It was pretty much him against 10 other people for most of the thread. It's hard to address everyone, especially when some bring up issues that were refuted at the beginning of the thread. Then others, like Ills, post because they're uninformed (you can't DI wall infinites. That's why they're banned). And there wasn't really even a real clear-cut standard that anti-infinite debaters could go off of.
The thing is that he's
quoted and replied to parts of posts and ignored other parts of
the same posts... all the while accusing, among others,
me of ignoring his posts when at least when I do it, it's either because:
A: I've already addressed said point(s) in a very recent post (quite possibly, the very same post) or
B: I missed the
entire post since I don't walk around reading every single post in every single thread I ever post in.
Some said they don't affect tourney results enough to be banned.
No, they say:
It's not overpowered. It's not overpowered on paper/as theory fighter and it's not even overpowered in tournaments.
Which means:
* It's not so good we have to ban it! If it's so good, then how come we have one jillion ways to combat it? We just told you one jillion ways to combat it (IC's infinites, which are the ones Patsie is arguing should be banned). We're out there, doing it! We're out there combating these infinites and actually beating ICs who do (albeit when I say "we", I don't necessarily mean everyone on "my" side).
* If it's so good none of what we can ever say applies, how come we just gave you tons of ways to combat it and
how come it's not even dominating tournaments? You claim it's so good it's an auto-win from the first grab (because apparently, taking off one stock = winning the match). You claim the opponent should just put down his controller and walk away and cry about having just lost. You claim it's so good it's unbeatable in such a way no character can ever come close to beating the IC's unless they screw up monumentally (which would be reason enough to ban them... if it's only good enough for them to win by a small or relatively large margin, then it'd just make ICs Top or God Tier).
Then how come no one's winning tournaments using it despite the fact that there are several capable IC's out there doing it?
Yuna said tourney results are not why we ban things.
No I didn't. And I've had to clarify this many times. I said:
We do not ban things based
solely on what we see at tournaments.
When a new infinite stall that can be used to win the entire match without your opponent even having a chance of touching you is found out, we do not wait for it to have won at least 10 tournaments before banning it. Because we have already banned infinite stalls universally. We know that this one will reap the exact same results as this other infinite stall.
When a new stage is introduced in a new installment of Smash, we do not need to wait for the stage to have screwed up at least 40 tournament sets to ban it. We already know what can and cannot be done on stages, we already have enough reasons to ban certain kinds of stages.
It's the same with Neutral Stages, we do not leave all stages on Neutral for at least 100 tournaments before rounding it down.
When a new Smash is introduced, we do not need to play with Items on for 2 years before banning them if the way they work haven't significantly changed in such a way the reasons we banned them in Melee (and now in Brawl) do not apply.
In other words, precedence is also important!
Yuna then posted a more stable criterion; 4 points where everything they ban must fall under.
Supplements. Supplements!
And Stickies help...look at the character specifics. Matchup charts, vid threads, and instructional threads are all stickied for easy access and a premise for closing threads that try to start new ones. This is (or was) apparently a very controversial subject since there are serveral threads opening with the same topic. If someone were to sticky this, that person could bring their ideas here instead if the thread doesn't already address their points.
And still the majority of new users do not bother even touching the sticikies.
Also, stickies are made sticky if they're really, really important. This is not really
that important. Also, not that many threads have been made on the subject vs. "Items should be on in tournaments!" and "Why aren't Smash Balls tourney legal?!". If anything, those two should be stickied today if we're going to go by "Many threads have been made on the subject and there's much debate and controversy surrounding the subject".
I can't talk for Patsie and say why he did or didn't do something. I can only say that he's an excellent debater, and probably had reasons for not addressing Grunt or you directly.
You can
look like an excellent debater if people only read
your posts and not the oppositions', especially when you ignore posts you cannot refute (which are many).
He had no logical reason to ignore Grunt's or Bocom's posts. In fact, he replied to some of their posts, IIRC. He additionally cannot claim "I didn't see them" as they even said "Why did you ignore this and that post" and I believe they even
quoted themselves and/or each other.
Meanwhile, Patsie often ranted about how I and others ignored
his posts.
But this is exactly what I was talking about. There's no set of rules that tell why you ban or don't ban something. From my point of view, the contradiction between all of the pro-infinite debaters tell me that the rules are arbitrarily decided upon.
Yes there is. I have said it. Many times.
The ony universal rule for banning things (unless due to random bouts of scrubiness) is:
If something is "too good" as in so good that it breaks the game significantly, then it has to be banned.
"Breaking the game significantly" includes, but are not necessarily limited to (in case a game is released where an entirely new mechanic which introduces an entirely new way of breaking the game significantly):
* Nuclear Tesuji - You do it, you win (Infinite stalling)
* Akuma vs. Akuma - You play as them, you win... in a totally BS way which makes it
virtually impossible to lose as X-character unless you screw up monumentally. Tournaments will devolve into X vs. X (and yes, SSF2T tournaments
did devolve into Akuma vs. Akuma!) (Akuma)
* I'm too sexy to Move - Your opponent freezes and is unable to do anything, they're at your mercy
* Camera Who? - The camera gets screwed up, making it either impossible or really, really, really, really annoying (as in one character might not even be visible due to the came angle or whatever) to continue playing
* Arcade Absense - It's not in the arcade version (does not apply to Smash as there is no such thing as a legit Smash arcade cabinet)
* And you, and you, but not you - Technique/Combo/Glitch/Cookie only available for one side, as in only P1 can do it or P2 can do it or you can only do it facing left or only when facing right (in games where that's really important)(Certain button locks, strings, combos and random BS in the Naruto: Narutimate Hero-series (I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with any such instances in other games, so sue me if I'm not a fighter Sage) - footnote: In Brawl, several things are controller port-dependant. These do not necessarily break the game nor are they that huge of a nuisance and save of banning entire characters or techniques, we've resorted to seeding controller ports, either through "Highest Seed gets to pick first!" or "Jan-Ken-Pon!".
* Stage BS - Stages that allow for any of the above or that are just random BS for one party or in general (In Naruto: Narutimate Hero 2 and 3 (and possibly beyond), Kidoumaru's stage was total BS because I believe that the spider literally churned out items willy nilly. Matches literally devolved into who could get the most and best items and playing on that stage made it all about items, in Soul Calibur II, Talim's Stage (the Windmill)
lagged the game (we also ban certain stages in Teams for the same reason), in Soul Calibur III, I think Abyss' or Night Terror's stage is banned because... I don't know. IIRC,
one SCIII stage is banned. Many stages are banned in Smash because they allow for any of the above mentioned reasons to happen for stuff that wouldn't yield the same results on any other stage (that's not banned). For example, Nuclear Tesuji or Akuma vs. Akuma (it's not a "simple counterpick" if it boils down to Akuma vs. Akuma).
I don't see nearly as many people making threads "Who wants to play me?! FC ****" since the one about the friend finder was stickied.
Yet how many people are asking questions
every day that are easily answered by spending 5 minutes or less reading one or more stickies (a lot of which actually crosslink to each other for easy referencing)? How many threads aren't started which are
identical to threads on
the front page of the
same forum section every week? Some people are just lazy and/or quite possibly stupid.
And Yuna apparently ignored some of his points.
Patsie claiming it happened =/= It happened. Patsie's claimed many things. Most of them weren't direct lies or uninformed opinions. Some
were.
Also, I only "ignored" 5 pages of posts unless it was only pointed out to me
a very long time after I initially missed it (and when I miss something, I actually miss it), and those were because I had already written replies to them but then my Firefox somehow erased it all without me being able to get it back.
Also, read above for why Patsie's "missing" is ignoring and my "missing" was actually missing.
I'm not going to argue this again, that's not what I revisited this thread to do. I've read sirlin's guide, and I understand the basis on which he says things should be banned. I've also said that ddd's infinites fall under these categories, but was refuted, saying that it's only 5 characters.
If you've read Sirlin, then why can you still not grasp why The Akuma Principle does not apply to DeDeDe's infinite on 4 characters and chaingrab on one (if he has to move forward, he can trip)? All of the reasons why Akuma was and is still banned do
not apply to DeDeDe's infinite and chaingrab. They just do
not.
A lot of them do, but some of the
most important ones do not.
Various people in this thread said that we don't ban because a technique is "too good", yet Akuma was banned for that very reason.
No we didn't. We challenged people's perceptions of what is "too good" because, obviously, we don't agree with them. What's "too good" to Random Person #2573 is not necessarily "too good" to Random Person #12193 or, you know, me. Some people think grabbing is too good because they go through shields. Some people think edgeguarding is too good. Some people think cmaping is too good.
Also, we do not everything that's "too good", we ban things that are "universally game-breaking in such a way it hinders Competitive play" (semantics, I know). It's like if DeDeDe could infinite
everyone. That's be "way, way, way, way, way,
way,
way,
way,
way,
way too good".
See, this is where partial reading and/or subjective reading and/or failed reading comprehension is really dangerous, it sets us up to have to repeat the same arguments again and again and again.
It's examples such as these that I'm talking about. Inconsistency is hard to argue against.
Only no such inconsistency exist (or at least,
you (nor Patsie) have yet to point one of them out).
Then explain your point. You said "I don't see why this should be stickied. How often does stickying something help anything?", and I responded.
Irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm not saying he didn't fumble with his words or whatever. But it's not really that important... at all.
vs Akuma = vs ddd with any of the 5 he can infinite. Both winnable matches, but both very unlikely. One's banned, the other's not.
Read above (I'm replying to this to avoid accusations of ignoring posts).
I've never said that ddd was broken. I've never said "use ddd or you lose". The ONLY reason that he's not broken is that he doesn't have an infinite on every character.
Only, "Use X or lose" is the most important factor in why we ban things.
He still remains broken to the 5 who he can infinite because the match is nearly unwinnable.
So is Snake vs. Ganondorf. It might not be "One grab = One stock", but it's still pretty much a 10-0 matchup. It's still nearly unwinnable.
If you have a response to this, take it to PMs plz. I already addressed this in the thread and was refuted. I don't want to repeat my same arguments.
Wait, then why did I just see you reuse the "DeDeDe's infinite is broken and all of the rules of The Akuma Principle apply!"-card just a few posts ago?
I do not remember any tournaments where waveshining was banned.
I don't even remember anyone
talking about banning it (as in, anyone credible... or just not a n00b... or just not clearly
insane).
Even playing a campy match is still dangerous... [stuff]
Bla, bla, so are a lot of other matchups
without infinites or even chaingrabs. One mistake and you might die at 0% against a whole slew of characters because of certain moves, tactics, combos and whatnot. Meteor Smashes,
very good. Also,
one-hit KO:ers if you cannot recover (and Sakurai changed the game so that even if you're Mew2King, you cannot recover from every single Meteor Smash). And also, only
one hit. At least the infinites require repeated pounding.
(Melee History Time) One wrongly DI:ed tipper from Marth at 15-30% or so (character dependant) on Yoshi's Story and you're dead. One tipper from Marth when you have 60-70% (character dependant) before the hit (and sometimes even
after the hit) on Yoshi's Story and you're dead. An entire crouch-canceled Dsmash from Peach when you're Bowser, not much fun. Various Space Animals BS against other fastfallers (or themselves)? Not a lot of fun. Marth BS against fastfallers on FD? Not a lot of fun. Sheik's chaingrab on half of the Melee-cast? Not fun. Ganny's chaingrab on fastfallers, Sheik or possibly others? Not a lot of fun. Game & Watch's chaingrab on fastfallers? Not a lot of fun.
We dealt with it.
Possible replies to posts after this in a separate post because of length.
