DDD's standing infinite should not be banned.

[Big O]

For the umpteenth time, no. My argument is that you need a set criteria to ban this, and "ban standing infinites" is not enough because you have to be able to essentially QED why standing infinites deserve a ban. Since this argument apparently does not exist, I'm currently against getting it banned.

If a single broken tactic turns an otherwise competitively viable character into an unviable one (or more than one character) and if there are no plausible benefits to leaving it in the game (unless it is too difficult/complicated to implement) it should be banned. To address D3's infinite you just make the rule say D3 must dash between regarbs after Dthrowing the opponent and you are done. Sounds like a reasonable standard for the ban on D3's infinite to me.

I just copy pasted an earlier statement I made. In an effort to actually go somewhere with this topic can you guys tell me whether or not this criteria is good enough and why? If it is found to be lacking I'm sure it could be improved upon until it is.

 

[cutter]

Also I thought it was 1 pummel every 4th grab to keep the infinite going.

You have to pummel once every grab.

The stale move bank is 9 moves deep. We know for a fact that after DDD does his 5th D-throw, the move "stales" and he can no longer infinite Mario/Luigi/Samus.

The reason you have to pummel every throw is because the stale move list will look like this (move #1 being the most recently used, and #9 being the last one):

1. D-throw
2. Pummel
3. D-throw
4. Pummel
5. D-throw
6. Pummel
7. D-throw
8. Pummel
9. D-throw

If DDD always does a pummel in between each D-throw, the stale move list will alternate between:

1. D-throw
2. Pummel
3. D-throw
4. Pummel
5. D-throw
6. Pummel
7. D-throw
8. Pummel
9. D-throw

and:

1. Pummel
2. D-throw
3. Pummel
4. D-throw
5. Pummel
6. D-throw
7. Pummel
8. D-throw
9. Pummel

This consistent alternation between pummels and D-throws means the D-throw won't stale, and it becomes a true infinite.

 

[RDK]

It's not that it's lacking, it's fairly reasonable. But it's also unnecessary and it shows impartial treatment. You're basically saying X character sucks so bad because of Y that we're going to limit what Y can do and essentially make him worse in order to make X suck less.

This was at Big O by the way.

 

[Nanaki]

Guys... the infinite cg isn't even that big of a ****ing deal. Jeesh.

You can't properly INFINITE Mario, Samus, or Luigi (the two not-fat ones) until you grab them and they are above ~120% because they can mash out before you do the required 2 pummels. So it essentially doesn't matter for them.

For DK and Bowser, well for 1. I don't infinite cg when I play people and 2. I never see other people do it.

Everyone makes this out to be such huge deal but the fact of the matter is that that's why the SBR says nothing about it, and why everyone bans it at their own tournies (to ensure that niche of the turnout).

Holy crap, a lain sighting!

This man speaks the truth.

 

[Zankoku]

You have to pummel once every grab.

The stale move bank is 9 moves deep. We know for a fact that after DDD does his 5th D-throw, the move "stales" and he can no longer infinite Mario/Luigi/Samus.

The reason you have to pummel every throw is because the stale move list will look like this (move #1 being the most recently used, and #9 being the last one):

1. D-throw
2. Pummel
3. D-throw
4. Pummel
5. D-throw
6. Pummel
7. D-throw
8. Pummel
9. D-throw

If DDD always does a pummel in between each D-throw, the stale move list will alternate between:

1. D-throw
2. Pummel
3. D-throw
4. Pummel
5. D-throw
6. Pummel
7. D-throw
8. Pummel
9. D-throw

and:

1. Pummel
2. D-throw
3. Pummel
4. D-throw
5. Pummel
6. D-throw
7. Pummel
8. D-throw
9. Pummel

This consistent alternation between pummels and D-throws means the D-throw won't stale, and it becomes a true infinite.

Haha, I remember when I originally suggested the pummel between each grab to abuse the 9-attack limit.

Also, this argument has gotten incredibly dumb. Things are not arbitrarily banned to make a competitive game "better." They are banned as a final response to prevent a competitive game from devolving to the this one option blows everything else period ouf of the water metagame. It might also be done due to tournament hosting issues, which is the case of the IDC.

You want to know the specific flow of thought regarding banning the IDC? Excessive stalling is typically banned because it's a 100% no-lose strategy that cannot be beaten through in-game interaction. However, everyone should know that in a venue with one or two TOs as possible judges and twenty or more players playing ten or more simultaneous matches, there's just not enough manpower to individually watch every game for the event of stalling. Typically excessive stalling is easy to catch, since in doing so you're probably stalling in some location impossibly out of reach that's simple to spot just by pausing and pointing it out. IDC can be done anywhere where there is ground. On a pause, all you can show is that Meta Knight was in the process of performing a Dimensional Cape. In such events a judge could normally just continue watching and make sure IDC isn't used, right? Well, what if it happens on more than two simultaneous matches? To avoid a TO nightmare regarding enforcement and subjective watching and judgment calls on whether the intent of an IDC was to stall or something else entirely, the technique was simply banned in its entirety.

 

[Nanaki]

Haha, I remember when I originally suggested the pummel between each grab to abuse the 9-attack limit.

Also, this argument has gotten incredibly dumb. Things are not arbitrarily banned to make a competitive game "better." They are banned as a final response to prevent a competitive game from devolving to the this one option blows everything else period ouf of the water metagame. It might also be done due to tournament hosting issues, which is the case of the IDC.

You want to know the specific flow of thought regarding banning the IDC? Excessive stalling is typically banned because it's a 100% no-lose strategy that cannot be beaten through in-game interaction. However, everyone should know that in a venue with one or two TOs as possible judges and twenty or more players playing ten or more simultaneous matches, there's just not enough manpower to individually watch every game for the event of stalling. Typically excessive stalling is easy to catch, since in doing so you're probably stalling in some location impossibly out of reach that's simple to spot just by pausing and pointing it out. IDC can be done anywhere where there is ground. On a pause, all you can show is that Meta Knight was in the process of performing a Dimensional Cape. In such events a judge could normally just continue watching and make sure IDC isn't used, right? Well, what if it happens on more than two simultaneous matches? To avoid a TO nightmare regarding enforcement and subjective watching and judgment calls on whether the intent of an IDC was to stall or something else entirely, the technique was simply banned in its entirety.

Exactly what I said, with more words. Except the pummel bit.

...But what Ankoku says matters more, because he's Ankoku, and is awesome.

Still sucks that we have to ban stuff because TO's can't observe matches, but that's the way this scene works.

Edit: Also, when was this thread not dumb?

 

[yummynbeefy]

i think it kinda should its not a big deal but its literally the only thing that keeps dk from performing well in tournaments thats one of the main reasons people think it should be banned

 

[swordgard]

Just stating susa.


There is not a single way to get out of ZSS doing the infinite on rob, i tried myself, there is no hit to really SDI, nothing to tech.

Dsmash>>Cannot be SDI-ed, dont know about DI-ed, but then it would have to wait after its over, which it doesnt in this case
Footstool to dair(dair doesnt hit rob, nothing to do with it)>Footstool=no DI or tech
Redo



Also, ice climbers infinite can infinite 0 to death, simple as that, you cannot do anything to this. Ice climbers never lose the actual buffered frame advantage they have, and they can just turn around so theres no point in arguing standing or not.

 

[Spelt]

can't footstools be interrupted by an up+b right away though?


i agree with the ICs thing though.
doesn't matter if nana can be killed, so can dedede.
and popo is gonna die not to long after nana.
if either of them get the grab the opponent is dead.
and you can control both situations equally as well by just staying away from them.
imo they're both as bad and if DDD's infinite is ban worthy than so is ICs.

 

[BSP]

no, i think footstool is a spike. BTW, im an apprentice now, yipee!...or not...weird

 

[cutter]

can't footstools be interrupted by an up+b right away though?.

No, because you're in a state of hitstun while being footstooled.

@ swordgard: Pretty sure you can DI a footstool, but you're right on the money regarding ZSS's Dsmash. You cannot SDI that move, which means that pretty much seals ROB's fate.

 

[Radiation]

I'm personally against the infinite, but I can understand why people would be against banning it - it being too difficult to enforce, stuff like that.

I can't think of any reason to ask for it to be "unbanned" if it already is banned by a TO (or the SBR) acknowledging these problems, though, because if you need it to win you probably kind of suck.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Because ganon mains should abandon him because he has a negative matchup versus 99% of the cast.



Exactly why everyone else should be banned.


See what i did there?



Just because it annoys some player, doesnt mean we should ban it. We can ban it, but by competitive standards it would actually be very very bad. D3=/=worst matchup for mario. Marth is just as bad if not worst. Ban marth? You can always call double blind pick and force people into using D3 and cp em first turn, if you dont call double blind pick its your fault. Get chars which can cp d3, and always call double blind pick.

Yes, but Ganon sucks. Mario does not suck at the same level Ganon does. Luigi definitely doesn't, and neither does DK (Samus does LOL).

100-0 is not the same as a bad matchup. That's an IMPOSSIBLE matchup.

 

[tocador]

It dosent matter what you guys think about how "fair" is letting DDD have his standing infinite, the fact it is, it is just too much and deserves a ban.

Most of the TO's ban it, so it dosent matter if you dont like it, or you think it is unfair and now wont go to TO's anyomre. For each anti-ban there is 5 pro-ban, and more people = more money to the TO. So as long as the TO wants, there will be more banned DDD standing infinites then the ones not banned.

 

[Zankoku]

It dosent matter what you guys think about how "fair" is letting DDD have his standing infinite, the fact it is, it is just too much and deserves a ban.

Most of the TO's ban it, so it dosent matter if you dont like it, or you think it is unfair and now wont go to TO's anyomre. For each anti-ban there is 5 pro-ban, and more people = more money to the TO. So as long as the TO wants, there will be more banned DDD standing infinites then the ones not banned.

One can make a similar argument regarding banning Meta Knight.

 

[demonictoonlink]

^ No
Most TOs don't ban Metaknight.

 

[Zankoku]

I said similar, not identical.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

One can make a similar argument regarding banning Meta Knight.

Banning infinites are fair. Banning MK isn't.

 

[Zankoku]

Your post doesn't carry much meaning to it. What is the qualifier that makes banning one thing and not another fair?

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Your post doesn't carry much meaning to it. What is the qualifier that makes banning one thing and not another fair?

Do I HAVE to answer this?

We're done discussing MK, he won't be banned. We're now discussing infinites (D3) giving my personal opinion on the issue.

It's very simple, banning the standing infinite can improve attendance in characters like DK, Luigi, etc. I understand Samus and Malleo not getting much of a boost since they still lack, but DK players would better off.

I haven't memorized the CP system like you Mods do, but right now, banning the infinite is beneficial.

Edit: Fair is not a good word to use, makes ppl look like scrubs.

 

[swordgard]

Your post doesn't carry much meaning to it. What is the qualifier that makes banning one thing and not another fair?

I thought that was how banning stuff worked.


You point to something you dont like, call it unfair, distort the others argument and strawman them, finally proceed to state that you won the debate ignoring what the other says.

Do I HAVE to answer this?

We're done discussing MK, he won't be banned. We're now discussing infinites (D3) giving my personal opinion on the issue.

It's very simple, banning the standing infinite can improve attendance in characters like DK, Luigi, etc. I understand Samus and Malleo not getting much of a boost since they still lack, but DK players would better off.

I haven't memorized the CP system like you Mods do, but right now, banning the infinite is beneficial.

By the exact same standards you can ban MK lol.


We dont ban things to make it beneficial to the metagame, we ban things in the last resort that they overcentralize the metagame or they create a game with too much randomness.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

By the exact same standards you can ban MK lol.


We dont ban things to make it beneficial to the metagame, we ban things in the last resort that they overcentralize the metagame or they create a game with too much randomness.

Double posts. O.o

I understand that, yet banning MK has it's rewards and consequences. I'm not seeing the negatives in banning the infinite.

I just remembered how this debate is not as serious as the MK ban one...

NVM, I'm done here.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Swordgard, what benefits to the metagame would we have if the infinite were not banned?

 

[Zankoku]

I'm seriously failing to see why "would banning this be beneficial to the metagame?" is the question when it comes to banning things.

 

[cutter]

I understand that, yet banning MK has it's rewards and consequences. I'm not seeing the negatives in banning the infinite.

Melee Sheik's chaingrab does nothing to the game but create unwinnable matchups for over half a dozen characters (MORE characters than DDD could ever hope to shut down with his infinite). Should we ban that too then?

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I'm seriously failing to see why "would banning this be beneficial to the metagame?" is the question when it comes to banning things.

I was asking how would keeping it be beneficial to the metagame.

If this isn't the question we should be asking, then what is?

 

[blakinola]

Oh melee..

We're talking about Brawl, not melee though. In that game you could at least DI...here, you can't do...anything.

Afaik, if you go to an east coast event, you'll see some infinites banned. If it was a terribad character like Ganondorf, i'd understand.

I'm for making as many characters as possible viable. If it was a cg that required any shred of tech skill, I would reconsider my stance. The risk and the reward is too greatly unbalanced.

 

[Zankoku]

The question is if keeping it is significantly detrimental to the metagame or tournament environment. A ban is used to remove things that are seriously bad, not just not good.

 

[tocador]

Melee Sheik's chaingrab does nothing to the game but create unwinnable matchups for over half a dozen characters (MORE characters than DDD could ever hope to shut down with his infinite). Should we ban that too then?

I fail to see why you are comparing brawl to melee.

Brawl and melee are completly unlike each other, and therefore shouldnt be compared withing basically nothing, and this include bans.

In melee we never had such a big argue about banning a char, the best we had was "yeah sheik/fox is kinda unfair, lets ban?". In melee, people dint want to ban it, so yeah, they didnt, but we are the brawl comunity, not melee.

Just because melee didnt ban something, why shouldnt we be able to ban something that we think it's unfair?

 

[Luigi player]

Melee Sheik's chaingrab does nothing to the game but create unwinnable matchups for over half a dozen characters (MORE characters than DDD could ever hope to shut down with his infinite). Should we ban that too then?

This is Brawl.

 

[blakinola]

Quick answer-- put a limit on it. That's it. This thread is stupid.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Going off what Ankoku, I see no argument for keeping it.

I mean seriously, wiping 5 characters off the map? It's difficult for me to comprehend how anyone is arguing to keep this in competitive play.

 

[Dark Sonic]

can't footstools be interrupted by an up+b right away though?

I still find it odd that people want to ban DDDs infinite but don't seem to mind every other infinite in the game <_<.

 

[blakinola]

All we can hope is that the next installment of Smash has--I dunno--testers who are competitive gamers to point out flaws, so we don't have to fix them. There will always be problems, but to have decent characters shut down because of something so trivial. It saddens me.

 

[shinyspoon42]

Throwing in my 2 cents, I am anti ban, as a bowser main. Yes, it means I have to CP whenever I play against D3, but I probably would anyway. The counter pick system is there for reasons like this, if a character has an unwinnable matchup because of this infinite, don't use them against D3. Seriously, if we tried to ban every move that made a matchup difficult, it would be scrub city.

@S.O.L.I.D.- Well, D3 mains probably enjoy their ability to completely **** a few characters with ease, and when going into a match it means you can CP D3 if you see someone using Mario, DK, Bowser, etc. I don't think we need to ban it if we already have ways around it.

 

[tocador]

I still find it odd that people want to ban DDDs infinite but don't seem to mind every other infinite in the game <_<.

Other infinites are like, Zamus>ROB, and IC. So yeah.....

 

[Zankoku]

Going off what Ankoku, I see no argument for keeping it.

I mean seriously, wiping 5 characters off the map? It's difficult for me to comprehend how anyone is arguing to keep this in competitive play.

Does it actually do that, though? I mean, if it's true, then I'm surprised at the number of DK, Mario, and Luigi players entering tournaments in this region, where the infinite isn't banned. They must be total morons to be using characters that don't even exist competitively.

Even then, I don't see why five characters, none of which are top or high tier, having an extremely bad matchup is something bad enough that it is significantly detrimental to competitive play.

 

[cutter]

I fail to see why you are comparing brawl to melee.

Brawl and melee are completly unlike each other, and therefore shouldnt be compared withing basically nothing, and this include bans.

In melee we never had such a big argue about banning a char, the best we had was "yeah sheik/fox is kinda unfair, lets ban?". In melee, people dint want to ban it, so yeah, they didnt, but we are the brawl comunity, not melee.

Just because melee didnt ban something, why shouldnt we be able to ban something that we think it's unfair?

This is Brawl.

Yes, because Brawl is a special game and it should get special treatment unlike all other competitive games!

Spoiler

/sarcasm

 

[Palpi]

sheik wouldve still won those match-ups a lot easier than d3 would win his w/o the infinites tho.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Does it actually do that, though? I mean, if it's true, then I'm surprised at the number of DK, Mario, and Luigi players entering tournaments in this region, where the infinite isn't banned. They must be total morons to be using characters that don't even exist competitively.

Even then, I don't see why five characters, none of which are top or high tier, having an extremely bad matchup is something bad enough that it is significantly detrimental to competitive play.

You live in the Midwest, correct? The most obvious reason is that there are really no good Dedede's here, other than lain who mains ICs. Without that threat, there's nothing stopping them from entering.

OK, so none of the characters are very good, do you think that means we should just basically stick our middle finger up to them and say "we don't give a **** about you"?