Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[M15t3R E]

They're rehashed because the pro-ban side of the debate isn't listening. If they can show that D3's chaingrab legitimately reduces the game to "who can get the first grab off as D3," then they have an argument, but if they can't, then they're just a bunch of whiny scrubs.

Are you dense? It IS about merely one grab. That's all DDD needs to win against those 5. And why are you calling us whiny scrubs? The vast majority of us who are arguing for the pro-ban side don't even use characters that can be infinited. Also, look at CO18. He mains D3 and even he wants the infinite banned!!!!!

Not really, just apply a damage ceiling that you have to kill at, or cannot dthrow at, or are required to dashgrab to dthrow at.

For example, you cannot use dthrow when your opponent is at 200%.

It worked fine for wobbling.

Limiting the infinite won't work. It's either one extreme or the other. It is kept in play to use whenever the player wants, or is banned from all tournaments completely.

 

[Flayl]

It is inconsistent, we could just admit Melee SBR didn't do the right thing, because they didn't ****ing care about Bowser.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Are you dense? It IS about merely one grab. That's all DDD needs to win against those 5. And why are you calling us whiny scrubs? The vast majority of us who are arguing for the pro-ban side don't even use characters that can be infinited. Also, look at CO18. He mains D3 and even he wants the infinite banned!!!!!

I think you misunderstood ph00t, he didn't just mean against those characters he meant against EVERY character.


Against those characters, it's grab=death and defending against it is near impossible BUT with everyone else it's a different story.


Again, this all goes back to people's tolerances for overcentralization.


edit:

Limiting the infinite won't work. It's either one extreme or the other. It is kept in play to use whenever the player wants, or is banned from all tournaments completely.

Again, it already happens, a ruleset like this forces you to kill as soon as you can kill eliminating the stalling potential without eliminating the potency of the move.


It's discrete and enforcable (only punishes one easily distguishable action), and eliminating the potential for infinit stall is certainly qualifies as warranted. So no, it's not an all or nothing.

 

[M15t3R E]

I think you misunderstood ph00t, he didn't just mean against those characters he meant against EVERY character.


Against those characters, it's grab=death and defending against it is near impossible BUT with everyone else it's a different story.


Again, this all goes back to people's tolerances for overcentralization.

Why does it matter whether it works on one character or all characters? It's still an easily executable infinite that adds nothing to competitive play and ruins a character's potential unfairly in that match-up.

Again, it already happens, a ruleset like this forces you to kill as soon as you can kill eliminating the stalling potential without eliminating the potency of the move.


It's discrete and enforcable (only punishes one easily distguishable action), and eliminating the potential for infinit stall is certainly qualifies as warranted. So no, it's not an all or nothing.

No, it's not enforceable. If Meta Knight's infinite dimensional cape was allowed, let's say, off-stage for a limited period of time every match, people would use it however long they wanted with no judge to moderate it.
With it banned completely, people just wouldn't risk using it the way no one uses Meta Knight's infinite dimensional cape.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Again, this all goes back to people's tolerances for overcentralization.

This is true, but can 6 characters even be considered a case? 6 characters mind you, of which only 1 or 2 would actually be made competitively viable if this technique were to actually be banned?

Really, this would be a very, very low threshold for "overcentralization"

 

[Dark Sonic]

Why does it matter whether it works on one character or all characters? It's still an easily executable infinite that adds nothing to competitive play and ruins a character's potential unfairly in that match-up.

So does Shiek's chaingrab in melee. So does Marth's fair in melee. So does Metaknight's d-tilt/tornado/fair. So does Shiek's f-tilt in brawl. So does Falco's chaingrab, ect.

There are a lot of things that are easily executable and are completely unfair and add nothing to competitive play, but they do not break the game, so they are not banned.

No, it's not enforceable. If Meta Knight's infinite dimensional cape was allowed, let's say, off-stage for a limited period of time every match, people would use it however long they wanted with no judge to moderate it.

If you continue the d-throw regrab infinite after 200% you will be disqualified.

How is this not enforceable?

edit:oops double post.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Why does it matter whether it works on one character or all characters? It's still an easily executable infinite that adds nothing to competitive play and ruins a character's potential unfairly in that match-up.

That's your opinion, ph00t obviously disagrees with you on that matter and believes that it only matters if the entire metagame is reduced to this state.

No, it's not enforceable. If Meta Knight's infinite dimensional cape was allowed, let's say, off-stage for a limited period of time every match, people would use it however long they wanted with no judge to moderate it.

How is it not enforcable.

Let's say the damage ceiling is 200% (arbitrary) and the rule is no dthrow after that percent.

You're a Dk at 210%, I grab you and proceed to dthrow, therefore I am DQ'd.


It doesn't matter if it's part of a chain or I just grab and dthrow you as punishment, automatic disqualifacation.

This deals with the messy issue of "how much is too much" for example. Because it's not a set time, there's no stopwatch needed either.


That's the nice thing about applying a damage ceiling and making the move unusuable when you reach that point, it's very noticable and very easy to enforce. All you need to do is say, "he dthrowed when I was at 210", and the spectators agree and your opponent is DQ'd.

This is true, but can 6 characters even be considered a case? 6 characters mind you, of which only 1 or 2 would actually be made competitively viable if this technique were to actually be banned?

Really, this would be a very, very low threshold for "overcentralization"

And that my friend, is the central but ignored question of the entire debate. What is the threshhold for overcentralization that is viable for banning?

And good call with the "competatively viable" point, because if a character still cannot place without the infinite, it making them nonviable does not centralize the metagame at all.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I should have went into great detail about what i was talking about but i didnt and you took it the wrong way. Thats MY fault. I apologize.

Remember Lee Harris and the whole ordeal that took place a few days ago? Yea he confirmed some things that i have suspected but never honestly knew if it was fact or not.

Ill talk to you in PM about that because i really dont wanna start a massive lee harris thing in here.

Now on topic.

When i said "you guys" i really meant "you guys as a whole". Im not trying to single you out because you may very well be one of the few smart ones back there that arnt afraid to stand up against ******** crap that may be turned into rules. Im just so sick of the SBR failing to get rid of obvious things that will prevent certain characters from climbing the ranks of tier lists or tourney results. You people AS A WHOLE did the same thing(to a far lesser degree,to be honest) in melee. Now if i remember correctly you were NOT apart of the ssbm sbr back in the day so you have no blame in that, im just simply bringing it up.

Sure, we can continue that via PMs. And I apologize for misinterpreting your post. Also, I don't really know what went down in the Melee days, so I can't really give any input about that... but I do know that the SBR never truly accepted the responsibility as the higher "authority" of the Smash scene until Brawl came around and everyone was looking to us to do leader-like stuff. So that may explain why they didn't take action on some things back in the day.

 

[M15t3R E]

So does Shiek's chaingrab in melee. So does Marth's fair in melee. So does Metaknight's d-tilt/tornado/fair. So does Shiek's f-tilt in brawl. So does Falco's chaingrab, ect.

There are a lot of things that are easily executable and are completely unfair and add nothing to competitive play, but they do not break the game, so they are not banned.

No, those examples DO in fact add to competitive play. They are not infinites. They can avoided. They can be countered. Once an infinite begins, it cannot be avoided nor countered. It is far different. Stop comparing apples to oranges.

If you continue the d-throw regrab infinite after 200% you will be disqualified.

How is this not enforceable?

edit:oops double post.

So what would happen? Would the opponent of the D3 who just illegally infinited past 200% all of a sudden no contest and go report himself as the winner? What if the D3 player goes and complains to the TO and it results in a needed do-over of the match? Hell, the D3 user may not even have known about the limitations to his infinite that were in place.

It can work that way, but it's just easier if it is banned completely as people will be more likely then to follow the rules.

 

[bludhoundz]

Shiek's chaingrab against Bowser makes it almost instant win, basically, the chaingrab breaks this matchup entirely. There is almost no chance to win. It's worse than any other matchup pretty much. Even Pichu's best counterpick character doesn't beat him this badly.

So basically what you're saying is that it's fine to save 6 characters from a horrendously bad matchup, but if it's only one then tough luck?

I'm no expert, but I'm assuming Sheik's chaingrab was NOT an infinite. Thus part of the reason Sheik ***** Bowser so bad was that she was also just a LOT better, regardless of the CG.

Dedede has a chaingrab on these characters also (except Luigi), and the matchup would still be in his favor with the CG, but it wouldn't be absolutely broken.

The difference here is that if you remove the infinite, these characters stand a chance against Dedede.

If you banned Sheik's CG on Bowser, he would still get his *** handed to him. So what would be the point of banning that? There isn't one.

In this case there is one.

Either way I am not part of the competitive scene so I don't really care what happens either way nor am I trying to force my opinion upon players who this actually effects. I just stated my opinion -- the infinite seems too unfair.

 

[RubenSSBB]

Uh.. im back......

In my opinion....... No

lol im not a DDD user but no

 

[adumbrodeus]

So what would happen? Would the opponent of the D3 who just illegally infinited past 200% all of a sudden no contest and go report himself as the winner? What if the D3 player goes and complains to the TO and it results in a needed do-over of the match? Hell, the D3 user may not even have known about the limitations to his infinite that were in place.

It can work that way, but it's just easier if it is banned completely as people will be more likely then to follow the rules.

Player confusion is not a valid reason to not impliment a rule or choose a more restrictive varient.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, if you play in a tournament it is your responsability to know the rules and to follow them. If you don't know the rules and don't follow them because of that then, tough luck, you got DQ'd, read the rules next time.


edit:

Regardless, how do you purpose to ban the infinite period? Because the most effective way is to ban dthrow, or ban dthrow from standing grab (both of which are easy to notice). Adding in that it's only banned at kill percents is just so at that point it's useless for anything except stalling, so it only removes what was intended to be removed.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Quote:
"To make a decent anti-ban arguement, one must explain how the D-throw infinity is either not broken, not detrimental to the meta-game, or does not take all the "skill" out of the matchups in which it is available."

It has all been proven or understood by most players, even anti-banners, that the infinity is broken, detrimental to the metagame, and takes the skill out of the matchups in which it is available. These are the reasons it is banworthy. If these points cannot be countered, then there are no good arguements to not ban the tactic, because it is clearly more advantageous to ban the tactic than keep it, provided these points are true.

Disprove these statements before coming back with the old, rehashed BS arguements, and then I may have a different opinion on the infinity.

Can anyone disprove this? Otherwise, the infinity warrents a ban simply because their are several benefits and zero downsides to such a ban.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Can anyone disprove this? Otherwise, the infinity warrents a ban simply because their are several benefits and zero downsides to such a ban.

They have been addressed.


Taking "skill" out of match-ups is not a valid argument, the same is true of all counter-picks.


Detrimental to the metagame is a subjective factor. The only objective criteria that was put forth is overcentralization, and we as a community have not established what our tolerance is for over-centralization, see my upcoming thread in tactical for that debate.


So, while he may be technically ban-worthy, burden of proof has not been satisfied because there is not criteria to satisfy, yet. We'll work on it.

 

[•Col•]

It is inconsistent, we could just admit Melee SBR didn't do the right thing, because they didn't ****ing care about Bowser.

To add to that, I want to bring it up again. Whenever Marth's infinite grab release against Ness and Lucas was found, no one gave a crap. I also believe Marth had something similiar against Wario as well, but I can't remember exactly what it was....

People only care about characters they like to play as, it seems. If it was the bottom 5 characters on the tier list were the targets of this infinite, I guarantee there'd be a lot less people who cared about it.

 

[Nanaki]

And that my friend, is the central but ignored question of the entire debate. What is the threshhold for overcentralization that is viable for banning?

As much as everyone has been ignoring you, I'm going to agree with you that this is the central issue. You're right, a threshold has to be made.

I, personally, think that the value needs to be pretty low. 5 is certainly low enough. I would think 3 might even be low enough.

My reasoning is that these completely one-sided and "unwinnable" matchups are not a single entity. They do affect how character selection works for a huge portion of the cast. All of the positive matchups these characters have are almost completely negated by this infinite. Therefore, Olimar and Wario don't have to worry about Luigi (supposedly a good matchup for Luigi) because nobody in their right mind would blind-pick Luigi or one of the other 5, since any scrubby mook can take that round from them easily with D3 (especially if they happen to know you main Luigi).

This "trickle-down" effect changes the metagame as a whole, not just those 5. How is the metagame adversely affected if we leave it in? I'm pretty sure the answer is: it's not. D3 can still chaingrab to the ledge, and he still has excellent matchups. It just makes the fight one worth playing out against those 5.

Changes/bans are put in place to keep the metagame going positively. This does that, and the downsides are nonexistent. The only argument that I see as valid is that we don't want to just start banning things randomly, and it's a slippery slope.

I think this is a positive change, and one that would be easily implemented. It will help the metagame as a whole, and keep more players interested in SSBB with little downside.

Sorry for wall of text.

Edit: Typo

 

[ShadowLink84]

To add to that, I want to bring it up again. Whenever Marth's infinite grab release against Ness and Lucas was found, no one gave a crap. I also believe Marth had something similiar against Wario as well, but I can't remember exactly what it was....

People only care about characters they like to play as, it seems. If it was the bottom 5 characters on the tier list were the targets of this infinite, I guarantee there'd be a lot less people who cared about it.

The whole discrimination crap doesn't work. What matters is the argument at hand not the people behind the argument.

If it was the top 5 characters, I would bet money that people still wouldn't give a **** about it.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

They have been addressed.


Taking "skill" out of match-ups is not a valid argument, the same is true of all counter-picks.


Detrimental to the metagame is a subjective factor. The only objective criteria that was put forth is overcentralization, and we as a community have not established what our tolerance is for over-centralization, see my upcoming thread in tactical for that debate.


So, while he may be technically ban-worthy, burden of proof has not been satisfied because there is not criteria to satisfy, yet. We'll work on it.

We don't think D3 is banworthy. Get out of this "character ban" mindset.

D3 isn't a counterpick, he's an insta-win. But only because of standing D-throw. Kinda like Ganondorf infinite ledge-stall in melee, where if the ganon could get one hit first, he would win. Except worse, because D3 doesn't need to hit first.

Because he is insta-win, he is bad for a metagame which flourishes on the "skill" and "depth" of the game.

 

[M15t3R E]

Again, it's just EASIER to ban it completely. There's no special limitations to remember mid-match. It's just not allowed. Just like Meta Knight's infinite dimensional cape.
Banning it completely would be more likely to result in the least possible confusion and people following the rules.

 

[•Col•]

The whole discrimination crap doesn't work. What matters is the argument at hand not the people behind the argument.

If it was the top 5 characters, I would bet money that people still wouldn't give a **** about it.

If this infinite is really as bad as people make it out to be, then it really wouldn't matter what characters were the ones getting infinited. No one gave a crap when Ness, Lucas, and Wario(?) could be infinited. Why do so many give a crap now? If this infinite crap is so horrible, and truly did not matter which characters could be infinited, then why? Why did no one care about Ness, Lucas, and Wario?

So it HAS to be something with the characters, unless we just got a bunch of new users in the past few months who are currently debating this. But from the look at the majority of people's join dates, I would say that isn't the case.



Also, if it worked against the top characters, people would definitely give a **** about it. Mostly because MK would have a counter. xD

 

[Nanaki]

The whole discrimination crap doesn't work. What matters is the argument at hand not the people behind the argument.

If it was the top 5 characters, I would bet money that people still wouldn't give a **** about it.

If it was the top 5 characters, they would likely no longer be the top 5 characters.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Too bad for the five, lrn2CP

 

[Woozle]

Argument: Pro-Ban

Ignoring the numbers argument

Premises*:
1) An infinite grab is punishment for getting grabbed.
2) Getting grabbed is a mistake.
3) Mistakes deserve to be punished.
4) Punishment should be commensurate.
5) A stock loss is not a commensurate punishment for getting grabbed.

Conclusion:

An infinite grab should not be allowed because it is exaggerated punishment for the mistake.

ie. "Punishment should fit the crime."

*Please note that if you don't find one or all of these premises true, then the conclusion will not hold.

Can someone please, PLEASE tell me what about this is wrong.

And I'm serious. Maybe if changes can be made to something so that we have true premises, than we can get the conclusion we're looking for.

.-.

Too bad for the five, lrn2PlayMetaknight

This is how these arguments sound.

 

[Dark Sonic]

I'm no expert, but I'm assuming Sheik's chaingrab was NOT an infinite.

It lead to guaranteed death unless the player screwed up. So does this infinite.

And neither is technically infinite, because the stalling rules from melee (can't do it past 200%) can still be applied to it.

So if neither are infinite (and thus not stalling), and both lead to guranteed death unless the player messes up...then they are comparable are they not?

No, those examples DO in fact add to competitive play. They are not infinites. They can avoided. They can be countered. Once an infinite begins, it cannot be avoided nor countered. It is far different. Stop comparing apples to oranges.

Once the chaingrab begins it cannot be avoided or countered. Once the f-tilt lock begins it cannot be avoided or countered. Should we ban these too? After all, they do completely destroy some otherwise winnable matchups don't they? Why are infinites treated so differently than other matchup breaking techniques? Is it because they are slightly more severe?

Then I ask you, since you are asking to ban this technique for the sake of saving these characters from horrible matchups, why shouldn't we do the same for all other matchup breaking techniques?

So what would happen? Would the opponent of the D3 who just illegally infinited past 200% all of a sudden no contest and go report himself as the winner? What if the D3 player goes and complains to the TO and it results in a needed do-over of the match? Hell, the D3 user may not even have known about the limitations to his infinite that were in place.

Yes, that's exactly what would happen! That's exactly what has happened when dealing with all other stalling issues.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

It lead to guaranteed death unless the player screwed up. So does this infinite.

And neither is technically infinite, because the stalling rules from melee (can't do it past 200%) can still be applied to it.

So if neither are infinite (and thus not stalling), and both lead to guranteed death unless the player messes up...then they are comparable are they not?


Once the chaingrab begins it cannot be avoided or countered. Once the f-tilt lock begins it cannot be avoided or countered. Should we ban these too? After all, they do completely destroy some otherwise winnable matchups don't they? Why are infinites treated so differently than other matchup breaking techniques? Is it because they are slightly more severe?

Then I ask you, since you are asking to ban this technique for the sake of saving these characters from horrible matchups, why shouldn't we do the same for all other matchup breaking techniques?



Yes, that's exactly what would happen! That's exactly what has happened when dealing with all other stalling issues.

The Sheik F-tilt is different because melee mechanics are different. An infinity lasts for one stock. There are a lot more attacks in one Brawl stock than one melee stock.

Also, the only reaon why 1 character infinite is not enough is because it is too difficult to make people care when only one obscure character is involved. With D3, you can get interest as 6 characters are involved.

Counterpicking does not equal the ability to choose a character that guarentees victory, only the ability to choose a character with a higher probability of victory. A character that will never lose another character is broken in the context of the matchup, NOT a COUNTERPICK, as counterpicks ONLY increases the probability of victory, not guarentee it.

Besides, the Pichu v. Shiek matchup is much easier than the D3 v. DK matchup. One has at least a small possibilty of victory, if the Pichu is godly and the Sheik average. D3 v. DK is *unconditionally guarenteed when the D3 can standing chain-grab and chooses to do so.

*unconditionally assumes that he is not influenced by factors outside of the game itself, such as being punched in the face by a really angry DK user or something.

 

[da K.I.D.]

They have been addressed.


Taking "skill" out of match-ups is not a valid argument, the same is true of all counter-picks.


Detrimental to the metagame is a subjective factor. The only objective criteria that was put forth is overcentralization, and we as a community have not established what our tolerance is for over-centralization, see my upcoming thread in tactical for that debate.


So, while he may be technically ban-worthy, burden of proof has not been satisfied because there is not criteria to satisfy, yet. We'll work on it.

if these are the reasons not to bann it than you people are ********,

this is like some random guy on the street who has never even seen a person die before, having more of a say about the death penalty than a (sane) vietnam war vet.

Counterpicking should NEVER take the skill out of matches, sure it gives one person the advantage, but taking the skill out of a match. the fact that you even propose something that idiotic makes me lose a lot of respect for you.

and all this crap about what is subjective and what is objective is just pointless. that alone shows me that youve never been in this situation where somebody lost out on winning money to somebody that he should have easily beaten just because of this one rediculous move. and the fact that you admit that its broken put still refuse to ban purely based on the politics around it sickens me.

The only thing that matters here is this,
we dont lose anything from banning it except easy wins, that shouldnt be that easy to begin with.
and if we dont ban it we lose 3 pretty good characters (DK, Bowser, Luigi) that could really make some ripples in tourneys and 2 subpar character (Mario, Samus) that I dont think anybody would mind seeing more of at their tourneys

 

[M15t3R E]

Once the chaingrab begins it cannot be avoided or countered. Once the f-tilt lock begins it cannot be avoided or countered. Should we ban these too? After all, they do completely destroy some otherwise winnable matchups don't they? Why are infinites treated so differently than other matchup breaking techniques? Is it because they are slightly more severe?

Then I ask you, since you are asking to ban this technique for the sake of saving these characters from horrible matchups, why shouldn't we do the same for all other matchup breaking techniques?

Newsflash: You can escape Sheik's f-tilt lock by SDI'ing towards her. Get with the times, bud. This has been known.

Yes, that's exactly what would happen! That's exactly what has happened when dealing with all other stalling issues.

I'll quote myself because I already addressed this point of yours.

Again, it's just EASIER to ban it completely. There's no special limitations to remember mid-match. It's just not allowed. Just like Meta Knight's infinite dimensional cape.
Banning it completely would be more likely to result in the least possible confusion and people following the rules.

 

[adumbrodeus]

We don't think D3 is banworthy. Get out of this "character ban" mindset.

D3 isn't a counterpick, he's an insta-win. But only because of standing D-throw. Kinda like Ganondorf infinite ledge-stall in melee, where if the ganon could get one hit first, he would win. Except worse, because D3 doesn't need to hit first.

Because he is insta-win, he is bad for a metagame which flourishes on the "skill" and "depth" of the game.

Typo, I meant "it".


You may now respond to my actual point.

Again, it's just EASIER to ban it completely. There's no special limitations to remember mid-match. It's just not allowed. Just like Meta Knight's infinite dimensional cape.
Banning it completely would be more likely to result in the least possible confusion and people following the rules.

And since when was "ease of remembering the rules" a criteria for banning?

As much as everyone has been ignoring you, I'm going to agree with you that this is the central issue. You're right, a threshold has to be made.

I, personally, think that the value needs to be pretty low. 5 is certainly low enough. I would think 3 might even be low enough.

My reasoning is that these completely one-sided and "unwinnable" matchups are not a single entity. They do affect how character selection works for a huge portion of the cast. All of the positive matchups these characters have are almost completely negated by this infinite. Therefore, Olimar and Wario don't have to worry about Luigi (supposedly a good matchup for Luigi) because nobody in their right mind would blind-pick Luigi or one of the other 5, since any scrubby mook can take that round from them easily with D3 (especially if they happen to know you main Luigi).

This "trickle-down" effect changes the metagame as a whole, not just those 5. How is the metagame adversely affected if we leave it in? I'm pretty sure the answer is: it's not. D3 can still chaingrab to the ledge, and he still has excellent matchups. It just makes the fight one worth playing out against those 5.

Changes/bans are put in place to keep the metagame going positively. This does that, and the downsides are nonexistent. The only argument that I see as valid is that we don't want to just start banning things randomly, and it's a slippery slope.

I think this is a positive change, and one that would be easily implemented. It will help the metagame as a whole, and keep more players interested in SSBB with little downside.

Sorry for wall of text.

Edit: Typo

Thank you for FINALLY addressing the core question of the thread, and you have a competent argument as well.

At least I got through to somebody.

 

[Woozle]

And since when was "ease of remembering the rules" a criteria for banning?

What are the criteria for banning?

 

[Dark Sonic]

What are the criteria for banning?

"Overcentralization of the Metagame"

 

[Deleted member]

I have yet to see a decent anti-ban post anywhere in this thread.

 

[Yuna]

I skipped the past 30 or so pages that cropped up in my absence. No doubt it was the same old BS all over again.

D3's infinites do not over-centralize the game. You cannot prove they do because they do not. By over-centralizing, I mean that everyone would have to start playing D3 to stand a reasonable chance at winning tournaments.

Since there are only 6 matchups, it's in no way "Play D3 or lose". Especially not when these 6 take it in the shorts from the other Tops and Highs most of the time, anyway.

 

[Woozle]

"Overcentralization of the Metagame"

Over-centralization is subjective.

 

[ShadowLink84]

If this infinite is really as bad as people make it out to be, then it really wouldn't matter what characters were the ones getting infinited. No one gave a crap when Ness, Lucas, and Wario(?) could be infinited. Why do so many give a crap now? If this infinite crap is so horrible, and truly did not matter which characters could be infinited, then why? Why did no one care about Ness, Lucas, and Wario?

So it HAS to be something with the characters, unless we just got a bunch of new users in the past few months who are currently debating this. But from the look at the majority of people's join dates, I would say that isn't the case.

Simple, because people feel that the circumstances required for he grab are much easier than for those other respective characters.

It is also because its one character performing the infiniite on 5 characters rather than (in the case of wario) 8 characters infiniting 1 character.

In each case though the most objective issue that should be address is that of overcentralizing which has yet to be addressed or rather, has yet to be truly defined. According to the pro ban.

Out of a cast of 30+ would the infinite on 5 characters be considered overcentralizing? Nope.

That was the same argument used against those who wanted to ban those respective infinites.

Also, if it worked against the top characters, people would definitely give a **** about it. Mostly because MK would have a counter. xD

*shrug*

Not cogent.

Over-centralization is subjective.

Bull****. its nowhere near as subjective as peole are spouting.
By definition overcentralizing mens where you must "perform this tactic or the tactic that counters it or lose" So you either do the tactic, (or in the case of MTG) choose one or two tactics that can deal with it or lsoe. That is overcentralizing.
Where one tactic makes everything else pointless except for the one or two thata re available.

Do you have a small amount of options when it comes to the DDD infinite? N,.
you ahve 30+ more characters.

That is the definition of overcentralizing, where the options available are extremely small.

it definitely cannot be said that 6 characters being infinited is overcentralizing out of a cast of 30+

 

[Fatmanonice]

Is it bad I think that brawl would be better without these?

In melee characters died faster and comboed better - it was a lot easier to handle an infinity, because you probably had a similarly power attack/tactic. In Brawl, not so much.

"Play to win" means do anything to win, within the bounds of the rules. Generally, things are not banned because everyone has "play to win." If DK turns out to be able to do something as dangerous as D3's infinity, there's no problem.

The arguement is basically ban something that completely shuts someone down. It could be argued that Falco can 0-spike-easy edgehog against Bowser, DK, and Wolf, should that be banned? The Ice Climbers still have their infinites, should those be banned? A Snake who's good at making "grenade jackets", as I call them, pretty much shuts down characters like Jigglypuff, should that be banned? Do I need to bring up Mach Tornado spam? King Dedede is far from the only character who can do outlandishly gay things to other characters to win.

An arguement that I saw made in this thread is that infinities are over-the-top punishment for getting grabbed once but King Dedede is not the only person who can do this. As said numerous times, the Ice Climbers can do it to everyone and poor Wario can get infinited by eight people yet these are somehow different. Craptastic match ups are nothing new to Smash.

Another thing I find odd is the constant talk of "saving characters" and "boosting their tier position." What makes me look at my moniter with a blank stare are the people who support this but were against the ban against Metaknight especially when events like Hobo12 made it obvious that certain characters would get a boost if he were gone including the maryter of this thread, Donkey Kong. When you look at the rankings and matchups, it becomes very apparent that a good 6-7 characters would rise in position (in theory, Marth, Pikachu, Wolf, Pit, the Ice Climbers, Olimar, and Donkey Kong) while nearly everyone else would benefit or not be that effected and only two characters (Yoshi and Jigglypuff) would be negatively effected by it due to having worse match ups against the higher tiers. In this situation, only one character genuinely benefits (while some argue two), Donkey Kong (and Bowser) from the infinite getting banned because it removes one of his few bad matchups while people like Bowser, Mario, Luigi, and Samus still get destroyed by most, if not all, the top/high tier characters.

I don't really even know how to respond to this thread anymore especially when Samurai Panda has pretty much shown his own bias and said no good arguements have been made on the anti-ban side so it's a losing situation anyway. Really, how can you argue when one of the top MODs has gone out and basically said "if you support this side, you're basically ******** and are misguided/know nothing on the subject?" I think this is going to start a ban-happy trend because people are wanting to look away from the only big thing out there right now that overcentralizes the game, can't be truly countered with stages or characters, and keeps a good percentage of the cast from being more viable.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Counterpicking should NEVER take the skill out of matches, sure it gives one person the advantage, but taking the skill out of a match. the fact that you even propose something that idiotic makes me lose a lot of respect for you.

Unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast. Less skill is required to win with a character that counters another character, and how much less is decided by how terrible the counterpick is.

The only solution to this is to ban all characters or techniques that create advantageous match-ups if removal of skill from a match-up is a ban criteria.

Bad match-ups are part of the game, it's annoying, but true.

and all this crap about what is subjective and what is objective is just pointless. that alone shows me that youve never been in this situation where somebody lost out on winning money to somebody that he should have easily beaten just because of this one rediculous move. and the fact that you admit that its broken put still refuse to ban purely based on the politics around it sickens me.

I'm sorry but banning based on subjective criteria fundamentally bad because depending on personal opinion.

The entire point of debate is to reduce the discussion to normative "it is or it isn't" questions, the stuff that people can't hold opinions on, it just IS.

The only thing that matters here is this,
we dont lose anything from banning it except easy wins, that shouldnt be that easy to begin with.
and if we dont ban it we lose 3 pretty good characters (DK, Bowser, Luigi) that could really make some ripples in tourneys and 2 subpar character (Mario, Samus) that I dont think anybody would mind seeing more of at their tourneys

The problem with that is, is 3 viable characters enough to justify a ban, realistically speaking.

Some people say yes, some people say no.

Not cogent.

Over-centralization is subjective.

Therein lies the problem.

It's the ban criteria, but in order to use it, we need a non-objective definition of over-centralization.

Bull****. its nowhere near as subjective as peole are spouting.
By definition overcentralizing mens where you must "perform this tactic or the tactic that counters it or lose" So you either do the tactic, (or in the case of MTG) choose one or two tactics that can deal with it or lsoe. That is overcentralizing.
Where one tactic makes everything else pointless except for the one or two thata re available.

Do you have a small amount of options when it comes to the DDD infinite? N,.
you ahve 30+ more characters.

That is the definition of overcentralizing, where the options available are extremely small.

it definitely cannot be said that 6 characters being infinited is overcentralizing out of a cast of 30+

That is one POSSIBLE definition of over-centralization, but it's not the only one. The Japanese Super Turbo Community banned a character (old Sagat) for significantly less then negating the entire cast.

That is the topic of discussion.

 

[bludhoundz]

It lead to guaranteed death unless the player screwed up. So does this infinite.

And neither is technically infinite, because the stalling rules from melee (can't do it past 200%) can still be applied to it.

So if neither are infinite (and thus not stalling), and both lead to guranteed death unless the player messes up...then they are comparable are they not?

If it lead to death right out of the CG, then yes, at least how I see it, they are comparable.

There's still the issue of 1 char vs 6..... but that deals with too much subjectivity to make an objective claim for the ban.

 

[•Col•]

Simple, because people feel that the circumstances required for he grab are much easier than for those other respective characters.

It is also because its one character performing the infiniite on 5 characters rather than (in the case of wario) 8 characters infiniting 1 character.

In each case though the most objective issue that should be address is that of overcentralizing which has yet to be addressed or rather, has yet to be truly defined. According to the pro ban.

Out of a cast of 30+ would the infinite on 5 characters be considered overcentralizing? Nope.

That was the same argument used against those who wanted to ban those respective infinites.

Yeah but... Marth had the infinite on Wario too... So that means he had 3 infinites all to himself.... D: So if he could have infinited 1 or 2 more characters, people would have actually cared then?

 

[Woozle]

Actually, it isn't defined that way, since it isn't even a word.

It's closest definition would be the definitions of "over" and "centralization", which would be centralizing to an excessive degree.

Which is... subjective.

 

[Jim Morrison]

This thread is ridiculous. You're not gonna ban a grab, how good it is. People who voted yes are very butthurt and are too lazy to just counterpick a character. This isn't Metaknight. The counters are already known and present. Learn them.