Question: Why can't we ban or limit uncompetitive strategies?

[Piford]

I know a lot of people complain about a lot of aspects of Smash 4. So why can't we ban camping? Or at least limit it so matches don't revolve around it. It's clearly possible to do things like circle camp on every stage, with recoveries like R.O.B. and the Villager's. If you can't ban camping, there could be banning on certain types of camping like circle camping. Also people complain a lot about how easy air dodging is, so why can't there be some kind of limit, like only air dodging twice before hitting the ground or maybe air dodging only 30 times in a match. I know there was a ledge grab limit in brawl to stop some kinds of camping, so could a similar ban be implemented here? Sorry if this is a noob question, and thanks for the responses.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

Like you said, this was already tried in Brawl with ledge grab limits, attempting to limit or ban planking, etc. The reason it failed in Brawl, and would most likely fail in Smash 4 as well, is because adding these limitations will invariably nerf characters that were a non-issue before. In Brawl, the LGL was an attempt to prevent Metaknight's perfect planking, but it severely nerfed characters to whom planking was a big part of the playstyle, but was manageable, such as ROB. It also hurt characters that would find themselves getting launched often and didn't have the recovery or jumps to make it back on stage. Not only that, but what would happen to say, a Snake that had exceeded their LGL due to edgeguarding or simply not making it clear onto the stage, but was surviving into the 180%+? After the LGL, are they forced to just take the stock loss, even though they could have kept recovering and holding out on that chance that they would have made it back onto stage, into a favourable position, racked up damage for the next stock, or even gotten a KO? Are they forced to just give up?

Furthermore, for something to be bannable, you have to be able to define it concisely. How do you define "camping" well enough so that you don't need to have a ref monitoring EVERY set the ENTIRE duration of the set to be able to prevent camping? What if they weren't "camping", but were "simply looking for an opening to get back onstage safely"? Camping cannot be objectively and clearly defined, which is why it will prove extremely difficult, if not impossible, if not just downright impractical, to ban.

 

[Conda]

What @ Indigo Jeans said. Also, tournaments are physical things and having rules like this means the 10+ games that are happening need referees. Enjoy employing and paying those people.

 

[Piford]

Well they're are replays that actually last the entire match now. Everyone should just use the honor system. But actually yeah I understand the issues with it. Too bad we actually can't live in a perfect world where the honor system would work.

 

[Icare0]

There is also if such a ban can even be effective at all. If camping is actually that strong/problematic for tournment play and is actually broken, then doing whatever is just slightly off the definition of camping automatically becomes the next best course of action. To quote Game Developer David Sirlin, on a similar matter:

There is no discrete way of banning "camping" in a shooter. Camping is the general concept of standing around in one spot and waiting for something to spawn. If you try to define camping as being in one spot for 3 minutes, then players should stand in one spot for 2 minutes 59 seconds if camping is actually so powerful.

This is similar to trying to ban a certain sequence of 5 moves over and over in a fighting game. Does doing 3 repetitions of the set of 5 moves count as ok? 2 reps? What about 1? What about doing the first 4 moves, then omitting the 5th move, but repeating that sequence? Or what if you do all 5 moves but you add in some other useless move to skirt the definition? The problem is there can't even be a concrete definition to completely separate the accepted play from the "taboo" play. The player can play arbitrarily close to the taboo tactic anyway without breaking the letter of the law.

 

[Jaxas]

Even in a 'perfect world', what do you define uncompetitive?
Camping is a strategy, and if that wins for you then that's a perfectly valid strategy from a competitive standpoint.

The competitive standpoint is basically "Do everything you can to win." Obviously this is limited to in-game stuff (no kicking your opponent, etc) and we've added some limitations as a community (no items) to remove randomness and make the playing field 'fair' (or at least more so), however what would you say makes Circle Camping uncompetitive? That's the real question.

 

[Piford]

Even in a 'perfect world', what do you define uncompetitive?
Camping is a strategy, and if that wins for you then that's a perfectly valid strategy from a competitive standpoint.

The competitive standpoint is basically "Do everything you can to win." Obviously this is limited to in-game stuff (no kicking your opponent, etc) and we've added some limitations as a community (no items) to remove randomness and make the playing field 'fair' (or at least more so), however what would you say makes Circle Camping uncompetitive? That's the real question.

Uncompetative isn't the right word sorry. I was trying to say like unhealthy for the metagame? Like no one wants to play a game if its devolved into who can wait the best. Maybe degenerate gameplay is a better term? I dunno.

 

[Thinkaman]

It's clearly possible to do things like circle camp on every stage, with recoveries like R.O.B. and the Villager's.

No?

Even on Tomadachi Life, the "standard" stage most condusive to circle camping, even the most slippery characters cannot circle camp Ganondorf.

Note that this changes dramatically if speed equipment is introduced; circle camping in many matchups becomes possible on all stages.

 

[AccountsDept]

You've gotta understand -

Characters are designed a certain way. If Duck Hunt was made to have the ability to throw cans the entire match, well, that's part of the game, then. Instead of removing it, make the meta around it. Camping is not nearly as much of a problem as people assume it is in Smash 4 - almost any player worth their weight in cartridges can counter all of the "Campy" characters (Robin, Duck Hunt, R.O.B., etc.). That, and like those above me said, camping isn't definable.'

There are infinitely better strategies to punish camping than doing it. High-Level players will likely never do it because of that.

 

[LancerStaff]

Banning tactics that aren't completely gamebreaking in of itself is uncompetitive. We're here to play to win, no? Then that's what we'll do. If it's truly that gamebreaking, we'll know in due time.

 

[allshort17]

Adding more bans to a game, or more rules in general, alienates new players. The goal to line up the competitive ruleset as close as it can get to the standard rules the game presents. Bans are only necessary to get rid of aspects that completely go against the standard rules of the game, SF2 Akuma or Marvel freeze glitches.

 

[TL?]

What is camping exactly? A ban should ideally be something that is simple to enforce. It's simple to ban a stage, just don't pick that stage. It's easy to turn off items, as that's a built in option the game provides. A gameplay element is more of a hassle to ban like a ledge grab limit. Banning a style of play sounds even more impractical. People don't either camp or rushdown. It's a giant spectrum. Wherever you draw the line, you'll have tons of people around the border of that line. Is this guy camping? Sort of? Maybe? Do we want a rule for how many times you can air dodge in a match? Are you volunteering to count? Who decides how many you get as well? 30? 40? 41? And why? Rules like this make a game a hassle to hold events for and to compete in. But we shouldn't even bother worrying about all those problems until "camping" actually proves itself to be legitimately overpowered or game ruining strategy(It isn't).

 

[Morbi]

Perhaps it is because those strategies are competitive?

No particular play-style or tactic is "detrimental to the meta-game" just because it is perceived as unfavorable. Obviously, as illuminated by TL? the notion is completely arbitrary.

If you are a TO and you hate circle camping or whatever, by all means, ban it. No one is going to unanimously ban a tactic because it is "degenerate." Or if they do, it is probably for a very good reason and the decision was unanimous anyways!

 

[otter]

Uncompetative isn't the right word sorry. I was trying to say like unhealthy for the metagame? Like no one wants to play a game if its devolved into who can wait the best. Maybe degenerate gameplay is a better term? I dunno.

That's on the designers, not the players. If I can annoy my opponent and get paid, that sounds like a good day.

 

[Yoshi Kirishima]

Please define "uncompetitive" or use a different word.

What you may find boring another may find fun.

 

[guedes the brawler]

it's easy to ban camping: deny whatever can be used to camp

oh, falco can camp with blaster? ban his neutral b. simple.



i'm kidding, of course.

 

[S2]

You can't really ban camping, it's a legitimate strategy, even if you find it annoying. This isn't any different than other fighting games. Some characters are made for spacing, if you're playing a character that needs to get in close to do damage, it's your job to learn good approaches.

In competition, players are going to do whatever it takes to win. Some characters are designed as rushdown and others aren't. I think after Melee, a game where speedy rushdown characters are massively at an advantage, some Smash players forget that this is not the norm in most fighting games.

While there are obvious examples that need to be banned (Peach in Melee being able to stall under the stage or Meta in Brawl being able to stall on the ledge), these things are very obvious and serve no purpose other than stalling the clock. These aren't camping tactics though, they were obvious exploits and something that never happens in a match unless the player was purposely trying to abuse them.