldgrab or a dashgrab." Boom. Skewed matchups are suddenly less skewed, less chars get absolutely gayed out, everyone except king DDD wins, and DDD doesn't really lose. Am I right?

In that case I believe any move that is faster or out-prioritizes any given C. Falcon move is broken and should not have been implemented into the game in the first place. There! Skewed matchups are suddenly less skewed, less characters get absolutely gayed out, everyone except everyone except Captain Falcon wins, and yet they don't really lose. Amirite?

And don't pull that stupid counterpick argument; that banning this makes the counterpick system make less sense. That is bull****; the counterpick system is to give you an advantage in an otherwise bad match, not guarantee a win against someone way better than you (AKA what happens in DK vs. DDD).

What? Do you even understand what you're saying? Whoever said that you couldn't use the counterpick system to win against someone better than you? Part of being a good player is knowing your matchups. If a better player is constantly losing to an inferior player because of counterpicks, then he's really not the better player anyway.

It's not only saying "You can't go it alone with your character" like most characters have it (snake can barely fight olimar at all, DDD gets destroyed by falco and pikachu, Wario gets ***** by marth); it's "You can't go it alone with your character against someone who doesn't even know how to play your counter". AKA, "You can use your character when you know your opponent will not and cannot pick king Dedede". At least in other "insta-counterpick" matchups, the opponent needs slight skill (okay, I'll put in an exception; fox vs. Pika is pretty unwinnable and easy to learn; even then, Pika doesn't have an obscene grab range).

So where do we draw the line? In exact measurements, how much skill should it take with a given character's counter in order to make it "fair"? I'd like to see your data on this.

~ Gheb ~ · Sep 9, 2009

Marry me, RDK.

smashkng · Sep 9, 2009

scorptile34 said:
Floating somewhere in the nether, as this dead horse has been beaten to a bloody pulp several times already. There have already been 2 enormous poll threads on it from Panda. We always come to the same conclusion, and of course, there are many who disagree. Here, I'll try to save some time.

-DDD's infinite isn't metagame-breaking or overcentralizing.
-It's extremely low risk-high reward with DDD's huge grab range.
-It's not hard to do, therefore it's more bannable than other infinites (scrub excuse, I know).
-It totally invalidates 2 characters (the others...it's really not a huge deal for. L2mashout).
-Invalidating 2 characters removes some players from tournaments (scrubby, yes, but $ is $).
-DK would be higher on the list if it was banned (there isn't much real proof of this, but w/e).
-IC's infinites will be brought up somewhere, and everyone will tell you that because they're harder to do and to initiate and have a pre-requisite (Nana), they're not bannable.
-Stalling will be brought up somewhere, and 20 people will respond by saying there's a stalling rule in place anyway (300%).
-DDD has an advantage on the infinitees anyway, so banning it isn't a huge deal (yes, it goes against all notion of 'don't ban unless you have to').
-Other infinites aren't generally true infinites, but 0-deaths (unless there's a wall). Somehow, this isn't as bad (you can't stall with it, maybe? It's harder to do? idk...).
-There'll be some stuff about Fox and ROB and maybe even Sheik, but nobody will care because the D3 infinite is just him sitting on you over and over and doesn't look cool or hard to do.
-Blah blah blah.

Seriously, it's all been said before. Nothing has changed to sway opinions on this since the last time.

Banning it is a pretty 'What's the downside?' type move to make TO's slightly more money, while not banning it is a 'Don't be a scrub' type move to keep the 'integrity' of the brawl metagame sound.

They both sound like bad excuses to me, and I don't give a crap either way.

It hurts really really really hard to DK mains. At least without the infinite DK doesn't get ***** by anyone, he still has a good chance against DDD. If it's banned, DK has no real bad matchups. Unlike IC, DDD has an easy time grabbing due massive grab compared to IC's crappy grab range. It's unfair ****** just cause of an infinite by a character with amazingly long grab. All DK mains want it banned, because then he doesn't need any secondaries.

blakinola · Sep 9, 2009

Seriously, that ****ing chaingrab is what stops us from being at the top of A Tier

'V' · Sep 9, 2009

The DDD matchup still sucks for DK without the infinite. The regular chaingrab alone still ***** him to my knowledge.

blakinola · Sep 9, 2009

It's 60-40 D3 without it, 90-10 basically with it.

Nanaki · Sep 9, 2009

16

Donkey Kong (11 top8, 8 top4, 5 top2, 2 wins) - 97.6 - 18

He's movin' on up. I don't doubt that he's tourney viable, and he's a badass character.

Still, banning something that invalidates 1 otherwise viable character is very inconsistent in regard to other characters. Make Pikachu unable to CG Fox, and suddenly the matchup isn't ridiculous. Ditto to Sheik ftilt lock. Fox might be A tier if it weren't for a couple unwinnables. Why cater to

and not

or

?

Again, we've been over this. By SBR rules, it doesn't make sense to ban the infinite - it's too inconsistent. By TO's rules, it makes sense for them to do it to bring in $$.

/thread already

SuSa · Sep 9, 2009

Because the last time I saw a Zamus vs ROB or Fox vs Pika/Sheik match was...................never.

The last time I saw a DK/Mario come to a tournament, wasn't too long ago. I'm sure they'd all prefer the infinite banned. (Can you really honestly say "don't get grabbed" against D3? A 6 frame grab who has one of the largest (non-tether) grab?

Also I've yet to see the grab release infinites on Wario ever make the Wario lose the match. Also since they are considered standing infinites (I'd assume the pivot grab ones are as well), it would be banned under the rule.

I've also yet to see a ZSS win a match vs ROB due to the infinite.

However I've seen a ****load of Mario's, Luigi's, and DK's lose to a DDD. (and a few Samus's, although not as many).

I've also lost a match due to the infinite against me. Luckily this was a friendly.

But the tl;dr of it is:
Nothing is REALLY hurt from banning it, most DDD's don't truly care, the 4 mains do, more people show up, more $

Flayl · Sep 9, 2009

Dedede has a ledge infinite on Bowser, so yes, he does fully infinite Bowser in the truest sense of the word.

Zankoku · Sep 9, 2009

SuSa said:
Because the last time I saw a Zamus vs ROB or Fox vs Pika/Sheik match was...................never.

This seems like a dumb argument. Unless everyone in your tournaments requests double blind character picks at all times, the chances someone intelligent will remain with a character in a death matchup is quite low. I've seen all four of the characters you listed show up in a single tournament, by the way. Can you really say it's impossible for them to end up playing each other?

SuSa said:
The last time I saw a DK/Mario come to a tournament, wasn't too long ago. I'm sure they'd all prefer the infinite banned. (Can you really honestly say "don't get grabbed" against D3? A 6 frame grab who has one of the largest (non-tether) grab?

So just because you saw a DK/Mario come to a tournament in your area, they count more than Fox, Sheik, and ROB?

SuSa said:
I've also yet to see a ZSS win a match vs ROB due to the infinite.

While applicability might've had a hand it it, I'm guessing this at least partially has to do with the fact that "the last time I saw a Zamus vs ROB... match was..............never."

SuSa said:
However I've seen a ****load of Mario's, Luigi's, and DK's lose to a DDD. (and a few Samus's, although not as many).

I've also lost a match due to the infinite against me. Luckily this was a friendly.

What makes what you've seen or experienced more important than what you haven't?

SuSa said:
But the tl;dr of it is:
Nothing is REALLY hurt from banning it, most DDD's don't truly care, the 4 mains do, more people show up, more $

This is a local-level validation for the ruling, not a universal one.

Nanaki · Sep 9, 2009

SuSa said:
Because the last time I saw a Zamus vs ROB or Fox vs Pika/Sheik match was...................never.

The last time I saw a DK/Mario come to a tournament, wasn't too long ago. I'm sure they'd all prefer the infinite banned. (Can you really honestly say "don't get grabbed" against D3? A 6 frame grab who has one of the largest (non-tether) grab?

Also I've yet to see the grab release infinites on Wario ever make the Wario lose the match. Also since they are considered standing infinites (I'd assume the pivot grab ones are as well), it would be banned under the rule.

I've also yet to see a ZSS win a match vs ROB due to the infinite.

However I've seen a ****load of Mario's, Luigi's, and DK's lose to a DDD. (and a few Samus's, although not as many).

I've also lost a match due to the infinite against me. Luckily this was a friendly.

But the tl;dr of it is:
Nothing is REALLY hurt from banning it, most DDD's don't truly care, the 4 mains do, more people show up, more $

Do you think there might be a reason those matches don't happen? Those are all C tier or higher characters (A and B for a couple), they should be showing up.

There's never really been a discussion of those infinites/0-deaths being banned, so the mains deal with it and don't play their character in terrible CP situations. They have secondaries and use them. We're basically saying 'well, you need one for your unwinnables, but DK, Mario, Luigi, Samus, and Bowser get a free pass on D3 because his is easy to do'. That's really the crux of this argument: anyone can do D3's infinite and destroy those 4 characters. Not everyone can do the other 0-death's (though the ones on Fox are pretty stupid easy too).

Just because you see DK, Mario, Luigi, Samus, and Bowser mains getting hammered by D3 doesn't mean those other matchups don't exist. It means they're playing their character into a godawful CP when they shouldn't.

That said, I agree with you. More people showing up = more $$ and more Brawl popularity in general, which is a good thing. It's still inconsistent, though.

Edit: ****, Ankoku beat me to it. He always does.

#HBC | Red Ryu · Sep 9, 2009

So really main problems with banning comes down to,

1.) What about other characters with the same problems? Shiek/Pikachu/Zero Suit Samus/Ice Climbers vs numerous characters. If you do something about King DeDeDe what do you do about these which as just as bad if not worse in some cases.

2.) Is it broken enough? And where is the line of brokeness. Some people think it is broken enough while others do not.

Ray_Kalm · Sep 9, 2009

itsthebigfoot said:
ddd also infinites wolf, ddd and wario

wolf and ddd on the ledge, wario by grab release into pivot grab on the ledge. and he can easily set up all three with proper cging

not going to post an opinion, just going to correct you in saying that it's 8, not 5, and has been for a while

Add Ganon and Falcon, and we have what, around 10 characters now? Ganon, Falcon, Wolf, Luigi, Mario, Samus, Bowser, and Donkey Kong.

That's alot of characters.

Though, I don't really see a problem with this. Most tournament organizers don't allow the standing infinite, and that's all there really is to it.

#HBC | Red Ryu · Sep 9, 2009

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=8018907

HugS™ said:
_________________________________
Brawl Specific Additional Game Rules & Clarifications
-----------------------------------------------

*If someone kills by locking in a suicide move such as ganondorf flame choke or bowser bomb the person who initiated the move wins.

*Standing Infinites are banned. Ice Climbers grabs are allowed. Wall infinites allowed.

*Ledge rule in effect. 50 ledge grab limit. If in the event you suspect your opponent of grabbing the ledge above the limit after the match is finished BY RUNNING THE CLOCK OUT, you may check the stats. If your opponent has indeed gone over the limit, you win the match.

* In case of technical problems (e.g. power outage) the round will be replayed, do not start from damage percent or stock lost.

* MK's Infinite Dimensional Cape is banned.

I thought it was worth noting.

'V' · Sep 9, 2009

This community makes no sense to me...

CRASHiC · Sep 9, 2009

DDRMocha said:
This community makes no sense to me...

That's because they ban everything in DDR.
WELL I'M SORRY BUT WE HAVE STANDARDS HERE MISTER!

'V' · Sep 9, 2009

Actually... Hardly anything is banned in DDR. It really just comes down to how much of a better player you are.

Zankoku · Sep 9, 2009

DDRMocha said:
Actually... Hardly anything is banned in DDR. It really just comes down to how much of a better player you are.

That looks like an ITG arrow.

DDD's standing infinite should not be banned.

Smash Champion

Banned via Administration

Smash Legend

The only true DR vet.

Banned via Administration

The only true DR vet.

Justice Man

Smash Hero

Smash Legend

Red Fox Warrior

Justice Man

BRoomer

LV 20

Smash Lord

Smash Ace

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Mammy

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Constantly Delicious

Smash Journeyman

Smash Hero

Life is just a party

Smash Lord

Constantly Delicious

Smash Lord

Constantly Delicious

Smash Lord

Banned via Administration

Smash Hero

Never Knows Best

Smash Lord

Red Fox Warrior

Smash Master

Red Fox Warrior

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Never Knows Best

Information

Network