The "not MK related" ban thread.

SuSa · Oct 7, 2010

How long should we wait before deciding ban something from the game?

We'll discuss this question instead. I'd like to hear peoples opinions.

Personally, I think nearly two years is a pretty good amount of time, if the metagame has been stagnant because of said thing. If it's detrimental to the growth of the game, it should go.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT METAKNIGHT, THIS IS ABOUT BANNING ANYTHING

Trent · Oct 7, 2010

DMG said:
You wanna know something funny?

Earlier, much earlier, when people uproared for a MK ban, one argument against that was "There hasn't been enough time passed to make an educated decision on what to do with him". That's fine, I understand and can agree with collecting tournament data and looking at matches for a bit before making a large decision like that.

Not too long ago, it was brought up again, and one of the arguments against it was that "It's been too long, MK is already too intertwined with the metagame/community and banning him will make too many people quit/upset".

Lol.

Sums up my thoughts.

Raziek · Oct 7, 2010

God****it, I'm late to this party. I missed the ENTIRE first thread.

If we wait much longer for something that has CONSISTENTLY proven to be a problem, by the time we actually decide to go through with a ban, we'll have lost a good portion of the player base, and the remainder of the meta-game is stagnated.

I've personally gone ahead and banned this SOMETHING in Nova Scotia's major tournaments, but I can only do so because our scene is comparatively isolated from the rest of Canada.

Flayl · Oct 7, 2010

IMO

Technique: If proven by extensive testing that it's unbeatable and is within human capacity - Immediately

If the technique is associated with a specific character and cannot be discretely banned, meaning it's hard to tell when the technique is being used, then the character should be banned, but with a month or so of warning.

If the technique isn't character-specific, it's time to suck up and admit the game is broken. Change the way the game is played or simply play another game.

If the technique is not unbeatable but simply very good - most likely never. However, if it's character specific, it can contribute to the character being ban worthy, depending on the rest of the character's traits. But that needs more time to be evaluated.

Character: As soon as there are warning signs that a character's worst matchup is itself, there should be a season (or year) worth of tournaments and metagame development to confirm whether or not that still remains true. The reason I say this is, that character becomes the focal part of the metagame. If a year passes and nobody has found a way to go even with it, even though it's the main objective, then the character is bannable.

Stages: Way too complicated and dependent on the tournament populace's view on competition.

edit: prefaced with IMO

SuSa · Oct 7, 2010

You didn't answer the question Razeik.

How long is to long?

2 years? 3? 5? 10?

Tesh · Oct 7, 2010

Mods can stop you from discussing....."he who must not be ~~banned~~ named" ?

Well I think if we were going to ban "something" we should wait 9 years, because melee didn't ban "something" and its been 9 years. The metagame will likely evolve and people will learn how to consistently defeat "something".

Is that a meatknight in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

M2K mains "something", but the nazis say we can't talk about it anymore.

This post is about banning Ike in Low Tier tournaments.

SuSa · Oct 7, 2010

Yes, yes they can. I brought it up with them as well...

We should wait 9 years to ban it? That seems reasonable.

(Or were you being sarcastic)

Browny · Oct 7, 2010

How long has brawl been out for?

thats my answer

SuSa · Oct 7, 2010

Browny said:
How long has brawl been out for?

thats my answer

Starting from the release of, or from this date?

You weren't very specific.

Raziek · Oct 7, 2010

I think 2 years has been long enough. We've seen that VERY LITTLE has changed, even with supposed "counters" popping up and that character becoming flavor of the month for a bit.

If we can see clearly in theory that we have a diverse meta-game where every characters has poor match-ups, there is NO REASON to wait, in my opinion.

A judicious ban for the sake of a healthier meta-game is warranted.

"Healthier" metagame is obviously subjective, but as was previously mentioned, if a character's worst match-up is itself, and this has STOOD THE TEST OF TIME, I see little reason to disagree with at least TESTING a ban.

It's also worth nothing that our definition of "counter" in this case is a character who can BREAK EVEN.

SuSa · Oct 7, 2010

Please remember Raziek, this thread isn't about MK. We aren't allowed to have those.

But you feel two years is a reasonable amount of time to base your decision for whether this thing warrents a ban?

Raziek · Oct 7, 2010

I feel two years is enough, but only because one seems too little.

Tesh · Oct 7, 2010

People who main "something" should be forced to use a control setting without the B button. That way we won't have the ban anything else (except planking with the A button).

We should also explore using the handicap option to raise the initial damage percent of "something" to about 90 at the start of each match/stock. Then "Ike" will truly have a relevant weight issue that can be exploited. Snake may actually have the advantage on "Ike" with these rules in place. Especially without Ike scoring easy gimps with his Up B offstage (aether).

Coney · Oct 7, 2010

don't worry fellas, they who must not be named have found a character they go even with, for REAL this time, and his name is ~~yoshi bowser snake SQUIRTLE falco wario ice climbers diddy~~ FOX.

edited for even more history!

Ripple · Oct 7, 2010

Raziek said:
I think 2 years has been long enough. We've seen that VERY LITTLE has changed, even with supposed "counters" popping up and that character becoming flavor of the month for a bit.

If we can see clearly in theory that we have a diverse meta-game where every characters has poor match-ups, there is NO REASON to wait, in my opinion.

A judicious ban for the sake of a healthier meta-game is warranted.

"Healthier" metagame is obviously subjective, but as was previously mentioned, if a character's worst match-up is itself, and this has STOOD THE TEST OF TIME, I see little reason to disagree with at least TESTING a ban.

It's also worth nothing that our definition of "counter" in this case is a character who can BREAK EVEN.

its not enough to even test ban something if a characters worst match up is itself. it needs to invalidate at least 2/3 of the characters in the cast that would be perfectly fine without him.

SuSa · Oct 7, 2010

Raziek said:
I feel two years is enough, but only because one seems too little.

That's because one is too little, as the first year of Brawl and it's development (and most games in general) seem to be too rapidly changing to make any real choice.

But the metagame has been stagnant for a good year now (and I'd like someone to argue me that it hasn't... the game hasn't changed since I before I left til present day)

Tesh said:
People who main "something" should be forced to use a control setting without the B button. That way we won't have the ban anything else (except planking with the A button).

We should also explore using the handicap option to raise the initial damage percent of "something" to about 90 at the start of each match/stock. Then "Ike" will truly have a relevant weight issue that can be exploited. Snake may actually have the advantage on "Ike" with these rules in place. Especially without Ike scoring easy gimps with his Up B offstage (aether).

I agree, Ike is far to powerful and should be handicapped vs Snake. Neutral-B is totally broken.

EDIT:

@ Ripple
Already is 2/3rds of the cast, with only the top 1/3rd being able to stand a chance.

Raziek · Oct 7, 2010

Really Ripple? Stagnation is almost certainly bound to occur if there is ONE clear best choice for a character to play.

If a character has no bad match-ups, why would you not play that character?

Tesh · Oct 7, 2010

Ike is also nearly impossible to gimp because his quick draw can recover from anywhere. Once top Ike's learn to use Banana's against Diddy (I'm looking at you San2K) its over.

Ike also has a reflector.

Ripple · Oct 7, 2010

Raziek said:
Really Ripple? Stagnation is almost certainly bound to occur if there is ONE clear best choice for a character to play.

If a character has no bad match-ups, why would you not play that character?

because you can push another character farther than someone can push the best character. maybe he just doesn't fit your playstyle.

Flayl · Oct 7, 2010

Raziek said:
I feel two years is enough, but only because one seems too little.

I want to point out that the one year I'm using is AFTER people notice the warning sings. Not one year after the game comes out.

So it's like:

"Guys this character is doing pretty good in tournaments, and no character seems to consistently beat it"

"Alright I guess he's top tier"

A [period of time] LATER

"Guys remember that character I mentioned earlier? Well it's been a [period of time] and no character seems to be going EVEN with it" -> Warning signs

"Well let's not be too hasty, let the metagame develop a bit before drawing any conclusions. The character is on notice, it's the mountain other characters will have to climb"

A YEAR LATER

"Well it's been a year and even though this character has been the dominating force in tournaments, nobody has managed to find a way to go at least even with it"

"OK. Get out your hammers fellas, it's ban time"

SuSa · Oct 7, 2010

And every other character has a limit, once you can't go beyond that limit - you rely on your opponent not having knowledge of your character.

Now please remember, we aren't really discussing characters keep on topic please - I know how easy it is to stray.

EDIT @ Flayl
That makes sense. [this was edited mid-post because I misread your post]

I need to go take a shower and get ready for a job interview, try to keep on topic of time for things to be banned - I don't want this thread locked for mistakingly being taken as an MK ban discussion when it's clearly not.

Browny · Oct 7, 2010

I meant from when it came out.

So 2 years, 6 months and 30 days to be precise

GTZ · Oct 7, 2010

haha they flag MK bans eh? well either way he has developed a lot, but people are persistent, they'll find a way.. If only MK had an item-based projectile.. he'd be easier to kill..

Raziek · Oct 7, 2010

Ripple said:
because you can push another character farther than someone can push the best character. maybe he just doesn't fit your playstyle.

Regardless of the skill of the player, using the best character will always give you an inherent advantage though.

Nobody will ever push their character past the best character's full potential, ESPECIALLY when that character has no counters, or even matchups.

Things would be different if we had a triangular, or even square relationship between the top tiers, but when one carries a definitive advantage over all the others, and MAINTAINS said advantage for this long, I don't see a ban as being at all unreasonable.

Personally, I feel that completely breaking double-blind and counterpicking is bad enough, considering how central those concepts are to Smash.

John12346 · Oct 7, 2010

Keep in mind that, in Brawl, within 1.5 years, the hacking community has essentially torn apart all of the data in Brawl and retranslated it into information we can understand. We actually have rationale behind banning anything earlier than other games like Melee or some of the Street Fighters, as we literally have ALL of the data on an aspect of the game being put under judgment.

'V' · Oct 7, 2010

I think banning something would most likely depend on how much it actually hurts the metagame. This is where the subjective part comes in, if it wasn't subjective enough already. Something has to be able to completely shut down all other options to where it has at least a slight advantage over everything.

If something like that were to occur, my estimate would be around 2 years before it was finally banned. If something like that only somewhat occurred and had a few options that went even with it, I'd say give it about 4 years.

GTZ · Oct 7, 2010

by then you may as well just wait for SSB4, and hope to God that it's more balanced

SuSa · Oct 7, 2010

John12346 said:
Keep in mind that, in Brawl, within 1.5 years, the hacking community has essentially torn apart all of the data in Brawl and retranslated it into information we can understand. We actually have rationale behind banning anything earlier than other games like Melee or some of the Street Fighters, as we literally have all of the data on an aspect of the game being put under judgment

This is a rather decent point to be made about the banning of things.

YagamiLight · Oct 7, 2010

This community is ridiculously indecisive when it comes to banning characters.

In order for this game to be competitive, you have to go as far as banning items, stages and entire strategies. Why is it so big of a jump to ban a character as well?

SuSa · Oct 7, 2010

Because items were warranted due to theory, many stages were warranted due to theory, and some strategies never got a say in tournament due to simple theory.

But when you take cold hard facts, that's not good enough.

Now please stay on topic. This isn't a discussion about banning anything, but the amount of time that must pass before banning something.

'V' · Oct 7, 2010

YagamiLight said:
This community is ridiculously indecisive when it comes to banning characters.

In order for this game to be competitive, you have to go as far as banning items, stages and entire strategies. Why is it so big of a jump to ban a character as well?

This is also a very good question as it didn't take very long to ban all items and certain stages. IDC was immediately banned. And now people are incorporating LGL's. What's the difference in character?

Sosuke · Oct 7, 2010

YagamiLight said:
Why is it so big of a jump to ban a character as well?

because MK is dark and edgy so removing him would cause all the 14-year-olds to lose their character

BluePeachy100 · Oct 7, 2010

This may sound stupid, but it seems they were indecisive about banning a character BECAUSE they were indecisive about banning a character.

I personally think, banning anything depends on the magnitude of how "game breaking" something actually is.

For example:

D3 Standing infinites are banned, however, his walking ones aren't. Technique = Simple
It's easy to pull off, and quit frankly unfair to the characters that are subjected to it.

Although, I have to say, if something that is a new "game breaking" technique is discovered, it should be given fair trial before it gets banned, kinda like an innocent until proven guilty type thing.

Sadly, this time range varies like crazy....

Tesh · Oct 7, 2010

MK is unfair to the characters that are subjected to it.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Oct 7, 2010

SuSa said:
Because items were warranted due to bad theorycraft, many stages were warranted due to theory (and we banned some because we're scrubs and didn't like them, plus bad theorycraft), and some strategies never got a say in tournament due to simple theory (and bad theorycraft.

Fix'd. 10isp

rPSIvysaur · Oct 7, 2010

Inb4BPC calls everyone scrubs.

Edit: too late

The "not MK related" ban thread.

Banned via Administration

Smash Champion

Charging Limit All Day

Smash Hero

Banned via Administration

Smash Hero

Banned via Administration

Smash Hater

Banned via Administration

Charging Limit All Day

Banned via Administration

Charging Limit All Day

Smash Hero

Smash Master

ᗣᗣᗣᗣ ᗧ·····•·····

Banned via Administration

Charging Limit All Day

Smash Hero

ᗣᗣᗣᗣ ᗧ·····•·····

Smash Hero

Banned via Administration

Smash Hater

Smash Ace

Charging Limit All Day

Smash Master

Smash Lord

Smash Ace

Banned via Administration

Smash Champion

Banned via Administration

Smash Lord

Smash Obsessed

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

[ɑɹsaɪ]

Information

Network