Draft Banning in Smash 4

[Jiggly]

Not true.

Let's say there are two characters who will be referred to in numbers.
Character 1 countrers character 2.

The player playing 2 bans 1, now they're "god tier" right?
No?? That's idiotic. Again, people are forgetting that there are TWO bans here. Not one.
Now the other player can ban character 2, and guess who isn't god tier anymore?

Character 2?

 

[EllietheOctopus]

Okay god tier might be stretching it but there are some characters would be a lot better with the removal of their hardest matchups

 

[kyxsune]

The ruleset would be that in the second game, both players would only ban one character.
You can still play your main in the first game, and only one character would be banned for the match.

So a total of 4 bans or two for the match period?

 

[Jiggly]

Okay god tier might be stretching it but there are some characters would be a lot better with the removal of their hardest matchups

But that's all part of the strategy as well. If both people ban the counters of their mains, then they will both have their character without te chance of being countered.

 

[ATH_]

So a total of 4 bans or two for the match period?

Two total in the entire match. In game 2, both players ban one singular character who stays banned for Games 2 and 3.

 

[Jiggly]

So a total of 4 bans or two for the match period?

Two period. One for each player

 

[kyxsune]

Another point that we forgot to mention is that there are some characters who will be able to transcend into god tier with their biggest counters banned.

just curiosity who would this be for example?

 

[EllietheOctopus]

ZSS comes to mind

 

[kyxsune]

ZSS comes to mind

lol, nooo noo noooo

 

[BestTeaMaker]

So, the issue with Draft Banning is that it only works in a place where players need to know how to play several characters (or equivalent). It's definitely a thing in team-based games like Dota2 or League of Legends because every person in the team is required to learn several characters. It also helps that there are a bajillion characters to play for different roles and tactics. It's also a thing in Hearthstone tournies, where players are easily able to have several different decks at a time. Because the majority of cards used are usable by all classes, it's easier to learn different classes.

However, in games like Starcraft 2 or *insert fighting game here*, Draft Banning can discourage learning the game because of the limited selection of characters. Also, because fighting games involve a singular character, people will become much more attached to their character of choice. It also means that your time practicing characters becomes split between several, so your focus isn't as great.

It's understandable that there are character tiers, and people do want to either play the top tiers or watch a variety. However, doing so for Smash Bros. will kill interest in learning how to play the game. People won't bother picking up characters at all because once they get good at it, that character is banned.

There are interesting solutions. Pokemon, for example, divides competitions between tiers. There is an Uber tier, Overused, Underused, etc...where only Pokemon in that tier or below are able to be chosen. However, it's easier for Pokemon to do this rather than Smash due to the huge number of Pokemon in existence.

 

[Ultimastrike]

So, after reading through all this crap about Draft Banning, I can see the potential problems this could cause(if not already stated beforehand in this post):

1) Character Devotion. There are pockets, but if Draft Banning were introduced, those who have no experience outside of the character they chose will cause their performance to suffer greatly(and having to learn an entire character at that). I don't see how it'd be fair in tournaments using this system this way.

2) Banning Character A because Character A Counters Character B. As stated earlier, you could delete your character's counterpick by banning, but also do the same with the opponent. This would again cause problems with results and overall performance of the match since if both people don't have other characters they know, they're stuck. This isn't Dota2 or League. So don't bring it here.

3) Forcing people to learn multiple characters in order to participate in said tournaments. This is the largest problem that this will cause, since tournament attendance may drop significantly if someone only plays their selected character of choice. This would force them to learn other characters which would take more time and dedication. This shouldn't be a thing in tournaments since my guess is most of the time people who are new to entering tournaments will find themselves unable to do well from Draft Banning.

 

[ATH_]

@ Jiggly , feel free to put this into the OP.

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:
- More interesting gameplay for watchers (Not constantly the same tournament winning characters, etc)
- Higher skill-cap to be good at the game (You would need to learn more than 1 character, and be good at both in order to be good at the game)
- Disallows newer players to simply select the "Best" character and start winning tournaments/beating higher levelled players.
- Generally more fun for the majority of players, as they don't have to learn a specific matchup that bothers them, while also having to learn almost double the amount of normal matchups due to having a second character
- Gives tournaments more variety in winning characters
- Allows newer players to have more footage of a variety of characters to study, rather than the same 5 winning all the matches
- You would be able to play your main for at least one game, same with the other player
- If you play your secondary in Game 1, you will likely be able to play your main for the rest of the games

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?"

COUNTERPOINTS:
- There's a lot of characters to choose from in this game, for every character there is a SIMILAR character, the excuse "But I only main one character!" is almost invalid.
- There's a strategy to this, making it so that you can play your secondary in order to trick your opponent into banning them. Then playing your main and doing as good as you can. Simultaneously, you could ban a counter to that main in order to get the upper-edge.
- New players would see this and know that it means they'd have to learn 2 characters, this would become a natural thing rather than a giant change
- We did not do it with Brawl's MK because we've done nothing but shove in a similar ruleset to Melee in every Smash game. Even though games like Smash 4 are CLEARLY different by a large margin.


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.

 

[GeZ]

You guys are putting a hell of a lot of thought into this, but this just isn't how fighting games are structured. MU's are inherent. There is no skirting them. Banning happens in the most extreme of situations, and is even then often repealed.

I don't mean this as a put down, but just very directly, this won't happen. Very few TO's will take this suggestion seriously, and at the top level, none will.

 

[AJ34]

I would be ok with this but only in 4v4 games. It makes much more sense there.

 

[GeZ]

I would be ok with this but only in 4v4 games. It makes much more sense there.

4 v 4 will most likely be too chaotic to be an actual competitive format.

 

[AJ34]

4 v 4 will most likely be too chaotic to be an actual competitive format.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivbJj2kPF28
Doesn't seem that chaotic. Adds quite a lot of strategy and player roles, similar to a MOBA game.

 

[GeZ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivbJj2kPF28
Doesn't seem that chaotic. Adds quite a lot of strategy and player roles, similar to a MOBA game.

Wow, they actually did it. That's pretty ********. Oh well.

Also that's not comparable to MOBA games. Bad, bad, bad, parallel.

 

[ATH_]

Wow, they actually did it. That's pretty ********. Oh well.

Also that's not comparable to MOBA games. Bad, bad, bad, parallel.

"This doesn't work."
*sees it working*
"No! That's not working! That's ********!"

 

[Karthage]

Draft banning is awful even in the games that are designed with it in mind, I really, really don't want to see it in smash.

 

[GeZ]

"This doesn't work."
*sees it working*
"No! That's not working! That's ********!"

Working is a strong word. The only stages it works on are flat. The boon of doubles is you have this strong, tight, team dynamic with plausible constant communication. Tell me how four people constantly communicate in an organized fashion. That match might has well have been four 1v1's sharing one stage.

 

[kyxsune]

Working is a strong word. The only stages it works on are flat. The boon of doubles is you have this strong, tight, team dynamic with plausible constant communication. Tell me how four people constantly communicate in an organized fashion. That match might has well have been four 1v1's sharing one stage.

We actually had a 4v4 micro tournament in the dorm, It was quite entertaining (we turned frinedly fire on ofc), and communication and strategy was actually quite inventive. Though there were 1v1's going on

 

[smashmachine]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivbJj2kPF28
Doesn't seem that chaotic. Adds quite a lot of strategy and player roles, similar to a MOBA game.

the comparisons of 4v4 to MOBAs reeks only of desparation

 

[Ryuji]

"Let's ban characters we dont like! That'll teach people for being too good with them!"

Yeah no. This is something I can't support. Let people choose who they want. If anything should be banned, it ought to be custom moves(and even that is questionable), but the rationale for doing so would make more sense than simply banning top tier characters.

 

[TropicalTaco]

Sorry, but this is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

 

[MegaMissingno]

I could get behind a one-time side event for ****s and giggles. I actually wish we had more kooky experimental side events. But no way in hell should this be the norm, it causes way more problems than it solves. People who want to devote themselves to a single main ought to be allowed to do so. This isn't going to be used to just ban top tiers, it's just going to be used to ban whoever your opponent is good at. If you even know who your opponent mains, which means people will be furtively trying to hide their mains and spy on the competition at friendlies and earlier bracket rounds, which will be an awful mess. In many cases the game may already be over as soon as the bans are decided.

Also, look at it from a spectator's perspective. When everyone's constantly bouncing around between secondary characters, they won't be as good as they are with their mains. You won't be seeing high level play quickly develop as people can't focus on advancing their character's metagame to its limit, instead having to devote all their practice to juggling half a dozen characters they're only kinda good at. Watching people play their off characters is not nearly as exciting. In almost every fighting game, the character specialists who put all their time and effort into taking just one character and getting as good as that character can be tend to be the most exciting to watch compared to the people who bounce around a lot.

 

[Jiggly]

Sorry, but this is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

Care to expand? I feel everyone dislikes the idea because it's different and is usually used in games that aren't of smash's style... :/

 

[GeZ]

Care to expand? I feel everyone dislikes the idea because it's different and is usually used in games that aren't of smash's style... :/

Because a literal core aspect of fighting games is matchups. Giving players a way to avoid certain MU's or get booted off their character for some games is terrible.

Like, HBox vs Mango. The MU is nigh unwinnable for HBox because it relies on Jiggs being able to SDI out of Fox's Uair, but Hbox puts up the good fight every time, so its hype, because god damn is it hard.

Or a MU in Ultra SF4 that just happened tonight was El Fuerte vs Dudley. It takes much more work for the Dudley player, and the El Fuerte player was inside his head for the first few games, but the Dudley player runs it all the way back. It was godlike.

With character drafts people just ban eachothers mains or save themselves from their worst MU's. That's super un FGC.

I don't mean this as a disparaging dig or anything, but the Smash community is often the hardest to reason with/ has the worst ideas. I mean, because of that, or maybe that is because, its less condescending on average, but I'd trade getting more condescension for having to explain less of these threads any day.

I feel really bad for this games fans as a whole actually. Developer doesn't want to make the games deep, and the fan base is split between wanting that, and being new and not understanding it.

 

[TropicalTaco]

Care to expand? I feel everyone dislikes the idea because it's different and is usually used in games that aren't of smash's style... :/

Sadly, it would just be parroting of what others in this thread have already said.

MegaMissingno's post right below mine is pretty dead-on about my stance on it, though.

 

[Thinkaman]

I don't want to be a part of a community where people, including myself and other players, are heavily incentivized to keep their character(s) secret, spy on competitors, and avoid publicly developing particular characters.

 

[TTTTTsd]

Or a MU in Ultra SF4 that just happened tonight was El Fuerte vs Dudley. It takes much more work for the Dudley player, and the El Fuerte player was inside his head for the first few games, but the Dudley player runs it all the way back. It was godlike.

Or stuff like PONY (godlike Japanese player) playing Zangief in ST and beating O. Sagat despite the, I believe 8-2 matchup? **** like that is REAL.

Fighting games are founded on matchups, they are the basis of the very discussion of what character to play and what character to not play. Omitting that would take out a lot of the fun and dynamic. Some people want to take one character to the top really bad, and this kind of messes with that.

 

[RanserSSF4]

i do like the idea, but i don't think it will work well in the long run (That could change, but who knows) and i would rather learn my MU's.

 

[Raijinken]

As a Dota player and spectator, I love this idea. It forces more variety into competition.

As for banning a player's known "best" character, this is called a Respect Ban in the Dota community, and you do it because that character represents an abnormally large threat in this particular player's hands (you virtually never see a Pudge ban unless it's against Na'Vi because of Dendi, same for Meepo bans unless against Excalibur on Fnatic during TI4 this past year).

The only issue is that fighting game players get their panties in a bunch any time someone suggests a method of banning characters round by round. Someone a while back criticized that system as "ruining the time invested to learn a character." As someone who only uses "main" as a word friends have to specify so I'll play Marth or Robin, I personally think that forcing players to ban out characters (heck, I'd be all for a game-1 ban per player) is great.

Furthermore, banning options can help develop the metagame in new ways. Aside from the obvious "I ban Topmost Tier", other bans can be made based on perceived counterpicks, which can lead to new routes of experimentation. If we want to be even more complicated, and in my opinion deep (and meta-expanding), about it, you could have multiple bans instead of just one per player. That lets you expand beyond "this is top tier and I don't want to fight it" into other realms. Plus, such a ban system is far more flexible with these balance patches than any TO-induced bans (like Metaknight sometimes was). After a patch, players may simply swap their bans to represent a new perceived threat.

To be fair, it does take a lot longer to run a tournament with a banning phase, but with experience, players can do this as quickly (or quicker) than they do stage-striking and silly hand-warmer exercises.

So, the issue with Draft Banning is that it only works in a place where players need to know how to play several characters (or equivalent). It's definitely a thing in team-based games like Dota2 or League of Legends because every person in the team is required to learn several characters. It also helps that there are a bajillion characters to play for different roles and tactics. It's also a thing in Hearthstone tournies, where players are easily able to have several different decks at a time. Because the majority of cards used are usable by all classes, it's easier to learn different classes.

However, in games like Starcraft 2 or *insert fighting game here*, Draft Banning can discourage learning the game because of the limited selection of characters. Also, because fighting games involve a singular character, people will become much more attached to their character of choice. It also means that your time practicing characters becomes split between several, so your focus isn't as great.

Smash now has just barely below half the playable roster that Dota has, and as basically any "help me pick characters that fit my playstyle" thread can tell you, there is almost no character who is the sole representative of a generalized fighting style, which is the closest Smash comes to having roles like Dota. There's validity to wanting to defend a person's investment into their main, but over time, everyone mains one of the best 3-5, and we end up with an extremely stale metagame, as evidenced by all past Smash Bros games. While that scenario may be less and less common with patch-induced balance changes, it's unlikely to happen of its own accord without some revision to competition structure.

Of course, you raise a valid point. Perhaps this system is better suited to doubles or squad battles than it is to 1v1 battles. But even in Dota, players have mains (see Admiral Bulldog only play approx 3 heroes during TI3), and forcing them off that main is a valid tactical way to get an advantage when the system allows for it.

 

[Epok]

this isn't a damn MOBA, so stop trying to introduce things from there

Hmmmm let's look at the evidence...

Is it multiplayer? YES
Is it played online? YES
Is it in a battle arena? YES

Fact: Super Smash Bros is a MOBA

But seriously. I have thought about this topic for a while and as I thought the majority would look at it with a very strong no.

A lot of the counter arguments come across as kinda whiny(no offense). It would be way too much if a player could get 3 bans or some thing but what if they had 1 ban each at the beginning of the set I think that would be reasonable.

-Every pro player probably has 2-3 solid players that they can play. I really don't see anything too crazy with having back up mains. We all know that bad match ups exist. So the concept of knowing multiple characters doesn't seem that radical.
This may be hard for people new to smash though especially when people coming from other fighting games where maining one characters is viable. This really only works well in smash if they are just a high tier character.

-We can't always depend on Nintendo to balance everything perfectly between 50+ characters. I could only imagine how hard it would be to do so. If Nintendo can do solid patch updates to help balance as we go constantly I don't think this is needed. But we are starting to see a trend with "bread and butter" tournament characters. I don't think this is as bad as , but I think we can agree that we don't want that again.

- It might encourage spying and watch people play to try to counter them, but people do that anyway. I personally never warm up with my mains, but I suck so that probably doesn't mean much lol.

I don't know. I don't care either way, but I haven't seen any solid counter arguments. I know that a lot of people have certain feelings about it which counts for something I guess.

 

[Raijinken]

No, jesus christ no. If you can just ban characters that piss you off then you'll never learn. Smash is game of two thing; Knowledge and Application. If you know how to play your character to the best of your ability then matchups don't matter, it's skill. I've beaten plenty of Marths with Falco and lost to plenty of Marths as Falco. If you lose it's not the character's fault it's yours.

And yet, at the highest tier of play, it's always a small handful of matchups, because those characters are the best. Nothing else appears when it matters, because nothing else stands a chance in the long run.

Honestly it sounds to me that people would abuse this to just get rid of the top tier characters. "Oh, I don't wanna fight Diddy or Rosalina, well, they're gone then." Yeah, it might freshen up the character variety a little bit, but it doesn't promote people getting better and developing the metagame against the top tier characters.

It sounds interesting in theory, but for a fighting game like Smash I do not see this working at all in the long run.

Suddenly, the master Diddy player must also learn new matchups, instead of mastering the top tier. It forces not only variety in player choice, but matchup knowledge.

Sure would be fun for my main/best character to never be useable in any tournament match ever. That's basically whats happening right here. Kind of unfair for players who are known for what characters they play as.

"Oh, you're that really good Marth player that specializes in the character? I'll ban him"

I understand that you have good intentions with this by trying to make players not pick top tier characters like Diddy, but I don't think this is the right solution. It will just end up forcing players to not play as their main anymore because they'll be banned every single time.

It's called a respect ban, and simply means that (especially since we're currently talking about two bans out of 48-51 characters, you will have to know at most one other character (unless you want to ban one of your own mains). If that is such an issue for a given player, then they, like most pros anyway, can just pick two "high tier" characters, or their preferred main plus a major threat. It is then impossible, bar self-banning, to ban out their viable roster. A respect ban is a public acknowledgement of the threat you pose on a character, and while it may make it harder for you to approach your prize money, it should at least give you some pride of acknowledgement.

Case in point, Ken plays a plenty good Diddy on top of his Marth. If people acknowledge your expertise and spend that much of their time banning out your main, then two things are possible:

1. You keep winning, and are thus not only a master of one character, but are so much better at your secondary that your opponent wouldn't have even had a match against your main. On top of this, you've already won a round as your main, showing the crowd and your fans and your opponent that you can dominate them.
2. You lose, and learning 1-2 additional characters would be good for you, as you probably lost from matchup knowledge or for what TVTropes likes to call "crippling overspecialization". You could also save your main as a pocket strategy and trump card. Until your opponents learn that you are a one-trick pony.

Regardless of how it plays out, if you can only win on a single character, you probably aren't an over-all better player than your opponent.

And for what it's worth, there are PLENTY of players who would rather ban a top tier than ban a main. If that's how it goes, then congrats, they just wasted a ban on paranoia, and you won the mind game.

Of course, if you just don't want to learn more about the game and like playing a single character exclusively, that's fine. Don't enter tournaments running this ruleset.

Edit: Another note. If they banned your main, ban theirs. Now you're on "even" footing in that neither of you can use a main. If you lost round 1, this actually favors you, unless again, you only have one character you have any clue of how to play.

 

[Myran]

I only play Olimar. I think I'll pass.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

This is the worst idea I've ever heard for fighting games.

a) This is not a MOBA. The time and effort it takes to learn a character and their matchups is incredibly hard. Truly "maining" more than one character and understanding every little intricacy to them is rarely truly achievable.

b) Target banning a person is stupid and purely unfun

c) THIS GAME HAS PATCHES. Already we've seen Shiek get some well deserved nerfs that brought her more into line, and we've seen Greninja get heavy handed nerfs that gutted him. Diddy will be nerfed eventually. We don't know how long or how extensively Nintendo intends to patch the game but we do know that they are for now.

 

[GeZ]

a) This is not a MOBA. The time and effort it takes to learn a character and their matchups is incredibly hard. Truly "maining" more than once character and understanding every little intricacy to them is rarely truly achievable.

This is really important honestly. I think the people who are suggesting this don't understand that understanding all the intricacies of a character in a fighting game is much, much, more than in a MOBA. I mean, the point that this game is a MOBA is pretty dumb just because MOBA is a style and not at all the weird checklist that was rattled off a few posts ago, but more importantly, maining a character is one of the most important parts of fighting games. This may be confused because a ton of players have sigs listing their "mains" which usually show 3 or more characters, but you gotta understand that at a high level that's not the case.

 

[dguy6789]

Certainly not. This is a terrible idea.

 

[Raijinken]

This is the worst idea I've ever heard for fighting games.

a) This is not a MOBA. The time and effort it takes to learn a character and their matchups is incredibly hard. Truly "maining" more than once character and understanding every little intricacy to them is rarely truly achievable.

b) Target banning a person is stupid and purely unfun

c) THIS GAME HAS PATCHES. Already we've seen Shiek get some well deserved nerfs that brought her more into line, and we've seen Greninja get heavy handed nerfs that gutted him. Diddy will be nerfed eventually. We don't know how long or how extensively Nintendo intends to patch the game but we do know that they are for now.

The balance patches point is the most relevant to the entire debate. Those alone are why I'm not pushing this system, just discussing its merits.

Target banning isn't an issue when players are flexible, and a player with skill in as little as two characters is effectively immune to the effects of this. And, again, if a player gets their main respect-banned, there is literally nothing to stop them from doing the same to their opponent's main, which effectively levels the playing field. Unless the players aren't even at their second-best level, which supports my personal belief that flexibility trumps specialization. On top of that, the majority of players (bar Brawl where there was only one top character) have at least tournament-level skill on two characters, due to the needs of countering bad matchups (which we already cater to by allowing both the winner and loser to change characters between rounds).

It is very little different from our current stage banning system, which already (as discussed numerous times in other threads) can cause the game to heavily favor certain characters due to the properties of the generally-agreed-upon "neutral" stages, since you're guaranteed to have at least one round on a "neutral" stage. Banning a player to their second best character is no worse than banning stages to force a player to a stage that favors them somewhat less (or, in some characters cases, outright harms them in comparison to the standard pro-level picks).

Dota-derived or not, characters take time to learn in-depth in every game regardless of if that's Smash, Dota, or TF2. And there do exist matchups which, by design, are not "even" when both players have a comparable level of understanding their "every little intricacy". This simply puts more variety into the scene within the balance patch.

 

[TTTTTsd]

Variety should be inherently present in the game itself, not arbitrarily forced through random draft bans. This is a fighting game first and foremost. If I wanted to play just Dr. Mario and take him as high as possible as a low tier character, why should I not be able to?

Forcing variety is not only unhealthy for the game itself but it's also unhealthy to the PLAYERS themselves, you know, the most important part?

Even further, what are outsiders going to think of this? We already have a large stage striking system and a stage list we have to go to, why should we add even more to that? If we want Smash to be accessible, shouldn't it MOSTLY make sense?