Draft Banning in Smash 4

[ATH_]

I agree with the latter-most part of that: The **** this people who only say that need to, well, **** off. I can understand being passionate about things like this (hell, I am), but, if you aren't prepared to have a passionate discussion, what's the point?

The players agreeing to skip bans is interesting, though. Forgot we did that with stages already. That said, I really don't think it's in the best interest of the game, and thus will argue against it when I have an argument to present.

Exactly. I respect you for being logical in that way. A lot of people are giving an input with no reasoning, which only makes the common bias seem more like a bias than an opinion. A lot of people seem to be stating points that are irrelevant toward the validity of the idea, which can be frustrating. I defend both sides because not a lot of people are willing to take the time to think of the positives when it comes to things like this. I mention my state of opinion a lot so that it's not understood as me supporting positively or negatively.

Few have given the actual solid reasons that stand over a lot of others. Which is surprising.

 

[chipndip]

Exactly. I respect you for being logical in that way. A lot of people are giving an input with no reasoning, which only makes the common bias seem more like a bias than an opinion. A lot of people seem to be stating points that are irrelevant toward the validity of the idea, which can be frustrating. I defend both sides because not a lot of people are willing to take the time to think of the positives when it comes to things like this. I mention my state of opinion a lot so that it's not understood as me supporting positively or negatively.

Few have given the actual solid reasons that stand over a lot of others. Which is surprising.

Trust me, there are positives to the notion. The problem is what you're taking away for that positive, which isn't enough to justify it. FG players tend to have a main and a pocket, and sometimes not even that much. It's very difficult to advocate banning someone's main, forcing everyone to use pockets or to hide their real mains when they should be focusing on leveling their skills up and winning their matches. It's an unnecessary burden.

 

[Jiggly]

I'm gonna put that in the OP guys, please keep this a discussion of logic and reason, not a rant of how you hate everything. Thank you! ^_^

 

[kyoskue]

I would like to point out that anyone known for using a character is likely to have their main banned, and the thing about "baiting" bans would only really work in early matches because its pretty easy to figure out if you watch matches.

I'm actually not COMPLETELY against this as a potential fix down the road, but as others have said, its far too early to bother.

 

[KlefkiHolder]

I bolded the key point in this statement. Saying you don't have time to learn a new character is an excuse. The best players are ones who play all day. Dedication to training is a key part of becoming good, and that means spending a lot of time in the game. If you're saying you don't have time to learn a new character, it's probably because you aren't making enough time.

Everything else in your post is fine.

And isn't banning someone from using a character because you don't want to deal with it even more of an excuse?

And I'm not saying learning many characters is the problem. I'm saying becoming a top player with multiple characters is an issue, especially this early in the meta. Sure, over time situations like Mango, M2K, and PPMD being gods with multiple characters will occur, but one key issue with that is time. These. Things. Take. Time.

Also, this is so counterproductive to getting new players in.

 

[ATH_]

And isn't banning someone from using a character because you don't want to deal with it even more of an excuse?

And I'm not saying learning many characters is the problem. I'm saying becoming a top player with multiple characters is an issue, especially this early in the meta. Sure, over time situations like Mango, M2K, and PPMD being gods with multiple characters will occur, but one key issue with that is time. These. Things. Take. Time.

Also, this is so counterproductive to getting new players in.

It would take time you say? You mean like, the rest of the meta.

Jokes aside, I understand where you're coming from, I just simply disagree with this view. Having to learn at least 2 characters would set the bar higher and also make the scene more inviting to new players.
It's not exactly like this but this is just the general:
In the current scene, players with 1 main learn to combat at least 49 different characters. All matchups.
In the type of scene that would have the tested tournament, players would have at least 2 mains, and have to learn 48 for each. As they would be allowed to basically skip a matchup. However, keep in mind that this is taking the selfish route. You may have more than one counter and if you run into someone who plays both, you're ****ed. This is where the strategy comes in.

It DOES promote not learning 2 matchups, but at the same time, it CAN punish you for doing so. I simply like it because it sets the skill cap for each player a lot higher. I understand everyone's main point of wanting to focus one at a time, and that is the largest issue if anything.

Hopefully you've read my previous posts so I don't have to repeat certain things. But yeah. I understand your point, I disagree with it being fundamental in the validity of this idea.

 

[guedes the brawler]

no. i shouldn't be forced to play as more than 1 character if i don't want.

 

[Conda]

When we see M2K vs Mango finals, we want them to be using their best characters.

 

[ATH_]

When we see M2K vs Mango finals, we want them to be using their best characters.

Why are we talking about M2K and Mango? Mango doesn't play this game at a comp level (As far as I know) and their rivalry is mainly in Melee. The main point is that this game is FAR different from Melee, which is why we should come up with new things instead of shoving the Melee ruleset into it.

Again, counterpointing. Staying neutral to this topic.

 

[KlefkiHolder]

It would take time you say? You mean like, the rest of the meta.

Jokes aside, I understand where you're coming from, I just simply disagree with this view. Having to learn at least 2 characters would set the bar higher and also make the scene more inviting to new players.
It's not exactly like this but this is just the general:
In the current scene, players with 1 main learn to combat at least 49 different characters. All matchups.
In the type of scene that would have the tested tournament, players would have at least 2 mains, and have to learn 48 for each. As they would be allowed to basically skip a matchup. However, keep in mind that this is taking the selfish route. You may have more than one counter and if you run into someone who plays both, you're ****ed. This is where the strategy comes in.

It DOES promote not learning 2 matchups, but at the same time, it CAN punish you for doing so. I simply like it because it sets the skill cap for each player a lot higher. I understand everyone's main point of wanting to focus one at a time, and that is the largest issue if anything.

Hopefully you've read my previous posts so I don't have to repeat certain things. But yeah. I understand your point, I disagree with it being fundamental in the validity of this idea.

I really don't see what keeping new players from playing the characters they want to would do to bring in more. Furthermore, forcing them to spread themselves and make two decent characters rather than one good one just slows growth. Like what? That sounds so counterproductive to me. Like, Melee for example. Mango is very good, he is considered by many the GOAT for a reason. He didn't start with his cast mastery he has now. He played Puff. Armada was the same with Peach, Ken with Marth, it goes on.

Sure, it takes more skill to do well with multiple characters, I'm not arguing that, what I'm arguing is that forcing people to do so only hurts the quality of matches as they have to spread their efforts. You have a problem with a matchup or two? Then that is, tbh, your problem. If you have to pick up a secondary for that matchup, go for it, I won't force you.

Hampering players for being good with a character just makes no sense at all to me. By doing that, you are lowering the skill cap by removing the top of the scale, not boosting it. This also slows development incredibly as it actually prevents usage of characters.

EDIT:

Why are we talking about M2K and Mango? Mango doesn't play this game at a comp level (As far as I know) and their rivalry is mainly in Melee. The main point is that this game is FAR different from Melee, which is why we should come up with new things instead of shoving the Melee ruleset into it.

Again, counterpointing. Staying neutral to this topic.

He wasn't talking about a Melee ruleset though? Just bringing up two top players and how we shouldn't hold them back for being good.

 

[ATH_]

I really don't see what keeping new players from playing the characters they want to would do to bring in more. Furthermore, forcing them to spread themselves and make two decent characters rather than one good one just slows growth. Like what? That sounds so counterproductive to me. Like, Melee for example. Mango is very good, he is considered by many the GOAT for a reason. He didn't start with his cast mastery he has now. He played Puff. Armada was the same with Peach, Ken with Marth, it goes on.

Sure, it takes more skill to do well with multiple characters, I'm not arguing that, what I'm arguing is that forcing people to do so only hurts the quality of matches as they have to spread their efforts. You have a problem with a matchup or two? Then that is, tbh, your problem. If you have to pick up a secondary for that matchup, go for it, I won't force you.

Hampering players for being good with a character just makes no sense at all to me. By doing that, you are lowering the skill cap by removing the top of the scale, not boosting it. This also slows development incredibly as it actually prevents usage of characters.

EDIT:


He wasn't talking about a Melee ruleset though? Just bringing up two top players and how we shouldn't hold them back for being good.

The start to this is well-worded and is the main issue where people disagree. At a point, you ended up contradicting yourself, however, it isn't important.

I suppose I might as well say for the 4th page that I am neutral to the problems and pros of this idea. I argue for both sides, for short. To make sure that nothing is misunderstood and all problems are addressed, rather than fake issues.

He was not bringing up a melee ruleset, but rather, a rivalry that takes place in the Melee community. It would be like talking about 2 TF2 teams who have a rivalry, then comparing it to Smash 4. Of course, that's an exaggeration, as Melee is at least in the same series. The problem I have with comparisons is that we should be sticking to strictly Smash 4 evidence alone when talking about ideas for the competitive scene. That's at least how I view it. If it didn't work in Melee, that does not effect this and is irrelevant aside from the fact that you may have the same players here.

 

[KlefkiHolder]

The start to this is well-worded and is the main issue where people disagree. At a point, you ended up contradicting yourself, however, it isn't important.

I suppose I might as well say for the 4th page that I am neutral to the problems and pros of this idea. I argue for both sides, for short. To make sure that nothing is misunderstood and all problems are addressed, rather than fake issues.

He was not bringing up a melee ruleset, but rather, a rivalry that takes place in the Melee community. It would be like talking about 2 TF2 teams who have a rivalry, then comparing it to Smash 4. Of course, that's an exaggeration, as Melee is at least in the same series. The problem I have with comparisons is that we should be sticking to strictly Smash 4 evidence alone when talking about ideas for the competitive scene. That's at least how I view it. If it didn't work in Melee, that does not effect this and is irrelevant aside from the fact that you may have the same players here.

First off, sorry if it sounds like I'm attacking you a little. Sometimes my words sorta come out like that (I really don't mean it!)


Well, the thing is, like you said, its the same game series, but even more importantly, its the same genre. However, I think that draft banning would work even better in that situation (still poorly, but better) given that Mango and M2K both have multiple characters thats have been shown to work well in tournament (M2K's Marth, Shiek, Fox as well I guess. Mango's Fox, Falco, Falcon I guess (used it against Armada at TBH4 and almost took a game), he even pulled Puff out at Apex v. M2K I believe (tho it didn't go well). )

 

[ATH_]

First off, sorry if it sounds like I'm attacking you a little. Sometimes my words sorta come out like that (I really don't mean it!)


Well, the thing is, like you said, its the same game series, but even more importantly, its the same genre. However, I think that draft banning would work even better in that situation (still poorly, but better) given that Mango and M2K both have multiple characters thats have been shown to work well in tournament (M2K's Marth, Shiek, Fox as well I guess. Mango's Fox, Falco, Falcon I guess (used it against Armada at TBH4 and almost took a game), he even pulled Puff out at Apex v. M2K I believe (tho it didn't go well). )

Yeah I remember this stuff. Mango also proved a point against Hax by 3-0ing him at BH4 with Falcon iirc. And no, I don't take it as attacking, you aren't using harsh language or actively trying to disprove in any way possible.

It's a fighting game, but it's also a party game. Which I think a lot of people forget. Now I know this is mentioned a lot, but I'm not going to be that person who says "It's not meant to be played competitively!" because that is irrelevant. What I do want to say though, is that this IS a different kind of game because it's modeled around a balance for casual players. THAT is really important to keep in mind.

It's like saying that just because someone likes a Violin in music that it means they should get along with someone who likes a Guitar in music just because they are both string instruments. They both have similar core concepts, however, are commonly used in completely different forms. (Not related: For the record, if you haven't heard what a guitar and a violin sound like in the same song, it's incredible.)

EDIT: So, it wasn't entirely made clear at the end, but my main point was that while they are understandably comparable, it's also not safe to just apply certain things from one to the other. You may have a set of notes that sound great on a guitar but they may or may not sound great on a violin.

 

[Conda]

Why are we talking about M2K and Mango? Mango doesn't play this game at a comp level (As far as I know) and their rivalry is mainly in Melee. The main point is that this game is FAR different from Melee, which is why we should come up with new things instead of shoving the Melee ruleset into it.

Again, counterpointing. Staying neutral to this topic.

My point was clear - when you watch competitive play at a high level, you don't want players NOT playing at their best. Allowing players to cripple each other slightly by forcing a different character options is silly and strange. This is not a team-based game, it's a solo game. Character bans work in LoL because of how the dynamic between multiple characters on the field works. Mastering a character also means a different thing in LoL. In Smash, character mastery is almost everything, and reducing the potency of that element in competitive play is a bad idea.

It means nothing to be the best DK player if your DK is going to be banned, and you have to use your secondary. If Will makes it to Grand Finals, then you bet we, the viewers and commentators, want to see him using DK. Adding the option to ban his best character lowers the potential skill ceiling for individual characters, and promotes general use of generally powerful characters. Why bother excelling with DK when you can become very proficient with Sheik + ZSS + Diddy to cover your options, if your opponent bans one of the three?

This is a sound idea mathematically, but not in the context of this being a skill-based competitive game that relies heavily, like all others, on spectator involvement and player-to-character mastery. Remove the element of 'this player excels with this character', and you're left with a meta that doesn't rely on the high skill ceiling requires to master a character. That's the worst thing you can remove from a competitive game.

Starcraft 2 would suck if your opponent could ban your strongest faction just to force you to play differently. You'd get variety, yes, but that's not what makes competitive players want to play. They want to be able to use their best character. They're at a tournament, and it's very likely they're being recorded nowadays. Don't reduce that level of excitement from our competitions.

 

[ATH_]

My point was clear - when you watch competitive play at a high level, you don't want players NOT playing at their best. Allowing players to cripple each other slightly by forcing a different character options is silly and strange. This is not a team-based game, it's a solo game. Character bans work in LoL because of how the dynamic between multiple characters on the field works. Mastering a character also means a different thing in LoL. In Smash, character mastery is almost everything, and reducing the potency of that element in competitive play is a bad idea.

It means nothing to be the best DK player if your DK is going to be banned, and you have to use your secondary. If Will makes it to Grand Finals, then you bet we, the viewers and commentators, want to see him using DK. Adding the option to ban his best character lowers the potential skill ceiling for individual characters, and promotes general use of generally powerful characters. Why bother excelling with DK when you can become very proficient with Sheik + ZSS + Diddy to cover your options, if your opponent bans one of the three?

This is a sound idea mathematically, but not in the context of this being a skill-based competitive game that relies heavily, like all others, on spectator involvement and player-to-character mastery. Remove the element of 'this player excels with this character', and you're left with a meta that doesn't rely on the high skill ceiling requires to master a character. That's the worst thing you can remove from a competitive game.

Starcraft 2 would suck if your opponent could ban your strongest faction just to force you to play differently. You'd get variety, yes, but that's not what makes competitive players want to play. They want to be able to use their best character. They're at a tournament, and it's very likely they're being recorded nowadays. Don't reduce that level of excitement from our competitions.

Yes, thank you, this person, whoever you are, you're great at this.
One of the few people who's actually taken the time out to explain in LOGICAL DETAIL the largest issue with this idea. Thank you.

I'm not being sarcastic, I swear. This is legitimately the greatest problem and I do not disagree with it in any way. It IS an issue.

A possible solution would be to have Draft Banning active for pools or for the first couple rounds of a large DE bracket. However, that'd be complicated and people would find it unnecessary. A lot of the points of this focus on spectators when we should be focussing on the players and how much fun they are having. There ARE points that are towards that, however, this is such a huge point that they wish they could cancel out.

This is why I think it will not succeed. In any scene, we should know that sacrifices are necessary to come to an understanding, however, when something has a large flaw, that is all that matters. It does not matter how many pros there are to it if there is a large flaw that the majority can agree IS a flaw.

 

[GSM_Dren]

THE PROS AND CONS OF DRAFT BANNING

Every Game 2, both players ban one character each for Games 2 and 3. Game 1 is left the same

PROS:
[...]

CONS:
- In order to be good at the game and win, you would need to learn at least 2 characters.
- Players who are known for who they play would be banned against commonly
- We shouldn't be forced to learn more than one character
- May cause more disputes based on order of ban (As usual)
- Some players may fake out the first game, then ban a counter to another character in order to bait a bad ban
This one is the most interesting to me and probably the most relevant. Someone good may purposefully lose game 1 so they can ban (let's say) a counter to Diddy, then trick Game 1's winner into banning the character they used in game 1. Then the player successfully tricked them, and now they can play diddy freely as long as they did not play him in Game 1.
- People would not be open to having a change like this, due to the magnitude
- More strict players would find it unnecessary to change rulesets like this
- "We didn't do it with Brawl's MK, so why do it here?"

I take a neutral stance to this. I do not believe it will go through, I simply would like to see it tested so that we can have evidence, ACTUAL evidence, that it's a good or bad idea. That is all.

Draft banning is definitely an interesting idea to the Smash community, but as others have said before, it would be extremely messy for TOs to enforce and would undeniably lead players (new and old) away. I am open to it having tested, but I foresee its implementation with many complications.

I feel that as of now, the cons would severely outweigh the pros. Many players have their one true main which they attach themselves to and put in hours upon hours of training for that character. By banning their main, you effectively force them to pick up a secondary character who they aren't as nearly comfortable or proficient with compared to their main. Now I'm not saying their secondary will do poorly, I'm saying that they would have to divide their focus between two (or more) characters when they really only want to be playing their main. The point is further illustrated by Conda:

My point was clear - when you watch competitive play at a high level, you don't want players NOT playing at their best. Allowing players to cripple each other slightly by forcing a different character options is silly and strange. [...] In Smash, character mastery is almost everything, and reducing the potency of that element in competitive play is a bad idea.

It means nothing to be the best DK player if your DK is going to be banned, and you have to use your secondary. If Will makes it to Grand Finals, then you bet we, the viewers and commentators, want to see him using DK. Adding the option to ban his best character lowers the potential skill ceiling for individual characters, and promotes general use of generally powerful characters.

Overall, it really needs to be tested. Change is difficult for the competitive Smash community to accept and this system would be much of a major overhaul to tournaments.

 

[ATH_]

Draft banning is definitely an interesting idea to the Smash community, but as others have said before, it would be extremely messy for TOs to enforce and would undeniably lead players (new and old) away. I am open to it having tested, but I foresee its implementation with many complications.

I feel that as of now, the cons would severely outweigh the pros. Many players have their one true main which they attach themselves to and put in hours upon hours of training for that character. By banning their main, you effectively force them to pick up a secondary character who they aren't as nearly comfortable or proficient with compared to their main. Now I'm not saying their secondary will do poorly, I'm saying that they would have to divide their focus between two (or more) characters when they really only want to be playing their main. The point is further illustrated by Conda:



Overall, it really needs to be tested. Change is difficult for the competitive Smash community to accept and this system would be much of a major overhaul to tournaments.

I believe that if it's tested, it'll shut down the questioning as to whether or not it works. Which is a simple and efficient way of doing so.

 

[Conda]

I'm not being sarcastic, I swear.

Draft banning is definitely an interesting idea to the Smash community, but as others have said before, it would be extremely messy for TOs to enforce and would undeniably lead players (new and old) away. I am open to it having tested, but I foresee its implementation with many complications.

I feel that as of now, the cons would severely outweigh the pros. Many players have their one true main which they attach themselves to and put in hours upon hours of training for that character. By banning their main, you effectively force them to pick up a secondary character who they aren't as nearly comfortable or proficient with compared to their main. Now I'm not saying their secondary will do poorly, I'm saying that they would have to divide their focus between two (or more) characters when they really only want to be playing their main. The point is further illustrated by Conda:



Overall, it really needs to be tested. Change is difficult for the competitive Smash community to accept and this system would be much of a major overhaul to tournaments.

I'd say that, since this is still heavily a grassroots-based scene, people's willingness to accept ruleset changes is steeped heavily in a common sense mentality of "does this improve competition directly, or is it rule lawyering that tries to bandage things?"

This is a heavy, yet subtle, change. It aims to improve the competitive landscape by enforcing use of more than one character, and thus attempts to limit bandwagoning to the high tier characters. It's a softer more interwoven-into-the-rules version of widespread character banning. It's a better alternative, for sure, but serves to enact the same balancing measure at the end of the day.

We all want Smash to be the best competitive game it can be. But limiting the amount of effect 'character expertise and mastery' has in our competitive game is not a good idea. Hopefully there's a solution out there that doesn't require players to not play as their strongest character.

 

[OnettGirl]

This idea seems kinda fun as a side event of some kind but I just can't really see it going past the testing stage.

I myself probably wouldn't join any tournaments run in this style. When I find a main I form a connection with that character. To give someone the ability to rip that connection away from me would be disheartening to say the least. I want to win with my main, I don't care if their top tier or not, that's my character and i'm going to show it off. I want to prove to people all the blood sweat and tears i've put into perfecting this little blob of polygons. If I can't win with my main then the tournament holds no meaning to me. I wouldn't care because it's not my character. It may sound a bit condescending but it's true. However at this point i'm just parroting what other people have said.

I can see how it can be fun for some people but in the end it wouldn't personally be something for me. Like I said a fun little side event. [I'd also like to see a side event where everyone has to pick Random, that would be fun but that's for a different topic]

Edit: wow I pressed the reply button too early, lemmie fix this
Edit2: Well i'll never do that again.

 

[Little Nemo]

If a character has enough prowess to consider this system then I think it should just be banned.

 

[κomıc]

Disallows newer players to simply select the "Best" character and start winning tournaments/beating higher levelled players.

I don't even know what this means because I really don't think this would be or was even an issue. Sounds more like a "pride" thing to me.

Anyhow, I'd like to see drafting done for 4v4. Each team bans 3 characters but no one has really explored that aspect in Smash Bros yet.

 

[ATH_]

I don't even know what this means because I really don't think this would be or was even an issue. Sounds more like a "pride" thing to me.

Anyhow, I'd like to see drafting done for 4v4. Each team bans 3 characters but no one has really explored that aspect in Smash Bros yet.

At the recent Sweden tourney (There isn't many and I don't remember it's name), a new player who picked up the most basic diddy beat a player who has played in the comp scene for years. This has happened and is relevant. Of course, patching will help a lot, and we can only hope that Nintendo does the right thing with balancing.

Just saying that it has happened in this game.

 

[Nabbitnator]

I think it would be beneficial in the long run to have 2 characters. Set character 1 for full mastery and a sub for select match ups where you might not have a choice to change. Also just having 1 character has worked for a lot of people. I'm not really a fan of banning a character because you should be able to deal with that character with your own skill.

 

[kyxsune]

I think it would be beneficial in the long run to have 2 characters. Set character 1 for full mastery and a sub for select match ups where you might not have a choice to change. Also just having 1 character has worked for a lot of people. I'm not really a fan of banning a character because you should be able to deal with that character with your own skill.

This is pretty much what I'm, doing though I'm learning pikachu because hes just soo fast. Not sure who he counters though that my main cant fight

 

[OnettGirl]

At the recent Sweden tourney (There isn't many and I don't remember it's name), a new player who picked up the most basic diddy beat a player who has played in the comp scene for years. This has happened and is relevant. Of course, patching will help a lot, and we can only hope that Nintendo does the right thing with balancing.

Just saying that it has happened in this game.

It's because bog standard Diddy is probably the easiest character to use and get results with. I'm not going to say he's completely easy because I don't want to offend anyone and on the off chance you battle someone who does know how to deal with Diddy's Dthrow shenanigans you need to adapt and know the character a little more, but the point still stands that everyone mains Diddy, they just don't realize it yet. It's just super easy to know basic Diddy combos and win with it. Which i'm fairly certain will be patched out eventually. It's just something people are going to have to start really preparing for until that time comes, if it does.

I find it hilarious to think at one point everyone thought Diddy was ruined because he no longer had 2 bananas but look where we are now. And i'm certain if/when the patch does come along people are going to make a huge fuss about it and claim that he's dead again.

On a side note I fought a remarkably bad Diddy in for glory that whiffed the monkey flip, SD'd his first stock, and then rage quit. I could feel the sodium through the wireless signal.

 

[ATH_]

It's because bog standard Diddy is probably the easiest character to use and get results with. I'm not going to say he's completely easy because I don't want to offend anyone and on the off chance you battle someone who does know how to deal with Diddy's Dthrow shenanigans you need to adapt and know the character a little more, but the point still stands that everyone mains Diddy, they just don't realize it yet. It's just super easy to know basic Diddy combos and win with it. Which i'm fairly certain will be patched out eventually. It's just something people are going to have to start really preparing for until that time comes, if it does.

I find it hilarious to think at one point everyone thought Diddy was ruined because he no longer had 2 bananas but look where we are now. And i'm certain if/when the patch does come along people are going to make a huge fuss about it and claim that he's dead again.

On a side note I fought a remarkably bad Diddy in for glory that whiffed the monkey flip, SD'd his first stock, and then rage quit. I could feel the sodium through the wireless signal.

I'd like to give props to this guy for the Shofu referrence without actually replying to your post. Thank you. XD

 

[Jiggly]

This is pretty much what I'm, doing though I'm learning pikachu because hes just soo fast. Not sure who he counters though that my main cant fight

Diddy. xD

 

[κomıc]

At the recent Sweden tourney (There isn't many and I don't remember it's name), a new player who picked up the most basic diddy beat a player who has played in the comp scene for years. This has happened and is relevant. Of course, patching will help a lot, and we can only hope that Nintendo does the right thing with balancing.

Just saying that it has happened in this game.

Fair enough, but just because people classify this individual as a "new" player in that scene doesn't mean they are a new player. For all we know, this person probably played with a small group of people or played online. For example, I have made a couple of friends who have been playing for I'd say 3 years and people who they have played against in South Florida classify them as "new players" or being all like "We want bring new players into the community!" but I don't buy it because they're not new. They've just been ignored up by them up until they attended that tournament. But I digress.

And I'm probably going to get shade by one of them if they see this but I can't help but call things for what it is. Not sorry.

 

[ATH_]

Fair enough, but just because people classify this individual as a "new" player in that scene doesn't mean they are a new player. For all we know, this person probably played with a small group of people or played online. For example, I have made a couple of friends who have been playing for I'd say 3 years and people who they have played against in South Florida classify them as "new players" or being all like "We want bring new players into the community!" but I don't buy it because they're not new. They've just been ignored up by them up until they attended that tournament. But I digress.

And I'm probably going to get shade by one of them if they see this but I can't help but call things for what it is. Not sorry.

We know that Smash Wii U is there first smash game, like, that they ever played. They were interviewed. I wish I could remember the tourneys name so I could provide proof...Ugh. If it comes down to that, I'll withdraw my point.

 

[κomıc]

We know that Smash Wii U is there first smash game, like, that they ever played. They were interviewed. I wish I could remember the tourneys name so I could provide proof...Ugh. If it comes down to that, I'll withdraw my point.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what you posted isn't true. But I have my doubts in not believing this person is completely "new" to Smash Bros.

I'm just dubious about people coining the term "new" player for reasons especially from what I have seen.

 

[SmashGamer112]

This is sounds like an awesome idea on paper, but thinking about what the consequences are it's terrible.

If this happened in a tournament, it can essentially hinder someone to the extent where the bad player wins. Lets say someone plays D3 really well and also has 2nd which is Luigi who is no where near as good as the D3. The other guy who's fighting him is gonna be like "Hey that guy is so good with D3. He can probably win the tournament. Ha, too bad I'm just banning him.".

Hindering a players performance just to change up the meta this EARLY in the games life is pretty stupid. Like many people have stated it's a stupid way to just have this to ban Diddy because he's "ZOMG too gud" and anyone else since you're too busy moaning about his play instead of learning the matchup.

I understand why someone may want to do this but really it's just rushing in trying to change the game, without even letting it evolve.

Testing the idea? That's fine and all, but if it was me I would wait at-least 2-3 months since we will know more about the game, than the knowledge we know now.

 

[Piford]

I think Draft banning could actually be really cool because it would be testing for the most skilled player better. You now add more strategy by deciding who to ban and who you think your opponent will ban. Also, it requires you to learn 3 characters, which takes more skill then learning 1 character. Also character variety is really nice and it allows lower tiers (if they exist, too early to tell how balanced it is) to see use as they might be held back by just a few key matchups.

 

[Pyr]

I think Draft banning could actually be really cool because it would be testing for the most skilled player better. You now add more strategy by deciding who to ban and who you think your opponent will ban. Also, it requires you to learn 3 characters, which takes more skill then learning 1 character. Also character variety is really nice and it allows lower tiers (if they exist, too early to tell how balanced it is) to see use as they might be held back by just a few key matchups.

The more skilled player focuses on 1-2 characters at most because it's a more efficient way to get better. Forcing someone to learn more then 1-2 characters won't show more skill and doesn't require more skill. It takes more time.

A truly skilled player focuses because (time + practice + application) / characters = overall ability to win (aka skill). It's very, very simplified, but still. All this does is muddles the process to actually get into a game and drives away the dedicated 1-character players.

And, again, the ban process will be the same every game: Ban their character or ban a matchup you don't want to deal with/don't want to learn. In fact, the latter just shows lack of skill, and the former negates anything you learned in the match about their play style with that character. There is nothing about this system that adds skill and all it will ever do is prevent main characters from being played game 1.

Edit: About the tiers: Low-Tiers will NEVER see much play, unless it's in a low-tier tourny. Just because you ban 1 top doesn't mean one of the 10 other commonly played tops won't be a secondary. If you want this for character variety (which, in and of itself, is a poor reason), then you won't get it through this system.

 

[Funen1]

I think Draft banning could actually be really cool because it would be testing for the most skilled player better. You now add more strategy by deciding who to ban and who you think your opponent will ban. Also, it requires you to learn 3 characters, which takes more skill then learning 1 character. Also character variety is really nice and it allows lower tiers (if they exist, too early to tell how balanced it is) to see use as they might be held back by just a few key matchups.

This seems like a rather arbitrary definition of "skill". Wouldn't character specialists, people who focus enough on one character to define and even raise the standard for that character's metagame and be considered among the cream of the crop among all people who play that character, specialists or not, be considered "skillful" as well?

 

[Piford]

It might take more time, but if your a professional smash player you are dedicating yourself to playing the game and will likely be able to play with multiple characters at an extremely high level. While a person that dedicates their time to one character might be better than someone who can averagely play 3 characters, a person who can play 3 character with a lot of skill is better than a person who can only play one character with a lot of skill. Having multiple mains is already a good strategy and a more skillful player should utilize it even without draft banning (look at Mew2King, he mains Sheik, Marth, and Fox in Melee and can play a majority if not all of the characters extremely well). When I said low tier characters, I wasn't referring to the unsalvageable ones, I was more referring to characters like R.O.B. in Brawl (I probably should've said mid to mid-low tier) who was a solid character all around, but had such a bad matchup against Meta Knight that it's hard to be successful with him in a tournament.

 

[Pyr]

It might take more time, but if your a professional smash player you are dedicating yourself to playing the game and will likely be able to play with multiple characters at an extremely high level. While a person that dedicates their time to one character might be better than someone who can averagely play 3 characters, a person who can play 3 character with a lot of skill is better than a person who can only play one character with a lot of skill. Having multiple mains is already a good strategy and a more skillful player should utilize it even without draft banning (look at Mew2King, he mains Sheik, Marth, and Fox in Melee and can play a majority if not all of the characters extremely well). When I said low tier characters, I wasn't referring to the unsalvageable ones, I was more referring to characters like R.O.B. in Brawl (I probably should've said mid to mid-low tier) who was a solid character all around, but had such a bad matchup against Meta Knight that it's hard to be successful with him in a tournament.

That's not true at all. Take 2 players. They have equal overall game skill (reads, tech skill, knowledge of the game as a mechanical level) and, if they were to both use a single, same character that they never have played before, they'd go 50/50. Player 1 dedicates his playtime to 1 character. Player 2 dedicates an equal amount of time to 3 different characters. Although Player 2 has more overall characters he can bring out, he still loses to Player 1 who wins because he put in more time and, thus, gained more specific matchup knowledge and character knowledge. You're telling Player 1 to screw off and telling him that dedication is a BAD thing.

Top-Level players are not like most other players. They can play multiple characters because improvement isn't linear. It levels off eventually. Further, they can play more characters because what better way to learn to deal with something then to use it and see exactly how it functions? After thousands of hours of practice, they can USE more then 1 character, but they are still BEST with 1 specific character.

A ban system adds nothing tangible to the game and takes away a lot. The fight will be a display of overall skill. If you want to see those displays of skill, a player should use their best character every. single. time. This system makes that impossible.

 

[Piford]

That's not true at all. Take 2 players. They have equal overall game skill (reads, tech skill, knowledge of the game as a mechanical level) and, if they were to both use a single, same character that they never have played before, they'd go 50/50. Player 1 dedicates his playtime to 1 character. Player 2 dedicates an equal amount of time to 3 different characters. Although Player 2 has more overall characters he can bring out, he still loses to Player 1 who wins because he put in more time and, thus, gained more specific matchup knowledge and character knowledge. You're telling Player 1 to screw off and telling him that dedication is a BAD thing.

Top-Level players are not like most other players. They can play multiple characters because improvement isn't linear. It levels off eventually. Further, they can play more characters because what better way to learn to deal with something then to use it and see exactly how it functions? After thousands of hours of practice, they can USE more then 1 character, but they are still BEST with 1 specific character.

A ban system adds nothing tangible to the game and takes away a lot. The fight will be a display of overall skill. If you want to see those displays of skill, a player should use their best character every. single. time. This system makes that impossible.

It seems we had a misunderstanding, as I was implying that the player with more skill can play 3 characters on the same level as the player who can only play one character. That's why I stated mastering one character is better than playing 3 characters averagely. And again even if you don't have a banning system, it's still beneficial to learn more characters because if my main has an extremely bad matchup then I can counterpick my secondary main to gain an advantage.

 

[Pyr]

It seems we had a misunderstanding, as I was implying that the player with more skill can play 3 characters on the same level as the player who can only play one character. That's why I stated mastering one character is better than playing 3 characters averagely. And again even if you don't have a banning system, it's still beneficial to learn more characters because if my main has an extremely bad matchup then I can counterpick my secondary main to gain an advantage.

It's quite possible we do. I understand your point in the above and I agree with it. More time with more characters should always win out on less time with less characters. Learning more characters only has benefits.

However, my main point is that a draft ban system that forces someone to play more then 1 character isn't a good thing due to those players being ostracized. I argue only against it as a concept. It doesn't give an accurate representation of skill overall. All it gives as an accurate representation of who put the most time in. While putting time in should be rewarded, it shouldn't be forced. That's what a draft ban system would do and it would turn people away. This would affect mid-level and high-level tournaments and locals more then top, but hey... We gotta think about everyone, because this system, if made standard, would affect everyone.

So, in short, I agree with you, but not the system. And I may of misunderstood your first posts as "this [system] would help prove who's more skillful." If that's the case, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

[Piford]

It's quite possible we do. I understand your point in the above and I agree with it. More time with more characters should always win out on less time with less characters. Learning more characters only has benefits.

However, my main point is that a draft ban system that forces someone to play more then 1 character isn't a good thing due to those players being ostracized. I argue only against it as a concept. It doesn't give an accurate representation of skill overall. All it gives as an accurate representation of who put the most time in. While putting time in should be rewarded, it shouldn't be forced. That's what a draft ban system would do and it would turn people away. This would affect mid-level and high-level tournaments and locals more then top, but hey... We gotta think about everyone, because this system, if made standard, would affect everyone.

So, in short, I agree with you, but not the system. And I may of misunderstood your first posts as "this [system] would help prove who's more skillful." If that's the case, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

It was more like "if used in a perfect world, this system could prove who's more skillful." It'd be cool to still try it out and see how it goes, but I understand that time is hard to invest into the game and some people can't invest enough time.