Official Competitive Character Impressions 2.0

[Hydreigonfan01]

Honestly, it would not shock me regardless of Steve bans or not if the only super strong Steve player left was &cola.

Let's call a spade a spade; the community has thrown a lot of unwarranted vitriol towards Steve mains. Look at Onin for example. Dude got harassed off of twitter for a time because a known predator sicked his fans on him remorselessly, all for the sole crime of not wanting to have a spotlight on him for play Steve. This is not an isolated incident. We know other Steves like yonni and Jake also faced rampant harassment that has killed any drive they have to compete in the game. Steve mains get left and right accused of being carried. No ****, so is every other player that plays a top tier. It is no secret that playing a good character helps you do good. But because Steve isn't "hype", people will harass Steve mains.

Steve mains also trend younger in terms of their age. So you now have a bunch of people harassing Steve mains left and right for "upsetting" their favorite pro player. Who cares if they are also playing a top tier? The thought that this "carried" kid could beat the pro player they watch on twitch and have a parasocial relationship with is too much for parts of the community to handle. It does not help that the well for a strong Steve discourse was poisoned long ago. Yes, #bansteve #please might have been "funny", but it poisoned the well for any productive discourse. The worst of twitter and twitch chat saw to that as soon as Steve bans were even potentially on the table.

I already talked before about how Steve's ban will not be decided by some sort of objective view of what is and is not broken: it will be judged by TOs trying to make sure their locals are kept nice and healthy, especially in a rough year for esports at large. But god, I hope that the character is not banned unless PMLG is shown to be consistent in practice and easy to abuse. I would hate for this awful part of the fanbase to get rewarded for harassing minors. I would hate for the first character ban in Smash to not have this odious shadow over it. We did not ban Bayonetta or Meta Knight, but we ban the character that has teenagers beating twenty somethings in a children's fighting game. Sadly, the genie is probably out of the bottle, but god I wish that the community was not so toxic over this.

It feels like people haven't learn from the Bayo situation where the Bayonetta players got a lot of toxic harassment given to them for playing the character. It's the same thing that happened before, people called the Smash 4 Bayonetta players "carried" as well.

 

[Hippieslayer]

Did you call Nintendo stupid for not third partying themselves? A big part of their appeal is the IPs that you can only generally get with them. What incentive do they have to do anything of the sort? And, it being weaker also makes the Switch more afordable. Why do you think the Steam Deck didn't steal their lunch as it were?

Also, no, they probably wouldn't conquer the fighting game scene as the traditional games would likely still thrive virtually independently. And even without all that, it seems you miss the big draw for Smash. Yes, the gameplay is fun, but it's the roster that is the massive factor. Smaller stuff like Rivals just can't match the sheer star power of Smash, even just the Nintendo part. Also, similarly to the Ganon boss thing, people aren't generally anywhere near as hype for side modes and content as they are the roster.

Besides, after you buy the game and the DLC, the die is cast. If a bunch of people keep playing it in convention centers isn't really the biggest of deals at the end of the day.

At this point in time: Yes. A lot of people are playing switch games on PC and that number is going to be increasing. The Switch is a very weak and aged console. The fact that it has built in lag is terrible for any form of serious gaming, games feel worse when played on a switch because of it. Hit up Smash 4 on Wii U and it controls like a dream in comparison. Switch being cheap makes it accessible, but its still nowhere near as accessible as it would be on a PC. The steam deck is irrelevant in itself, it's the sum of all laptops and desktop computers and things like the Steamdeck that matter. Buying a Switch is also becoming less and less alluring with time. It may be cheap, but its still an overpriced low quality console that was past its expiration date when it released.

As I said: My whole case depends on Nintendo intending to keep Smash Ultimate around for a long time. If not, then sure there's little point. But if they want people to keep playing this stuff and they want an active community generating exposure then they should wake the **** up. As of now you generally speaking either have to have friends to play with or go through the hassle of actively participating in the community. A lot of Nintendo players and gamers in general are older and don't have these options available to them. For them Smash Ultimate doesn't work as a fighting game.

What incentive do Nintendo have? They have the potential to see their scene grow a lot larger. This in turn means exposure. And it means more people will join the scene, and larger tournaments will sharpen the competition and increase viewership. They stand to benefit a lot indirectly. Also the die is not cast after you buy the game and the DLC. You still have to pay to play online. Something I'm betting more people would be willing to do if you actually got functional online gameplay. Maybe they could fix the online mode without resorting to a PC release, I doubt so. They could improve it a lot overnight even on Switch (which they never do which is bafflingly stupid), and they could work on the netcode but they couldn't do rollback. Nintendo have been trying mobile games for a while now. They do realize the limitations of their games only being available on their consoles to some degree, even if they make money from every sold console since their consoles were always made of low quality cheap stuff.

About the rooster: that's the initial draw, and sure it continues to be a big draw for a long time, but it isn't what keeps people playing and watching for years and years, that's the game itself. It's the most well made,refined and deep platform fighter by a landslide. None of the competition comes even close. So for it to be suffering fundamental flaws in the form of built in lag and a joke of an online mode, and yes it being attached to the switch, is disastrous. It's performing this well in spite of these massive drawbacks. That speaks volumes about how big it could be. Traditional fighters thriving independently is irrelevant. Of course they will, but those crowds only partially overlap. Ultimate could siphon some of the traditional fighter gamers and viewers if the game wasn't severely limited in fundamental ways in comparison to theirs.

They need to be able to draw in new players too. I've played ultimate with a lot of gamers who never tried smash before and don't care about Nintendo or the cast in general, a lot of them quickly end up loving the gameplay (in spite of the lag and buffering system causing them tons of issues) and they would buy the game and keep playing if that didn't mean having to buy a Switch which they aren't going to use for anything else and which isn't going to let them play online in a satisfying way anyway. There's an incentive. You aren't thinking outside the Nintendo bubble. My perspective is different because I was never a Nintendo gamer, bought a bunch of Nintendo consoles, all of them from the gamecube and on, only used them to play smash. I have friends who are the same way more or less. And I know there's more people like us. There is untapped potential for sure.

Finally, yes I'm speculating a lot, and questioning Nintendo's business model, and I'm probably in way over my head and it's obvious that the biggest reasons I have these opinions is because I'm a smash lover who doesn't give a sh i t about nintendo and never did. But come on, can we at least admit that Smash Ultimate being on the Switch sucks and not having a functional online mode is terrible and hurts the game and the scene?

These are bigger issues than annoying overtuned characters, and by far imo. I'm not going into detail about just how horrible the online mode is because I'm guessing everyone is well aware of it. But I'm kinda getting the feeling that there is some denial going on and I might need to dirty my hands in order to rectify that.

 

[Arthur97]

At this point in time: Yes. A lot of people are playing switch games on PC and that number is going to be increasing. The Switch is a very weak and aged console. The fact that it has built in lag is terrible for any form of serious gaming, games feel worse when played on a switch because of it. Hit up Smash 4 on Wii U and it controls like a dream in comparison. Switch being cheap makes it accessible, but its still nowhere near as accessible as it would be on a PC. The steam deck is irrelevant in itself, it's the sum of all laptops and desktop computers and things like the Steamdeck that matter. Buying a Switch is also becoming less and less alluring with time. It may be cheap, but its still an overpriced low quality console that was past its expiration date when it released.

As I said: My whole case depends on Nintendo intending to keep Smash Ultimate around for a long time. If not, then sure there's little point. But if they want people to keep playing this stuff and they want an active community generating exposure then they should wake the **** up. As of now you generally speaking either have to have friends to play with or go through the hassle of actively participating in the community. A lot of Nintendo players and gamers in general are older and don't have these options available to them. For them Smash Ultimate doesn't work as a fighting game.

What incentive do Nintendo have? They have the potential to see their scene grow a lot larger. This in turn means exposure. And it means more people will join the scene, and larger tournaments will sharpen the competition and increase viewership. They stand to benefit a lot indirectly. Also the die is not cast after you buy the game and the DLC. You still have to pay to play online. Something I'm betting more people would be willing to do if you actually got functional online gameplay. Maybe they could fix the online mode without resorting to a PC release, I doubt so. They could improve it a lot overnight even on Switch (which they never do which is bafflingly stupid), and they could work on the netcode but they couldn't do rollback. Nintendo have been trying mobile games for a while now. They do realize the limitations of their games only being available on their consoles to some degree, even if they make money from every sold console since their consoles were always made of low quality cheap stuff.

About the rooster: that's the initial draw, and sure it continues to be a big draw for a long time, but it isn't what keeps people playing and watching for years and years, that's the game itself. It's the most well made,refined and deep platform fighter by a landslide. None of the competition comes even close. So for it to be suffering fundamental flaws in the form of built in lag and a joke of an online mode, and yes it being attached to the switch, is disastrous. It's performing this well in spite of these massive drawbacks. That speaks volumes about how big it could be. Traditional fighters thriving independently is irrelevant. Of course they will, but those crowds only partially overlap. Ultimate could siphon some of the traditional fighter gamers and viewers if the game wasn't severely limited in fundamental ways in comparison to theirs.

They need to be able to draw in new players too. I've played ultimate with a lot of gamers who never tried smash before and don't care about Nintendo or the cast in general, a lot of them quickly end up loving the gameplay and they would buy the game and keep playing if that didn't mean having to buy a Switch which they aren't going to use for anything else and which isn't going to let them play online in a satisfying way anyway. There's an incentive.

Finally, yes I'm speculating a lot, and questioning Nintendo's business model, and I'm probably in way over my head. But come on, can we at least admit that Smash Ultimate being on the Switch sucks and not having a functional online mode is terrible and hurts the game and the scene?

These are bigger issues than annoying overtuned characters, and by far imo. I'm not going into detail about how and why the online mode is so terrible because I'm guessing everyone is well aware of it. But I'm kinda getting the feeling that there is some denial going on and I might need to in order to rectify that.

Tell the millions of people that bought it that it wasn't worth their money. You seem to be thinking in terms of hardcore gamers. That isn't who they tend to cater to. Also, I don't think emulation is anywhere near the threat you might think it is as the casuals probably don't go through the effort to pirate and then emulate games.

As for longevity...why should they care? You can say it increases exposure, but by how much? Smash is already insanely well known, and the community has a decent amount of stigma around it, and in some cases for good reason. I doubt they really need the help pushing online subscriptions either. Have you seen how much money that makes? Mario Kart alone probably pushes most of it. It's certainly not needed enough to release their stranglehold on their IPs. Making a scene they don't seem to care about larger isn't exactly a good reason to give up your exclusivity which is a driving factor for Nintendo.

Ah yes, saying being attached to one of the most wide spread consoles of all time is a bad thing. Okay, you don't like the console. That doesn't make a PC port a good or even feasible idea. And generally speaking the idea is get them to buy it even if just for one game and sell them on more once they have the console. You might could argue it'd get more people to buy the games represented, but at the same time, it isn't a sure thing. Plus, the Switch as mentioned has sold ludicrously well. It's already really wide spread. They don't need the PC.

 

[Hippieslayer]

Tell the millions of people that bought it that it wasn't worth their money. You seem stuck in the head space of a hardcore gamer. That isn't who they tend to cater to. Also, I don't think emulation is anywhere near the threat you might think it is as the casuals probably don't go through the effort to pirate and then emulate games.

As for longevity...why should they care? You can say it increases exposure, but by how much? Smash is already insanely well known, and the community has a decent amount of stigma around it, and in some cases for good reason. I doubt they really need the help pushing online subscriptions either. Have you seen how much money that makes? Mario Kart alone probably pushes most of it. It's certainly not needed enough to release their stranglehold on their IPs. Making a scene they don't seem to care about larger isn't exactly a good reason to give up your exclusivity which is a driving factor for Nintendo.

Ah yes, saying being attached to one of the most wide spread consoles of all time is a bad thing. Okay, you don't like the console. That doesn't make a PC port a good or even feasible idea. And generally speaking the idea is get them to buy it even if just for one game and sell them on more once they have the console. You might could argue it'd get more people to buy the games represented, but at the same time, it isn't a sure thing. Plus, the Switch as mentioned has sold ludicrously well. It's already really wide spread. They don't need the PC.

Ehh, I'm not a hardcore gamer. I strongly object to that notion. I don't play games all that much, and the only game in which I try to be good is smash. I don't know if you are hardcore, but you are probably way more of a gamer than I am. And there's a lot of people like me or similar to me. Nintendo's business model largely fail to target us. Nintendo make a profit doing what they do, it works well for them. But it also keeps them small and limited in scope. They target gamers who are into Nintendo and they target families. There's a lot more to reap demographically.

As for the rest of your post: You're just saying what we have is good enough, it's such a lame attitude, and it's also blatant denial. Apparently we can't admit that there are issues. You seem to think successes overwrite them for some reason. They don't. Both exists.

Why should they care for longevity? Really? Why ask that question? Because Ultimate is getting on in years, and so is the Switch, it's still doing well but it's not going to forever. Smash is already well known. So what? They make a lot of money doing what they do. So what? They could make more. Nintendo do one thing well, but there's no reason they couldn't do other things too. They can stranglehold most of their IP's while still allowing their multiplayer dependent games with massive scenes the ability to thrive. You say the Switch has sold ludicrously well and that's true. Still doesn't come close to PCs.


Nintendo don't have to do what I think they should do. They can keep on operating within the bubble they have created for themselves. But they could do a lot more. They could be a lot bigger making a lot more money. But just forget about the whole platform issue and look at the online mode in itself. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for it. It's like having a stinking turd attached to a valuable diamond. Not adressing this is stupid. Blatantly stupid. When it comes to that it's all very simple.

 

[Sucumbio]

But if they want people to keep playing this stuff and they want an active community generating exposure then they should wake the **** up.

I think Nintendo has clearly demonstrated their most important metric for success is units sold. Ultimate is done from their perspective and getting involved in a cringe fgc community was always a "bad" idea until people started making money off it, and we see how that's turned out.

 

[Arthur97]

Ehh, I'm not a hardcore gamer. I strongly object to that notion. I don't play games all that much, and the only game in which I try to be good is smash. I don't know if you are hardcore, but you are probably way more of a gamer than I am. And there's a lot of people like me or similar to me. Nintendo's business model largely fail to target us. Nintendo make a profit doing what they do, it works well for them. But it also keeps them small and limited in scope. They target gamers who are into Nintendo and they target families. There's a lot more to reap demographically.

As for the rest of your post: You're just saying what we have is good enough, it's such a lame attitude, and it's also blatant denial. Apparently we can't admit that there are issues. You seem to think successes overwrite them for some reason. They don't. Both exists.

Why should they care for longevity? Really? Why ask that question? Because Ultimate is getting on in years, and so is the Switch, it's still doing well but it's not going to forever. Smash is already well known. So what? They make a lot of money doing what they do. So what? They could make more. Nintendo do one thing well, but there's no reason they couldn't do other things too. They can stranglehold most of their IP's while still allowing their multiplayer dependent games with massive scenes the ability to thrive. You say the Switch has sold ludicrously well and that's true. Still doesn't come close to PCs.


Nintendo don't have to do what I think they should do. They can keep on operating within the bubble they have created for themselves. But they could do a lot more. They could be a lot bigger making a lot more money. But just forget about the whole platform issue and look at the online mode in itself. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for it. It's like having a stinking turd attached to a valuable diamond. Not adressing this is stupid. Blatantly stupid. When it comes to that it's all very simple.

So...is an RPG a failure if you aren't still playing it five years later? Is Mario Kart a failure if they don't hold large tournaments? More importantly, does it makes substantially more money? Enough to justify the investment? Especially when most people are happy with the product they got? Also, how do you know it wouldn't hurt them long term to break console exclusivity? Mario Kart for example, is massive, but why hurt potential console sales by putting on PC? Maybe they'd get more, but what will they lose at the same time?

Besides, is it wise to insult people who have made more money than you or I probably ever will?

 

[meleebrawler]

The Super Mario Bros movie casually breaking all animation records should be proof enough that Nintendo has good reason to not listen to so-called experts on how to handle their IPs.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

I don't know if any of this is related to the competitive scene.

Or at least, its so far removed from the thread topic that I fail to see the point of it.

 

[Frihetsanka]

fun fact!
PMLG doesn't just require you to memorise the different hitlag of every move that doesn't send you into tumble for a frame perfect input

That number also changes with staling! How practical!

— Chakkie (Commissions Open!) (@ChakkieWFT) April 18, 2023

Every day that passes PMLG seems less and less like a threat and more and more like yet another overblown Twitter tech with little to no practical use.

 

[Hydreigonfan01]

OrionStats update

Character update for late April. Steve bites back a bit against ROB, but both continue to be well ahead of all other characters. Samus has jumped up while Roy falls out of the top 10 in favor of Cloud. For the lowest section: Villager/Richter/Pichu continue to badly underperform pic.twitter.com/LjNb5HJkrM

— Barnard's Loop (@LoopBarnard) April 20, 2023

Dunno if this is a hot take or not, but I think is a lot worse in the current meta then he was a year ago and Cloud is the #2 swordie behind only Aegis. He's losing a lot of popularity, Steve, Pyra/Mythra and Kazuya beat him and are all doing well, Kola is doing worse and HIKARU is preferring to use Sora. It feels like the factors that made Roy a good character before (great rushdown and mobility, strong kill power and ease of use) is falling off. Meanwhile is getting a lot more popularity and representation, particularly from Japan having a bunch of Cloud mains or secondaries/pockets such as Rizeasu, Nao, Yaura, Tsu, TKM, akasa and Chicken, and Cloud is one of the best at FP2 (He beats/goes even with Steve, Kazuya, Sora and Sephiroth) while having the same ease of use Roy had.

 

[Rizen]

OrionStats update

Character update for late April. Steve bites back a bit against ROB, but both continue to be well ahead of all other characters. Samus has jumped up while Roy falls out of the top 10 in favor of Cloud. For the lowest section: Villager/Richter/Pichu continue to badly underperform pic.twitter.com/LjNb5HJkrM

— Barnard's Loop (@LoopBarnard) April 20, 2023

Dunno if this is a hot take or not, but I think is a lot worse in the current meta then he was a year ago and Cloud is the #2 swordie behind only Aegis. He's losing a lot of popularity, Steve, Pyra/Mythra and Kazuya beat him and are all doing well, Kola is doing worse and HIKARU is preferring to use Sora. It feels like the factors that made Roy a good character before (great rushdown and mobility, strong kill power and ease of use) is falling off. Meanwhile is getting a lot more popularity and representation, particularly from Japan having a bunch of Cloud mains or secondaries/pockets such as Rizeasu, Nao, Yaura, Tsu, TKM, akasa and Chicken, and Cloud is one of the best at FP2 (He beats/goes even with Steve, Kazuya, Sora and Sephiroth) while having the same ease of use Roy had.

I've been saying Cloud's top tier for a long time. I don't think Roy's worse so much as just suffering from the same thing all swordies suffer from: he gets outclassed by Aegis (and Steve if you consider him in that category). IMO the reason Roy hung on for so long is he is easier to play that Aegis. Roy's still a really strong character but there are better picks.

On the topic of Ganon, Gluttony used Ganon all the way up to winner's finals in a local tournament. Sure Ganon may be the worst character in the game but he can win if he outplays you a little bit. There's no shame losing to Ganon (or anyone).

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcMdMmtHkPpQRISazZ3zCvn9cx0gSP4Hi

 

[NotLiquid]

Maybe it's a consequence of me not having paid attention to OrionStats in a hot minute but it didn't dawn on me until now that Sora's been chilling in the upper half of the cast for the better while now, even above Byleth. Last I checked in on his position was not long after Kameme's more notable placements at the American majors and the character didn't register much different than Pit is currently doing post-Zackray. Looks like he's had a pretty organic uptick in representation since that time.

 

[Hydreigonfan01]

Speaking of Sora, Kameme did a Sora Matchup Chart yesterday

ソラの相性表オフラインバージョンです
怖いので文句は言わないでください pic.twitter.com/gvY6BDhl0b

— R2G｜kameme/かめめ (@kameme8808) April 19, 2023

Pretty solid MU chart, though half of the top 10 best players play a character that wins the Sora MU according to Kameme.

 

[The_Bookworm]

Maybe it's a consequence of me not having paid attention to OrionStats in a hot minute but it didn't dawn on me until now that Sora's been chilling in the upper half of the cast for the better while now, even above Byleth. Last I checked in on his position was not long after Kameme's more notable placements at the American majors and the character didn't register much different than Pit is currently doing post-Zackray. Looks like he's had a pretty organic uptick in representation since that time.

Do you know who is representing Sora atm aside from Kameme? Sora has had very little presence in high level tournaments for a while now, even with Kameme helming him.

I guess he could just be getting a bit more uptick in usage in regionals? I am still curious about the details cause it doesn't look like he should be getting as much points as he is getting.

 

[Hydreigonfan01]

Do you know who is representing Sora atm aside from Kameme? Sora has had very little presence in high level tournaments for a while now, even with Kameme helming him.

I guess he could just be getting a bit more uptick in usage in regionals? I am still curious about the details cause it doesn't look like he should be getting as much points as he is getting.

HIKARU is playing Sora over Roy or DK at the moment and is doing pretty well.

 

[Hydreigonfan01]

A major and regional in Japan happened today.
Results for WAVE #4

1. Shuton
2. Kameme
3. Kome
4. MASA
5. Umeki
5. Paseriman
7. Omuatsu
7. KEN
9. M0tsunabE
9. Huto
9. Repo
9. Eim
13. Cosmos
13. Abadango
13. Kamisuke
13. Shogun
17. Munekin
17. Toura
17. Atelier
17. Kinaji
17. Jagaimo
17. Akakikusu
17. HIKARU
17. takera

Results for Sumabato SP 37

1. Miya
2. Asimo
3. Jogibu
4. Karaage
5. Yaura
5. Lv. 1
7. Luminous
7. Blue
9. Kie
9. Ka****a
9. Masashi
9. alice
13. Jagabata
13. Kyon
13. 33Peranbox
13. Boarden

 

[Hippieslayer]

So...is an RPG a failure if you aren't still playing it five years later? Is Mario Kart a failure if they don't hold large tournaments? More importantly, does it makes substantially more money? Enough to justify the investment? Especially when most people are happy with the product they got? Also, how do you know it wouldn't hurt them long term to break console exclusivity? Mario Kart for example, is massive, but why hurt potential console sales by putting on PC? Maybe they'd get more, but what will they lose at the same time?

Besides, is it wise to insult people who have made more money than you or I probably ever will?

Too long a series of rhetorical questions. All of their implications once again amounting to "This is good enough, beware of games as a service, they are the only alternative too doing things the way Nintendo does". All the while Smash Ultimate suffers tremendously. Throughout this whole exchange you also seem to struggle a lot with being able to grasp that something can be both a success and a failure. I guess you have some cognitive dissonance issue there that needs dealing with. Because it's not either or, so why are you thinking in dichotomies? You did ask how I know though, and of course I don't, I'm speculating. But I think Nintendo on PC would be a massive success. Doesn't mean they have to do what everyone else does, time has show again and again that they don't. Mario Kart has sold a ton and is a success, but if it were on steam? The sales would be crazy and people would be more than willing to pay the same Nintendo Online subscription they've had to for the Switch only now it could actually be a great online mode. Same goes for Ultimate. Big Multiplayer games do better on PC, it's the standard platform for big multiplayer games for many reasons.

And about the last question, yes, why not insult them? They deserve some insults for some of what they've done. Insulting is also a part of questioning. The alternative seems pretty abhorrent, tippy toeing around the wealthy and powerful. Again: there are obvious issues with Nintendo's model even if it has worked relatively well for them it also limits them and their longevity could be in jeopardy depending on how things develop. More importantly the enjoyment of their multiplayer games and the rest of their games too at this point.

And just in general what's up with the whole don't question or insult people or organizations who make more money than you do? you've got going on. That's a very anti-intellectual attitude of dubious nature to put it mildly. I think you're a bit of a fanboy because you seem to care more about defending the merits of Nintendo's business savvy from some random than what said way of doing business does to Nintendo's game. They limit them. In scope, breadth, fidelity, and feel (built in lag remember? as well as more than anything else: reach. I'm questioning Nintendo, but doing so fully aware that I'm just some random guy speculating. I don't see what the fuss is about? Releasing a console with built in lag warrants insults. So does the online mode of Smash Ultimate.

I'm not speculating about is that it sucks for Smash ultimate being stuck on Switch with its built in lag and lack of functional online mode. I'm speculating that Nintendo do not have any plans for a new Smash title anytime soon and that being stuck on Switch and lacking online is gonna really suck for the longevity of the smash ultimate scene. Switch sales are declining, only slightly, and the numbers are still amazing. But they are going down and there is an ongoing narrative in the gaming world about the weakness and limitations of the switch, that narrative is just going to grow stronger.

 

[Frihetsanka]

we’ve just found out that SHINE 2023 has no intention of banning Steve, with SHINE leadership giving us the OK to announce this on our end while waiting for their official announcement.

Steve is unbanned from BSB, MH, and Meter Management, immediately, to follow suit https://t.co/HZoN2jtOM8

— Bay State Beatdown (@BSBeatdownTO) April 24, 2023

Shine 2023 not banning Steve, and some scenes have started unbanning him. Based on findings from Steve labbers it seems that PMLG likely isn't a very useful tech at all, it might not even have many niche uses.

I think Steve should be _____ in Smash Ultimate.

If his hitstun canceling bug didn't exist, I would think Steve should be _____ in Smash Ultimate.

— Andrew Nestico (@PracticalTAS) April 23, 2023

This poll is interesting. 31.8% of people (in the poll, 15,254 votes) are clearly anti-ban, regardless of PMLG. 33.1% of people are clearly pro-ban, regardless of PMLG. 16.6% are "view results" (I'm going to assume that means "not sure").

So that leaves 18.5%. These are the people who voted "I think Steve should be legal in Smash Ultimate. If his hitstun canceling bug didn't exist, I would think Steve should be banned in Smash Ultimate."

I wonder how many of those 18.5% believe PMLG is an actual issue? Based on current findings, it seems that PMLG is likely to be a non-issue. Banning a character because of a non-issue would be silly, so I'm going to assume that they believe that PMLG is an actual issue. Moving forward, it would be good to see more discussion on PMLG in particular. Is it an issue? Or are Steve labbers (and acola) correct in claiming that it's not a practical tech and that it's largely a non-issue? If those 18.5% can be convinced that PMLG isn't an issue then we would have a fairly clear majority anti-ban (especially since many "view results" people would likely be anti-ban if PMLG is proven to be a non-issue).

While there are quite a few people who think Steve should be banned regardless (around 33.1% of the poll), they seem to be a vocal minority. It seems fairly clear that PMLG will likely be the deciding factor. As of right now, PMLG appears to most likely be a non-issue, so right now, I don't see much of a reason to ban Steve.

 

[Sucumbio]

we’ve just found out that SHINE 2023 has no intention of banning Steve, with SHINE leadership giving us the OK to announce this on our end while waiting for their official announcement.

Steve is unbanned from BSB, MH, and Meter Management, immediately, to follow suit https://t.co/HZoN2jtOM8

— Bay State Beatdown (@BSBeatdownTO) April 24, 2023

Shine 2023 not banning Steve, and some scenes have started unbanning him. Based on findings from Steve labbers it seems that PMLG likely isn't a very useful tech at all, it might not even have many niche uses.

I think Steve should be _____ in Smash Ultimate.

If his hitstun canceling bug didn't exist, I would think Steve should be _____ in Smash Ultimate.

— Andrew Nestico (@PracticalTAS) April 23, 2023

This poll is interesting. 31.8% of people (in the poll, 15,254 votes) are clearly anti-ban, regardless of PMLG. 33.1% of people are clearly pro-ban, regardless of PMLG. 16.6% are "view results" (I'm going to assume that means "not sure").

So that leaves 18.5%. These are the people who voted "I think Steve should be legal in Smash Ultimate. If his hitstun canceling bug didn't exist, I would think Steve should be banned in Smash Ultimate."

I wonder how many of those 18.5% believe PMLG is an actual issue? Based on current findings, it seems that PMLG is likely to be a non-issue. Banning a character because of a non-issue would be silly, so I'm going to assume that they believe that PMLG is an actual issue. Moving forward, it would be good to see more discussion on PMLG in particular. Is it an issue? Or are Steve labbers (and acola) correct in claiming that it's not a practical tech and that it's largely a non-issue? If those 18.5% can be convinced that PMLG isn't an issue then we would have a fairly clear majority anti-ban (especially since many "view results" people would likely be anti-ban if PMLG is proven to be a non-issue).

While there are quite a few people who think Steve should be banned regardless (around 33.1% of the poll), they seem to be a vocal minority. It seems fairly clear that PMLG will likely be the deciding factor. As of right now, PMLG appears to most likely be a non-issue, so right now, I don't see much of a reason to ban Steve.

I think PMLG is a safety net for banned banned so they don't get counted with the hard ban mentality. Basically the majority in this poll are ok w a ban. Which is unfortunate. I was convinced it was an unfair tech but it's proven to be worthless so at this point the only reason to ban him is to " save " your local scene from his " dominance ".

 

[Frihetsanka]

I think PMLG is a safety net for banned banned so they don't get counted with the hard ban mentality. Basically the majority in this poll are ok w a ban.

The majority of the votes are okay with a ban under certain circumstances, yes. While it is plausible that some people voted banned, legal instead of banned, banned as a "safety net" given that you can't see who voted for which option I don't think it's likely many people did. As such, it seems fairly safe to assume that the only way to reach a majority is if we assume that PMLG exists.

Do these 18.5% only care about PMLG simply existing, regardless of whether it's practical or not? I doubt it. As such, it seems likely to me that if we can prove that PMLG is most likely a non-issue, most of these 18.5% will swap to an anti-ban position. I looked at some Twitter polls before PMLG was discovered and around 35% of people wanted him banned then, around 65% didn't want him banned. This seems to be roughly in line with the data from the newest poll: Only around 33-35% of people or so are pro-ban regardless of PMLG, so in order for the pro-ban side to get a majority, PMLG would have to be a factor.

I would further argue that in order to ban a character we should strive for a supermajority, not just a majority. Around 60-65% of "Ban" votes, perhaps? Hypothetically, if 51% voted pro-ban, and 49% voted anti-ban, I don't think a ban would've been reasonable. If 65% voted for a ban, and 35% voted against it, it'd be a different story.

 

[ZephyrZ]

We should probably be taking that poll with a hefty grain of salt because like, it is Twitter.

 

[Frihetsanka]

We should probably be taking that poll with a hefty grain of salt because like, it is Twitter.

It's probably worth keeping in mind that Twitter people are likely more pro-ban in general (would be my guess). It's entirely possible that the amount of pro-ban people outside of people is lower than on Twitter.

 

[Hydreigonfan01]

ESAM is against banning Kazuya, though he doesn't know that PMLG is not good.

who wouldve guessed top players want the thing that maintains their status as being on top

Steve ban sure, especially with pmlg. Not kazuya man cmon https://t.co/yEMKfMSjJX

— ESAM (Stride Esports) (@imESAM) April 24, 2023

I really am not agreeing with Tweek's opinions on wanting Steve and Kazuya gone though.
Outside of that Yaura is going to BoBC5

After a string of amazing performances with wins on some of Japan's best players, this top-level Samus main is finally coming to North America.

Thanks to your donations, @ssbu_yauraYT is confirmed for Battle of BC 5! #BoBC5 pic.twitter.com/9l4RTwAQya

— Battle of BC (@battleofbc) April 24, 2023

 

[Rizen]

I'm definitely against banning Kazuya. The only justification I've seen is that he's annoying to fight but banning a char for that reason is A subjective and B a slippery slope. What's next, we ban Sonic? If a character isn't clearly dominating tournaments then I can't see any reason to ban them.

Banning Steve is more complicated. Ideally I'd like to ban the PMLG tech but not Steve, like at Summit but I can see how logistically that might be difficult. It's hard to say how good the tech is; there's a lot of he said, she said from both sides. It's just as easy to point to one person saying it's busted as to another who says it's not. In general I'm for waiting until after the tech is shown to be an issue to talk about bans rather than going on theory.

 

[superjm]

I am shocked, repeat, SHOCKED that the whole #BanSteve hysteria is set to follow the most obvious and logical progression everyone was screaming off the rooftops, that it would be used as a vehicle to ban "other" characters that people don't like.

There's a reason other FGCs have utilized bans only as a nuclear option to deal with extremely obvious broken and uncompetitive tools, the Ultimate scene seems to need to learn this lesson from scratch.

 

[st0pnsw0p]

There's a reason other FGCs have utilized bans only as a nuclear option to deal with extremely obvious broken and uncompetitive tools, the Ultimate scene seems to need to learn this lesson from scratch.

The precedents set by the FGC for banning characters don't matter here because Smash's relation to bans is completely unlike that of the FGC. Since Smash has no intrinsic competitive mode (unlike, say, Street Fighter where competitive play simply uses the game's standard 2-player mode), the community had to invent one for itself, and the one we use is intrinsically based on banning a hunge chunk of the game—all items and most stages—simply because people in the community don't like playing with them.

This is competitive Smash's original sin, and people advocating for banning Steve or Kazuya because they dislike those characters are simply following an age-old tradition. After all, if you're already banning half the game or more because you don't want to deal with it, the question then arises: why not ban characters too? To simply appeal to FGC's precedent of ban-aversion is unconvincing because the FGC has not been faced with this question and has no answer for it. If you want to make a convincing argument against character bans, then first answer this question.

This is not to advocate for a ban, by the way. I'm only a calling for people to move past the tired attitude of "big brother FGC does it like this, therefore we have to do it the same way." There's a bunch of other competitive gaming communities out there with their own approach to banning stuff that differs from the FGC's "not unless it's super-duper broken", and unlike the Smash community, they don't lose any sleep over what the FGC thinks of them for it; it would be nice if we could stop acting like the FGC's way is the only way.

 

[MrGameguycolor]

I agree with Juan:

 

[superjm]

The precedents set by the FGC for banning characters don't matter here because Smash's relation to bans is completely unlike that of the FGC. Since Smash has no intrinsic competitive mode (unlike, say, Street Fighter where competitive play simply uses the game's standard 2-player mode), the community had to invent one for itself, and the one we use is intrinsically based on banning a hunge chunk of the game—all items and most stages—simply because people in the community don't like playing with them.

This is competitive Smash's original sin, and people advocating for banning Steve or Kazuya because they dislike those characters are simply following an age-old tradition. After all, if you're already banning half the game or more because you don't want to deal with it, the question then arises: why not ban characters too? To simply appeal to FGC's precedent of ban-aversion is unconvincing because the FGC has not been faced with this question and has no answer for it. If you want to make a convincing argument against character bans, then first answer this question.

This is not to advocate for a ban, by the way. I'm only a calling for people to move past the tired attitude of "big brother FGC does it like this, therefore we have to do it the same way." There's a bunch of other competitive gaming communities out there with their own approach to banning stuff that differs from the FGC's "not unless it's super-duper broken", and unlike the Smash community, they don't lose any sleep over what the FGC thinks of them for it; it would be nice if we could stop acting like the FGC's way is the only way.

I'm not appealing to the FGC on this matter because of tradition, I'm appealing to the FGC because their approach makes sense and isn't stupid.

 

[st0pnsw0p]

I'm not appealing to the FGC on this matter because of tradition, I'm appealing to the FGC because their approach makes sense and isn't stupid.

Oh my! What sharp wit! What flawless logic! What airtight arguments! My knees shake and my tail tucks itself between my legs in the face of such genius.

Let me ask you a question: are you in favor of making all stages legal? Because that's the what the FGC's approach implies. Stages are as much a crucial part of the game as are characters, yet competitive Smash bans the vast majority of them in order to artificially shepherd the game into a meta that the players enjoy. Were we to actually take the FGC's approach instead then stages, at least, need to all be legal except in very extreme cases.

At the end of the day the reasons for banning stages are either "it encourages people to play the game in a way that is unfun", or else "it creates a dynamic that strongly favors some characters over others".

To paraphrase the anti-ban side's arguments, being unfun isn't a valid reason to ban something, so all the stages banned for this reason should be legalized. Don't like how the game plays if one of those stages comes up? You can always quit and go play another game you like better.

As for some stages strongly benefitting certain characters over others? Some characters are always going to be better than others in specific situations; either get good at dealing with those situations orhave a counterpick ready for when that stage comes up, the same as you might have a counterpick for a character your main struggles with.

The pro-ban side's reasons for banning Steve (or Kazuya or whatever character) are in essence the same as everyone else's reasons for banning certain stages. By arguing against them, you are implicitly also arguing against banning stages, unless there exists some specific difference between characters and stages that makes it acceptable to ban stages for being unfun or polarizing, but unacceptable to ban characters for those same reasons.

If you can explain what this difference in then please do so; I would sincerely love it if anyone would engage with this question rather than acting like the answer should be obvious.

If you can't then you by all means keep calling the other side stupid; maybe some day someone will care enough about your opinions to be swayed by your name-calling.

 

[Frihetsanka]

Stages and characters are fundamentally different and have always been treated as such. As a rule of thumb, fighting game characters are only banned if they are significantly overpowered and overcentralizing, or if they are, say, version exclusives for SoulCalibur 2. If you look at other platform fighters, you'll see that stages are banned there as well, but characters? As far as I know, no platform fighter has any banned characters. Something to consider.

If Smash Ultimate is to be the first platform fighter to ban a character, we better make sure we have a really good reason for it.

 

[Rizen]

No stage was ever banned because it was unfun. Stages are banned based on them featuring competitive exploits. If a stage is too big then the more mobile character could simply get the lead and run away the entire match being the main issue. Things like circle camping come into play. Walkoffs are banned because some characters could keep chaining you back into the blastzones with attacks. Walls are banned because you could be pinned against them and not be able to escape rapid attacks. In brawl a few stages were banned because Metaknight could "Shark" or attack with Uairs from under a pass through main platform then retreat to the invulnerability of the ledge. Ledges in general were very overpowered in Brawl but I'm getting off topic.

The same logic should apply to banning characters. If there's a character like Brawl Metaknight who simply invalidates half the cast and overcentralizes the meta IMO a ban is warranted. But Ultimate is much better balanced. Not even Steve gets that kind of oversaturation. Kazuya certainly doesn't. Yes, I agree fighter pass 2 wasn't the best balanced DLC but unless Steve's tech proves to be competitively broken, I'm against banning characters. They're not extreme enough.

 

[L9999]

Stages and characters are fundamentally different and have always been treated as such. As a rule of thumb, fighting game characters are only banned if they are significantly overpowered and overcentralizing, or if they are, say, version exclusives for SoulCalibur 2. If you look at other platform fighters, you'll see that stages are banned there as well, but characters? As far as I know, no platform fighter has any banned characters. Something to consider.

If Smash Ultimate is to be the first platform fighter to ban a character, we better make sure we have a really good reason for it.

If it counts Michaelangelo got banned in Nick All Stars tournaments under two weeks, his Nair could do easy execution, guaranteed, and inescapable death combos. He made Bayonetta and Ice Climbers look like jokes.

 

[ZephyrZ]

No stage was ever banned because it was unfun. Stages are banned based on them featuring competitive exploits. If a stage is too big then the more mobile character could simply get the lead and run away the entire match being the main issue. Things like circle camping come into play. Walkoffs are banned because some characters could keep chaining you back into the blastzones with attacks. Walls are banned because you could be pinned against them and not be able to escape rapid attacks. In brawl a few stages were banned because Metaknight could "Shark" or attack with Uairs from under a pass through main platform then retreat to the invulnerability of the ledge. Ledges in general were very overpowered in Brawl but I'm getting off topic.

The same logic should apply to banning characters. If there's a character like Brawl Metaknight who simply invalidates half the cast and overcentralizes the meta IMO a ban is warranted. But Ultimate is much better balanced. Not even Steve gets that kind of oversaturation. Kazuya certainly doesn't. Yes, I agree fighter pass 2 wasn't the best balanced DLC but unless Steve's tech proves to be competitively broken, I'm against banning characters. They're not extreme enough.

.. Let's be honest, Castle Siege wasn't banned because it had any serious competitive exploits. It got banned because people didn't want to learn how to play on a stage with a slope.

I don't neccessarily agree with those stage bans, but we are past the point where stages are only banned purely by neccessity.

 

[Frihetsanka]

If it counts Michaelangelo got banned in Nick All Stars tournaments under two weeks, his Nair could do easy execution, guaranteed, and inescapable death combos. He made Bayonetta and Ice Climbers look like jokes.

Oh yeah, although that was a temporary ban while the game was still getting patched and a tournament with a 10k dollar prize pool was about to happen, so a ban to deal with that made sense.

 

[Hippieslayer]

.. Let's be honest, Castle Siege wasn't banned because it had any serious competitive exploits. It got banned because people didn't want to learn how to play on a stage with a slope.

I don't neccessarily agree with those stage bans, but we are past the point where stages are only banned purely by neccessity.

Don't entirely agree but Castle Siege being banned because people don't want to play with slopes is perfectly fine. Smash has tons of stuff that could be allowed without making the game uncompetitive. But they would change it into something people don't want to play.

 

[ZephyrZ]

The fact that I'm against the Castle Siege ban was just a side point - I was just disagreeing that there wasn't a precedent for banning competitively viable stages just because they were "unfun".

Now I don't think banning a character is the same thing as banning a stage - no one is going to go "ah man I'm a Lylat Cruise main, now all my hours practicing were wasted". But I don't think st0pnsw0p is entirely wrong in calling out the community's double standard when it comes to bans either.

And the flip side, should we be surprised that anyone is calling to ban the likes of Kazuya for just because people don't like him when that precedent exists in other parts of the ruleset? How much power are we going to give to people complaining?

 

[Slime Master]

So why don't we have a curated list of rulesets and strike/counterpick them like we do with stages? Or on the flipside, why don't we treat stages like we do with rulesets and always go to PS2? Hell, at this point why don't we also treat characters the same way and pick the most competitive/fun/whatever criteria we're banning over and ban everyone else (like a no items, Fox only, Final Destination ruleset)? The answer is because rulesets, stages, and characters are all fundamentally different entities that effect the game in different ways, so the standards for one should only rarely apply to others. In order to convince me we should be banning characters like they're stages you'll have to convince me the fundamental differences between characters in smash and stages in smash are less significant than those between characters in smash and characters in the FGC. And maybe you can! But just saying we've banned other stuff in this game isn't going to convince me on its own.

 

[Sucumbio]

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over this recent bit about chastising the community for wanting to play competitively by banning items and stages. It's obvious that competitive smash was going to need its more random elements to be toned way back. Random stuff is bad in competition. Imagine a football or basketball game where the audience gets to randomly throw banana peels onto the field lol. And we still keep rng in the form of characters with peach, gnw, hero etc.

 

[ZephyrZ]

I feel like people are deliberately missing the point. There's a lot of arguing in bad faith.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate if anything - I think the majority of the stage bans are absolutely neccessary for the sake of competitive play - but jeeze. Are we really going to pretend hazards off Unovan Pokemon League was banned because of "RNG"?

Perhaps it's an issue of not having an official council to decide this stuff or something, but what this community decides is banworthy or not gets very arbitrary with no clear guidelines. Perhaps this could be seen for the better, since it means there's more flexibility it what's allowed and what's banned. But on the other hand aggressively gestures at Twitter demanding everything gets banned.

 

[Sucumbio]

I feel like people are deliberately missing the point. There's a lot of arguing in bad faith.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate if anything - I think the majority of the stage bans are absolutely neccessary for the sake of competitive play - but jeeze. Are we really going to pretend hazards off Unovan Pokemon League was banned because of "RNG"?

Perhaps it's an issue of not having an official council to decide this stuff or something, but what this community decides is banworthy or not gets very arbitrary with no clear guidelines. Perhaps this could be seen for the better, since it means there's more flexibility it what's allowed and what's banned. But on the other hand aggressively gestures at Twitter demanding everything gets banned.

I think the fact Ultimate has the smallest usually played on stage list is telling