Banning Dedede's infinite? FIRST POST UPDATED WITH VIDEO.

[metaXzero]

Because someone brought up using the new hitstun hack.


But nothing's stopping it from being about it. Yesterday tripping, today hitstun, tomorrow, tweaking individual characters. Whatever happened to "We're only going to hack out Tripping"?

That tripping hack didn't make a new game from Brawl. Though again, Brawl+ isn't going to tweak characters. To balance the ENTIRE game is a pipe dream. Brawl+ is just adding things for the sake of depth.

 

[Yuna]

Blind moron statement. Learn to read. When did I say Brawl was special? NEVER. I said it was different.

Do you know the difference between "different" and "special"?

MNaybe you should go back to 5th grade.

Brawl is different than other fighting games. But in order for it warrant us to treat it unlike any fighting game that came before it, it'd have to be special. So either you thought it was "special" or you thought "different" was enough for no precedences to apply to Brawl. And in that case, then you're just weird (where "weird" is an euphemism).

This from the man who read "Fair" as "Fsmash".

Tell me one reason, why we shouldn't hack! Beside the fact that we don't even need to do so?

The burden of evidence lies on you. Tell us one good reason for why we should hack.

That tripping hack didn't make a new game from Brawl. Though again, Brawl+ isn't going to tweak characters. To balance the ENTIRE game is a pipe dream. Brawl+ is just adding things for the sake of depth.

But then who will decide that? When will they say "Enough is enough" and stop adding things? What constitutes an addition instead of a revision?

 

[Lord Knight]

Dedede infinite shouldn't be banned.

 

[chic]

Brawl+?

good luck with that

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Brawl is different than other fighting games. But in order for it warrant us to treat it unlike any fighting game that came before it, it'd have to be special.

That's what you say.

Your opinion means how much?

So either you thought it was "special" or you thought "different" was enough for no precedences to apply to Brawl. And in that case, then you're just weird (where "weird" is an euphemism).

Or it just means what I said and you just fail to see that nobody actually cares about you´re opinions

The burden of evidence lies on you. Tell us one good reason for why we should hack.

Learn2read. I never said you should hack. On the contrary.

 

[metaXzero]

But then who will decide that? When will they say "Enough is enough" and stop adding things? What constitutes an addition instead of a revision?

We're not adding every little code made to what will be the standard Brawl+ ruleset lol. What are added are what are considered good for a tournament enviroment. Changing every character for "balance" is again, not a goal. (That Smash Lab on the other hand.....)

 

[Yuna]

We're not adding every little code made to what will be the standard Brawl+ ruleset lol. What are added are what are considered good for a tournament enviroment. Changing every character for "balance" is again, not a goal. (That Smash Lab on the other hand.....)

I'm not saying that you are. I'm asking: Who decides what to add and what thresholds exist for what to add?

 

[Cirno]

What are added are what are considered good for a tournament enviroment.

Considered by who though?

Why are they more qualified for the position of deciding what is good for a tournament environment more so than Gheb? Or Ankoku? Or Myself?


I personally don't like the melee hitstun code.Or the s-canceling.
And considering the speed of Brawl having melee's air dodge is a no no for me as well.

 

[MuBa]

Considered by who though?

Why are they more qualified for the position of deciding what is good for a tournament environment more so than Gheb? Or Ankoku? Or Myself?


I personally don't like the melee hitstun code.Or the s-canceling.
And considering the speed of Brawl having melee's air dodge is a no no for me as well.

The whole point of Brawl+ is to make a more fluid game. Right now we're testing what works and what doesn't and eventually we'll come to a consensus (through a debate) what will be a standard since opinions and reasoning may be different from one another (although I can see this being a very difficult task).

(Also we're getting more codes on the way >_>)

 

[Delvro]

Best case scenario would be to take the plurality opinion of all tournament goers and make those changes.

But since that's nearly impossible, we do the next best thing: General consensus (plurality opinion) of interested smashboards users. Haha...

 

[metaXzero]

I'm not saying that you are. I'm asking: Who decides what to add and what thresholds exist for what to add?

Considered by who though?

Why are they more qualified for the position of deciding what is good for a tournament environment more so than Gheb? Or Ankoku? Or Myself?


I personally don't like the melee hitstun code.Or the s-canceling.
And considering the speed of Brawl having melee's air dodge is a no no for me as well.

We simply compare ideal codesets right now. And if those people want put in their 2 cents, they can enter the discussion. Nothing is stopping them...

Are you saying you don't like the addition of hitstun AT ALL?

The L-cancel (Auto or Manual) codes may be used instead of S.
MAD (Melee Airdodge) and BAD (Brawl's) are still heavily debated (though a Dash Dance code may move most in favor of BAD).

EDIT: What MuBa said...

 

[Yuna]

We simply compare ideal codesets right now. And if those people want put in their 2 cents, they can enter the discussion. Nothing is stopping them...

Are you saying you don't like the addition of hitstun AT ALL?

I'm against hacking Brawl at all. We'll be reshaping it to our liking, or rather, the liking of those in charge/the majority. If Brawl needs hacking to be played, then we shouldn't play it at all and go back to Melee (notice how most of these changes people want makes Brawl more like Melee) because if we insist on playing Brawl while trying to make it more like Melee we're only doing it for the characters in Brawl (fanboyism) instead of the game itself.

If the game doesn't need hacking, then we shouldn't hack it.

 

[metaXzero]

I'm against hacking Brawl at all. We'll be reshaping it to our liking, or rather, the liking of those in charge/the majority. If Brawl needs hacking to be played, then we shouldn't play it at all and go back to Melee (notice how most of these changes people want makes Brawl more like Melee) because if we insist on playing Brawl while trying to make it more like Melee we're only doing it for the characters in Brawl (fanboyism) instead of the game itself.

If the game doesn't need hacking, then we shouldn't hack it.

The hitstun part was for Cirno. Sorry.

To the rest of that post; people will do as they please.

 

[MuBa]

I'm against hacking Brawl at all. We'll be reshaping it to our liking, or rather, the liking of those in charge/the majority. If Brawl needs hacking to be played, then we shouldn't play it at all and go back to Melee (notice how most of these changes people want makes Brawl more like Melee) because if we insist on playing Brawl while trying to make it more like Melee we're only doing it for the characters in Brawl (fanboyism) instead of the game itself.

If the game doesn't need hacking, then we shouldn't hack it.

Who are you to say that the game needs hacking or not?

If the people liked a Hacked version of Brawl, they'll play it, if they don't, then they won't. It doesn't hurt to try this game (at LEAST the finalized version) out rather than just negating it saying "That's sad if the game needs to be HACKED to get better."

Essentially all we're doing is using a program which works almost exactly like an Action Replay does and manipulating the hexadecimal variables to what feels like a "fluid" game. If we have something like an official Nintendo licensed Action Replay program then we don't even need the Ocarina/Gecko OS program in the HomeBrew Channel and make it that much easier to use.

 

[Yuna]

The hitstun part was for Cirno. Sorry.

To the rest of that post; people will do as they please.

Of course, Free Will and all that. People can do as they please. I can still do as I please, air my disagreement with said people.

 

[Yuna]

Who are you to say that the game needs hacking or not?

Read more than 1 post before replying to someone and assume you know everything there is to know about their argument in this one thread in which they've invested, oh, 10+ posts.

The addendum to that sentence would be "in order to be played Competitively".

If the people liked a Hacked version of Brawl, they'll play it, if they don't, then they won't. It doesn't hurt to try this game (at LEAST the finalized version) out rather than just negating it saying "That's sad if the game needs to be HACKED to get better."

People can do whatever they want. It's a free world. I can disagree with what they're doing and their reasons for doing it. It still still a free world.

Essentially all we're doing is using a program which works almost exactly like an Action Replay does and manipulating the hexadecimal variables to what feels like a "fluid" game. If we have something like an official Nintendo licensed Action Replay program then we don't even need the Ocarina/Gecko OS program in the HomeBrew Channel and make it that much easier to use.

And the question would be:
Why?

Because you have to in order to make the game playable Competitively? Then why are we even playing Brawl and not abandoning it for Melee, especially before the Gecko-thing became available?

If you don't have to do it, why? Because you want to change the game more to your liking? For the lulz?

 

[Cirno]

Are you saying you don't like the addition of hitstun AT ALL?

Brawl has hitstun. Just low, or should I say proportional hitstun. It's become similar to RL boxing of a boxing game. Both I believe many would agree are competitive activities.

If you get jabbed, you should not be paralyzed to the point the opponent can land a much slower attack on you.(lol I know Samus mains must hate it in Dittos though)

If you get hit with an attack of great force that send you moving in a direction it should take time to recover your momentum.

I've been hit before. Hard. At most I was disorientated. But never after taking a hit was I paralyzed and forced into a helpless state only to be comboed.

I like the ability to fight back after recovering from knockback. And I like connecting strings through a usage of out thinking my opponent knowing that every hit was one where he could have escaped, but was unable to due to me being the better player.


I love. Not Loved. Love melee. But that is not the game I want to play when I put Brawl into my Wii.

tl;dr: I don't like the hack for hitstun, no.

The whole point of Brawl+ is to make a more fluid game. Right now we're testing what works and what doesn't and eventually we'll come to a consensus (through a debate) what will be a standard since opinions and reasoning may be different from one another (although I can see this being a very difficult task).

(Also we're getting more codes on the way >_>)

My question isn't what you guys are doing though. It's why do you guys get to decide instead of so and so.

This person may feel it's fluid enough while another may feel it needs parries to be more fluid. In the quest to make it a better gaming experience why are only certain ideas implemented when others do not agree would choose something different?

I personally don't want Brawl+ to be a standard at tournies, but I like knowing I can play it.

I can't wait to try out the music hack though.

 

[metaXzero]

Cirno: As I said, if those who disagree with what is being used for Brawl+ want to add their 2 cents, they are welcome.

Though again, it will more then likely be settled with a consensus.

 

[Yuna]

Cirno: As I said, if those who disagree with what is being used for Brawl+ want to add their 2 cents, they are welcome.

But then we have the following problem:
The majority isn't always right.

If 1.000 people want X, should Brawl+ add X? Or will the people behind Brawl+ go "No, you're wrong!"? Won't it then still just be about the people in power deciding what does and does not go? Democracy is good. But the people cannot be given absolute power because they're just too stupid for it.

But without formal power, the public cannot change the direction of Brawl+, they can only argue their case before the Brawl+ crowd and hope they agree. If the Brawl+ crowd disagrees, tough luck.

The crux is that the power is still all with the Brawl+ crowd. Non-Brawl+:ers can enter the discussion, but the power will most likely remain with the Brawl+ people.

 

[Drecker]

If Brawl here hacked, it would be Melee with better graphics.

 

[Delvro]

And more characters!

 

[metaXzero]

If Brawl here hacked, it would be Melee with better graphics.

Brawl is too floaty to ever be Melee...

 

[Cirno]

If Brawl here hacked, it would be Melee with better graphics.

Roy's our boy.

):

 

[BentoBox]

Before Online patches allows for the makers to, you know, online patch the game instead of releasing actual revisions which requires money and more work than patches. But if you want to be picky, I'll allow those.

Aside from T5, I don't know of any game that actually got patched via online... And Nintendo sure as hell is not taking advantage of it.

Tekken 5 did not get a small revision. It received a new version altogether. However, out of all that, Tekken 5: DR is pretty much the closest thing you can get to a "revision". Tekken 6? It hasn't even been released for the console yet. Are you talking about arcade revisions, also knowns as changes to beta versions?

Tekken 6: Bloodline Rebellion

SSF2T didn't receive an update or a revision, it received a remake... 10+ games after the original game was released!

It's not a remake. Graphics overhaul aside, all they did was re-balance the roster (ie. blanka's roll is now a lot safer) and simplify some inputs. If that doesn't qualify as a revision, I don't know what does. The time it took for the game to come out after its original iteration is also irrelevant; games being built as competitive games are not dismissed by their makers the moment they're out on the shelves. Unless its Nintendo.

The Guilty Gear series does not receive revisions. It receives sequels. Each new game has been completely revamped in many aspects. New mechanics, rebalancing, changes in how moves work. Each GG is comparable each new Soul Calibur when you look at how much the games have changed. Also, there's at least a year or two inbetween each new released version.

Even the music gets changed around, for crying out loud! It's not like NTSC Melee and PAL Melee, it's like Melee and Brawl, with the main difference being that each new version still uses the same graphics. However, this changed in "Accent Core", when each sprite was redrawn.

A revision to me, mostly touches upon the intent of the designer when (re)designing a game. Even if some rebalancing is done, even if moves do not behave the same way, the question you should be asking yourself is whether those changes were added with the intent on designing a totally new game or to simply improve a previous iteration? A revision to me, encompasses much broader aspects than minute touches.

Blind fanboy statement. Ouh, Brawl is so special. It works differently from other games, thus nothing applies to it at all! Why play the game we buy when we can just hack it into the game we really want? I mean, since it's Brawl, it's OK, right?

Why stop at no tripping and no chaingrabs? Let's rebalance the entire game!

You don't seem to realize that the Brawl we are playing now is not necessarily the one that was meant to be played by its designers. Who's to say Sakurai didn't want us to play All-brawl? Why 3 stocks? Why 7~8minutes? Why ban stages? (So what if DDD can CG across eldin, it simply means that 75% of the roster wasn't meant to be played competitively! Pick someone who doesn't get CGd and voila! amirite yuna? why ban moses, wall infinites are part of the game!) Why ban items? These are all modifications WE have imposed upon ourselves, and the game, for the sake of competition. So it is quite hypocritical for you to come here and boast that if a game needs any more tweaking per say to be made competitive, then it shouldn't be played. Fact is, we are given options as no other fighter game could ever wish to have, and they are being taken advantage of, because we simply can. So really, how is this situation any different? Whether it be by implementing hacks (which is just another option in our set of tools to modify the game and our standards to the majority's liking, not that I particularly care much about brawl+) or the ban of aspects of the game taking away from the general enjoyment of the game and its overall competitiveness, our history has shown that we've done plenty of things in the past to suit ourselves.

Really, we're not any more scrubs now for discussing this than we were 5 years ago.

So yes indeed, you can't just staple Sirlin's ideals over ours and hope to remain coherent.

 

[Yuna]

Aside from T5, I don't know of any game that actually got patched via online... And Nintendo sure as hell is not taking advantage of it.

Soul Calibur IV gets patched online.

T5, however, does not get patched online. T5:DR is a downloable game for the PS3. You do not need T5 to play it. You cannot play DR in conjunction with T5. The only way to play DR is either through the arcade cabinet or by downloading it on PS3.

So is SSFT2, BTW (this one for the Xbox).

Tekken 6: Bloodline Rebellion

Which has still not been released for the console. It just a new iteration of T6 for the arcade. It's like the GG-series. Instead of using an entirely new engine, they reuse the same engine but tweak tons of things. But it's not some minor revision where they just rebalance a few moves and stuff, they're changing a whole bunch of things.

It's not a remake. Graphics overhaul aside, all they did was re-balance the roster (ie. blanka's roll is now a lot safer) and simplify some inputs. If that doesn't qualify as a revision, I don't know what does.

Maybe you should take this up with Sirlin. They changed quite a bit. Minor things but quite a bit. It was also quite the remake. I'm pretty sure Chun-Li's Spinning Bird Kick never worked that way before.

I'm pretty sure they use the term "Remake" for it officially, as well.

The time it took for the game to come out after its original iteration is also irrelevant; games being built as competitive games are not dismissed by their makers the moment they're out on the shelves. Unless its Nintendo.

It's relevant for the discussion at hand; companies rebalancing their games for the fanbase. SSFT2 was not rebalanced for the fans. It was remade into HD and the rebalancing was a bonus. They didn't randomly decide to rebalance it and then added HD as an after-thought.

A revision to me, mostly touches upon the intent of the designer when (re)designing a game. Even if some rebalancing is done, even if moves do not behave the same way, the question you should be asking yourself is whether those changes were added with the intent on designing a totally new game or to simply improve a previous iteration? A revision to me, encompasses much broader aspects than minute touches.

The question remains: How many games been revised in this way except when it comes to NTSC -> PAL changes? Very, very few except those patched online.

It is not, at all, a common practice.

The GG-series does not apply because every new game in the series is just that, a new game. They're that different.

You don't seem to realize that the Brawl we are playing now is not necessarily the one that was meant to be played by its designers.

Creator intent is irrelevant. However, we're still playing the game the way it was programmed. We're not reprogramming it.

These are all modifications WE have imposed upon ourselves, and the game, for the sake of competition.

They are not modifications. They are rules are regulations. It's one thing to say "We cannot play on Mario Circuit" because of this and that. It's a whole other thing altogether to hack Mario Circuit so we can play on it (if it ever comes down to that).

We're not changing the coding of the game by simply removing certain things from legal Competitive play.

So it is quite hypocritical for you to come here and boast that if a game needs any more tweaking per say to be made competitive, then it shouldn't be played. Fact is, we are given options as no other fighter game could ever wish to have, and they are being taken advantage of, because we simply can. So really, how is this situation any different? Whether it be by implementing hacks (which is just another option in our set of tools to modify the game and our standards to the majority's liking, not that I particularly care much about brawl+) or the ban of aspects of the game taking away from the general enjoyment of the game and its overall competitiveness, our history has shown that we've done plenty of things in the past to suit ourselves.

Because the two are different things.

Really, we're not any more scrubs now for discussing this than we were 5 years ago.

I'm sorry, I was not aware of the Smash community at large seriously contemplating hacking Melee to fit our liking 5 years ago. Evidence or I'm calling revisionist history.

So yes indeed, you can't just staple Sirlin's ideals over ours and hope to remain coherent.

I'd like a quote where I even mentioned Sirlin in this thread, please.

Better yet, one where I even used the word "Scrub".

Are you just making up our current debate in your head now? Because I can truthfully say I have never once, in this thread, brought up either Sirlin or any definition of the word "Scrub".

So you're either delusional or a liar. Either way, it's despicable.

 

[BentoBox]

They are not modifications. They are rules are regulations. It's one thing to say "We cannot play on Mario Circuit" because of this and that. It's a whole other thing altogether to hack Mario Circuit so we can play on it (if it ever comes down to that).

We're not changing the coding of the game by simply removing certain things from legal Competitive play.

However, both solutions, while one may be a tad more drastic, aren't affecting the game negatively. Aside from the walk-offs being a problem, if hacking the cars out of the map made it viable for competitive play, then why not? Putting the hacking schemes aside and going back to the main discussion, why couldn't the ban of D3's infinite be enforced as just any other rule? What makes it different from banning a stage?

Because the two are different things.

In what respect, other than the fact that the ban of a technique wasn't an option programmed into the game? (Which I do not believe is relevant)

I'm sorry, I was not aware of the Smash community at large seriously contemplating hacking Melee to fit our liking 5 years ago. Evidence or I'm calling revisionist history.

I'm referring to the rules the community has set.

I'd like a quote where I even mentioned Sirlin in this thread, please.

Better yet, one where I even used the word "Scrub".

Are you just making up our current debate in your head now? Because I can truthfully say I have never once, in this thread, brought up either Sirlin or any definition of the word "Scrub".

So you're either delusional or a liar. Either way, it's despicable.

I do not have to openly state that I am for one party if my arguments alone are indicative enough. You don't have to mention Sirlin for anyone reading this to realize that you frowning upon the community for modifying something that is considered as unfair falls right under sirlin's definition of a scrub.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Yuna: When I said I disagree with the way you argue (not a direct quote), but didn't add any explanation, it was not because I disagreed with any of your points. I just disagree with your approach to arguements, and anything I say beyond that you will undoubtedly refute with your superior rhetorical skills.

You do realize technically, any TO can hold any type of tournament; Brawl+, items on, stamina, or SSE intense time trial, right? Scrubiness has nothing to do with it.

 

[CO18]

Yuna: When I said I disagree with the way you argue (not a direct quote), but didn't add any explanation, it was not because I disagreed with any of your points. I just disagree with your approach to arguements, and anything I say beyond that you will undoubtedly refute with your superior rhetorical skills.

You do realize technically, any TO can hold any type of tournament; Brawl+, items on, stamina, or SSE intense time trial, right? Scrubiness has nothing to do with it.

LMFAOOO SSE Intense Time Trial. Anyway This ish needs to be banned. I had to play a Mario main in a tourney saturday and he used Pit ONLY because he was afraid I was going to infinite him. I told him I wouldnt since I dont do this gay mess then he went back to Mario and put up a good fight.

 

[Yuna]

However, both solutions, while one may be a tad more drastic, aren't affecting the game negatively. Aside from the walk-offs being a problem, if hacking the cars out of the map made it viable for competitive play, then why not?

Slippery slope, hacking the game to create what we want, not what we have + rules, who decides what to do, take your pick.

Putting the hacking schemes aside and going back to the main discussion, why couldn't the ban of D3's infinite be enforced as just any other rule? What makes it different from banning a stage?.

I have never once argued that banning D3's infinites is in any way akin to hacking. The hacking argument rose from a few other posts in this thread, at which point I stopped arguing about D3's infinites.

I have never argued the two things in conjunction with each other. Please go back and re-read my posts if you believe this to be true.

In what respect, other than the fact that the ban of a technique wasn't an option programmed into the game? (Which I do not believe is relevant)

I would never argue this. Banning the infinites would not be wrong perse. The reasoning for banning it could be.

I do not have to openly state that I am for one party if my arguments alone are indicative enough. You don't have to mention Sirlin for anyone reading this to realize that you frowning upon the community for modifying something that is considered as unfair falls right under sirlin's definition of a scrub.

Yes, I'm sure Sirlin was the first person to dislike people for calling for bans on things they considered unfair. I'm sure Sirlin views anyone who wants ban anything Scrubs. Obviously, anyone who dislike this must do it because they've read Sirlin!

It can't be that I have a mind of my own and opinions of my own at all! I disagree with Sirlin on many things. For one thing, Sirlin seems to also use the word "Scrub" to define newbies. I disagree with this.

People can call for a ban on things for being unfair without being Scrubs. But that is only if they're actually unfair enough to warrant a ban. This is what I argued:
Why are people arguing about this again? So there are 4 characters who do really badly against D3. Stop playing as them or suck it up. We do not ban things for making certain characters unaplayble. We ban them if they make the game at large unplaayble. Certain characters are just at a large disadvantage.This is the nature of Competitive fighting games.

I didn't call any of them "Scrub". I didn't even say I look down on them. I just said that it's not something that warrants banning. Stop "interpreting" my posts.

You do realize technically, any TO can hold any type of tournament; Brawl+, items on, stamina, or SSE intense time trial, right? Scrubiness has nothing to do with it.

When have I ever said anything that indicated otherwise?

And again, when did I ever bring Scrubbiness up in this thread?

This is why people need to stop making **** up. Someone claims someone said something. Other people automatically assume they did.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

When have I ever said anything that indicated otherwise?

And again, when did I ever bring Scrubbiness up in this thread?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentoBox
Really, we're not any more scrubs now for discussing this than we were 5 years ago.


Yuna's response:
I'm sorry, I was not aware of the Smash community at large seriously contemplating hacking Melee to fit our liking 5 years ago. Evidence or I'm calling revisionist history.

 

[Yuna]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentoBox
Really, we're not any more scrubs now for discussing this than we were 5 years ago.


Yuna's response:
I'm sorry, I was not aware of the Smash community at large seriously contemplating hacking Melee to fit our liking 5 years ago. Evidence or I'm calling revisionist history.

BentoBox used the word "Scrub". In the same sentence, he claimed "we" discussed hacking the game 5 years ago.

In my response, the only thing I addressed was the claim that we were contemplating hacking Melee (that or he meant banning chaingrabs or infinites of some kind). I didn't even touch upon the word "Scrub".

Take my words at face value. What I say is what you get. Do not assume too much. Don't "interpret".

 

[The Halloween Captain]

BentoBox used the word "Scrub". In the same sentence, he claimed "we" discussed hacking the game 5 years ago.

In my response, the only thing I addressed was the claim that we were contemplating hacking Melee (that or he meant banning chaingrabs or infinites of some kind). I didn't even touch upon the word "Scrub".

Take my words at face value. What I say is what you get. Do not assume too much. Don't "interpret".

Actually, I guessed wrong. I thought you were referring to his scrub comment, not his "hacking" comment.

Reguardless, my point was more general, and went to both of you; technically scrubiness has no place in a discussion of what is and isn't tournament legal, the only thing that matters is the whims of the TO on the day of the tournament. Anyone can discuss anything about banning, Brawl+, or even go so far as to hack up a "boss character" tournament, but it really depends on the whims of the TOs on any given day.

 

[BentoBox]

Slippery slope, hacking the game to create what we want, not what we have + rules, who decides what to do, take your pick.

We have banned things because of lack of foresight from the developers. If we are given the tools to correct these mistakes, I don't see where the problem lies. Molding the rules around what we are given isn't any more "right" than modifying aspects of the game to fit in these rules. As of now, Pictochat doesn't take part in the Brawl that we all play. But it could, if there were no random harmful occurrences.

I have never once argued that banning D3's infinites is in any way akin to hacking. The hacking argument rose from a few other posts in this thread, at which point I stopped arguing about D3's infinites.

I have never argued the two things in conjunction with each other. Please go back and re-read my posts if you believe this to be true.

I don't even know where this hacking talk began, I attempted to steer the conversation back to its original purpose.

Yes, I'm sure Sirlin was the first person to dislike people for calling for bans on things they considered unfair. I'm sure Sirlin views anyone who wants ban anything Scrubs. Obviously, anyone who dislike this must do it because they've read Sirlin!

It can't be that I have a mind of my own and opinions of my own at all! I disagree with Sirlin on many things. For one thing, Sirlin seems to also use the word "Scrub" to define newbies. I disagree with this.

People can call for a ban on things for being unfair without being Scrubs. But that is only if they're actually unfair enough to warrant a ban. This is what I argued:
Why are people arguing about this again? So there are 4 characters who do really badly against D3. Stop playing as them or suck it up. We do not ban things for making certain characters unaplayble. We ban them if they make the game at large unplaayble. Certain characters are just at a large disadvantage.This is the nature of Competitive fighting games.

I didn't call any of them "Scrub". I didn't even say I look down on them. I just said that it's not something that warrants banning. Stop "interpreting" my posts.

I'll skip the wall-of-text about you being butthurt over the labeling of your method of approach. You'll get over it.

These characters don't just do badly against D3, they get 100:0'd because of an oversight by the developers. FACT. Just like we banned Eldin because D3 can CG 75% of the cast across the stage. FACT. We banned a map because of one technique, and here it is again, under a different form, making it entirely stage independent. Considering what we have done in the past, why shouldn't we approach this issue from the same angle and deal with it accordingly? Because this time around it only affects 4 characters and not 25? How is this reasonable?

BentoBox used the word "Scrub". In the same sentence, he claimed "we" discussed hacking the game 5 years ago.

Again, I never said anywhere that we discussed hacking for melee. I was refering to the fact that back then, we subjectively applied rules and created a mold that would be fit for competitive play. This thread was made with the exact same intent in mind.

 

[Yuna]

Actually, I guessed wrong. I thought you were referring to his scrub comment, not his "hacking" comment.

How in the world would you think this when I explicitly referred to hacking/banning?!

 

[Yuna]

Reguardless, my point was more general, and went to both of you; technically scrubiness has no place in a discussion of what is and isn't tournament legal, the only thing that matters is the whims of the TO on the day of the tournament. Anyone can discuss anything about banning, Brawl+, or even go so far as to hack up a "boss character" tournament, but it really depends on the whims of the TOs on any given day.

Also, banning things is not Scrubby per say. But just because you are a TO cannot mean you cannot be banning things for Scrubby reasons.

We have banned things because of lack of foresight from the developers. If we are given the tools to correct these mistakes, I don't see where the problem lies. Molding the rules around what we are given isn't any more "right" than modifying aspects of the game to fit in these rules. As of now, Pictochat doesn't take part in the Brawl that we all play. But it could, if there were no random harmful occurrences.

This is where we disagree.

I don't even know where this hacking talk began, I attempted to steer the conversation back to its original purpose.

Yet you explicitly claimed we were talking about it 5 years ago. Making stuff up now, are we?

I'll skip the wall-of-text about you being butthurt over the labeling of your method of approach. You'll get over it.

Yes, let's skip the paragraphs outlining just how wrong we are because it's convenient not to learn just how wrong we are.

These characters don't just do badly against D3, they get 100:0'd because of an oversight by the developers. FACT.

100:0 =/= Do badly?

And can you state that explicitly? For one thing, the fact that D3's dthrow works differently from others throws indicates otherwise. And what proof do you have it's an oversight? We can assume it is, but proof?

Also, developers oversight is irrelevant. It's only relevant if it's in the game and if banning it is warranted. Developers overlooked the various locks in the game and how we'd abuse certain stages, too. Should we ban/unban them?

Just like we banned Eldin because D3 can CG 75% of the cast across the stage. FACT. We banned a map because of one technique, and here it is again, under a different form, making it entirely stage independent. Considering what we have done in the past, why shouldn't we approach this issue from the same angle and deal with it accordingly? Because this time around it only affects 4 characters and not 25? How is this reasonable?

Yes.

Because on Bridge of Eldin, D3 makes 75% of the cast unplayable. He's already 4th best in the game without it. With it, he'd be 2nd or so best. It'd be play him, MK or lose.

With Bridge of Eldin banned, it's just don't play as the 4 characters which lose badly to him.

We ban things if they severely limit the metagame, not just because they limit the metagame at all. If so, we'd ban Sheik's F-tilt lock on certain characters. We'd ban Zelda's D-tilt lock on certain characters. We'd ban various wall locks instead of stages with permanent walls, etc., etc., etc.

Praytell, what should we limit D3's options against these characters to? 5 dthrows in a row? But he can get more than those in against certain characters on FD! As many as a normal running CG can net him? But he can't do that on Luigi! An arbitrary number (other than 5) just for the lulz?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Also, banning things is not Scrubby per say. But just because you are a TO cannot mean you cannot be banning things for Scrubby reasons.

I'm going to try not to read into this, but it looks like there may be a grammer mistake here, with the double "cannot"s.

Anyway, technically TO's have complete power over their own tourneys, and the community decides whether or not to participate in these tourneys. A TO can do anything for any reason, but it will affect the total number of participants. They can allow for a free-for-all all items on tournament, they can make all matches 1v1 no items with only neutral stages. We have no say in the matter, except through our attendance or lack of it and through the rules we selected for the tournaments we host ourselves.

EDIT: Actually, a D3 infinite ban could be quite easy - D3 is not allowed to Dthrow the following characters: blank, blank, blank, blank, and blank.

There's your ban.

 

[Yuna]

Anyway, technically TO's have complete power over their own tourneys, and the community decides whether or not to participate in these tourneys. A TO can do anything for any reason, but it will affect the total number of participants. They can allow for a free-for-all all items on tournament, they can make all matches 1v1 no items with only neutral stages. We have no say in the matter, except through our attendance or lack of it and through the rules we selected for the tournaments we host ourselves.

If a TO bans something for a Scrubby reason, he's banning it for a Scrubby reason. Being a TO does not automatically absolve him from ever acting in a Scrubby way.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

If a TO bans something for a Scrubby reason, he's banning it for a Scrubby reason. Being a TO does not automatically absolve him from ever acting in a Scrubby way.

Once again, scrubbiness is irrelivent. Only TOs can dictate tournament rules, and they have the absolute authority to do so, being the host of the tournament.

 

[Yuna]

Once again, scrubbiness is irrelivent. Only TOs can dictate tournament rules, and they have the absolute authority to do so, being the host of the tournament.

But I am free to consider it Scrubby and not attempt. Scrubbiness is not irrelevant at all. If enough players think it Scrubby and therefore elect not to attend, they will either have to rethink or not host any more tournaments.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

But I am free to consider it Scrubby and not attempt. Scrubbiness is not irrelevant at all. If enough players think it Scrubby and therefore elect not to attend, they will either have to rethink or not host any more tournaments.

But I am free to consider it Scrubby and not attempt. Scrubbiness is not irrelevant at all.

Actually, it is irrelevant. Stubborn TO>popular opinion.

If enough players think it Scrubby and therefore elect not to attend, they will either have to rethink or not host any more tournaments.

Agreed, kinda. A TO can host as many tourneys as he wants; it doesn't mean people will attend. However, often popular opinion will influence TO's. Power to the Players!