Relentless targeting of an individual

[TheBuzzSaw]

Seriously? I do this all the time. I can be banned for it now?

 

[NintendoKnight]

I think it was in reference to when 3 players ganged up on 1 other player, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I think it was in reference to when 3 players ganged up on 1 other player, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

That still seems fishy to me. The majority of players in the match are able to be banned?

 

[mr.boombastic]

so if one guy is dominating the match and everyone jumps him those 3 people will get banned?

 

[Cap'nChreest]

Taunt parties ruined brawls online. I'm glad that people can get banned for it. Its probably the best decision.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I just don't see a positive ending no matter how this is interpreted. It is common to gang up on one person. It's part of the "politics" of a match. If everyone gangs up on you, you can leverage that to make things miserable for the other three involved. Even if it does not work out, move onto the next match. How would the ban even be enforced? Are moderators going to review match footage?

 

[Cap'nChreest]

I just don't see a positive ending no matter how this is interpreted. It is common to gang up on one person. It's part of the "politics" of a match. If everyone gangs up on you, you can leverage that to make things miserable for the other three involved. Even if it does not work out, move onto the next match. How would the ban even be enforced? Are moderators going to review match footage?

Have you ever been in a taunt party? You can just play the game normally and end up having 3 people team up against you in every single match that you play with them. I'd say that 8/10 times in Brawls online the rooms end up being taunt parties. You really can't leverage 3 vs 1 game play. Try to do a combo and the others will ruin it. Theres really no arguing how game-killing a taunt party is.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Have you ever been in a taunt party? You can just play the game normally and end up having 3 people team up against you in every single match that you play with them. I'd say that 8/10 times in Brawls online the rooms end up being taunt parties. You really can't leverage 3 vs 1 game play. Try to do a combo and the others will ruin it. Theres really no arguing how game-killing a taunt party is.

Not gonna lie... after about 4 months of intense training and online tournaments... I never played online Brawl again. Did this become a thing in the intervening 6 years? XD

 

[Pékaßlu]

Rip taunt parties you will be missed ;_;

 

[Cap'nChreest]

Not gonna lie... after about 4 months of intense training and online tournaments... I never played online Brawl again. Did this become a thing in the intervening 6 years? XD

YES!!! soooo much. and I hate it. I think targeting an individual is fine but relentlessly targeting is different and much worse.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Well, I'm gonna relentlessly target people. I wanna see if I can get Nintendo's attention.

 

[Mysteltainn]

Overall, I welcome the new system, along with having more identity online as well. Those taunt parties really trashed Brawl; although Brawl's online was trash anyway, but they certainly didn't help matters. Nothing was worse than waiting to be matched with people, disconnecting / erroring 4-5 times, then finally getting people and seeing them spam taunts for 2 mins and ganging you if you wished to fight...

 

[MechaWave]

Why are you so paranoid? Sakurai is taking steps to prevent Taunt Parties. You can still target people, but if 3 people were to target someone, you'd likely get kicked off.

 

[KoRLumen]

> 1 v 1

Both players are guilty of relentless targeting the other.

Both players banned.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

> 1 v 1

Both players are guilty of relentless targeting the other.

Both players banned.

I was tempted to post this exact thing.

 

[Terrazi Terrajin]

I literally think he's lying and that he has no intention of actually implementing some kind of in-game logic check for that.

 

[chronomantic]

I wish there were an option at least where we could choose whether to activate it or not. No outright ban it c'mon

 

[LancerStaff]

I literally think he's lying and that he has no intention of actually implementing some kind of in-game logic check for that.

I'd guess when you report someone, a replay of the match you just played gets sent to a mod. Having a computer analyze a match... Just wouldn't work.

 

[WIldBam]

I wouldn't worry too much, if these rules are too strict then they're something that can be changed, and if they're other things that make the game online bad then different rules can be added. These are just the rules that they are starting off with, doesn't mean they'll stick with them. The important thing here is that there is a system to regulate online play, which is a good thing for many people. also, he said that flagging people too many times for no good reason would have repercussions too, so it'll be monitored and therefore very likely adjusted.

 

[MechaWave]

I was tempted to post this exact thing.

He'd clearly implement a check if the match is a 1v1 and then disable the checks for targeting if it was a 1v1. I mean, come on, now.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

He'd clearly implement a check if the match is a 1v1 and then disable the checks for targeting if it was a 1v1. I mean, come on, now.

It's just making fun of the policy. Of course it wouldn't apply in 1v1.

The center of concern is on how the "targeting" is evaluated. If it is there just to combat these Taunt Parties, it'll probably work just fine. However, in any normal fight, if player 1 is attacking player 2, how much danger am I in by attacking player 2 as well? And if player 4 is on the opposite side, and player 2 is the closest target (so he attacks), is player 4 in ban territory? It's just silly overall.

 

[DakotaBonez]

I thought he meant like, bullying someone online.
I really doubt theres a rule against 3 vs 1.

 

[Renji64]

I hope this is moderated right maybe they can watch replays.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I thought he meant like, bullying someone online.
I really doubt theres a rule against 3 vs 1.

Who wants to join the Bully Squad?

 

[DakotaBonez]

Like, if mic chat is enabled, if you threatened a child then you would get banned. Targeting of an individual in the real world.

 

[HeroMystic]

The real question is why would anyone care of getting ganged up in a 3v1 anyway?

Just beat the **** out of them.

 

[LancerStaff]

Like, if mic chat is enabled, if you threatened a child then you would get banned. Targeting of an individual in the real world.

This is old-school Nintendo. And since Sakurai didn't say a word of using mikes...

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

so if one guy is dominating the match and everyone jumps him those 3 people will get banned?

I just don't see a positive ending no matter how this is interpreted. It is common to gang up on one person. It's part of the "politics" of a match.

However, in any normal fight, if player 1 is attacking player 2, how much danger am I in by attacking player 2 as well? And if player 4 is on the opposite side, and player 2 is the closest target (so he attacks), is player 4 in ban territory? It's just silly overall.

Relentless targeting. Relentless. Ugh. It's like no one can bothered to read anymore.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Relentless targeting. Relentless. Ugh. It's like no one can bothered to read anymore.

Doesn't matter. What if I want to relentlessly target someone?

 

[Ryan.]

I love all the changes to online play. I hated when 2 people targeted me while the third was off to the side taunting.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Doesn't matter. What if I want to relentlessly target someone?

What exactly are you saying doesn't matter? What are you even trying to communicate here?

"What if I want to relentlessly target someone?" It's in very clear and official print that you'll be temporarily banned if you do it and are reported for it. I'm going to assume you actually have something relevant to say here and it's that you object to being punished for relentlessly targeting someone. If so, then tough luck. You're not going to start a revolution. Keep kicking and screaming over the idea that you should ever have to face the consequences of your cancerous behavior. You can also argue semantics all day but until you can be bothered to notice the illuminating adverb "relentlessly" I don't think you will go anywhere with it.

 

[KingKirb]

I really think this system of banning will be poorly managed. Who is going to administer the bans? Are they going to watch every game we play? No way nintendo is going to pay people to do that.

I'll attack whoever I please.

 

[ndayday]

I think it's kind of a sloppy way to moderate, it sounds almost just like Miiverse if it's partly based on reports - it's often wrong or is really inconsistent and just depends on if the person reports you/whatever kind of automatic filtering they have does its job. I'd assume that would be limited to things like self-destructing a lot (to throw matches), dropping out purposefully/because of bad wifi and just standing there inactive.

really doubt someone will be watching replays and deciding this stuff unless it's for cheating.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

What exactly are you saying doesn't matter? What are you even trying to communicate here?

"What if I want to relentlessly target someone?" It's in very clear and official print that you'll be temporarily banned if you do it and are reported for it. I'm going to assume you actually have something relevant to say here and it's that you object to being punished for relentlessly targeting someone. If so, then tough luck. You're not going to start a revolution. Keep kicking and screaming over the idea that you should ever have to face the consequences of your cancerous behavior. You can also argue semantics all day but until you can be bothered to notice the illuminating adverb "relentlessly" I don't think you will go anywhere with it.

I am examining the entire spectrum of the problem: everything ranging from accidentally being flagged (just by being an opportunist) all the way to hunting someone down. I'll admit: I'm a vengeful person. If someone were to spike me or whatever, I'd probably seek and destroy. Why is that ban-worthy behavior? Heck, I've done it with real people in the same room. I've never been told that I "need to stop".

 

[Violenceman]

It will probably be based on volume of reports. If fifty different people report you for Relentless Targeting in a short period, the issue will probably be reviewed and monitored.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

RIP Wombo Combo

 

[Xigger]

ie: three opponents standing next to each other waiting for you to respawn to kill you again.

 

[The Drilling Juggernaut]

I assumed it was more along the lines of attacking the same player over the course of several matches, not just one. Assuming you can keep playing with the same group after a match and you beeline for the same person over and over again you will be punished. I don't have a problem with that.

 

[KingofPhantoms]

As long as it's moderated well, I'm not complaining.

Taunt parties could be fun sometimes, but there were WAAAAAAAAAY too players that just wanted to taunt and mess around, ganging up on those that actually wanted to fight.

I'm rather glad about this, honestly.

 

[Arcadenik]

I just don't see a positive ending no matter how this is interpreted. It is common to gang up on one person. It's part of the "politics" of a match. If everyone gangs up on you, you can leverage that to make things miserable for the other three involved. Even if it does not work out, move onto the next match. How would the ban even be enforced? Are moderators going to review match footage?

Yes... but notice the word "relentless"... so even when it is a free-for-all match with four players.... one player shouldn't just go after a specific player all the time when he/she has two other opponents.