Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[ShadowLink84]

You can camp on any map... Hi norfair! Hi distant planet! Hi Planking!

yeah lets totally ignore everything else.
And when was planking a stage?

Its true you can camp on any map, however, several stages make camping that much more difficult to deal with.
norfair being an example, disant planet,not so much.

The fact that it was banned because of what you could do with the walk-off was sort of... implied? Any character is capable of b-throwing you off the stage, the distance between yourself and the edge simply varies from character to character. How does that make the map unviable? Don't get grabbed near an edge? You're as dumb for falling for that as you are for getting CGed off the stage on delfino/castle siege. These reasons alone do not warrant an absolute ban.

you mak e it sound like the user has a choice in the amtter. They don't.
you're not forced to try and get close to TL?
To ROB?
Olimar?
Snake?
Link
Falco?
Samus?
its a rather large list so you now where I am going with this.
It isn't that people fall for it, its that they have no choice.

How is that subjective? Logic dictates that we should treat everything fairly and upon the same criterias. That is what I am doing.[/quote\]

By stating that reasoning for banning DDD's infinites are the same for wall infinites? Even though the reasons were different?

I don't think a ban is warranted because I believe 15% is high enough of a threshold for us to do something about it. What I believe is that YOU setting up such a threshold and claiming that these characters don't matter because they're not a majority IS subjective. Again, until you have a decent argument against my first point, you cannot touch this. Why enforce rules to prevent some characters to be infinited, but not the others? Where and how do you draw a line and state that "ok, enough characters have been taken care of, the rest can just eat dirt".

If it affected 49% of the cast, would you still be against it? (Hey, it's not a majority after all!)

I would still be against it.
Again doesn't break the game. Doesn't force overcentralizing, you have the other half of characters to counter it.
how did I say NOT counter your argument?
You yourself are implying that an infinite affecting 5 characters is enough to warrant a ban. is that not subjective?
is it not factual that EVERYTHING that has been banned is due to the fact that it affects the great majority of the cast?
if you can bring up 3 instances of something being banned without the fact that it affected the great majority, I'll change my mind and I'll secede my argument and agree to a ban.
You can choose any competitive game.

So its ok to prevent it against a part of the cast, which you choose arbitrarily, but not the other? Again, that does not make any sense and does not follow logical reasoning.

Caause you totally saw the part where I mention overcentralizing and a "do this or lose" issue right?
Now i think you re just blatantly ignoring several parts of my posts.
Again the differnce is that DDD's infinite does not affect the great majority of the cast. the game doesnt become "do this or lose" when you pick DDD. It does not break competitiveness.

Wall infinites did.

 

[Boxob]

Oh I'm sorry I wasn't aware we were bringing our Ad Hominem to the debate oh Lord High Debator. Please teach me your ways -_-;

I'm quite fond of Double DDD and I've found the Cross Chain grab to be very easy to set up on any two chain grabbable opponents. I'm just trying to point out we are sitting here giving special treatment to 6 characters who get infinited by one move and then trying to explain it away because it's "easy". Do you seriously not see the flaw in just complaining that it's "easy to set up"? PErhaps if you were instead arguing that "it upsets the balance of the game" or "single handedly invalidates good number of characters" I would be inclined to agree with you. But banning stuff because it's easy? That's scrubby.



I much prefer this version of the argument.

Read Umbreon's post.

 

[pure_awesome]

...I vaguely resent the fact that Umbreon comes in and posts more or less the same thing I've been saying for like 10 pages now, and everyone jumps on his nuts.

Ah well. Not like it's your fault.

 

[The Real Inferno]

I just did and agreed with him XD

Pure_Awesome: I havent had time to read the last ten pages, besides you're from Canada no one reads what you say

Spoiler

just kidding

 

[Ulevo]

the two character grab release thing is stupid and after me and my partner used it one time in tourney, it was immediately softbanned in our entire area

During a tournament myself and a friend of mine hosted (friend A), my other friend (friend B) went to go have his set with friend A. Friend B went for a double blind pick, and whispered to me that he'd pick Ness. He was stupid, and whispered way too loudly, so friend A overheard. So he picked Marth.

Needless to say, friend A won by a long shot, and three stocked him both matchs out of the set. We banned all standing infinites immediately afterwards.

 

[da K.I.D.]

by the way the fact that its so easy means that every single person at the tourney should play D3 against those 5 characters. and if you always feel that you might get CPd or blind countered by D3, than you will never pick one of those 5.

those characters are now unviable and will never be seen in tourney play

@shadowlink
you want "do this or lose"
the game is now
"do pick a character other than Mario, Luigi, Samus, Bowser and DK or lose"

 

[Boxob]

But everyone else has been saying the same exact thing.

>_>

 

[ShadowLink84]

This adds nothing to competitive play. Furthermore, it puts DDD dangerously close to my definition of what warrants a ban:

1. Character removes fundamental aspects of gameplay.

The infinite removes the ability of the opponent to DI or to defend themselves, something that should generally always be present.

How about Marth's death combo on Fox in melee?
That removed the ability of the opponent to defend themselves and DI did not help them.
What about Sheik's CG? left the opponent unable to defend themselves or DI away. (well Di was present but that was easily dealt with)


yeah we don't gain anything from allowing the infinite.
But we don't lose anything either.

There are several things in this game that make the opponent unable to defend themselves or DI out of the situation but they are not banned. This is the same thig in other fighting games and even card games.

 

[HeroMystic]

...I vaguely resent the fact that Umbreon comes in and posts more or less the same thing I've been saying for like 10 pages now, and everyone jumps on his nuts.

Ah well. Not like it's your fault.

Red > Yellow.

 

[Deleted member]

How about Marth's death combo on Fox in melee?
That removed the ability of the opponent to defend themselves and DI did not help them.

DI the way marth is facing and you will eventually escape.

Marth's CG doesn't go so long that we have to assign some arbitrary damage % where you have to kill your opponent just to continue the match.

 

[Falconv1.0]

You start a set. Double blind pick. Do you go for DK knowing that your opponent could very well pick D3? (it really isn't that hard to know who a certain player plays beforehand). You'd lose a match based on the throw of a coin. You might as well forfeit it and move on to the second match, at which point you are FORCED to switch out. So like I said, I don't see how DK remains viable at all. It isn't simply about choosing a counterpick for D3. It's about whether or not you'd want to take such a risk in the first place. imo.

Ok now your point is way more clear. Thanks for clearing that up and educating my dumb arse.


Well now I'm even more pro ban. And now I actually care.

 

[ShadowLink84]

i have to go, physics test tomorrow and I must be prepared for it.

DI the way marth is facing and you will eventually escape.

At which point I still have a number of options that would lead to your death.
Same outcome as an infinite.

you are still left helpless for a period of time and i still have complete control once you reach a percentage where you can DI away.

We shouldn't ban things just because they remove the opponents ability to defend themselves. We remove it when it breaks the game. Marth's CG on Fox didn't break the game.

 

[bobson]

...I vaguely resent the fact that Umbreon comes in and posts more or less the same thing I've been saying for like 10 pages now, and everyone jumps on his nuts.

He's got a red name.
Duh.

i have to go, physics test tomorrow and I must be prepared for it.

We'll miss you.

 

[The Real Inferno]

But everyone else has been saying the same exact thing.

>_>

No many people have been whining that "It's hard to not get grabbed by DDD, and it's easy to do" which is irrelevent. The only relevent part of the argument should be it's effect on the meta game which is what Umbreon and some others have addressed. I'm not sure which you were, you were just coming after me so I addressed it to you XD

 

[pure_awesome]

yeah we don't gain anything from allowing the infinite.
But we don't lose anything either.

We lose this match-up ever happening. We lose any of those character being viable in tourney play. This is a huge hit for DK.

We do gain things by banning it.

 

[Deleted member]

i have to go, physics test tomorrow and I must be prepared for it.


At which point I still have a number of options that would lead to your death.
Same outcome as an infinite.

you are still left helpless for a period of time and i still have complete control once you reach a percentage where you can DI away.

We shouldn't ban things just because they remove the opponents ability to defend themselves. We remove it when it breaks the game. Marth's CG on Fox didn't break the game.

I'll ignore your ****ty strawman and challenge you to a money match, my fox vs your marth on FD for any amount you want over $50.

I'll teach you the meaning of helpless in less than 2 minutes.

 

[Inui]

ShadowLink, wtf is wrong with you? Your arguments in this thread are the absolute worst I've ever seen from you and it's almost like you're just arguing for the sake of it.

 

[Ulevo]

How about Marth's death combo on Fox in melee?
That removed the ability of the opponent to defend themselves and DI did not help them.
What about Sheik's CG? left the opponent unable to defend themselves or DI away. (well Di was present but that was easily dealt with)


yeah we don't gain anything from allowing the infinite.
But we don't lose anything either.

There are several things in this game that make the opponent unable to defend themselves or DI out of the situation but they are not banned. This is the same thig in other fighting games and even card games.

Smash is totally different from other fighters. You can't relate it to them and expect to follow through with a solid argument.

Also, I can't say for certain as I cannot remember, but I do believe DI allowed for characters to live after Marths CG.

And yes, we do lose something. We lose the potential for five other characters to be more competitive in Brawl simply because of a single infinite. There would be exceptionally more players using Ness, Mario, Luigi, et cetera... if infinites were not put in place. Especially characters like Donkey Kong or Bowser, whom are either High Tier (Donkey Kong) or have the potential to be (Bowser, or so I've heard many others claim).

The community benefits as a whole for the infinite being removed. It's like removing tripping. There is no downside.

 

[HeroMystic]

ShadowLink, wtf is wrong with you? Your arguments in this thread are the absolute worst I've ever seen from you and it's almost like you're just arguing for the sake of it.

I called it first.

 

[M15t3R E]

ShadowLink, wtf is wrong with you? Your arguments in this thread are the absolute worst I've ever seen from you and it's almost like you're just arguing for the sake of it.

Agreed.
He referenced SF2, to which I called that argument a strawman and irrelevant, nonsensical gibberish.

 

[Boxob]

OH SHI-

$93 MM, record it.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Shadowlink used to make me facepalm. A lot.

 

[The Real Inferno]

I thought everyone had noticed by now that ShadowLink argues with everyone about everything into the end of time. I think he smells it on the air.

 

[M15t3R E]

I'll ignore your ****ty strawman and challenge you to a money match, my fox vs your marth on FD for any amount you want over $50.

I'll teach you the meaning of helpless in less than 2 minutes.

I want to see that o_O

 

[UTDZac]

As long as the infinite is legal I will continuing choosing DDD as a counterpick to my friend's really good DK in tournament. Ha, it's the only character he plays. I don't even know how to play DDD except by grabbing. I love this game.

 

[CO18]

Did he just say we dont gain anything by removing it.
























No, Just No.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Just make him do the running CG and not the standing one. Simple. Simple as pie. Simple as ****ing blueberry pie.

I thought everyone had noticed by now that ShadowLink argues with everyone about everything into the end of time. I think he smells it on the air.

trufax right here

 

[KO M]

Why get rid of DDDs most useful AT, his power will be cut in half if that happens.

 

[ShadowLink84]

ShadowLink, wtf is wrong with you? Your arguments in this thread are the absolute worst I've ever seen from you and it's almost like you're just arguing for the sake of it.

Its rather hard to organize your thoughts when you have two or three people replying all at once.

I'll ignore your ****ty strawman and challenge you to a money match, my fox vs your marth on FD for any amount you want over $50.

I'll teach you the meaning of helpless in less than 2 minutes.

This addresses what I said how?
And what did I strawman exactly? Its rather hard to keep track of everything.

Smash is totally different from other fighters. You can't relate it to them and expect to follow through with a solid argument.

Also, I can't say for certain as I cannot remember, but I do believe DI allowed for characters to live after Marths CG.

they could but it was more about what marth could do to Fox after the CG.
This is similar to the infinite, it isn't as if DDD kills them off with the D throw, hestill needs to kill them off with it. And even if he just killed wih a D throw you still have to address the fact that it just doesn't cause overcentralizing.

And yes, we do lose something. We lose the potential for five other characters to be more competitive in Brawl simply because of a single infinite. There would be exceptionally more players using Ness, Mario, Luigi, et cetera... if infinites were not put in place. Especially characters like Donkey Kong or Bowser, whom are either High Tier (Donkey Kong) or have the potential to be (Bowser, or so I've heard many others claim).

There would be more and they ma do slightly better but that is pretty much it.
Bowser, Mario, Samus, and Luigi aren't very viable for tourament play to begin with.
Dk is really the only one and mind you that doesn't destroy his viability completely.

now as for comparing the games, I am comparing the reasoning behind them whcih govern many things outside of fighting games.

The community benefits as a whole for the infinite being removed. It's like removing tripping. There is no downside.

[/quote]
The community as a whole? What benefits does the community reap other than those 5 characters having one less bad amtchup? Does it affect MK? Wolf? Sonic? Diddy Kong?

I don't disagree that the infinite sucks ***, bu I don't believe it should be banned either.

Why get rid of DDDs most useful AT, his power will be cut in half if that happens.

XD

Shadowlink used to make me facepalm. A lot.

But I don't make you facepalm when i agree with you right? ^_~

I thought everyone had noticed by now that ShadowLink argues with everyone about everything into the end of time. I think he smells it on the air.

It smells like cookies.
I also have time on my hands.

 

[ShadowLink84]

double post.

 

[bobson]

Bowser, Mario, Samus, and Luigi aren't very viable for tourament play to begin with.

Boss, Sliq, Xyro.

 

[Tujex]

If you ban the CG DDD becomes useless.

The reason people TRUELY fear DDD isn't because of the sheer strength of his Fsmash or the fact that he can WoP or the range of his attacks. They fear him because he can CG dang near everybody in the game. Take that away and you have a semi-decent penguin thing that isn't much a threat at all to anybody. I mean....the IC's CGs are a hell of a lot worse IMO. DDD needs a wall to really be worth anything, IC just need to land a grab.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Boss, Sliq, Xyro.

How well do they place in comparison to other people using top tier or high tier characters?

In comparison to other characters they aren't very viable, I bet they would do better with high tier characters than those that they use.

 

[XienZo]

There would be more and they ma do slightly better but that is pretty much it.
Bowser, Mario, Samus, and Luigi aren't very viable for tourament play to begin with.
Dk is really the only one and mind you that doesn't destroy his viability completely.

So you're saying that if they're already somewhat unviable, you might as well make them completely unviable, just for the hell of it?

Just because they're suffering doesn't mean its ok to punish them.

The community as a whole? What benefits does the community reap other than those 5 characters having one less bad amtchup? Does it affect MK? Wolf? Sonic? Diddy Kong?

I don't disagree that the infinite sucks ***, bu I don't believe it should be banned either.

Hey, what if Sonics want to go around Olimar, but can't get down the unique playsyles of Peach and ROB, and Olimar just hides behind his trusty buddy, DDD, when you come out with Weegee?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Is Mario really not viable? I thought he was just really unpopular (ironically).

 

[CO18]

Shadow your points are just annoying now and dumb. All youre saying is screw other characters and yes it EFFECTS the metagame as a whole.

For Example: Luigi does quite well vs Diddy Kong and is quite a threat but with D3's infiniting all the luigis away it just makes it easier for Diddy.

It does effect the metagame in several other ways. These things chains. I dont understand how youre for for 5 100:0 matchups that make these characters completely unviable.

Congratulations guys we have no removed 5 characters from brawl for a total of 34. Were doing good.

Edit: Oh yeah Olimar loses to luigi as well but d3 removes this threat with his cheap tactic making it easier for olimar which ultimately hurts a few other characters that get ***** by olimar which ultimately helps those characters that get ***** by the characters olimar is ******.

it will just go on and on..

 

[BentoBox]

yeah lets totally ignore everything else.
And when was planking a stage?

Its true you can camp on any map, however, several stages make camping that much more difficult to deal with.
norfair being an example, disant planet,not so much.

Planking is a method of camping. Obvious? And all you need is a ledge! And it is just as hard to deal with as is someone camping the side of Eldin. Approaching him doesn't guarantee a kill. If it does in your case, you're doing it wrong. And about DP, you've clearly never played MK on that stage XD. And there's a walk-off there too, so how does the b-throw camp not apply?

you mak e it sound like the user has a choice in the amtter. They don't.
you're not forced to try and get close to TL?
To ROB?
Olimar?
Snake?
Link
Falco?
Samus?
its a rather large list so you now where I am going with this.
It isn't that people fall for it, its that they have no choice.

Nothing forces you to approach all these characters if you don't create an opening, no. Camping the side of the stage does not guarantee victory. What's going to force you to approach olimar on the ground? His side-b only goes so far... Same for all the other chars' projectiles. And how is it hard to space yourself from these characters in close quarters as to not get grabbed?

How is that subjective? Logic dictates that we should treat everything fairly and upon the same criterias.

That is what I am doing.

By stating that reasoning for banning DDD's infinites are the same for wall infinites? Even though the reasons were different?

[brawl lover]walk-offs bra, walk-offs.[/brawl lover]

I would still be against it.
Again doesn't break the game. Doesn't force overcentralizing, you have the other half of characters to counter it.
how did I say NOT counter your argument?
is it not factual that EVERYTHING that has been banned is due to the fact that it affects the great majority of the cast?
if you can bring up 3 instances of something being banned without the fact that it affected the great majority, I'll change my mind and I'll secede my argument and agree to a ban.
You can choose any competitive game.

And the maps with walls wouldn't have been banned if only 1/7th of the cast was affected by wall infinites? And the IDC wouldn't have been banned if it only affected that 1/7th? That is just poor judgment imo. It's either bannable or it isn't. We've banned things that did not create 100:0 situations, but when such a situation points up, we choose not to do anything? In none of the decisions taken in the past was the ratio of affected characters ever a factor. Why should it be now?

You yourself are implying that an infinite affecting 5 characters is enough to warrant a ban. is that not subjective?

Again, I'm saying its the only logical thing to do if we take a look at our past records and how we've behaved in the past in oddly similar situations. This isn't an opinion of mine, therefore it is not subjective. I feel like I need to write up an analogy to make you understand my point... -_- but I don't feel like it :D (and I'm not really feeling creative right now...)
edit: Discriminating against women because they're not a majority. tough ****? No. If you are to apply standards, they should apply for everyone.

Caause you totally saw the part where I mention overcentralizing and a "do this or lose" issue right?
Now i think you re just blatantly ignoring several parts of my posts.
Again the differnce is that DDD's infinite does not affect the great majority of the cast. the game doesnt become "do this or lose" when you pick DDD. It does not break competitiveness.

Wall infinites did.

Overcentralization is just another excuse that theorycrafters like to throw around. In none of the cases you've presented have the situations been as clear cut as a 100:0.

 

[deepseadiva]

Wait. This is a poll now?

Ugh... do I have to do reading... =____=

 

[Ripple]

How well do they place in comparison to other people using top tier or high tier characters?

In comparison to other characters they aren't very viable, I bet they would do better with high tier characters than those that they use.

they actually do very well, why would we reference someone who does not place extremely well?

 

[Espy Rose]

I think it's just to play Devil's Advocate. Unless he's completely srs.
In that case, I think he fails.