what are the reasons to ban a character?

[John12346]

I have been backing up my subjective opinion for the last few pages, you have just been going on about the characters suddenly becoming viable (which I said a while ago doesn't matter anyway), with D3 out of the way, which I have also countered.

Nope, lots of characters are viable. Characters with 35:65 or worse match-ups against him aren't though. I can prove this with tournament data if you'd like, but I'd rather not go through the trouble, can you just take my word for it?

I believe you.

Let's think about this another way then, including MK. Without Dedede's infinites in the game, Mario, Wolf, and DK all have enough slight disadvantage-neutral-slight advantage-heavy advantage matchups to play a significant role in the metagame. Yes, they all have some hard counters, but then, so do a lot of characters.

With Dedede's infinites in the mix, it's significantly more dangerous for the 6 characters, mostly Bowser and DK, to have any relevance in today's metagame.

Using overlap, yes, only DK stands to gain the most from this, so it's not much of a gain, but hey.

If I was admitting to that, I would have actually, you know, ADMITTED IT. This is quite possibly the worst case of putting words in someone's mouth that I have ever seen.

What the heck are you arguing at this point? What's your reasoning behind not having Dedede's infinites banned? I think I like, accidentally drove off the road or something trying to understand what you said. Paraphrase, pl0x?
.
.
.
.
.
I'm pretty much at the end of my rope here. I just wanna have the straight skippy on everything before I retire from this one.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Starting from the beginning, my dot-pointed arguments against removing infinites are:

• The depth gained from removing the infinites is almost negligible, because all of the characters affected by infinites would still be rendered unviable by Meta Knight. The ratio of Meta Knight players to Dedede players is roughly 100:12, so even if those characters all had an advantageous, even, or slightly disadvantageous match-up against Dedede without the infinite (which isn't the case), there viability would only increase by roughly 10%.
• Adding surgical, subjective rules to the game, even if they result in more benefits than costs, quickly leads to a slippery slope fallacy. If you are willing to change the game to increase character viability and balance by removing infinites, then it would be illogical to not change other elements of the game for the better. Eventually we'd end up with a rule-book, rather than a rule-set. Ganondorf would always be allowed to play on his best stage, Ice Climbers would have a comprehensive list of which chain-grabs they are allowed to use on which characters, etc...
• It arguably doesn't even increase character depth, as players who main characters that can be infinite'd by Dedede would be forced to pick up and become skilled with secondary characters. These players who were formerly only using one character are now using two, effectively doubling the number of important match-ups in the game.

 

[ADHD]

metaknight

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Wolf vs. Meta Knight = 35:65

What?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Could you give me a more accurate ratio?, my Wolf knowledge is limited, I admit.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Most Wolf players would say it's between 45/55 and 4/6. Not sure how MK players see it though but they'd probably rate it like 6/4 MK as well. Anything higher than that typically comes from MK players that don't have a lot of experience with the match-up.

In either case, he's nowhere near as bad for us as DDD or Wario are.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

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.

Following:
-I accidentally downB. What now?
-How much is "too much"?
-It doesn't actually do any good because, surprise surprise, you're not improving ganon much at all.

Compare to DDD's infinites/short steps:
-Hard to impossible to do by accident
-Actually make a fairly large difference in the effected matchups, bad characters or not
-Fairly easy to ban

I was saying that we should try and avoid subjectivity when crafting rulesets, and in this situation there are two ways of doing it:
a) Don't ban things that remove depth from the game.
b) Ban everything that removes depth from the game.

False dichotomy much? No, there's more to it. You're forgetting the level of depth removal scaled off against the difficulty to implement. Rules to make ganon legitimate? Impossible. Rules to ensure that metaknight cannot completely ruin the game? Completely doable.

Also, this is ridiculous, because option A is a non-option unless you like Super Temple Bros Brawl.

While the ban on DDD doing an infinite or side step is enforceable.

The real question is more so, is it warranted?

Seems like it to me, if only for the "two" (I doubt that that's really the whole truth) characters that become quite a lot better and more usable because of it.

 

[John12346]

The depth gained from removing the infinites is almost negligible, because all of the characters affected by infinites would still be rendered unviable by Meta Knight. The ratio of Meta Knight players to Dedede players is roughly 100:12, so even if those characters all had an advantageous, even, or slightly disadvantageous match-up against Dedede without the infinite (which isn't the case), there viability would only increase by roughly 10%.

With MK taking up 20% of the metagame, and Dedede taking up 2% of the metagame... the other 78% is filled with characters that Mario, DK, and Wolf could at least stand up against to a somewhat reasonable extent, because their matchup spreads often don't dip anywhere below slight disadvantage outside of that 22% of the metagame.

78% of the time, Dedede or MK will not be used. And 78% of the time(maybe a little less if the character has another hard counter), those three aforementioned characters can actually put up a legit fight.
.
.
.
BPC pretty much covered the other 2 points, and he did it a lot better than I probably would've, so w/e.

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

I'm saying that removing the infinite isn't warranted if it isn't going to effect the over-all competitive depth of the game. If those characters are "bad", then they won't be influencing the competitive depth of the game, with or without the infinite. Comprende?

Of course there are stage lay-outs that "enable" infinites, but most of them AREN'T unwinnable for the character who can be chain-grabbed. Characters like Donkey Kong can camp safe moves like bair and retreat to the side platforms on Battlefield. Sure, it's no where near an unstoppable strategy and the DK is bound to get infinite'd eventually, but it isn't 100-0.

The matchup is essentially 9-1. I had will follow this thread while you were comparing D3 infinites to IC - Dorf blizzard shenanigans. I think he was squirming in his chair over it. Basically match up is terrible from the get go. And is nigh un-winnable when you add the infinite. Even if the stage interrupts the infinite or DK breaks free, you still have taken game changing amounts of damage. And it's not hard to regrab DK to start again.

You don't have to use one of those 6 characters on a neutral or your opponent's counter-pick, you could just play as one of them on your CP. Why should we reward players who don't have a secondary (and thus decrease character diversity)?

Everyone has a secondary, his name is Metaknight. Ban MK get more diversity. /endjoke

We shouldn't change the game to make more characters more viable at the expense of another character, that's not fair for that character's mains at all.

Edit:
As a side note it actually takes time to learn the timing of D3's infinite, I've seen players try to use him and fail....

Removing D3's infinite was not at D3's expense lmfao. He's still has an advantages in ALL of the match ups.

If you have a problem with one of the 6 characters and the infinite isn't banned, it takes all of 30 mins to become competent enough with the infinite to use it. All it takes is a competent smart player to be able to utilize something like that.

And btw what how are the 6 characters cept DK not viable? Maybe you guys don't get a lot of low tier players in australia but the character doesn't make the player good. Living here on the east coast NY/NJ a lot of characters are played that people normally don't think are viable. Recently a few Yoshi players have been playing really well, and look at him on the tier list. He also get butt ***** by MK off of FD. The arguement that a character can't be viable because of X matchup is false. I see it proven false all the time, where characters that theoretically should never win or place well do. This is because the play makes the character work not the other way around.

I know plenty of high ranking players that are kick *** with their respective characters, but can't play MK to save them a $2 money match vs zelda.

Following:
-I accidentally downB. What now?
-How much is "too much"?
-It doesn't actually do any good because, surprise surprise, you're not improving ganon much at all.

Compare to DDD's infinites/short steps:
-Hard to impossible to do by accident
-Actually make a fairly large difference in the effected matchups, bad characters or not
-Fairly easy to ban



False dichotomy much? No, there's more to it. You're forgetting the level of depth removal scaled off against the difficulty to implement. Rules to make ganon legitimate? Impossible. Rules to ensure that metaknight cannot completely ruin the game? Completely doable.

Also, this is ridiculous, because option A is a non-option unless you like Super Temple Bros Brawl.



Seems like it to me, if only for the "two" (I doubt that that's really the whole truth) characters that become quite a lot better and more usable because of it.

I love you. Be my valentines?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Most Wolf players would say it's between 45/55 and 4/6. Not sure how MK players see it though but they'd probably rate it like 6/4 MK as well. Anything higher than that typically comes from MK players that don't have a lot of experience with the match-up.

In either case, he's nowhere near as bad for us as DDD or Wario are.

I have a Wolf main in my state, and as far as I can see, a campy Meta Knight would be about 65:35 against Wolf. What can he do if MK sharks on Smashville? Or Dair camps?

Following:
-I accidentally downB. What now?
-How much is "too much"?
-It doesn't actually do any good because, surprise surprise, you're not improving ganon much at all.

I actually retracted this example and instead suggested Tornado vs. Donkey Kong.

Compare to DDD's infinites/short steps:
-Hard to impossible to do by accident
-Actually make a fairly large difference in the effected matchups, bad characters or not
-Fairly easy to ban

Compare to Tornado Juggling (hitting the opponent with a second tornado before they hit the ground after the first one).
-Hard to do by accident.
-Actually make a fairly large difference in the effected matchup, bad character or not
-Fairly easy to ban

False dichotomy much? No, there's more to it. You're forgetting the level of depth removal scaled off against the difficulty to implement. Rules to make ganon legitimate? Impossible. Rules to ensure that metaknight cannot completely ruin the game? Completely doable.

So, why exactly does Dedede deserve an infinite ban, yet, well, read my sig and take any of the one rules from there for Meta Knight. Both would increase the depth of the game, and at least some of those MK ones would be as easily enforceable. Why would you draw a line here?

Also, this is ridiculous, because option A is a non-option unless you like Super Temple Bros Brawl.

The exception

Seems like it to me, if only for the "two" (I doubt that that's really the whole truth) characters that become quite a lot better and more usable because of it.

I play Samus and Bowser a lot. I can guarantee you that both have tools against Dedede, and I actually prefer the match-up to there other hard counters. Like I said earlier, given how many more MK's there are compared to Dedede's, they will only become *slightly* more viable (excluding possibly Donkey Kong and Wolf).

As for DK and Wolf though? It forces the people who play them to pick up a different character, increasing character viability. For example, the DK in my state picked up Fox to deal with his bad match-ups. Removing the infinites might actually result in less depth than keeping them, and it is up to you to prove that it won't. Which is almost as hard as proving MK needs to be banned.

With MK taking up 20% of the metagame, and Dedede taking up 2% of the metagame... the other 78% is filled with characters that Mario, DK, and Wolf could at least stand up against to a somewhat reasonable extent, because their matchup spreads often don't dip anywhere below slight disadvantage outside of that 22% of the metagame.

78% of the time, Dedede or MK will not be used. And 78% of the time(maybe a little less if the character has another hard counter), those three aforementioned characters can actually put up a legit fight.

What are you trying to say here? They are viable 78% of the time, and if Dedede's infinites are banned they are suddenly viable 80% of the time? Wow, what a difference! This ban is so warranted!

The matchup is essentially 9-1. I had will follow this thread while you were comparing D3 infinites to IC - Dorf blizzard shenanigans. I think he was squirming in his chair over it. Basically match up is terrible from the get go. And is nigh un-winnable when you add the infinite. Even if the stage interrupts the infinite or DK breaks free, you still have taken game changing amounts of damage. And it's not hard to regrab DK to start again.

I changed my example to Tornado vs. Donkey Kong.

Removing D3's infinite was not at D3's expense lmfao. He's still has an advantages in ALL of the match ups.

Erm... just because the MUs are still in his favour, doesn't mean that he is still fine and dandy. You still removed a part of his character. That's like saying removing MK's tornado isn't as his expense because MK is still good.

If you have a problem with one of the 6 characters and the infinite isn't banned, it takes all of 30 mins to become competent enough with the infinite to use it. All it takes is a competent smart player to be able to utilize something like that.

A good Donkey Kong, Samus, Bowser, etc... will not lose to a Dedede player who knows only basic skills and the infinite.

And btw what how are the 6 characters cept DK not viable? Maybe you guys don't get a lot of low tier players in australia but the character doesn't make the player good. Living here on the east coast NY/NJ a lot of characters are played that people normally don't think are viable. Recently a few Yoshi players have been playing really well, and look at him on the tier list. He also get butt ***** by MK off of FD. The arguement that a character can't be viable because of X matchup is false. I see it proven false all the time, where characters that theoretically should never win or place well do. This is because the play makes the character work not the other way around.

I'm basing "unviable" off of this: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=295425

 

[John12346]

I actually retracted this example and instead suggested Tornado vs. Donkey Kong.

Compare to Tornado Juggling (hitting the opponent with a second tornado before they hit the ground after the first one).
-Hard to do by accident.
-Actually make a fairly large difference in the effected matchup, bad character or not
-Fairly easy to ban

So, why exactly does Dedede deserve an infinite ban, yet, well, read my sig and take any of the one rules from there for Meta Knight. Both would increase the depth of the game, and at least some of those MK ones would be as easily enforceable. Why would you draw a line here?

I changed my example to Tornado vs. Donkey Kong.

Here comes a rephrasing of BPC's argument:
I accidentally nado more than once. What now? How many Nados are too many Nados?

In addition to that, I say:
You can accidentally Nado more than once if you're used to doing it from other matchups where it isn't banned.
You can't accidentally infinite someone.

What are you trying to say here? They are viable 78% of the time, and if Dedede's infinites are banned they are suddenly viable 80% of the time? Wow, what a difference! This ban is so warranted!

You never even stopped to consider that people might CP Dedede in response to someone using one of the 6, even if the user doesn't even have a groundbreaking Dedede? We've seen this scenario before, ala Cheese vs. Will, among MANY other matches like it.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I have a Wolf main in my state, and as far as I can see, a campy Meta Knight would be about 65:35 against Wolf. What can he do if MK sharks on Smashville? Or Dair camps?

And who would that Wolf player be? The only decent Wolf from Australia I've ever heard of is Tedeth and isn't he like at least 75% Wario now?

[match-up specific things would be off-topic. Ask on the Wolf boards for input]

 

[Ghostbone]

You never even stopped to consider that people might CP Dedede in response to someone using one of the 6, even if the user doesn't even have a groundbreaking Dedede? We've seen this scenario before, ala Cheese vs. Will, among MANY other matches like it.

Well you suck it up and accept that your character has a big flaw. And you pick up a secondary if need be. (Espy is picking up wolf for lucario since it's a terrible match-up for sonic...why shouldn't DK players need to pick up fox or falco against D3? We shouldn't cater the game to those who play bad characters)

I still don't see why people view being susceptible to infinites as somehow not a legitimate flaw, while something like Yoshi's shield is....

Maybe we should give Yoshi a free shield grab whenever somebody hits his shield? Would fix one of his major flaws and make him more viable.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Well you suck it up and accept that your character has a big flaw. And you pick up a secondary if need be. (Espy is picking up wolf for lucario since it's a terrible match-up for sonic...why shouldn't DK players need to pick up fox or falco against D3? We shouldn't cater the game to those who play bad characters)

I still don't see why people view being susceptible to infinites as somehow not a legitimate flaw, while something like Yoshi's shield is....

Maybe we should give Yoshi a free shield grab whenever somebody hits his shield? Would fix one of his major flaws and make him more viable.

I ****ING LOVE YOU!

TOTALLY HOMO!

*nods at this*

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

I ****ING LOVE YOU!

TOTALLY HOMO!

*nods at this*

Are you really a BRoomer? D:

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Here comes a rephrasing of BPC's argument:
I accidentally nado more than once. What now? How many Nados are too many Nados?

I'd like to see a decent player actually hit the opponent with Nado and then accidentally Nado again AND accidentally hit the opponent with it before they touch the ground.

You never even stopped to consider that people might CP Dedede in response to someone using one of the 6, even if the user doesn't even have a groundbreaking Dedede? We've seen this scenario before, ala Cheese vs. Will, among MANY other matches like it.

Read what Ghostbone said.

And who would that Wolf player be? The only decent Wolf from Australia I've ever heard of is Tedeth and isn't he like at least 75% Wario now?

[match-up specific things would be off-topic. Ask on the Wolf boards for input]

I'll ask the Wolf boards, it still seems like a pretty bad match-up to me though :/

 

[John12346]

I'd like to see a decent player actually hit the opponent with Nado and then accidentally Nado again AND accidentally hit the opponent with it before they touch the ground.

There's only one "accidentally" in this scenario. If you accidentally start up the Nado a second time, it's more than likely that you're already on top of your opponent's landing point.

In addition, it's, while unlikely, very possible to dodge consecutive Nados after getting hit by the first one. You can't dodge more Dedede grabs after you get caught by the first one.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

It would help match-ups about as much as the Dedede infinite limit does, for reasons I've already explained.

Really, I can't see anyone losing a match via accidentally Nado'ing again.

Let me try a different example so we don't have to deal with the "accidental" issue... What about restricting Meta Knight's counter-pick options?

 

[Ghostbone]

I'll ask the Wolf boards, it still seems like a pretty bad match-up to me though :/

If wolf gets the lead he actually has a good shot against MK.
I'm not sure what happens if he loses it but I can't imagine him being that bad at chasing MK.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Are you really a BRoomer? D:

To be honest, I catch myself off guard.


I will be honest though, i long got tired of arguing with people, it is tiring, it falls down to foolish flame wars and band wagoning.

I tend to have very little interest in such things.

 

[John12346]

It would help match-ups about as much as the Dedede infinite limit does, for reasons I've already explained.

Really, I can't see anyone losing a match via accidentally Nado'ing again.

No, it's far less likely you'll accidentally Dthrow after your opponent has reached 300%, which is well above kill range anyway, than it is you'll Nado someone's landing when it's a key aspect of MK's metagame and will also be commonly used in matchups where it doesn't need to be banned.

Let me try a different example so we don't have to deal with the "accidental" issue... What about restricting Meta Knight's counter-pick options?

While MK's CP may or may not stack up in broken-ness compared to Dedede's infinites(near auto win for either), there's a whole bunch of different criteria to decide on for such a rule to limit MK like that.

Besides, MK would be banned if either of your proposed rules was really necessary(and they honestly might be, but that's nowhere near the topic at hand right now).

You can't make a jump to banning Dedede off of banning his infinites.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

While MK's CP may or may not stack up in broken-ness compared to Dedede's infinites(near auto win for either), there's a whole bunch of different criteria to decide on for such a rule to limit MK like that.

Such as... what criteria?

Besides, MK would be banned if either of your proposed rules was really necessary(and they honestly might be, tbh, but...)

You can't make a jump to banning Dedede off of banning his infinites.

Dedede's infinite ban isn't necessary either.

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

To be honest, I catch myself off guard.


I will be honest though, i long got tired of arguing with people, it is tiring, it falls down to foolish flame wars and band wagoning.

I tend to have very little interest in such things.

I understand what you mean. There are always two sides.

Such as... what criteria?



Dedede's infinite ban isn't necessary either.

This has gone way off topic as it is i suppose. Ain't this supposed to be what makes something ban worthy?

Everything that has been banned in brawl has been done already. No use in arguing about D3's infinites and what isn't banned. Because obviously the back room has the exact opposite opinion you and ghostbone had (which is fine, everyone has their own opinion). But it's obvious things are going to stay banned and possible more fixes are on the way in the future. The Ban everything or ban nothing perspective has been long since not used in the making of the rule set for brawl.

Anyone else think this topic needs to be back on track or die? The people who has made the rule set have laid out the reasoning for why things have been done. There is no point in arguing a point that has been dead since 08-09.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Wait... Infinites are banned in the BBR rule-set? o_O

 

[John12346]

Dedede's infinite ban isn't necessary either.

Isn't that what we've been arguing about the whole time? -___ -;

You say it isn't, I say it is.

I get the feeling we're both going into circle arguments though, and we should probably take this neutral-ish apex of the debate to just call it quits and agree to disagree, like Methodic suggested.

 

[Ghostbone]

Wait... Infinites are banned in the BBR rule-set? o_O

Nope, they've always been against banning infinites, for the same reasons we're arguing.

Edit:
John so when a limit is necessary on MK we should ban him.
But when one is necessary on D3 we shouldn't?
Am I missing something here?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

That's what I thought, GB.

John, putting a CP limit on Meta Knight is equally as necessary as banning King Dedede's chain-grabs, perhaps even more so.

I'm trying to point out to you that we have no more reason to ban infinites than we have to "fix" a HUGE number of other tactics in the game. If someone can counter this point, I'm satisfied. Otherwise, I'm going to kill myself from John's inability to understand what I'm trying to say (no offense).

 

[John12346]

John so when a limit is necessary on MK we should ban him.
But when one is necessary on D3 we shouldn't?
Am I missing something here?

Well, an infinite is a technique, whilst Nado is a move.

IDC is banned, but MK isn't, simply because you can't IDC by accident.
If Nado needed to be banned, MK should be banned because it's more than possible to Nado by accident.
It similarly holds true for Dedede's infinites, you can't do those on purpose, so IF they needed to be banned, Dedede wouldn't have to be.

Edit: Grim, I understood everything you've said up to this point, and I understand WHY such rules are put into effect. From my end, it also didn't seem like you were acknowledging a lot of my points either, but you probably were. That's just because the act of simply conversing through internet makes things complicated sometimes. -___ -;

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I changed the example to a counter-pick limit, John >_> So I didn't have to put up with a silly, irrelevant argument about accidental nados that completely missed the point I was trying to make.

 

[Ghostbone]

IDC is banned, but MK isn't, simply because you can't IDC by accident.

I hate having to correct people on this all the time but you can indeed extend MK's dimensional cape on accident.
I've done it in a friendly once and I'm very lucky that wasn't tournament or I would've probably been DQ'd.

 

[John12346]

I changed the example to a counter-pick limit, John >_> So I didn't have to put up with a silly, irrelevant argument about accidental nados that completely missed the point I was trying to make.

I think you're still using a wrong analogy for your case, but I still get the point you're trying to make.

I simply thought that Dedede's infinites were on a different level from other matchup breaking techniques, that's all. You believe they're on the same level, and honestly, I don't have any ammo remaining to knock that point down.

The main reason I kept going on was 'cause you kept using really cruddy analogies left and right, and I incorrectly assumed that meant I was actually getting somewhere, that's all. I know there's SOME kind of analogy you could use right now to prove your point right, but the one you're using right now sounds really fishy and might not be the right one.

I hate having to correct people on this all the time but you can indeed extend MK's dimensional cape on accident.

Oh, alright, then let's just leave it at... I dunno, let's just say there was some technique Snake had that required some bullcrap complicated input procedure and it's effect caused the game to freeze. We could similarly ban that technique without banning Snake, like we could ban infinites without banning Dedede.

But like I said, this is only IF infinites needed to be banned.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Infinites would only necessitate a ban in the event they caused overcentralization.

i.e DDD's infinite not only affecting all characters, but being shown as to have a negative impact upon the metagame to necessitate a ban.


Naturally the reason for such an extreme limit is that whenever you ban anything, it sets the bar as to what is, and what is not ban worthy.
It is why the LGL and Infinite bans are often considered as poor rules.
Not only does banning surgically change the MU's, but is also sets the status quo as to what is ban worthy.

@In regards to the Snake example, you might as well point at the Ice climbers. You need to keep in mind that if it is capable of being done consistently, you should consider it done.

As for your Snake example, it is already banned, or it would be primarily since game breaking glitches result in a DQ for the player who performed it.
That is presuming it is entirely being done by the Snake player willingly.

On the other hand, the IDC can be done by accident at any time, and unfortunately, many players miss it during the action and spectators as well. It is why it is banned, ther eis no way to see if the player did it on purpose or by accident.

 

[Hive]

I said it before but I'll bring it up again. We ban things when we feel the benefit of banning a tactic exceeds the alternative of not banning it all factors considered. This is the only criteria worth considering really imo, this is the framework we use for all decision processes throughout our lives. We don't pay our bills or buy groceries or defer to some other decision criteria because there is something forcing us to do it at that point. We do those things because we prefer that decision over the alternative of not paying bills/buying food. Pleasure and pain are the ultimate motivational principles in our lives. Not overcentralization, not necessity, and so I do not believe in a criteria that allows results we know are worse than the alternative. I will say I do not believe anything banned in a game will ever qualify as an objective necessity, there is nothing in the scientific sense that makes us do anything of this sort, and all of our values we place on certain ideas, like protecting competition, etc... are subjective. We should keep in mind though that we are crafting it around a competitive community, so we assume certain things about the community we are catering to, like the idea is that competition=fun, but basically we ban things because we prefer them over alternatives. This has held true in all of our ruleset decisions so far I believe, where others have not.

When it comes down to ddds infinites they destroy competition in these matchups, a ban can be easily implemented in a feasible way (and already has in places), the community can and has agreed to such changes in their game, and promotes diversity and attendance of these characters. There really is not costs competition wise to matchups, and this is something none of the tactics people are bringing up are doing. None of them can be generally accepted, implemented and benefit the game without major costs in the same way. And you can argue that I'm wrong and there is long term costs, etc... that's completely fine. but really if we agree that it is overall bad for gameplay keeping it in, why keep it in? Why should the focus be on trying to prove x sucks too and isn't banned so we should keep y in too?

 

[Ghostbone]

When it comes down to ddds infinites they destroy competition in these matchups, a ban can be easily implemented in a feasible way (and already has in places), the community can and has agreed to such changes in their game, and promotes diversity and attendance of these characters.

How exactly do they destroy competition?

There really is not costs competition wise to matchups, and this is something none of the tactics people are bringing up are doing.

How so?

None of them can be generally accepted, implemented and benefit the game without major costs in the same way. And you can argue that I'm wrong and there is long term costs, etc... that's completely fine. but really if we agree that it is overall bad for gameplay keeping it in, why keep it in? Why should the focus be on trying to prove x sucks too and isn't banned so we should keep y in too?

Not everyone's agreed, because we don't feel the ban on infinites is warranted.
Especially when you're leaving IC's infinite in when they beat some characters harder than D3 does with his infinite.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I love how your argument is completely defeated by the simple sentence: "Why not put a CP limit on Meta Knight, then?", Hive, and that you put nothing in your post to even slightly counter it, despite the fact I've been using it for the last few pages.

 

[John12346]

Actually, I am a bit curious about that. What IS the official reason for not putting a CP limit on MK, anyway?

Not gonna argue for one; just wondering.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Actually, I am a bit curious about that. What IS the official reason for not putting a CP limit on MK, anyway?

Not gonna argue for one; just wondering.

Isn't it obvious?

MK needs a ledge limit so he can remain legal.

Too harsh?

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

Isn't it obvious?

MK needs a ledge limit so he can remain legal.

Too harsh?

You should just say that you must pick MK first round in order to play him at all in the set .

This way the metagame isn't just, pick a character...lose...CP with metaknight...

Because obviously the answer to every character's bad matchup is obviously MK. The only limiting factor on that is MK dittos, because no one is going to CP MK against a MK main that plays MK better in MK dittos. Cept when you CP MK vs a scrub MK cus you lost for some reason LOL.

 

[Hive]

I love how your argument is completely defeated by the simple sentence: "Why not put a CP limit on Meta Knight, then?", Hive, and that you put nothing in your post to even slightly counter it, despite the fact I've been using it for the last few pages.

how is it defeated in any way by those sentences? If they are taken as anything but asking for clarification on what I'm saying than it would seem that you are relying awfully hard on strawmans. And I was addressing most tactics like tornado or blizzards being near the same situation as ddds infinites not mks cp limit. And me not addressing every little argument that comes up is doesn't mean its countered.

MKs cp limit- i honestly don't care what you do with mk, i personally believe he's broken and should be banned but I realize its a complex issue at this point and I can see how people can arrive at both sides of the issue. Why not put a cp limit on mk? Idk why not? It would basically need its own thread. It has nothing to do with ddds infinite imo, that's like saying idc is banned for making matchups uneven so infinites should be too, they are completely different aspects to look at, and one being one thing doesn't change the effects of the other. We need to stop trying to clump tactics together too much like this. I can just as easily clump idc with a bunch of unbanned tactics too. Using many of the same arguments.

Even if you did find a tactic that you all agreed that it could easily be removed, improve gameplay and be accepted by the community to create a net benefit to the scene by its removal over alternatives, I would really hope that that analysis would motivate you guys to remove that tactic instead of using it to justify having other tactics that are bad too because its not currently restricted.

@Ghostbone- as for how ddds infinite destroys competition? I thought it was obvious- in basically every single matchup it is in it creates an unreasonably advantaged matchup for ddd that ruins skill comparisons between equally skilled players. Is this really being argued without being intellectually dishonest?
I would say that harms competition as skill is only made less of a determinant for success. Even if you believe everyone should have pocket top tier counterpick then it doesn't suddenly make having them in competitive either, it just means its less likely to come up.

Also I'm not leaving ICs infintes out in the way that you are implying. Just because I'm not talking about them doesn't mean that I have a position they shouldn't be limited. I'm just not talking about them because its a more complex issue. because ics infinites have benefits in matchups as well as costs (in that they can make matchups more or less even) and are way harder to effectively implement because of the diversity of ways ics can cg and community feelings. That, again, has no bearing on whether or not ddds infinites do or don't have a negative effect on gameplay and should be banned.

In fact, in a large degree of tournaments DDDs infinites are already banned, by themselves (usually with a cg limit) and improves the matchups between characters and doesn't cause any huge issues. This should have blown a giant hole in the idea that we can't just ban it by itself, because it already is implemented in this way effectively.

It improves morale going into a tourney too- ddds generally don't mind having it (and tbh any real competitive ddd will like having it out because it means its more of a test of skill. I usto believe that it was expected that top tier characters in games with huge advantages could be expected to be defensive of their advantage no matter what. And then I played eq2 and I played an illusionist for awhile when crowd control was broken and I was dying to get it toned down so that it was a better challenge and it proved more to myself, and not every illy could just do the things I was doing. I usto look at the other illys saying it should be broken or they should have an advantage against x class, or people should have to attack them with 3+ people and think to myself "what scrubs." I've really lost respect for people who cling to having a giant advantage over an even matchup in games because it makes it harder (when it could be easily toned down without many costs to skill comparisons), because I've experienced the other side. If you fear uncomfortable situations that test what you are capable of you don't belong in a competitive scene, you just want easymode pride at beating people.
On the other hand, the character mains effected feel a lot more confident that they can do reasonably well (or at least better) in tournament based on their skill level, and feel less discouraged with the scene when they lose the match. How do I know this? because I mained samus for a long time in tourneys and have talked to other high level samus mains and chars who get hit by infinites and some of the ddds (who usually feel bad for using it btw, but they feel if its not limited they should use w/e it takes to win). So I know this is how it makes matchups, I know it makes the matchups really really lame too because ddd is just trying to grab the whole match and you have to spam and ledge spam the whole match tryign to avoid it. If the cg were toned down it would be immensely more rewarding gameplay.


Edit: So I'll leave it at that, agree with me or not, I think I'm done on this topic. So go ahead and blast it or w/e or pretend that some little thing somehow counters all this or ignore me going over its benefits/costs like I know swf will do. I don't mind, Ill be playing rift beta and having a blast <3<3 no matter what you agree on. But basically having this in really really sucked in tourney, and that's biased I guess because I played samus, but I think it has its reasons too.

Edit2: maybe smash isn't for me, it seems like everyone just wants this to be a glorified rock/paper/scissors where the main interplay is if you have a massive advantage or disadvantage against your opponent by picking the right character.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Oh wow, that post was brimming with stupidity.

I'm actually not even going to bother responding to it unless someone gives me an intelligent reason to do so.