You're missing the point: DeDeDe's infinite isn't imbalanced. Therefore it shouldn't be banned. Therefore those who want it banned want it banned because it is inconvenient.
You have me there. But when 5 characters that I enjoy playing get completely shut down by a person spamming Dthrow, I think I have a right to call cheap/inconvenient.
You can't argue that me (or anyone) wanting DeDeDe's infinite to stay is because it would be "inconvenient for it to go", because it's already in the game, and there isn't a reason to remove it.
IDC
Furthermore, there is a very real argument AGAINST banning infinites, and not a single argument FOR banning infinites that holds any salt whatsoever. The only argument that you (and anyone) has is that it is inconvenient. The fact that it makes Samus nonviable against DeDeDe isn't an imbalance. It's an inconvenience. That's called matchups. Learn to Counter Pick.
Expanding the metagame. DDD has an 80-20 or 90-10 matchup against 5 chars. Sure, some (mario, Samus) may suck anyways (I'm not hating, I play both Samus and Mario) and have terrible matchups anyways, but the others are actually decent to good (DK could be A or B tier). Now, save for luigi, they all already have a ****ty matchup against DDD. So why make the matchup so much worse? And also, why should any noob who knows SSBB physics be able to practice for an hour and then beat people who main those chars with DDD? That's not counterpicking, that's anal ****.
Very, very few things in Brawl are "ban worthy". If you want to rampantly change the game to suite your needs as the type of person who cannot learn to overcome such obstacles, play Brawl+ or something.
Oh god, I'd love to.
Let me get this straight.
DDD having an infinite on DK is simply an inconvenience for DK. But banning infinites would be an imbalance for DDD?
If it's not an imbalance to DDD to ban infinites but simply an inconvenience, then there's no real argument against banning infinites and there would be increased character viability by doing so -- which is a positive result.
Edit: Guess I ought to complete my point. Here goes: If you consider it an imbalance to ban an infinite but only an inconvenience to allow it when the match is advantaged to the character with the infinite either way, then it does look a lot like character bias clouding your judgment.
This is pretty much what I think to a lot of what's going on.
DDDs Infinite is vs. ~5 Characters
DDDs CG works vs. ~20 Characters
DDD can not CG vs. ~10 Characters
If we change the Match-Up vs. infinited characters more to them, than it would be unfair that DDD is handicaped vs. some characters, while other characters dont get anything from the ban. For example I'm Snake Mainer. DDD infinites are banned, and I think: "OH COOL DKs have now one less disadventage vs. DDD because of a rule. I also want to loose one disadventage vs. DDD. This would be fair". If we ban all CGs, what do the non-CGable character gain from this ban ? Nothing. This is why I think, that only global techniques(infinites should be banned and not match-up-dependent stuff.
The infinites are inherently broken. The normal CGs are merely a powerful tool that will rack damage (25%?). The standing infinites (and to an extend the short step CGs) will take an entire stock barring things stage changes.
On a side-note. I'm wondering why everyone is always discussing DDDs Infinits.
DDD is top tier either way and his infinite is pathetically easy to perform.
No one ever talks about how Pika destroys Fox and Shiek, or how ZSS have a Infinit on Fox and Rob.
I'll give you that.
And I dont know what the problem is about the infinites. Why do people say it's boring to watch ? When the player knows what the other character can do against him he gives his best to avoid this, you can believe me, this is at least for the player very dramatic since he most play very carefully. And this gives the match his charm. Anyway it's stupid to play with DK vs. DDD and I can agree that the infinite itself is boring but the time before is very exciting (For me...).
And another thing is, that the best two characters dont have any infinite on another character, so dont care that much about this stuff
^^
Try playing DK (or Mario, Samus, Bowser, or Luigi) against DDD, and you'll understand where we're coming from a little better.
No, it is not. An increased number of viable characters would be desirable, yes. DeDeDe/CG's isn't the only problem, however. Pretty much all nonviable characters are nonviable to begin with.
Luigi and DK.
DK is still tournament viable, even with DeDeDe's infinite. You just have to use double blinds and CP accordingly. Plus, as I stated earlier, the infinite is not all that ruins the matchup between these two.
Then why allow it if it's skewed for him either way?
Bowser, Samus, and Mario are barely viable at best, regardless of DeDeDe's existence.
Luigi is the ONLY character who DeDeDe "stops cold" SPECIFICALLY because of the infinite, since he has a very 50/50 matchup against D3 without the infinite.
You are arguing the difference of ONE character, a character that is still very viable with D3's existence, and can still survive roughly the same by use of CPs and double blinds, just like DK.
Not really. Lemme explain. If you main DK, you know that any idiot can CP DDD and infinite you. I picked it up on the second try (the infinite). So are you going to bring DK to a tournament with double blinds? No, of course not! At least not round one. Maybe round two, but if you're known for doing that, then people will CP DDD.
Uh, I approve of King D3's infinite mainly because it isn't universal. I have more combos with Marth on DK than I do on other characters, because of the nature of DK. Does that mean I should ban my combos because I can only do it on DK? Not at all. D3 is the same way, it just happens that his infinite is skill-less and results in a stock. Marth has 0 death combos on Squirtle and the Spacies, and to ban those would be dumb. It's called a bad match-up, and it happens. Learn a different character. IMO you shouldn't ban a match-up specific tactic just so that people can play a character that gets ***** in that match-up. You can still play DK R1 if you want too, or counter-pick with him. In a tourney, why would we limit what the opponent's character is capable of doing? That would be like saying, "Oh, Jigglypuff's shield breaks and she instantly dies, so Marth shouldn't be allowed to use Shieldbreaker on Jigglypuff, because it's not fair that it's not safe for Jigglypuff to shield." Dumb argument.
Correct. A throw is a different start because you can't block it. If you're anywhere near DDD when the throw starts, you're ****ed. The spacies/squirtle can airdodge or block the first hit and go from there.
Now, Ice Climbers are more debatable IMO, because their grabs are not match-up dependant at all. Once you master the chaingrab, it's one grab, one stock. This could be considered broken, but as previously stated, Ice Climbers are not dominating the metagame. Metaknight should be banned before the Ice Climbers, and I don't think MK should be banned at all. Every game has a best character. Metaknight isn't unbeatable, he's just the best. If you look at ANY competative fighting game, there is almost always a best character, and this best character will win most of the time. Everyone has the option of using the best character. If we ban him, then Snake will be the best character, and the problem resets. Marth players like myself will still be screwed, because everyone who proceeds to learn Snake will still beat Marth, and to be honest, I'd rather fight a bracket full of MK than Snake (though that's probably due to the experience ratio).
The IC ICG is not broken because you can separate nana and they don't have the most absurd grab range in the game.
But to get back on topic, Ice Climbers essentially have a really powerful OHKO move. However, it is avoidable. Just play a character with a realistic match-up against ICs, preferably someone with a sword. MK is still more broken, and wins much more, so I don't think any infinite should be banned. Something that can compete with the war machine known as MetaKnight shouldn't be banned., unless it's proven to be even more broken than MK and impossible to compete with.
"If it's not an imbalance to DDD to ban infinites but simply an inconvenience, then there's no real argument against banning infinites and there would be increased character viability by doing so -- which is a positive result."
Okay, I could ban Marth's Fair, so Mario could fight him pretty well, but that would be stupid. Banning character options so that they do worst against a character is bad.
Terrible comparison. Shield/Airdodge.
As for Shiek or Pikachu? Sheik's supposedly can be escaped. Pikachu's? Maybe maybe not. What I said for ICs goes for Pikachu too. Furthermore, neither of the tactics these characters have are infinites. They are combo loops that have definite limits, and probably won't even KO the heavier characters (although Pikachu has chaingrabs on lots of people, and Shiek has Ftilt look) regardless, largely damaging combos isn't exactly a reason to ban a tactic.
You know that is a TERRIBLE analogy right? Removing Marth's FAir cripples Marth.
I'm not getting into this argument again so that's all I'm going to say.
Pretty much.
Pierced said that "baning a move just to improve a MU is unfair and bla".
So just soem notes:
First, it isnt one matchup, there are actually 5 in wich the infinite is a hard counter. And you said about "marth fair". You see, you cant really combo a fair to a fair to a fair untill 300% like you can with a grab, and even the fair is just a good move, wich can possibly be avoided, whereas a grab it's kinda harder.
But w/e, people wont ban the infinites even it its proven worthy, so it isnt a big deal to debate about it =/.
Agree on everything in this post except the last part. It can and should happen.
I think that infinites should not be banned but should be put on a limit like maybe 10 regrabs or more/less.
10 Dthrows is between 50 and 100 damage for the opponent. Still a lot. On the D3CG: Force a running CG. On IC: **** it, 10 should work there because if you can pull that move of, you earned it.
Infinites aren't a big problem...
It is for me. They may not be severely affecting tournament results, but then wouldn't it make no difference if we did ban them to anyone except the people eating **** right now?
Can you guys stop calling each other idiots, please? It contributes nothing to the discussion, and is completely and utterly pointless.
On topic, infinites will never get banned, because they weren't banned in Melee either. In Melee, the Ice Climbers had infinite chaingrabs just like in Brawl, and there were a number of 0-death combos that Fox had, but they didn't ban them because they required skill to use and didn't completely break the game. Dedede having an infinite on 5 characters isn't enough to ban it at all. If it was on half the cast, that might make it worth considering, but at its current level it's not worth it at all. No infinite truly breaks the game here, and anything else that does break it will be banned accordingly (i.e. IDC).
Skill is a difference.
You are the first person I've seen to bring up situational difficulty.
As a friend put it:
"You can get around the ICCG's by simply removing Nana or hitting her far enough away to allow you to escape. For D3, what do you do? Unplug your opponents controller?"
Good point has been brought up.
But D3's infinite has still yet to be over-centralizing.
Overcentralizing is not the issue here! I know, a lot of you have this mindset, "It can't be banned unless it overcentralizes the metagame." But what about instead of overcentralizing, it just shuts down parts of the metagame? What then? When does it end, when DDD renders 10 chars completely useless? When he renders a char which is otherwise good totally useless?
Or another thing against it. If anyone here plays magic, there's a card called Sensei's Divining Top. It's a good card-in fact, a really good card. Broken? No. But what it does is annoying-you can look at the top cards of your deck and rearrange them. A lot of people used this effect a lot. And it got banned in one of the three formats it was legal in because people were sick of the opponent going "Look at the top three cards of my deck in response to that" in response to EVERYTHING. It was annoying as ****. And it dragged on and on...
Yeah, infinites are fine. What has happened so far that warrants them to be banned?
Oh wait...nothing. (talking about the new, supposed infinites and ICs)
See my above points.
Looks like this is the new thing infinites or no infinites
BAN METAKNIGHT!!!1!!one!!!eleven!
This
These infinites do not shut down characters to the extent that they become unplayable, and with correct spacing they can be avoided.
I believe it was a DDD main who said, "Try playing me without getting grabbed 10 times". DDD is incredibly defensive and has a massive grab range. That alone means he's gonna get a lot of grabs.
Okay, I admit, I'm biased. I'm not going into the other infinites other than DDD and IC because I don't know enough about them to make any kind of statement (AKA: *me reads thread, me sez: "ZSS has an infinite on ROB and the spacies?"*). I main Luigi, Snake, and Bowser, secondary DK, Samus, and want to pick up Mario. So yeah, there's character bias in there. But the idea of forcing DDD to do a running CG instead of a standing or walking one would be enough, IMO, to get the anti-infinites to shut up about DDD. You guys still have your brutal matchups against DK, Bowser, Mario, and Samus, we don't have completely interactive games against DDD, and what do you lose? A majorly unfair, uninteractive tactic that forces people away from the characters in question. And a running CG on DK on FD is still a lot of damage.
