Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Boxob]

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.

Don't even joke around like that.

You main Sonic. Don't make Scrub-Tier arguments. It makes the rest of us look stupid.

 

[Matador]

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.

This makes me very sad.

The spirit of competition slowly dies. In, creeps the ideals of Dick Dastardly and our 37th leader under the ever-elastic adage "Play to win".

 

[Inui]

Tier list with the infinite allowed:

-Never Allowed to Win Tier- (DO NOT PICK THESE CHARACTERS)
Bowser
DK
etc.

Such garbage.

 

[Deleted member]

This addresses what I said how?

I think I'm much more interested in your money than your posts at this point.

Accept?

I have already made the best conclusive argument so far, I don't particularly need to address anything further if I don't feel like it.

 

[Ulevo]

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.

Whether or not he causes overcentralization isn't the point. Christ. It's about lifting the completely improbable match up disadvantage from those five characters. There is no reason why a character should have complete control taken away from their character without some risk or set up involved.

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 agree more players would play them, and they would do better. So what's the downside again?

You believing those said characters are not viable for tournament play is your arbitrary, false opinion. Tell that to players like Sliq or Boss, and see what response you get, okay? It also doesn't warrant leaving the infinite alone.

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

Uh, what?

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.

Community =/= characters. The community constitutes everyone involved within it. That includes the mains of those five characters. By banning the infinite, the community and those within it benefit from this action. The only people who do not gain from this are King Dedede mains, and that shouldn't matter anyway; no character should have the ability to take complete control away from the opponent.

 

[HeroMystic]

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.

Bad argument. You're practically saying that it's impossible for them to get to top 8. It's very possible. The only reason why this isn't done consistently is because the lack of reps and DDD's auto-countering infinite.

I don't check on everyone else, but there's a reason why Boss usually places high with Mario and Luigi in an area where the infinite is banned.

Plus Brawl is considerably young. You can't say 'this character is not viable' because other characters are doing better (and have more reps). It's the 'Snake is broken' era all over again.

 

[XienZo]

LOLZ, ShadowLink is hopelessly outnumbered....

just ban the infinite and this whole thing will go away.

 

[Matador]

LOLZ, ShadowLink is hopelessly outnumbered....

Makes me wonder where all of you were when it was the other way around. Pro-ban was vastly outnumbered by reputable posters in this thread.

 

[bobson]

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

Sliq and Boss typically place highly among the likes of Ally and NinjaLink. I'm not sure about Xyro.

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

Mario is the best character in the game.

 

[Ripple]

we have so many pro ban people but the poll has increased for the anti ban from about 30% to 38% in the past 3 hours

 

[HeroMystic]

Makes me wonder where all of you were when it was the other way around. Pro-ban was vastly outnumbered by reputable posters in this thread.

Probably because people are starting to see how ****ing ridiculous this is.

Doubt this'll get banned by the SBR though since the majority doesn't care about 5 characters (6 counting DDD himself). At least I'm in Florida and the local TOs are starting to ban them.

 

[ShadowLink84]

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.

Let me correct myself then since i meant something different.
the DDD infinite adds a bad matchup to them but doesn't affect their viability to a great degree.
They do not become completely unviable as characters.

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?

I just wouldn't choose Luigi if I knew my opponent uses DDD.
I would use Diddy.

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

Every character is viable but the extent to which the are viable is different of course.
maio just isn't as viable as the higher tiered characters

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.

So one bad matchup automatically removes all viability they have in tournament play?
If I choose Luigi and face diddy and win, I know my opponent will just choose DDD if I go Luigi. So I switch.
Again you're acting as if no matter what happens the character is boned by that one matchup.

Again how does it affect the entire metagame if those 5 characters suddenly became unviable. So far you've only stated how those characters become unviable, not how their being unviable damages the entire metagame. How does it affect Fo,Pikachu and metaknight?

Planking is a method of camping. Obvious?

You were talking about stages which is wh I said
planking is a stage?
evidently im not good at humor. =(

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?

Planking and camping can be dealt with.
If you look at Sk92 v plank, you'll notice that sk92 just didn't use his options well enough.
It isn't as if plankin is a guaranteed win.

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?

That depends on what stage we are talking about. If you mean Bridge of Eldin not so much, but in places such as GHZ? you are forced to approach.
As for the bolded part, might I ask if you are implying that you can try to not get grabbed?
Could I ask what separates the characters who get infinited from not doing the same action?
Especially considering characters like Olimar with greater grab range.

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 such a situation points up, we choose not to do anything?

Its not the fact that it causes 100:0 situations (it plays a part to be sure) but other factors such as how much it affects everyone else remains.
It just doens't causes overcentralizing or reduce the situation to "do this or lose"

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...)

In past situations we banned something because it affected large parts of the game rather than a small minority.
Wall infinites being an example.

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.

That is the primary reason that MTG banned Ravager decks.
Why Akuma got banned and why Old Sagat gets banned in some regions.
Why yu-gi-oh bans several cards.

Its not some excuse.

 

[DKKountry]

I'm generally a "no Johns" "don't get grabbed" and/or "find a way around it" kind of guy, but it does kinda suck that this sort of thing makes certain characters null and void simply by counter-picking D3.

Still, if I pick Donkey Kong, that D3 has to grab me before he can kill me, and I'm just the type of stubborn a$$ to pick him anyway and say "do your worst".

 

[ShadowLink84]

Tier list with the infinite allowed:

-Never Allowed to Win Tier- (DO NOT PICK THESE CHARACTERS)
Bowser
DK
etc.

Such garbage.

So those characters have never won outside regions where the infinite is banned?

I think I'm much more interested in your money than your posts at this point.

Accept?

Nah I main Link and haven't played in months. You'd **** my *** easy.

I have already made the best conclusive argument so far, I don't particularly need to address anything further if I don't feel like it.

mmk

Whether or not he causes overcentralization isn't the point. Christ. It's about lifting the completely improbable match up disadvantage from those five characters. There is no reason why a character should have complete control taken away from their character without some risk or set up involved.

Really? Then what about pikachu vs Fox. If we are just trying to remove the nasty disadvantage should we not do the same for Fox when he faces Pikachu?
Its poor reasoning.

So you agree more players would play them, and they would do better. So what's the downside again?

They would do marginally better not much better.
I doubt that the fact AN and Texas banning the infinite has helped Mario much.

You believing those said characters are not viable for tournament play is your arbitrary, false opinion. Tell that to players like Sliq or Boss, and see what response you get, okay? It also doesn't warrant leaving the infinite alone.

Where did I ever say they are not viable?
I really would like for you to show me.
I said hey are not AS viable as high tier and top tier characters.
Clear difference.

Uh, what?

Overcentralizing, competitive impact yadda yadda yadda.

Community =/= characters. The community constitutes everyone involved within it. That includes the mains of those five characters. By banning the infinite, the community and those within it benefit from this action. The only people who do not gain from this are King Dedede mains, and that shouldn't matter anyway; no character should have the ability to take complete control away from the opponent.

\All right then let me adjust what I asked.
How does this benefit people who main other characters?
how does DDD losing such a large advantage change the matchup ratios between those 5 and everyone else?

Bad argument. You're practically saying that it's impossible for them to get to top 8. It's very possible. The only reason why this isn't done consistently is because the lack of reps and DDD's auto-countering infinite.

Again enver said its impossible, I am saying the just don't have the same chances.
Let alone that lack of reps isn't justification since we had seen the whole Link mania in melee and he didn't exactly jump in tournament results.
It can have something to do with it but I highly doubt it wouldn't make that much of a difference.

Even if we removed DDD's infinite how does that change how well they do against the rest of the cast?
If we mean the tournament scene yeah it'll change and we will see more of thos remains but that won't cause a very big change. it makes those characters slightly more viable.

I don't check on everyone else, but there's a reason why Boss usually places high with Mario and Luigi in an area where the infinite is banned.

Can you tell me the reason then?

Plus Brawl is considerably young. You can't say 'this character is not viable' because other characters are doing better (and have more reps). It's the 'Snake is broken' era all over again.

Again where did i ever say they weren't viable?
Now people are just making crap up.
I said they are LESS viable than characters higher up than them.

Sliq and Boss typically place highly among the likes of Ally and NinjaLink. I'm not sure about Xyro.

Can you also check how frequently they place?

Ill post tomorrow I should go to bed.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

Do we ban IC's infinite grab that affects the whole cast? if not, how is it fair to ban DDD's which effects 6 people?

 

[BentoBox]

You were talking about stages which is wh I said
planking is a stage?
evidently im not good at humor. =(

THIS is humor. L2Humor!

Planking and camping can be dealt with.
If you look at Sk92 v plank, you'll notice that sk92 just didn't use his options well enough.
It isn't as if plankin is a guaranteed win.

Therefore invalidating your claims that camping played such a major aspect in the ban of stages... Thx.

That depends on what stage we are talking about. If you mean Bridge of Eldin not so much, but in places such as GHZ? you are forced to approach.
As for the bolded part, might I ask if you are implying that you can try to not get grabbed?
Could I ask what separates the characters who get infinited from not doing the same action?
Especially considering characters like Olimar with greater grab range.

It is already been brought up that it is impossible to avoid being grabbed by D3. And being grabbed by D3 ANYWHERE ensures an infinite. In the case of Eldin, it only works at a SET distance, and you CAN knock him away from said position to lower the risks of getting gimped.

Its not the fact that it causes 100:0 situations (it plays a part to be sure) but other factors such as how much it affects everyone else remains.
It just doens't causes overcentralizing or reduce the situation to "do this or lose"

In past situations we banned something because it affected large parts of the game rather than a small minority.
Wall infinites being an example.

In none of the decisions taken in the past was the ratio of affected characters ever a factor. Why should it be now? I would love for you to quote an instance where that was the case. "We've calculated that for a game to remain viable competitively, X% of the roster should remain viable and therefore we frown upon the usage of x, y, z to ensure that this quota is met."

No, not really.

That is the primary reason that MTG banned Ravager decks.
Why Akuma got banned and why Old Sagat gets banned in some regions.
Why yu-gi-oh bans several cards.

Its not some excuse.

Did we actually see it happen? Did we witness the de-evolution of the metagame caused by said wall-infinites and whatnot at a competitive level? No. Hence, it is nothing but theorycrafting. Ravager decks, Akuma, Yu-gi-oh and Super Digimon Extreme: the card game, all were tested and decisions weren't made from theories...

I thought of a ****ty analogy btw: Discrimination against women because they're not a majority. tough ****? No. If you are to apply standards, they should apply for everyone. :D

 

[ArcPoint]

IC's chaingrab takes more skill to pull off...

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

IC's chaingrab takes more skill to pull off...

I was under the impression that difficulty of execution wasn't a necessary criteria for legality of a strategy or else camping would be banned.

 

[BentoBox]

Do we ban IC's infinite grab that affects the whole cast? if not, how is it fair to ban DDD's which effects 6 people?

Because "don't get grabbed" can actually apply here. (If all else fails, pick Peach :]! ) and there are ways around it. As far as I know, the ICs do not 100:0 the whole cast, why is that you think?

But that's not really the topic at hand...

 

[Nanaki]

Do we ban IC's infinite grab that affects the whole cast? if not, how is it fair to ban DDD's which effects 6 people?

Because desynching, keeping nana and popo close together, and grabbing with their stubby little arms is as plausible in a tournament match as grabbing with D3. /sarcasm

I still think the most convincing argument for banning the infinite is that nothing good comes from leaving it in, while a huge amount of good can come from taking it out. Not just for the Castrated 5's metagames, but for the metagame as a whole (as CO18 stated, see his post).

 

[ArcPoint]

I was under the impression that difficulty of execution wasn't a necessary criteria for legality of a strategy or else camping would be banned.

I'm sure people consider difficulty of execution a factor. And I'm confused as to what you're saying, I think you said: If difficulty of execution was a criteria for the legality of a strategy, camping would be banned.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

Because desynching, keeping nana and popo close together, and grabbing with their stubby little arms is as plausible in a tournament match as grabbing with D3. /sarcasm

I still think the most convincing argument for banning the infinite is that nothing good comes from leaving it in, while a huge amount of good can come from taking it out. Not just for the Castrated 5's metagames, but for the metagame as a whole (as CO18 stated, see his post).

no need to get pissy. I'm just making the obvious argument.

how can you arbitrarily ban one without banning the other?

 

[HeroMystic]

Again enver said its impossible, I am saying the just don't have the same chances. Let alone that lack of reps isn't justification since we had seen the whole Link mania in melee and he didn't exactly jump in tournament results.
It can have something to do with it but I highly doubt it wouldn't make that much of a difference.

When you take into account that Brawl is young, then yes. Character rep is very important. More reps = more development = more tourney scene = more placements.

Even if we removed DDD's infinite how does that change how well they do against the rest of the cast? If we mean the tournament scene yeah it'll change and we will see more of thos remains but that won't cause a very big change. it makes those characters slightly more viable.

I disagree. Getting rid of the infinite would actually stop other mains from having an auto-counterpick against the unfortunate five because of a grab. This allows the five to strive well in tournaments without DDD being a massive brick wall each round.

Also, I dunno about Samus, but Luigi has some solid advantages and counters Olimar. Mario does as well and he counters R.O.B, one of the top tiers. Both have a crapload of even matches. While they do have their bad matches, they're doable and can be pushed through. This shows that banning the infinite does infact affect the tournament scene because they're actually a problem to other characters now without an easy button.

Can you tell me the reason then?

I'd tell you to go look up Boss' vids yourself, but I'll let Bobson handle it.

Again where did i ever say they weren't viable?
Now people are just making crap up.
I said they are LESS viable than characters higher up than them.

K. You put a lot of emphasis on it however.

 

[G$hbeeb]

the CG is powerful but so is falcos and so is ICs. it does suck that those characters suffer more severly from that technique. . . and now correct me if im wrong. . .but doesnt that constitute strats and tactics to avoid and prevent being combo'd by it. if you main Dk and 3D is r4pwning you with it stock after stock then the problem probably lies beyond the CG. I hate MK's U-B can we ban that it's like a 1 hit combo that works of the entire cast. Oh wait thats a really stupid idea compared to this. . . .no wait again they are the same thing. your banning the moves a player uses.

maybe and I mean maybe you can ban it's abuse but certainly not it's use. I recently attended a test your might tourney at cold fusion in CLEVELAND and two things rocked my world.
-MK was banned and no-one was mad not even the guy who won with MK the @ the previous tourney
-3Ds CB was not allowed to be used once a character had reached 300% so as not to delay the game or stall

if you officially ban the chain grab. there will be 1 pretentious snot nosed kid who will try to get someone DQ'd because he got himself thrown twice in a row.

to which someone immediately replies "a CG would have to be more then two"

to which I re-edit WTF diff does it make if its one two or three or 16 if you pick a number that they are allowed to do then they will do it and someone will lose count and go one extra and get DQ'd for it

Id rather get pwned by a move knowing that they person who beat me can play their character well
then be able to beat somebody because I was allowed to use more moves then them

 

[BentoBox]

That was really clear.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

no need to get pissy. I'm just making the obvious argument.

how can you arbitrarily ban one without banning the other?

Easily, if you go by a 100-0 system. Selecting Ice Climbers does not guarentee victory in a match against Mario. Selecting D3 in the same match guarentees a 100% chance of victory, provided that the D3 user possesses enough technical knowledge of the matchup to be able to infinite.

EDIT: For anyone who is not aware, we are specifically discussing the standing, infinite chain grab. The normal, finite D3 chain grab is still completely legal in every situation, even against characters that can be infinitied.

 

[Fletch]

You guys need to stop posting so much. I leave for an hour and can't catch up. What do I need to address here... I guess I'm going to provide support for ShadowLink given that he's the only other one who is anti-ban.

 

[Nanaki]

no need to get pissy. I'm just making the obvious argument.

how can you arbitrarily ban one without banning the other?

Didn't mean to sound pissy, sorry if I did.

Just trying to get the point across that the difference is the IC's have major limitations on their infinites, while D3's can happen anywhere, anytime to those 5 characters. It's just flat out ridiculous, and I'm shocked that there's really any debate here.

 

[Inui]

The Ice Climbers suck even with the infinite...

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

Is the fact that DDD is a better character to begin with really a valid reason for baning that technique? that might be what it's coming down to. but is that fair?

Didn't mean to sound pissy, sorry if I did.

Just trying to get the point across that the difference is the IC's have major limitations on their infinites, while D3's can happen anywhere, anytime to those 5 characters. It's just flat out ridiculous, and I'm shocked that there's really any debate here.

oh I think DDD is just stupid and filled with too much stupid goodness including this infinite CG. I just question the plausibilty of getting rid of this and allwing IC's to stay. DDD's completely wrecks a few characters but, while it's harder to initiate, IC's wrecks the whole cast when it lands.

I don't much care becasue no charcter I play is affected by DDD's infinite and my mains aren't affected by his regualr CG either. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

 

[Inui]

It's because the IC one is much harder to start, much harder to perform, and actually situational. Many stages also completely shut it down, like Norfair(shouldn't really be legal but eh), Brinstar, and Rainbow Cruise. Frigate Orpheon flipping over stops it. The tilting of Lylat Cruise can mess with it. Mashing out quickly can stop it before it starts. It's just too situational. Ban FD against them and you have a lot of options. The Ice Climbers also aren't that good overall.

Dedede's is just stupid and he's top tier.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Is the fact that DDD is a better character to begin with really a valid reason for baning that technique? that might be what it's coming down to. but is that fair?



oh I think DDD is just stupid and filled with too much stupid goodness including this infinite CG. I just question the plausibilty of getting rid of this and allwing IC's to stay. DDD's completely wrecks a few characters but, while it's harder to initiate, IC's wrecks the whole cast when it lands.

I don't much care becasue no charcter I play is affected by DDD's infinite and my mains aren't affected by his regualr CG either. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

D3's chaingrab limits your options more. Umbreon put it well when he said it limits the game to the point of threatening D3 himself with a ban. IC's don't limit your game as much, because you have a lot more options against them that do not necesarily end in a 0-death chain (partially due to short arm length and easy seperability).

EDIT: I just realized I said the same thing, like, three times. whoops.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

fair enough. I voted pro ban BTW, I was just making sure it was the right decision. and I'm convinced. I'm not a fan of any sort of infinite really, but the fact that the ice climbers are so abysmal without it and it's much more easily defended against by most characters makes it bearable.

the question, I guess, is whether or not it's worth it to impliment a Ban for the good of only 6 Characters. I thi k it'd be a good thing, but I question the drive for action

 

[The Halloween Captain]

fair enough. I voted pro ban BTW, I was just making sure it was the right decision. and I'm convinced. I'm not a fan of any sort of infinite really, but the fact that the ice climbers are so abysmal without it and it's much more easily defended against by most characters makes it bearable.

the question, I guess, is whether or not it's worth it to impliment a Ban for the good of only 6 Characters. I thi k it'd be a good thing, but I question the drive for action

If it helps, the D3 standing chain grab's only purpose is to infinite chain the characters that it makes unviable in this matchup. There is no other reason for D3 to ever attempt a standing regrab.

 

[BentoBox]

And my whole argument is that we've banned things to prevent various forms of infinites from happening and so it is only logical that we should follow through with that logic and take measures to prevent this form from plaguing the metagame. The number of characters affected is irrelevant. You don't just choose to take action based on the ratio of chars affected. It's either bannable, or it is not.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Although, I feel this discussion is helped significantly by the fact that the imput for a D3 infinity is noticably different than that for a D3 chain, unlike the difference between a Marth normal grab release and a Marth infinite grab release, say.

 

[da K.I.D.]

true,
thats why it was so easy for xyro to ban standing/walking infinites but not running CGs in houston

 

[Hylian]

It's because the IC one is much harder to start, much harder to perform, and actually situational. Many stages also completely shut it down, like Norfair(shouldn't really be legal but eh), Brinstar, and Rainbow Cruise. Frigate Orpheon flipping over stops it. The tilting of Lylat Cruise can mess with it. Mashing out quickly can stop it before it starts. It's just too situational. Ban FD against them and you have a lot of options. The Ice Climbers also aren't that good overall.

Dedede's is just stupid and he's top tier.

Hey Inui said something I agree completly with!!! ^_^!

Inui didn't ban FD against me >_> LOL.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

I don't understand why Bridge of Eldin is banned if this isn't banned. If there's no problem with giving DDD an auto win against 6 characters, why is it a problem to give him an auto win against 20? (There's still plenty of characters that don't get chain grabbed that don't have to worry about this as an auto win for DDD so it still doesn't break the game) its extremely inconsistent logic. This goes to the people who use the "learn to counterpick noob" arguement as well. Then shouldn't a stage like Skyworld or 75mm be on? Afterall, there ARE some characters (a handful of 7-10) that are very good on these stages. Why ban the stages? Just learn to counteripck with a character that is good on that stage, it doesn't break the game since there are a handful of characters that are good on it.

Allow bridge of eldin to be playable or ban the infinite. Allowing one or the other is inconsistent methodology that makes no sense to me. A lot of the same people who say the infinite is fine because we aren't here to mess with matchups would whine that Bridge of Eldin is broken because DDD can basically infinite to death half the cast. Even with half the cost gone this game has as many characters as Melee so it doesn't break the game in any way shape or form.

Basically, our mentality with many of the stages we ban is designed to balance out "dumb wins" that imbalance the game, at least thats how its been with Brawl. I don't see why we can't do this for DDD's infinite chain grab either. A lot of banned stages don't break the game, they only break the game for roughly half the cast, but it remains a viable competitive fighter. Its just that people don't want half the cast to have no chance on a stage because its just way too one sided and imbalanced. And its the same deal here.

Leave it to me to come up with the most unique arguements everytime ^_^

I'd like to see reasons why Bridge of Eldin is banned that don't also apply to this standing infinite. IMO if a tournament bans the Bridge, it should ban the infinite. If it allows the bridge, it should allow the infinite. I"d wager ANYTHING that if DDD didn't exist that stage would be a legal counterpick.

Dedede's is just stupid and he's top tier.

Uh, Metaknight is even more stupid and hes even more top tier, but you aren't for banning him. I'm for the ban but this is the last reason of all time I'd ever expect to hear from you. I agree with you about IC though.

 

[pure_awesome]

Yeah, but Bridge of Eldin has HAZARDS.

But seriously, I don't get it. If there's three mods that have appeared in this thread in the past few hours to voice their displeasure on the topic, then why isn't it banned?

At the very least, I hope there's some serious discussion going on in the SBR pertaining to the topic.