Character Strike

[Morbi]

Character DSR is plausible, but unnecessary. If we're going to put any character rule in place, it should be that the winner of a character is locked onto that character until the player loses.



I'm going to give you a newsflash: There is plenty of character diversity in tournaments. They just don't reach Top 32 or shown on stream.

That said, you are severly overrating the importance of character diversity. Character Diversity is not a substitute for Character Balance.

Indeed. When I first got into the competitive Smash scene I was surprised that players were allowed to counter-pick a counter-pick. I suppose that is why you can request a double blind; however, I agree with your sentiment. That is the only character rule I would actually support.

The idea of striking characters is interesting, but also counter-intuitive.

 

[Ulevo]

That discounts all impact stage has in Smash, which is a rather large part of why it's different from the vast majority of fighting games.

What does the fact that Smash has stages have to do with anything I said?

 

[Raijinken]

What does the fact that Smash has stages have to do with anything I said?

You mentioned that the entire focus is on character mastery in relation to the roster. That doesn't account for stage selection and influence, which plays a notable role else we wouldn't bother making rules about it. But I apologize, stage policy is only indirectly related to the character discussion at hand, and I shouldn't have brought it up.

 

[GSM_Dren]

Very simple: in sets we ban stages for the purpose of avoiding disadvantageous situations against the opponent.

Why not consider a character ban (though strike is a better word) as an alternative/addition? Other competitive games do this (LoL), and it would encourage much greater character diversity with a more evenly developed meta since half the community won't be laser focused on one or two top tier characters.

This will never happen. As others said before, this topic has already been discussed with the consensus that striking/banning a character is the easy way out. Smash cannot be compared to LoL in its drafting because its an entirely different game, what works in LoL will not work here.

It is an easy way out because you/your opponent will likely never play the other's true main. Matchup experience goes out the window because guess what, you're gonna play their secondary/pocket character. Diddy v diddy is going to become more prevalent if players aren't allowed to play the character they actually want to play.

All the hard work put into a main to play in a tourney gets disregarded immediately by striking characters. Does that make sense? Stages are striked to create an option for both players to agree to a specific stage that both are okay with playing on. Striking characters will not have a similar effect. The double blind rule is already set in place and is a more viable option than striking a person's main.

 

[Nexin]

Disappointing number of thoughtless replies so far, but this one stands out. Let's go through it.



By extension of lending advantage/variance to a character, the stage lends advantage/variance to the player, which the choice of character character also does. Striking a stage and striking a character do the exact same thing.



When you pick a stage, you are saying as a player that you are willing to put your tournament life on the line with this stage.



...meaning you are familiar with the layout, know all of the transitions/hazards, and are confident you can take advantage of any special recovery conditions of the stage. You strike that stage, you've destroyed the entire meaning of going to a tournament.



Wrong. They are an element of the game, along with stage, items, mode of play, and rules of play. The near limitless combinations of these elements is the game.

If you just want to play as a single character, and therefore have no desire to see a rule like this, then that's your thing. I can't argue with that. Just don't BS about character selection being somehow different or sacred from any other option in the game.

I think you are confusing the difference between stage strikes and character strikes. The difference in severity is quite extreme.

Lets suppose I entered the competitive scene as it is now and I became well known as a Little Mac character specialist. Since everybody knows that I'm going to be playing as nobody but Little Mac, then probably the only time I'll ever get to play on FD, a stage that gives Little Mac an advantage over nearly every character, is when I'm up against another Little Mac player. Even though my opponent is able to prevent me from playing on my best stage, I'm not completely done for because I still have a chance to win on any other legal stage with Little Mac because I'll still have the tools needed to keep up with my opponent and play my character effectively. Even though a stage may give an advantage to a certain set of characters, the matchups still play out in a similar way on each stage.

Now lets suppose that a rule was added later saying that before a set begins, both players are allowed to ban one character that their opponent may not use. Since I've already made a name for myself as somebody who only plays Little Mac, then my opponent is guaranteed to ban my Little Mac simply because that is the only character I can play at a high level. Because of that rule alone, if I want to continue playing competitively, I'll have to pick up another character. The problem is, since I was a Little Mac specialist, then I obviously only wanted to play Little Mac at tournaments, so if I'm going to be forced to play somebody other than Little Mac, then I'm probably going to stop playing altogether.

You have to remember that while the spectators are important to the competitive scene, the players are just as important. Even players who have a secondary that they enjoy playing just as much as their main aren't going to be happy if they are forced to play as their secondary instead of being given the option to play as either their characters. If the players who compete at these tournaments aren't having fun, then they are going to stop playing, which is going to cause there to be less tournaments for the spectators.

 

[Sleek Media]

You're all missing the point of this. It's not to enforce diversity or promote balance (if those happen, they just happen). It's to make the game more interesting by fighting a greater variety of opponents and being challenged to step out of your comfort zone.

 

[Raijinken]

I think you are confusing the difference between stage strikes and character strikes. The difference in severity is quite extreme.

Lets suppose I entered the competitive scene as it is now and I became well known as a Little Mac character specialist. Since everybody knows that I'm going to be playing as nobody but Little Mac, then probably the only time I'll ever get to play on FD, a stage that gives Little Mac an advantage over nearly every character, is when I'm up against another Little Mac player. Even though my opponent is able to prevent me from playing on my best stage, I'm not completely done for because I still have a chance to win on any other legal stage with Little Mac because I'll still have the tools needed to keep up with my opponent and play my character effectively. Even though a stage may give an advantage to a certain set of characters, the matchups still play out in a similar way on each stage.

Now lets suppose that a rule was added later saying that before a set begins, both players are allowed to ban one character that their opponent may not use. Since I've already made a name for myself as somebody who only plays Little Mac, then my opponent is guaranteed to ban my Little Mac simply because that is the only character I can play at a high level. Because of that rule alone, if I want to continue playing competitively, I'll have to pick up another character. The problem is, since I was a Little Mac specialist, then I obviously only wanted to play Little Mac at tournaments, so if I'm going to be forced to play somebody other than Little Mac, then I'm probably going to stop playing altogether.

You have to remember that while the spectators are important to the competitive scene, the players are just as important. Even players who have a secondary that they enjoy playing just as much as their main aren't going to be happy if they are forced to play as their secondary instead of being given the option to play as either their characters. If the players who compete at these tournaments aren't having fun, then they are going to stop playing, which is going to cause there to be less tournaments for the spectators.

On the other hand, there are players like me who will gladly learn more characters for the fun of it. And especially if we're given chances to show off our lower-tier skills without threat of higher tiers, people like that would be even more inclined to compete.

 

[WillLi]

You're all missing the point of this. It's not to enforce diversity or promote balance (if those happen, they just happen). It's to make the game more interesting by fighting a greater variety of opponents and being challenged to step out of your comfort zone.

If you're looking to simply make it more interesting do it in friendlies, not in tourney play. We're all for a more fun game. But this wont make it more fun when you're playing with money on the line. It'll only make it more frustrating. It's not interesting to lose a match you could've won just because you weren't allowed to use the character that could've given you the win.

 

[Funen1]

You're all missing the point of this. It's not to enforce diversity or promote balance (if those happen, they just happen). It's to make the game more interesting by fighting a greater variety of opponents and being challenged to step out of your comfort zone.

"Greater variety of opponents"? In other words, "diversity". As others have mentioned already, there's no proof a system like this would even encourage players to pick up secondaries that aren't top tiers when they're getting their mains banned.

And whether or not stepping out of one's comfort zone is a good thing, people naturally prefer taking the path of least resistance. Asking them to continuously experience "uncomfortable" situations in a game they want to have fun playing is just not realistic. Your statement also implies that players aren't forced out of their comfort zone while playing with their mains either. Ask anyone who's ever had to face someone they knew was much better than them in a tournament. They'll tell you otherwise.

 

[Nexin]

On the other hand, there are players like me who will gladly learn more characters for the fun of it. And especially if we're given chances to show off our lower-tier skills without threat of higher tiers, people like that would be even more inclined to compete.

I understand where you're coming from. I main Palutena, who is considered anywhere between the worst character in the game to a solid mid tier depending on who you ask, and yes, I have some very bad matchups against a few of the top tier characters. The problem with allowing the ban system is that I don't play any characters that could be considered top tier regularly, with Olimar and Ike being the two characters I would consider my secondaries. With that in mind, my opponents would have no reason to want to ban anyone like Diddy Kong, Sheik, or Rosalina and Luma, instead focusing on either of the three characters I play most often and banning the one they believe is going to give them the most trouble instead letting me pick the one I want and trying to beat that.

Also, if you want to play a lower tiered character in a tournament without having to worry about high tiered characters, then you can enter low tier or mid tier tournaments, in which you are not allowed to use the best characters in the game. If you don't do that, then you need to learn to deal with facing the high tiers regularly. Each of them have weaknesses, some of which are easily exploitable, like Diddy's ease of getting gimped, but if you try and force a rule where you can ban characters just because they have an advantage over your own character, you won't learn any of their weaknesses nor will you discover a way that your character may be able to take advantage of those weaknesses.

 

[Wulfy07]

A lot of people hate the thought of learning more than one character. Despite the nuance mastery being relatively irrelevant in this game since there's far less technique to spend time learning, the mindset of a single main is so entrenched that it's not even worth the effort of suggesting character drafts in Smash. A similar discussion was had months ago and basically boiled down to a lot of people declaring they could only play one character so this would kill the game.

The backhanded compliment is real in this post. To automatically assume character nuance/diversity/value of mastery is non-existent in a game that lacks even a single year of discovery is simply nonsense. Izaw has found a uses for Falco/Shiek/Link alone that would (for the most part) not benefit other characters.

 

[Iceweasel]

This is a terrible idea. Most people only do serious training on a few characters, and of those, there's usually 1 favorite that gets more love than the rest. If someone bans your main, and they get to keep theirs, you're put at a severe disadvantage. Just by banning a player's main, you've drastically reduced their win chance. This discourages favoring (and therefore mastering) one character. Remember Apex 2013, where Salem came out of nowhere with a B-tier character, beat all those other famous players and broken Meta Knights, and basically became a hero? Remember how excited everyone was? All you would have to do to prevent that from happening ever again is institute a character strike system.

Haters keep claiming that there is no hype in Smash 4. Well, this suggestion would go a long way towards making that statement true.

 

[HeroMystic]

On the other hand, there are players like me who will gladly learn more characters for the fun of it. And especially if we're given chances to show off our lower-tier skills without threat of higher tiers, people like that would be even more inclined to compete.

Your post and the post you're replying to has a major difference though: You make the choice to play multiple characters.

Why force someone to play the game the way you want to play it? If you want to use and rely on multiple characters (I know someone like this at my scene), then do so. But if someone wants to play just one character and fully rely on it, then they should also do so as well without being punished for it. Outside of all of the logical arguments that has been made against this idea, this is something that really should not be ignored.

Furthermore, this has been really bothering me so I'm going to be really frank: Your posts gives me the perspective that you view yourself as a special snowflake. That for some reason, no one plays more than one character for fun. I'll show you that this is not the case.

I can make a full list of the characters I've played for fun and picked up as secondaries, and I can tell you it's more than five (and one of them is Samus, a character I enjoy nearly as much as Mario but she is one of the worst characters in this game). So if you do stuff like character strikes or character DSR, I'm not SoL, but if I want to play Mario then I will play Mario whether you like it or not and no one is going to tell me otherwise.

Nairo plays Pit, Dark Pit, Robin, ZSS, and Zelda. He views himself as a Robin main.
Ally plays Mario, Shulk, and Diddy. He's a Mario main and he enjoys Shulk but has stated that Shulk is bad against Diddy.
ZeRo has stated for the record that he has played at least 400+ matches with every character in the game.
Nyani plays Mario and Pit.
Espy plays Sonic and Little Mac, and prefers Little Mac against Diddy.

I can list even more but my point is made. Multiple players play multiple characters, but the majority of them will prefer to stake their tournament life on one character with few exceptions, because as multiple people have stated, players tend to gravitate towards one character that they will favor and truly invest in and make it their best character.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

If we had balance, I've little doubt we'd see more diversity in the winning portions of tournaments.

And from the spectator stance, the only part that matters is what they can see. If there's no diversity on stream, then how would they know there was any diversity at all?

The importance of diversity depends on what a player wants, personally. I want more diversity in the higher ranks of tournaments because I interpret that as a sign of over-all balance. When I look at Brawl and see primarily defense and Metaknight, or at Melee and see primarily speedsters and spacefurries, and at 64 and see electric mice, and at Smash4 and see Diddy Kong, that's a sign there are balance issues. Of course, in all of those cases, it's not nearly as bad as I just implied. But especially while we're on the first actually patchable instance in the game, it's very disappointing that more isn't being done by either the players or Sakurai et co (bar the custom movement) to increase the variety in the higher levels of play.

Unless I'm misinterpreting your post, you're placing higher value on how the game appears to spectators than on how the actual players feel about the game. I don't think I need to explain why this is a silly mindset.

 

[Sleek Media]

This is kinda sad. How many posts can one person make about an idea they aren't interested in lol.

Guess next time I'll have to include some kind of disclaimer like the other competitive threads.

 

[Charey]

When you submit an idea people have a right to disagree with it, I disagree with character striking because it's a bad idea for anyone who wants to main a low tier character.

I wouldn't go to any tournament that used character striking because I am trying to be the best Charizard player, while I can use someone else it's not as fun for me and my other characters are not at the same level. The only way I could get people to not strike Charizard would be to learn how to play a character to stall out matches and basically try to make striking Charizard guarantee an annoying and boring match, which is bad for everyone.

 

[popsofctown]

When you submit an idea people have a right to disagree with it

When you make a post to disagree with something for the same exact reasons as previous posters it's kinda garbage posting. You have a right to disagree with it but you should just upvote comments instead of being an echo chamber.

I think OP should be taken to extreme and increase the number of bans from 1 to cast_size-1, each player picks his opponent's characters! Lots of diversity there! I'd probably be more willing to enter that as a side tourney than a single ban.

 

[WillLi]

When you make a post to disagree with something for the same exact reasons as previous posters it's kinda garbage posting. You have a right to disagree with it but you should just upvote comments instead of being an echo chamber.

I think OP should be taken to extreme and increase the number of bans from 1 to cast_size-1, each player picks his opponent's characters! Lots of diversity there! I'd probably be more willing to enter that as a side tourney than a single ban.

I think things are getting reposted because they're not getting answered. The OP is totally ignoring what is being said by most people. So it keeps getting posted because it's not being answered. If the OP answered it with an actual reasonable statement, then it probably wouldn't get repeated, 'cept by people who post without reading all the back post, but that's gonna happen anyway.

 

[Terotrous]

At this point, probably the only way to enforce diversity is to have a Dave's Stupid Rule for characters, i.e. you can't play a character you won on. Kids still get to play their Diddy, and everyone else gets their diversity. You need, at most, three characters to play a grand finals Bo5 set, more than feasible for anyone who plays enough to think themselves ready for a tournament (especially in Smash4 where, again, there's relatively little character-specific tech).

This actually sounds kind of fun, you'd have to pick your characters pokemon-style to make sure you got the most favourable matchups you could, but it's not really feasible for the players. It does highlight the fact that we need to have more crew battles for Smash 4, though, those are almost always the most hype parts of SF4 tournaments.

 

[Dooms]

In low level League play, you can't see the names of your opponents, so that you can't shut someone down from using their knowledge of a specific character. In high level League play (like, only in big tournaments), you can, but at that level people have so much knowledge of such a broad variety of characters that using bans in this way is less useful.
You need some ski masks and fat suits for this to work.

Tournaments of any size and level of play use custom games to make their matches, so it's easy to view who your opponents are because you have to be in a lobby with them before you can start the game.

Character Dave's Stupid Rule is dumb because people have motivation to use specifically their character. Am I going to tell a Greninja only player that wants to play as well as possible with specifically Greninja because he loves frogs that he suddenly has to pick up 2 other characters in the case of a Bo5 set? No. This also makes the game completely unplayable for people that don't have an interest in more than 1 or 2 characters. All around a horrible idea.

If anyone really thinks "People are going to ban Diddy because he's in the meta", you have never been in a tournament that involves character striking. In round 2, people will see what character you played round 1, and they will ban you out. Round 3 will be "Do I want to fight X they used round 1 or y they used round 2?" and it will keep on going like that. Diddy may be a default ban for the first round of the tournament if you're brand new to the tournament scene (if you're not, you're going to get banned out). It just won't work and will only promote people to pick up the combination of Diddy and Sheik.

 

[Terotrous]

Character Dave's Stupid Rule is dumb because people have motivation to use specifically their character. Am I going to tell a Greninja only player that wants to play as well as possible with specifically Greninja because he loves frogs that he suddenly has to pick up 4 other characters in the case of a Bo5 set? No. This also makes the game completely unplayable for people that don't have an interest in more than 1 or 2 characters. All around a horrible idea.

It would technically only require 3 characters (in DSR, you only can't pick the same thing when you win), but I agree that it's still dumb.

 

[digiholic]

I think OP should be taken to extreme and increase the number of bans from 1 to cast_size-1, each player picks his opponent's characters! Lots of diversity there! I'd probably be more willing to enter that as a side tourney than a single ban.

Side note, that would be a hella fun invitational tournament for any Smash game. Get all the best players, give em a few months to practice a bit, then send them into a backdraft tournament.

 

[Xygonn]

If you really want more diversity, it would make more sense to promote a setup where you can only use a character once, or maybe twice per set (or always allow random?). So you'd need 2 or 3 characters for Bo3 and 3 or 5 for Bo5. There would be a whole other chess match about how you are going to use your characters. Maybe just sacrifice a bad character to their Diddy, and try to win the remainder You'd need to work out the details of character pick order. Probably blind pick first round, winner picks first after that. This would allow people to still play their main (by not allowing it to be struck), but would force people to have a couple other good characters.

An alternative would be to be able to use a character equal to the number of minimum matches to win a set (2 for Bo3 or 3 for Bo5). So if you can sweep the set with your main, good on you. But if you drop a set, you will be forced to play your secondary. This could totally backfire and end up with Main x Main for the opening matches then end with Diddy/Sheik v Diddy/Sheik in the last few sets.

 

[anikom15]

Sounds like OP just wants a Diddy ban.

The only character rule that makes any sense is for winners to be unable to switch until they lose.