what are the reasons to ban a character?

[Tarmogoyf]

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...

Oh helll no!. Your telling me that after I win game one against MKs as ICs, I just have to concede game 2 because I can't switch to MK when they go Cruise/Brinstar? Awful..........

 

[Ghostbone]

@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?

Define Unreasonably advantaged.
I could claim MK's tornado gives him an unreasonable advantage against many characters.
And it doesn't ruin the skill comparison between two players, the better player will still win, it's just the better player may change with them legal or not.

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.

I don't believe everyone should have a pocket top tier counter-pick. (another reason why I'm pro-ban on MK). But Dedede has bad match-ups against characters that aren't top tier.....

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.

Yea it does, they're both infinites, and both achieve the same goal.

In fact, in a large degree of tournaments DDDs infinites are already banned, by themselves, 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.

-sigh-
we can ban anything, it doesn't mean we should.
I could ban lucas from tournaments, without any huge issues, should we do that too?
The fact is it's uncompetitive to ban D3's infinites without banning a whole lot of other tactics because we're being inconsistent.

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.

So calling DDD players that want it legal uncompetitive are we?
It's not more of a test of skill with it banned either....

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.

If you want a game without massive advantages in many match-ups then smash isn't for you...pretty simple.
And why do you get the idea that someone who wants infinites legal just wants auto-wins? I just expect someone who plays a character with a bad match-up to accept it and take up a secondary, no matter what the cause of the bad match-up is.

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.

Lame gameplay? Subjective opinion, and it's pretty much what brawl is all about.
Character choice is a skill, someone who's best character is MK is much more likely to be good than a Ganondorf main, because the game rewards players who fit into MK's playstyle.


Also forgot to bring this up earlier.

What are the stances of DDD's added pseudo-infinites and short-steps on RC?
Don't tell me somehow DDD doesn't deserve to be able to short-step Snake on RC.....

Edit:
Also forgot this as well...
You guys obviously don't know this but there's a new mashing method that lets you get out of the infinite even above KO percents....(Obviously D3, DK and Bowser can't escape because they don't need to be pummeled).
So you can get out of the infinite...so it's not an infinite....
So your whole argument is invalid?
Unless you only want to make DK slightly more viable at the expense of a lot of other match-ups for D3.

 

[FreakingMethodiC]

Oh helll no!. Your telling me that after I win game one against MKs as ICs, I just have to concede game 2 because I can't switch to MK when they go Cruise/Brinstar? Awful..........

**** yeah, concede then **** him round 3 with a CP to a stage you want! ROFL. (Or lose because you're attached to a ****** that loves to kill itself).

Iunno, i just hate the fact that everyone has MK as a pocket character for bad MUs, it makes the game rather stale.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

I don't disagree, but MK is good enough without getting a free game off of me. The MU is still slightly in his favor on neutrals, so basically he only has to win one game while I need to win 2.

 

[Kaffei]

meta knight

 

[Malcolm.O]

meta knight

"Victory Is My Destiny"

 

[daveygravey]

Idk how many people know what DotA is but I've played competitively for a number of years. There are over 100 characters and what the producers understand is that balancing such a huge array of characters is impossible. So competitive games start with a phase that allows teams to ban characters. You can ban for whatever, because they're OP currently, because they counter your strategy, because the other team has a player who is amazing with that character, etc.

So instead of excluding a character from play entirely , why not just let each player have a ban before a match? Since the number of bans is equal, both sides should be equally disadvantaged and you would see some amazing improvements in metagame and depth of skill which would be really nice to see.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

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.

You are officially not allowed to have the same standpoint as me on anything. Seriously, start arguing for FD-only stagelists or something.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Still waiting for a response by BPC that actually disproves the points I have brought up.

No such luck yet, I'll keep you guys updated.

 

[WindMajor]

It's funny because what Grim said was something that I could imagine BPC saying back in the day.

Anyways, as a response to Hive, what ghostbone said.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

They could make a TV show called "The Young Cadet", starring Grim Tuesday.

It'd be completely sort-of a Young Indiana Jones rip-off.

 

[Kaffei]

when can we ban mk

 

[Ripple]

the best example of "get hit, don't care!" you have ever seen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCgcU1qRMqg

4:06-6:50

 

[Kewkky]

the best example of "get hit, don't care!" you have ever seen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCgcU1qRMqg

4:06-6:50

M2K can plank and camp real nice, but he always gets bored and rushes in. Whether or not he wins the match in the end, it's a big freakin' flaw if he wants to win every match ever.

 

[Flayl]

"don't get hit, don't care"

 

[Pathetiqu3]

I'd mark the point of banning a character when it kills, or nearly kills, an entire competitive scene, which MK has done.

Any additional logic simply obscures the one fact that is always true: if something is not fun, it shouldn't be a part of the game. People do not find broken characters fun, so they stop playing. Those that enjoy broken characters will continue to play, but will begin running out of people to play against.

Loss of players hurts everyone, loss of a character hurts some.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'd mark the point of banning a character when it kills, or nearly kills, an entire competitive scene, which MK has done.

Prove it.

Any additional logic simply obscures the one fact that is always true: if something is not fun, it shouldn't be a part of the game. People do not find broken characters fun, so they stop playing. Those that enjoy broken characters will continue to play, but will begin running out of people to play against.

Loss of players hurts everyone, loss of a character hurts some.

You know what I don't think is fun? How Ganondorf is really bad. We should make a rule that he starts with one extra stock.

Oh, and Samus can't KO very well, so we should give her opponent a 20% handicap.

Oh yeah! What about getting stuck under the ledge of Final Destination, better add a rule for that too.

Do you see why we can't and don't use a "it's not fun" ban criteria?

 

[Pathetiqu3]

No, I can't see why don't use a "it's not fun" ban criteria. I wouldn't really care if Ganondorf had an extra stock, or if Samus began with extra damage (she kind of does as Zamus). I wouldn't really have cared if we had supported the mod community more openly, or if we played on entirely custom-made maps.

What I do care about is that I've been playing smash games competitively for 8 years, followed all of the biggest tournies and embraced the community. That community is gone and the tournaments are sparse with less attendance and less fanfare. I blame metaknight, and the burden of proof is on me to show that he's to blame.

I don't care about proving it either. When this wasn't a subboard, we argued and argued, and the community decided he wasn't worth banning using lots of complicated theorysmashing. I just don't think sticking to the inherently flawed child's game put out by Nintendo was the right choice.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

No one is forcing you to care about the game...

 

[Pathetiqu3]

No one is forcing you to care about the game...

No one is forcing you to dodge my response.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Should be pretty obvious why I "dodged" your reply, but I'll humor you.

No, I can't see why don't use a "it's not fun" ban criteria. I wouldn't really care if Ganondorf had an extra stock, or if Samus began with extra damage (she kind of does as Zamus). I wouldn't really have cared if we had supported the mod community more openly, or if we played on entirely custom-made maps.

Not a counter-argument...

What I do care about is that I've been playing smash games competitively for 8 years, followed all of the biggest tournies and embraced the community. That community is gone and the tournaments are sparse with less attendance and less fanfare. I blame metaknight, and the burden of proof is on me to show that he's to blame.

Complaining and making a claim while admitting that you require proof to back it up...

I don't care about proving it either. When this wasn't a subboard, we argued and argued, and the community decided he wasn't worth banning using lots of complicated theorysmashing. I just don't think sticking to the inherently flawed child's game put out by Nintendo was the right choice.

Opinion...

 

[Ghostbone]

The problem with an argument based on fun and number of players?

Items

 

[John12346]

Grim, how about the fact people have quit the game solely because of MK, the fact there's generally more hype in non-MK matches in tourney, and the fact that we have a split community over this whole MK issue?

Quite a few examples of MK screwing the community.

 

[TeeVee]

this has prolly been adressed but im never on smashboards...




but does anyone else realize that we have a rule implemented soley to keep metaknight in the game (lgl). there is no reason other than metaknight that there is an lgl in our current ruleset.


i dont understand why hes not banned yet if we acknowledge that hes too broken to be used in a "normal" ruleset and requires additional rules to keep him from being too good. (and in effect are hurting ledge based characters like pit, gaw, rob, marth even though their ledge game is in no way broken)



smash community i am dissapoint

 

[Flayl]

I think most people secretely want to not allow G&W, Pit and ROB to plank since "it's gay".

 

[TeeVee]

but if its not broken, then it doesn't warrant a ban...


why should characters like pit/rob/gaw/marth get punished for being strong offstage when it is in no way broken?


whats the difference of a character fighting from the ledge and a character fighting from on stage?


brawl is a heavily keepaway based game...if you dont like edge play or camping then dont play brawl. play melee. but just because its "gay" does not mean it should be banned. thats the most scrub based thing i've ever heard



if we aknowledge that mk is too broken to be allowed in a "normal" ruleset that we created a rule soley to limit his dominance (and still, look at results ._.)...why is he still here?

 

[Flayl]

brawl is a heavily keepaway based game...if you dont like edge play or camping then dont play brawl. play melee. but just because its "gay" does not mean it should be banned. thats the most scrub based thing i've ever heard

Hence why I said "secretely want". They know it's scrubbish.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

this has prolly been adressed but im never on smashboards...




but does anyone else realize that we have a rule implemented soley to keep metaknight in the game (lgl). there is no reason other than metaknight that there is an lgl in our current ruleset.

...for the same reason you'd ban any broken tactic? I mean, you aren't *****ing about a rule against IDC, are you?

 

[TeeVee]

...for the same reason you'd ban any broken tactic? I mean, you aren't *****ing about a rule against IDC, are you?

PLEASE, do not tell me you are comparing IDC to 'planking'... lmfao






IDC is character specific

our counter-'planking' rules affect EVERYONE.



IDC only affects mk vs ___

LGL affects Pit vs Falco, Rob vs Snake, Marth vs Olimar, etc.




the lgl literally revamps the entire metagame by giving unnecessary buffs to characters like snake, falco, and diddy and nerfs to ledge based characters like pit, marth, gaw, and rob (even though their 'planking' is not broken at all) and the only reason its put in place is for metaknight.




once again, why is metaknight still not banned if we all agree that he is too good to be allowed under a "normal" ruleset and requires additional limitations which universally changes the metagame?



ill use my own personal experience since i used to be a rob main (by results, i was the best rob in the country before i stopped using him 4 months ago) but pits, gaws, and other ledge based characters are probablly identical --


rob goes even with snake with no lgl
goes even with falco with no lgl
goes even/beats diddy with no lgl
beats ics with no lgl



rob gets ***** by snake with a lgl
rob gets ***** by falco with a lgl
rob gets ***** by diddy with a lgl
rob goes even with ics with a lgl




under the current ruleset there is absolutely no reason to main rob, all of his top tier matchups go from even to almost unwinnable with a lgl put in place. once again, this is coming from an ex-rob main's pov but it applies to every ledge based character.

 

[John12346]

What TeeVee said

And also

IDC, when done perfectly, cannot be beaten under any circumstance. In this case, IDC is broken and cannot be stopped in any way, shape, or form.

Planking, when done perfectly, has a very, very small amount of frames of vulnerability, but can be beaten with frame perfect reaction or jumping off the stage to combat MK. However, attempting to stop it from onstage generally nets you a lot of eaten Uairs before you hit MK, and jumping off the stage puts you OFF THE STAGE AGAINST MK, which is usually never a smart move, especially since worst case scenario denotes MK can just get back on the stage and run to the other edge. In this case, planking is an extremely, EXTREMELY powerful defensive position that makes a mockery of the risk/reward system. Borderline broken, but beatable, even though you couldn't reasonably expect people to do it consistently.

We're going to ban a beatable tactic, despite it being piss hard to defeat?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Grim, how about the fact people have quit the game solely because of MK, the fact there's generally more hype in non-MK matches in tourney, and the fact that we have a split community over this whole MK issue?

Quite a few examples of MK screwing the community.

Keep in mind that I'm neutral on the subject, so I'll leave this to someone who is anti-MK ban like BPC.

but does anyone else realize that we have a rule implemented soley to keep metaknight in the game (lgl). there is no reason other than metaknight that there is an lgl in our current ruleset.

i dont understand why hes not banned yet if we acknowledge that hes too broken to be used in a "normal" ruleset and requires additional rules to keep him from being too good. (and in effect are hurting ledge based characters like pit, gaw, rob, marth even though their ledge game is in no way broken)

Because if we banned MK rather than having a LGL, we'd lose a LOT of depth.

PLEASE, do not tell me you are comparing IDC to 'planking'... lmfao

IDC is character specific

our counter-'planking' rules affect EVERYONE.

IDC only affects mk vs ___

LGL affects Pit vs Falco, Rob vs Snake, Marth vs Olimar, etc.

the lgl literally revamps the entire metagame by giving unnecessary buffs to characters like snake, falco, and diddy and nerfs to ledge based characters like pit, marth, gaw, and rob (even though their 'planking' is not broken at all) and the only reason its put in place is for metaknight.

ill use my own personal experience since i used to be a rob main (by results, i was the best rob in the country before i stopped using him 4 months ago) but pits, gaws, and other ledge based characters are probablly identical --

rob goes even with snake with no lgl
goes even with falco with no lgl
goes even/beats diddy with no lgl
beats ics with no lgl

rob gets ***** by snake with a lgl
rob gets ***** by falco with a lgl
rob gets ***** by diddy with a lgl
rob goes even with ics with a lgl

under the current ruleset there is absolutely no reason to main rob, all of his top tier matchups go from even to almost unwinnable with a lgl put in place. once again, this is coming from an ex-rob main's pov but it applies to every ledge based character.

I... don't support a global LGL at all.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Because if we banned MK rather than having a LGL, we'd lose a LOT of depth.

Guess we lost alot of depth when Akuma was banned =D

I... don't support a global LGL at all.

Cant have your cake and eat it m'boy.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Guess we lost alot of depth when Akuma was banned =D

Nope, because Akuma dominated the meta-game. With Akuma legal, every match would literally be Akuma vs. Akuma. Obviously that takes out every MU, OTHER than that one and removes lots of depth.

There is not enough evidence to say that banning MK will result in greater depth than keeping him (who's to say his place won't just get taken by Diddys, Snakes, Ice Climbers, etc...

Cant have your cake and eat it m'boy.

I was just saying that I can't really argue that point when I agree with it: A global ledge-grab limit is stupid...

Spoiler

/biased Jigglypuff main

 

[John12346]

because if we banned MK rather than having a LGL, we'd lose a LOT of depth.

My stance on the situation on the depth would be that the game gains even more depth. Keep in mind, with the current CP system, no matter who you use, the opposing player can use MK and immediately be at an advantage.

With no MK, the opponent can try to counter your character with a character of their own, but then you can counter that counter with another character you have. Then they could counter your counter to their counter, and so on and so forth.

Right now, that chain can be broken at any point by simply picking MK.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I thought we agreed some time ago that the trade-offs for banning MK would even each other out, aka the losses would balance out with the gains. :/

Who agreed this? o_O

And if the losses balance out with the gains, then there is no reason to make the change in the first place.

Anyway, my stance on the situation on the depth would be that the game gains even more depth.

Your job to prove it.

Keep in mind, with the current CP system, no matter who you use, the opposing player can use MK and immediately be at an advantage.

With no MK, the opponent can try to counter your character with a character of their own, but then you can counter that counter with another character you have. Then they could counter your counter to their counter, and so on and so forth.

Right now, that chain can be broken at any point by simply picking MK.

I agree.

 

[Black Mantis]

There is not enough evidence to say that banning MK will result in greater depth than keeping him (who's to say his place won't just get taken by Diddys, Snakes, Ice Climbers, etc...

Actually there is according to the matchup chart.

Snake wouldn't dominate because he has bad matchups with marth, d3, and donkey kong. He even has an even matchup with Link.

Diddy has bad matchups with luigi, ROB, and Falco.

Ice Climbers has bad matchups with Diddy, Snake, and Wario

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I wasn't trying to say that they'd become the new Meta Knight, I was trying to say that the characters who already do well... Might continue doing well. :/

 

[John12346]

Who agreed this? o_O

And if the losses balance out with the gains, then there is no reason to make the change in the first place.

Yeah, ignore that one, I was tripping when I wrote that, sorry.

Your job to prove it.

Uh...

I agree.

This statement you just agreed with is my hypothesis on why the depth would improve.

Everyone else in the game has a disadvantageous matchup, so there's no one definite ultimate character. Since everyone sans MK gets countered by multiple characters, a healthy metagame with competitive depth can definitely thrive in Brawl without MK in the game.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Nope, because Akuma dominated the meta-game. With Akuma legal, every match would literally be Akuma vs. Akuma. Obviously that takes out every MU, OTHER than that one and removes lots of depth.

And MK does not dominate the metagame?
Last I recall, he wins over 50% of all the money in tournament.
I would ahve to say thats very dominant.

In fact, it is Old Sagat dominant.

There is not enough evidence to say that banning MK will result in greater depth than keeping him (who's to say his place won't just get taken by Diddys, Snakes, Ice Climbers, etc...

Correct.
There is NO evident hat banning MK will provide greater depth.
Why?
it would mean MK needs to be banned to gain that evidence.
See the paradox?

And in anycase, a ban is NOT about depth.
It is about removing something that is overly dominant.
Losing depth or gaining depth is only a secondary effect on the matter and should not be taken into account.
Its far too difficult to argue something based on depth.

I was just saying that I can't really argue that point when I agree with it: A global ledge-grab limit is stupid...

Spoiler

/biased Jigglypuff main

Hence my point.

If MK's ledge game is broken.
Yet an lgl specifically targeting MK is a bad idea.
Then you're kinda screwed.

 

[TeeVee]

If MK's ledge game is broken.
Yet an lgl specifically targeting MK is a bad idea.
Then you're kinda screwed.

this is what im saying...






and theres a REALLY easy solution





._.