what are the reasons to ban a character?

[Hippieslayer]

"My values"? Pointing to direct causation is not something only I do... Go ahead, try hard. Give me one example. That's all it'd take to prove me wrong, really.

Not it's not something unique, but you do it in a unique manner by claiming objectivity through clever missusage of terms whose meanings you have narrowed down to contain only that which will support your argument making it a tautology which doesn't mean that it's objectively true, in a physical sense, because language doesn't accurately describe the world. Indeed perfection is only possible within an imperfect system which in this case happens to be the system of rules your own values regarding what makes a good competitive game has lead you to advocate, a system wich is imperfect or lacks objectivity because the values that lead to it are obviously subjective. You ask me to point out one flaw with an example that that contains in a form a term whose meaning you have allready monopolized, which in this case was ''better'', I am not interested in digging up a specific example to beat you at (to use a metafor) ''your own game'', why should I do such a thing when I have allready (thrice now) in different words explained rationally why you err in claiming objectivity.
Indeed a tautology by defition remains unaffected by any empirical data so I would rather ask why you've decided that certain criteria don't count into defining what makes a game better suited for competition? I you truly want to claim objectivity then I would like to know exactly why the character of the gameplay doesn't matter And why depth matters more than anything else, when what drew and kept people playing brawl on a competitive level has obviously been and remains the former moreso than the latter? In short it feels pointless to get specific with you unless you can accept that your opinions aren't some kind of objective truth. The burden of proof is on he who makes his claims, you claim objectivity, and I claim you don't have it, yours is the original claim because my claim wouldn't be possible without your's, what you are doing is the same as saying hencewhy the burden is on you to prove it. Despite this I have provided proof, just not the kind you want, but I have also taken care to explain why providing the kind of proof you want doesn't adress the issue at hand.

And really, I would some kind of in depth explanation as to why you quantify the term competitive in regards to gameplay. As normally ''more competitive'' only refers to the mindset of a conscious being and not a game itself. I've seen the term used the way you use it on certain wrestling forums though, but not by any individual with a firm grip of the english language :O

 

[Hippieslayer]

http://gametheorybootcamp.blogspot.com/2010/12/arguing-against-subjectivity-crafting.html
There's your criteria. Have fun using it effectively if it isn't blatantly obvious though.

And this post relies on making it appear as if though there are 2 alternatives we either agree on having it your way or face doom in the form of a bunch of idiotic rules and baseless restrictions which obviously isn't true.

 

[Karcist]

Not it's not something unique, but you do it in a unique manner by claiming objectivity through clever missusage of terms whose meanings you have narrowed down to contain only that which will support your argument making it a tautology which doesn't mean that it's objectively true, in a physical sense, because language doesn't accurately describe the world. Indeed perfection is only possible within an imperfect system which in this case happens to be the system of rules your own values regarding what makes a good competitive game has lead you to advocate, a system wich is imperfect or lacks objectivity because the values that lead to it are obviously subjective. You ask me to point out one flaw with an example that that contains in a form a term whose meaning you have allready monopolized, which in this case was ''better'', I am not interested in digging up a specific example to beat you at (to use a metafor) ''your own game'', why should I do such a thing when I have allready (thrice now) in different words explained rationally why you err in claiming objectivity.
Indeed a tautology by defition remains unaffected by any empirical data so I would rather ask why you've decided that certain criteria don't count into defining what makes a game better suited for competition? I you truly want to claim objectivity then I would like to know exactly why the character of the gameplay doesn't matter And why depth matters more than anything else, when what drew and kept people playing brawl on a competitive level has obviously been and remains the former moreso than the latter? In short it feels pointless to get specific with you unless you can accept that your opinions aren't some kind of objective truth. The burden of proof is on he who makes his claims, you claim objectivity, and I claim you don't have it, yours is the original claim because my claim wouldn't be possible without your's, what you are doing is the same as saying hencewhy the burden is on you to prove it. Despite this I have provided proof, just not the kind you want, but I have also taken care to explain why providing the kind of proof you want doesn't adress the issue at hand.

And really, I would some kind of in depth explanation as to why you quantify the term competitive in regards to gameplay. As normally ''more competitive'' only refers to the mindset of a conscious being and not a game itself. I've seen the term used the way you use it on certain wrestling forums though, but not by any individual with a firm grip of the english language :O

LOL, the irony. You might want to google what a "run on sentence" is for everyone's benefit.

 

[Hippieslayer]

LOL, the irony. You might want to google what a "run on sentence" is for everyone's benefit.

It's not allways easy explaining what one thinks if the issue at hand is complex, I assure you however that my posts are nothing but genuine attempts at explanation.

Edit: lol that link was actually pretty damn nice for me; I've allways had trouble using proper interpunctuation, even in my native language :O

This link however explained how to do it properly in a understandable way! Although I probably still fail at it often, I do think I'll be better off after having read it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BTW, I have not forgotten about this. I've been super busy and fishing around for a good answer. You're not making **** easy on me.

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

Personally from what you can generally see from alot of games that end up banning something wether it be a character or a tactic or cards( for people who are familiar is TCGs) is: when something becomes too popular that a majority is using the thing or character and it would help the metagame to remove it... it is ban worthy.

Lemme rephrase that giant sentence. Something is ban worthy from what you can gather from other games is when if something was to be removed the Metagame would profit and more things become viable.

I guess i can use examples in smash bros (brawl). For the most part standing infinites/ excessive stalling and scrooge'n and short stepping is generally (depending on the TO, area and tourney) is banned. I mean you can say that the metagame profits and flourishes more when you prevent say small stepping and standing infinites. Remember when people said "don't get grabbed or don't use DK, bowser, etc because they are unviable"? It's a really bad outlook on things. Why would you wanna limit the amount of viable characters and worsen the metagame by letting a character or characters negate a portion of the cast (that normally can be viable without)?

Take a minute and imagine how the game would be if, the small steps, scrooging, no ledge grab limit, infinite cape, etc were all legal. What would the metagame look like? Would the game be even playable? What characters would become unplayable?

When judging for bannability i think most people consider whether or not banning something will improve the metagame and make it more diverse. Will banning something have a positive or negative impact or will it really have a small impact on the game over all. Would banning one thing allow something else become unchecked and too good?

Basically the idea i get from playing too many games ...

 

[Ghostbone]

I guess i can use examples in smash bros (brawl). For the most part standing infinites/ excessive stalling and scrooge'n and short stepping is generally (depending on the TO, area and tourney) is banned. I mean you can say that the metagame profits and flourishes more when you prevent say small stepping and standing infinites. Remember when people said "don't get grabbed or don't use DK, bowser, etc because they are unviable"? It's a really bad outlook on things. Why would you wanna limit the amount of viable characters and worsen the metagame by letting a character or characters negate a portion of the cast (that normally can be viable without)?

With this it's more about consistency.

If you're going to ban D3's infinite to make the match-up against DK easier for DK than why not ban blizzard to make Ganon vs IC easier? Same with Sheik's chain.

Let's also ban tornado to make R.O.B. more viable, and pikachu's buffered d-throw chaingrab to make spacies more viable.

Let's also let Ganon always play on the stage of his choice.

And ban MK from using more than 2 down-airs without touching static ground.

It's just inconsistent to ban D3's infinite, why is that not a legitimate tactic in a match-up, while everything else that can heavily skew match-ups is?

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

With this it's more about consistency.

If you're going to ban D3's infinite to make the match-up against DK easier for DK than why not ban blizzard to make Ganon vs IC easier? Same with Sheik's chain.

Let's also ban tornado to make R.O.B. more viable, and pikachu's buffered d-throw chaingrab to make spacies more viable.

Let's also let Ganon always play on the stage of his choice.

And ban MK from using more than 2 down-airs without touching static ground.

It's just inconsistent to ban D3's infinite, why is that not a legitimate tactic in a match-up, while everything else that can heavily skew match-ups is?

I'm not sure for the reasoning behind what that backroom does cus i'm not there.

1: No one is going to ban a "B-Button" move on a character. You either ban the character or you don't. So removing Blizzard on IC's and Nado on MK is silly. Same for attacks. These arguement are essentially silly.

2: The whole chaingrab arguement has been beaten to death. It boils down to pikachu has terrible grab range and D3 does not. Even with the Pika CGs on the space animals, wolf is gonna remain bad, Falco is still top tier and fox is still good vs everyone but shiek and pika. And still you can fight your way around the CG with falco.

Regardless it all boils down to improving the Metagame. It really has nothing to do with matchups at all in the slightest or about consistency. Banning D3 CGs allowed for 5(?) characters to playable. I remember back then also D3 was used A LOT more too tho. But regardless D3 still has a good matchup vs those characters and he still has a normal CG and thus banning it really did not impact the character at all.

Most of the things you said if banned or limited would not change the way brawl works at all. It would not improve the game in the slightest and would not open up more options in the metagame. And there are a million reasons i bet someone can make to argue against the things you said.

On a side note this is a hard topic to debate because criteria changes from person to person just morals and standards of todays world. So most of this is prob my opinion.

 

[Ghostbone]

I'm not sure for the reasoning behind what that backroom does cus i'm not there.

1: No one is going to ban a "B-Button" move on a character. You either ban the character or you don't. So removing Blizzard on IC's and Nado on MK is silly. Same for attacks. These arguement are essentially silly.

Yea we shouldn't ban the use of a grab that only works on a few characters that aren't viable anyway but oh well......

2: The whole chaingrab arguement has been beaten to death. It boils down to pikachu has terrible grab range and D3 does not. Even with the Pika CGs on the space animals, wolf is gonna remain bad, Falco is still top tier and fox is still good vs everyone but shiek and pika. And still you can fight your way around the CG with falco.

You can fight your way around D3's chaingrab too.....It's just a lot harder, and generally puts yourself in a bad position. (for example on SV DK is basically forced to try and camp the SV platform....lol)

Regardless it all boils down to improving the Metagame. It really has nothing to do with matchups at all in the slightest or about consistency. Banning D3 CGs allowed for 5(?) characters to playable. I remember back then also D3 was used A LOT more too tho. But regardless D3 still has a good matchup vs those characters and he still has a normal CG and thus banning it really did not impact the character at all.

Yea uhh, none of the characters D3 infinites would be much more viable without him. (DK would rise a bit but he still gets destroyed by MK)
Also the loss of the infinite heavily affects the match-ups it can be used in.
Both players are forced to use very different playstyles depending on whether it's legal or not.
Also, why is it fair for a match-up that was around 80-20 in one characters favor to become almost even depending on whether a certain tactic is banned? Don't see people banning sheik's tilt-lock to help fox...basically the same thing.

Most of the things you said if banned or limited would not change the way brawl works at all. It would not improve the game in the slightest and would not open up more options in the metagame. And there are a million reasons i bet someone can make to argue against the things you said.

Uhh, it does a very similar thing to banning D3's infinites....

On a side note this is a hard topic to debate because criteria changes from person to person just morals and standards of todays world. So most of this is prob my opinion.

And we should refrain from using subjective opinions as much as possible when making a competitive ruleset.

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

You're missing the point... it's not about individual match ups. But the metagame as a whole. People can spout nonsense about certain things all they like. This game like any other "fighting game" is going have it's good matches and badmatches. Seth vs Gief SSF4 is essentially a 9-1 matchup. bad matchups are bound to happen. This is why everyone has a secondary (which happens to be MK usually...) to account for these bad MUs.

Bannings D3's infinite and small step was to improve the game as a whole, not to improve the a single or so MU. The MU's are still in his favor regardless and thus left up to the player to adapt. Most of the things you listed (with the exception of MK) have very little impact on the game as a whole.

And even as that this game is still dictated by player strength more so then character balance. I can play MK all i want, but if my opponent is smarter than me then i'm going to lose.

Individual MU can only be used as a crutch or an excuse, if you really wanna argue about it. A good player is on the top not because of character advantage, but because they're better then the rest in this game. And if their character has a bad MU they either overcome it by choosing another character or stage or by playing smarter. And if they can't, then they do not have the right to be a top player.


TL:DR, essentially brawl is dictated by the player and their skill. But along the way rules are going to be made to help shape the metagame and make it more unique. And when the masses decide on wether or not something should be banned or not, a lot of thought and debate goes into it. Infinites weren't banned over night. I remember a lot of those debates.

If a group of people wanna play with Small step ect, then there is no iron rule of law that is preventing you. Set up your own tourney with your own rules. Most people are going to follow the ones they believe is most fair and just for the Masses, not just for a few occasions.

 

[Ghostbone]

Yea but
Banning D3's infinites only improves a few match-ups, and hardly has an effect on the game as a whole.
So you're being a bit hypocritical.....

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

Yea but
Banning D3's infinites only improves a few match-ups, and hardly has an effect on the game as a whole.
So you're being a bit hypocritical.....

Apparently not according to the BBR tho. Like i said., i'm not a member. So it's all speculation. I don't follow these sort of things usually.

 

[Ghostbone]

Apparently not according to the BBR tho.

What do you mean by this?

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

What do you mean by this?

Well the stuff they banned had to have made enough of an impact for them to ban it. If they based bans off of what people want as opposed to how things will affect the game. Then a lot more things including MK would have been banned already xD.

That's just how i see things tho.

 

[Ghostbone]

And they didn't ban his infinites so what's your point?

 

[Hive]

infinites should have been banned a long time ago... at least some of the more easily implemented ones.
really I'm curious why haven't they?
Is there a viable reason for it being beneficial to competition in those matchups I'm not seeing?
Is it because even though it is clearly more bad for gameplay and skill comparisons between players than the alternative it doesn't meet some criteria of what is too overcentralizing/overpowered or makes enough characters unviable?
Is it because we can't just intelligently get rid of bad infinites without having to group it with a ton of other tactics that would be bad to remove?
Because allowing a tactic that harms competition is a good thing if it raises that one character's metagame viability?
Because the bbr hasn't openly said it needs to be banned?
Because SSIV doesn't ban infinites?

As a main of one of the infinited chars who had to instant give up in tourney everytime this one tactic came up for her I am wondering what facet of gameplay we are trying to protect since it easily could make these matchups more competitive without it?

 

[Ghostbone]

infinites should have been banned a long time ago... at least some of the more easily implemented ones.

No they shouldn't, and ease of use should have nothing to do with whether something's banned. (unless it's beyond human capability...in which case it doesn't matter anyway)

really I'm curious why haven't they?

Because they're just another tactic to use.

Is there a viable reason for it being beneficial to competition in those matchups I'm not seeing?

Having an infinite on another character is just an aspect of your character. For example a D3 player shouldn't be penalized for using an infinite against DK when we have Ice Climbers who can wall Ganon with blizzard without him being able to do anything.

Is it because even though it is clearly more bad for gameplay and skill comparisons between players than the alternative it doesn't meet some criteria of what is too overcentralizing/overpowered or makes enough characters unviable?

Yes and no.
Character choice is a skill, so if someone selects D3 against DK they deserve the advantage of having an infinite, and the player who wins is still the one that is more skilled.
It's also because infinites don't over-centralize the game....at all. You don't have to use infinites to win...most characters don't have them.

Is it because we can't just intelligently get rid of bad infinites without having to group it with a ton of other tactics that would be bad to remove?

Yes, and that they shouldn't be banned anyway.

Because allowing a tactic that harms competition is a good thing if it raises that one character's metagame viability?

It's not so much allowing it it's just that banning it is a dumb surgical nerf....and it's inconsistent.

Because the bbr hasn't openly said it needs to be banned?

And why do you think that is?

Because SSIV doesn't ban infinites?

Who the hell cares what SSFIV does....

As a main of one of the infinited chars who had to instant give up in tourney everytime this one tactic came up for her I am wondering what facet of gameplay we are trying to protect since it easily could make these matchups more competitive without it?

Main bias Also Samus can mash out of the infinite below like 130% anyway.
I'll say this again what's the difference between IC walling Ganon with Blizzard and D3 grabbing DK over and over again?
Having infinites legal requires you to pick up a secondary basically, which increases the skill required of a player who mains a character that has a bad match-up. (or requires you to be way better than your opponent...which requires a lot of skill)

 

[Hive]

No they shouldn't, and ease of use should have nothing to do with whether something's banned. (unless it's beyond human capability...in which case it doesn't matter anyway)

not ease of use, ease of implementing a ban (and in regards to its costs, ease of making that decision)

Having an infinite on another character is just an aspect of your character. For example a D3 player shouldn't be penalized for using an infinite against DK when we have Ice Climbers who can wall Ganon with blizzard without him being able to do anything.

its an aspect that hurts skill comparisons between players and can be easily limited. There is no good reason to have it in if the intention is to strive to make the game more competitive. IDC if ice climbers have dumb tactics on ganon, it does not change the fact that it is bad for gameplay.

I don't even consider it a penalization, it basically makes all of these matchups, at least in the case of ddd, more competitive. If its considered penalizing for ddd players to have to play matchups that are reasonably losable to them by people on an equal or better skill level than i really don't sympathize.

especially when the point of fighters is to be able to compare skill between players and prove something, not just win for the sake of winning.

Yes and no.
Character choice is a skill, so if someone selects D3 against DK they deserve the advantage of having an infinite, and the player who wins is still the one that is more skilled.
It's also because infinites don't over-centralize the game....at all. You don't have to use infinites to win...most characters don't have them.

no. character choice really isn't skill. playing a character to its potential takes skill, out playing an opponent in a match is skill. But picking characters on a select screen has nothing to do with skill. And if this is the sort of talent that we are striving for than that is pretty lame tbh.

Also I don't care if it overcentralizes combat. I care if it has benefits for gameplay over alternatives. The b button overcentralizes combat, but its not bad. And likewise if their is a game with three characters and they each have a unique unwinnable advantage on the character to their right (and an unwinnable disadvantage to their left) just because gameplay isn't overcentralized by any character gameplay would still improve greatly by banning those tactics. Overcentralization doesn't dictate whether a tactic is good or bad.

It's not so much allowing it it's just that banning it is a dumb surgical nerf....and it's inconsistent.

there is nothing wrong with surgical nerfs. And in fact if a surgical nerf brings about the greatest benefit to gameplay than why wouldn't you? Because there is an esoteric rule that all bans have to affect large groupings of tactics? And inconsistent with what? You can argue tons of things are surgical in their application because they target specific subject matter (i.e. idc, for example)

Main bias Also Samus can mash out of the infinite below like 130% anyway.
I'll say this again what's the difference between IC walling Ganon with Blizzard and D3 grabbing DK over and over again?

its very difficult to mash out imo, and even if she does on occasion... Its not like mashing out at 130% is suddenly going to make the infinite non game changing. Its basically made way worse than it should be because of one tactic, a matchup that btw ddd would still be advantaged in, the only thing it could possibly change in this matchup at least is that ddds now can lose to samuses that are better than them. The difference between the two is ease of implementation, and their benefits by removing them.

And so a lot of the ppl ddd infinites aren't viable anyways, but that shouldn't stop players from the focus on it being more competitive. The inevitability of endgame viability and tournament viable chars isn't the only thing worth focusing on, if it were we might as well make all unviable chars instant lose in nationals.

Having infinites legal requires you to pick up a secondary basically, which increases the skill required of a player who mains a character that has a bad match-up. (or requires you to be way better than your opponent...which requires a lot of skill)

but it doesn't really. having a bad matchup doesn't make you a bad player, and having a secdondary just to have to fight that bad matchup doesn't make you a better player, all it is char advantage.

I've played games, and in mmos mainly, where players feel entitled to advantages by playing certain classes, or by picking certain advantages and its not fun. Having a scene that ultimately places too much emphasis on character advantages/counterpicks outside of skill determined in actually playing matchups ends up hurting scenes.

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

I completely agree with Hive, that is the right outlook on things.

Besides everyone has a secondary, his name is MK and he has no bad matchups. (But that's not what this thread is about is it?).

And stop comparing D3 vs samus with Ganon vs Ice Climbers. They aren't even in the same league, even if IC's diddnt have blizzard or the other way around no infinite that matchup will be still horrible.

Most of the arguements you make are pretty silly and irrelevant. No one cares about consistency, no one cares about being fair when it comes to balancing a game. We aren't going to nerf everyone just because one character took a hit.

Every other game is remade or repatched to out balance to improve it. Brawl isn't going to be remade anytime soon and thus it's up to the players to decide how to balance it.

Things like Ice climbers infinites is fair, it require a lot of work to obtain and it's not easy to catch someone in their crappy range with both IC's next to each other. You don't see IC's dominating this game nor do you see IC's making characters unviable or unplayable. It's nothing like D3 was doing at the time people decided to limit him.

The deciding factor on a ban is wether it's going to make the game better overall, and the reason they haven't done anything about all the stuff you said is simple. It's irrelevant and wouldn't change a thing.

 

[Ghostbone]

Well I can't argue with you two because you disagree with what my definition of a better player is :/

I say someone who can win in a game of brawl using any tactic that isn't over-centralizing to gameplay is the better player.

You view certain tactics as cheap and not letting the better player win.
And also don't view that someone choosing MK is inherently more skilled than someone choosing Ganondorf, as the game favours players who are good with MK than players who are good with Ganondorf.

Really it just seems like if you had the option you would try to make every match-up as even as possible.
Really just go play BBrawl or something, and don't be scrubby about regular Brawl.

Also, read Sirlin's "Playing to win", if you haven't already.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Ghostbone is right, Hive and Method are just scrubs who have no idea how to craft a fair, unbiased, objectively competitive rule-set.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ghostbone is right, Hive and Method are just scrubs who have no idea how to craft a fair, unbiased, objectively competitive rule-set.

I am permanently disassociating myself from you; you have nothing of value to offer even if you do agree to many of the same things I do. Something I should've said back when you supported Mario Bros against all reasons presented. Hive is one of the smarter posters who's still active.

Also, I'm with Hive on this one. When banning a tactic, you usually have to compare two things: the actual option removed by the ban, and the realistic option removed by not banning it. Compare: option of having a 90-10 matchup instead of 65-35 or so (not a huge deal), vs. option of Donkey Kong being a viable, competitive character (gigantic deal). This is actually not commonly paralleled when you think about it. For example, banning IC's blizzard locks on ganon may make the matchup not 99-1, but it's still a ****ty matchup, and ganon is still completely unviable. Plus, implementing the ban is very difficult.

 

[John12346]

Uh... BPC... I think Grim was being sarcastic...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

He'd better be.

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

I am permanently disassociating myself from you; you have nothing of value to offer even if you do agree to many of the same things I do. Something I should've said back when you supported Mario Bros against all reasons presented. Hive is one of the smarter posters who's still active.

Also, I'm with Hive on this one. When banning a tactic, you usually have to compare two things: the actual option removed by the ban, and the realistic option removed by not banning it. Compare: option of having a 90-10 matchup instead of 65-35 or so (not a huge deal), vs. option of Donkey Kong being a viable, competitive character (gigantic deal). This is actually not commonly paralleled when you think about it. For example, banning IC's blizzard locks on ganon may make the matchup not 99-1, but it's still a ****ty matchup, and ganon is still completely unviable. Plus, implementing the ban is very difficult.

Well said and true. Scared me for a moment... i thought i was shun'd

Ghostbone is right, Hive and Method are just scrubs who have no idea how to craft a fair, unbiased, objectively competitive rule-set.

When you post crap that goes on a personal level such as this, you do well to dis-credit yourself and the person you are defending. Trust me, it's very easy for me to do the same thing you have. But this is a discussion and there is always going to be conflicting sides. When you go and start to insult people, it shows that you have already lost.

Uh... BPC... I think Grim was being sarcastic...

GAMBIT GAMBIT GAMBIT IS DELICIOUS! YEEESS!!!

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I actually completely misread what Hive said. I'm sorry

That's what I get for posting at 11:00 after a smash meet

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

Edit: Deleted.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

"Most of the arguements you make are pretty silly and irrelevant. No one cares about consistency, no one cares about being fair when it comes to balancing a game. We aren't going to nerf everyone just because one character took a hit."

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

"Most of the arguements you make are pretty silly and irrelevant. No one cares about consistency, no one cares about being fair when it comes to balancing a game. We aren't going to nerf everyone just because one character took a hit."

I guess you're good at trolling in a discussion thread. Especially after i edited and deleted my post because i thought it was not productive.

 

[!!!RM!!!]

IMO the reasoning behind banning anything from a competitive game should be because the metagame will suffer unless that stage/character/aspect is banned. I don't really see that happening with Brawl. Sure there are more MKs than Ikes or whatever, but its not like the number of MK mains out there outnumber every Falco, Diddy, and Snake main combined or anything.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

So... what was the counter-argument to Blizzard being banned in the Ganon match-up again? Seems like a pretty reasonable comparison to removing chain-grabbing to me.

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

So... what was the counter-argument to Blizzard being banned in the Ganon match-up again? Seems like a pretty reasonable comparison to removing chain-grabbing to me.

You mean what me, hive and BPC have been said? Removing Blizzard won't make a difference for Dorf because he's gonna remain terrible and bottom tier. It won't help the metagame in anyway plus no one is going to ban a matchup specific tactic that affects 1 character. And doesn't improve the metagame.

That sounds about right.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Alright, how about Tornado vs. Donkey Kong then?

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

Alright, how about Tornado vs. Donkey Kong then?

I'm biased in the sense the only DK i know and play against is Will. And he does pretty good vs MK. So from my point of view the matchup isn't un winnable. But it is largely based around spamming nado. W/o nado i believe DK would **** all over MK.

But my point stands. You really can't justify removing an attack on a character. Sure i understand if MK had an infinite on 5 Characters like D3 you could do something to fix that. But DK has his ways around that match up even if it's abyssmal for the average DK.

Even i've taken rounds off of will by Nado spamming (even if it was 2 rounds in like 10 matches D: ). But when it comes to better players like Nairo and Anti, i will agree Nado is a big factor. But no it shouldn't be banned. If you're gonna ban a move from MK, just ban the character.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Wait a second? So you agree with banning "chain-grabs" in certain match-ups (which are a sequence of moves), but you don't agree with banning Tornado against DK?

That, my good friend, is a bizarre double-standard.

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

Wait a second? So you agree with banning "chain-grabs" in certain match-ups (which are a sequence of moves), but you don't agree with banning Tornado against DK?

That, my good friend, is a bizarre double-standard.

It's quite different. You aren't banning the grab LOL. It's not saying dude you can't down throw!
It's saying dude you can't D throw in a certain way, and you can't do standing infinites.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Then I guess you could add a rule that you can't do tornado directly after doing another tornado until Donkey Kong has touched the ground again?

 

[John12346]

It's called

Infinites make the game completely unplayable to the victim.
Blizzard makes the matchup abysmal, but playable, for Ganon.
Nado makes the matchup abysmal, but playable, for large characters.

Being heavily disadvantaged against a move to the point of unviability is different from being completely unable to move against a move, especially when it results in death.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

wut.

Donkey Kong vs. King Dedede is not un-winnable.

And why does it matter how much depth we are adding? Is there some line we should draw between helping 90:10 MUs and 80:20 MUs? We should be avoiding subjectivity in our rule-sets as much as possible.

 

[John12346]

Dedede throws out grab, DK can attempt to jump around and avoid, but if he gets caught, he can't move until a full stock has been removed from him.

ICs throw out Blizzard, Ganon can attempt to avoid with very limited options, and even if he gets hit, he takes some damage and that's the end of the move.

MK throws out Nado, DK can attempt to maneuver and attack from above, and even if he gets hit, he takes some damage and that's the end of the move.