Should any specific customs be banned?

[Twin Rhapsody]

@ Zylach You're in Wisconsin? Were you at the most recent Capitol?

*edit* On topic: Bans are a very serious thing in any fighting game, and require far more testing than knee jerk responses. In fact I can't think of any more than 3 major bans in FG history. ST Akuma, SCIV Hilde+Algol, and GGXX Justice/Kliff. I'm sure there are a few more but those are the ones I can always remember.

 

[warriorman222]

@ Zylach You're in Wisconsin? Were you at the most recent Capitol?

*edit* On topic: Bans are a very serious thing in any fighting game, and require far more testing than knee jerk responses. In fact I can't think of any more than 3 major bans in FG history. ST Akuma, SCIV Hilde+Algol, and GGXX Justice/Kliff. I'm sure there are a few more but those are the ones I can always remember.

How about Meta Knight? It was so controversial, that the ruleset that banned him died off very quickly after, despite the extreme hate of the character, putting in unfair rules to nerf him, banning stages he was good on, etc. \

Or do you mean other fighters?

 

[Twin Rhapsody]

How about Meta Knight? It was so controversial, that the ruleset that banned him died off very quickly after, despite the extreme hate of the character, putting in unfair rules to nerf him, banning stages he was good on, etc. \

Or do you mean other fighters?

I was mostly pointing out bans that have held up even today, as I knew Metaknight WAS banned for a few months, but the ruleset died off pretty quickly. ST/HDR Akuma is still banned as far as I know. I don't follow 3D fighters so I don't know if SCIV's 2 bans are still in effect, and I suppose the GG thing is moot with AC+R fully integrating their 2 as playables.

 

[HeavyLobster]

How about Meta Knight? It was so controversial, that the ruleset that banned him died off very quickly after, despite the extreme hate of the character, putting in unfair rules to nerf him, banning stages he was good on, etc. \

Or do you mean other fighters?

That might not count because of the fact it didn't stick.
Edit:'d

 

[TheHypnotoad]

I don't understand the sentiment of banning customs THE MOMENT people see someone get a silly kill with them or THE MOMENT someone acts really campy with a new custom. We've seen Pikachu's HSB be effective for literally one day and have only seen Villager's Timber Counter and Explosive Balloons a few times and people act like this is evidence enough to ban them entirely.

Who is this "we" that has only seen these moves a single time? The game has been out for 6 months, you have no excuse for not testing the customs yourself. Unless you're one of those people who theorycrafts just by watching tournaments without actually playing the game.

I did not form my opinion based on KTAR, I formed my opinion from playing with and against Timber Counter many times. I have my evidence. Do you have yours?

 

[Zylach]

@ Zylach You're in Wisconsin? Were you at the most recent Capitol?

*edit* On topic: Bans are a very serious thing in any fighting game, and require far more testing than knee jerk responses. In fact I can't think of any more than 3 major bans in FG history. ST Akuma, SCIV Hilde+Algol, and GGXX Justice/Kliff. I'm sure there are a few more but those are the ones I can always remember.

I was at the most recent Capitol, yeah. Trying to show the Wisconsin community what Zelda's made of.

Who is this "we" that has only seen these moves a single time? The game has been out for 6 months, you have no excuse for not testing the customs yourself. Unless you're one of those people who theorycrafts just by watching tournaments without actually playing the game.

I did not form my opinion based on KTAR, I formed my opinion from playing with and against Timber Counter many times. I have my evidence. Do you have yours?

I suppose I was a bit vague in my use of the word "we" and I apologize for that. The "we" I was referring to are the people that are basing their opinions on only what just happened at KTAR and footage that was posted in the character competitive impressions thread on why HSB should be considered for a ban. I've been seeing a lot of people say that the footage from KTAR and the MVG vs. ESAM matches are enough for bans to be thrown out. My comment was aimed at those people in particular. In fact, the "people who theorycraft just by watching tournaments without actually playing the game" are the people I'm calling out. We are in agreement on that front sir. I don't agree with banning customs but I'm not discrediting your opinion on them as long as you have the evidence to back up what you say (which seems to be the case) so I see no reason for either of us to be calling each other out like how this appears to be going so I'm gonna end that conversation before anything bad happens.

If you'd like to discuss your specific thoughts on HSB, I'd be interested in having an intelligent discussion on the topic (After all, this is what this thread is for) since I don't think I've heard anyone give really credible evidence for or against banning it yet though many people want it banned all of a sudden (I haven't checked the competitive impressions board in a while though so I could just be late to the party).

 

[TheHypnotoad]

Snip

All right, cool. Sorry if I came across as a bit hostile. I have a tendency to do that sometimes.

I haven't tested Heavy Skull Bash enough to form an opinion on it. Considering all the talk surrounding it, though, I'll need to check it out.

EDIT: Also, ItsRainingGravy made a thread which essentially has the same function as this one, but better. Everyone should go there. http://smashboards.com/threads/the-custom-move-suspect-threat-list-topic-not-a-ban-list.396120/

 

[Twin Rhapsody]

I was at the most recent Capitol, yeah. Trying to show the Wisconsin community what Zelda's made of.

Alright cool, just trying to remember if I saw someone playing Zelda. I was the person who was transferring the sets from my 3DS and setting up the Wii U's.

 

[Piford]

Diddy is the exact middle of the weight chart.

... I'm not helping things, am I?

Sorry I was thinking Duck Hunt not Diddy. Still thought there's no reason to ban it.

 

[Gutei]

I am of the opinion that none are that big of a threat. And, honestly, we need time to figure that bit out. How long did it take for Temple to get banned in Melee? Not too long. MK in Brawl? I don't know. But it was more than a month, for sure. We need to figure this out first. That's like lighting your baby on fire the first time it fell when trying to walk.

 

[DavemanCozy]

Not unless there's a good reason. And even then, domino effect: banning one move makes it much easier to ban the next one that is deemed "broken" or "jank."

 

[digiholic]

If anything, KTAR proved that good enough players will figure out ways to overcome degenerate strategies. Look at ADHD vs. Tweek. Tweek figured out how to beat the ledge strategy, and forced ADHD to switch to Diddy Kong, where he won, because ADHD's Diddy is among the best.

Customs are effectively a skill gate. If you're not good enough to beat Villedger or Dongcopter, you're not good enough to win the tournament, but if you're good enough to win the tournament, you're good enough to beat those strats.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

If anything, KTAR proved that good enough players will figure out ways to overcome degenerate strategies. Look at ADHD vs. Tweek. Tweek figured out how to beat the ledge strategy, and forced ADHD to switch to Diddy Kong, where he won, because ADHD's Diddy is among the best.

Customs are effectively a skill gate. If you're not good enough to beat Villedger or Dongcopter, you're not good enough to win the tournament, but if you're good enough to win the tournament, you're good enough to beat those strats.

You know, some of those nicknames flirt rather hard with being legit innuendos.

 

[digiholic]

You know, some of those nicknames flirt rather hard with being legit innuendos.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[Shaya]

Not unless there's a good reason. And even then, domino effect: banning one move makes it much easier to ban the next one that is deemed "broken" or "jank."

Only move people have a widespread "issue" with, is Timber Counter. More so than anything else (at this time). There's a lot that can be said about what that move is all about, probably an arguable example of degenerate play at a theoretical level.
Seeing as the climate right now is very messy, the extreme sides are going to immaturely harp on anything said as a representation of the argument. Every intelligent player knows more time is needed for any argument to hold water.
The term you're actually looking for is "slippery slope", and it's a fallacy.

If anything, KTAR proved that good enough players will figure out ways to overcome degenerate strategies. Look at ADHD vs. Tweek. Tweek figured out how to beat the ledge strategy, and forced ADHD to switch to Diddy Kong, where he won, because ADHD's Diddy is among the best.

One tournament is enough to convince you it's fine yet tournament results that would note otherwise wouldn't be indicative to your standards. The amount of good players ADHD did beat when his Smash4 results thus far are generally on the infrequent end of things, this was DAY ONE usage of customs by ADHD and he was playing against those with several months more tournament experience than him [in smash4]. A lot of players like Zero/M2K see the 'undeveloped but still successful' as an indication of something dangerous in the long run, you shouldn't choose to ignore that.

There's an eSports perspective and then there's the rest.
Chances of something being broken enough that it'll 100% decide matches instantaneously undermines Sakurai/any sane balance team. If your standard is "press button once and the victory screen comes up" then that's never going to happen and you'll be on the extreme side of the political spectrum.

Everything is beatable, and nearly always will be. characters planking was beatable, and planking before there was an LGL weren't singularly winning tournaments or dominating results over the best players in every region, MK was getting rather close to it though. The strategy's impact on the rest of the scene though? Pretty dire seeing as Meta Knight was the most popular tournament character. An LGL was a band aid solution to it though, as it didn't stop people timing out the last 2-4 minutes of the game while staying within said limit.
Villager may never be the most popular tournament character. They may only garner one or two high/top level mains and the regions that accommodate them may eventually call foul. The "it's beatable" argument will to most people still be solid enough reason, yet at that point the damage is already there and by the time we realise the game is dying (as that strategy gains more popularity) it'll be way too late (Ice Climbers).

I dislike pulling the "Brawl player" card, but it's the one nearly every long-term Brawl player I know personally uses as the basis for their fear. We've seen this all before in almost a deja vu type of way, we've watched the game die while power brokers remain petty and obstinate.
It's dangerous for us to dictate what are valid winning strategies, the "if it's campy/not rush down it's cancer and must die" is a generalisation. But gameplay that results in one dimensional character interaction is something we ultimately don't want to see (neither do you). We aren't there yet, nor is there any guarantee we'll ever be there, but the great players shouldn't want to be forced into mastering a character they feel promotes "toxic" play. Mastering a character (or a strategy) takes time, you won't be seeing it used successfully at any early point. Find me the top level player using Villager from the get-go with good results taking the customs-meta by storm; there is none.

"doesn't instantly win matches hence it's fine"
vs
"omg broken, players using it don't deserve to win"

Don't be at either end of the scale, be somewhere in between.

 

[Davis-Lightheart]

To me, my hope is that the camping strategy will not push villager higher up the tier list. If Villager wins his/her matches, I hope it will be through more engaging strategies. Even though the camping game looks safe for Villager, my hope is that it will not be as rewarding as it may have been for Meta Knight of ICs. I mean, thus far, it seems like a horrendously paced match, but a beatable one as long as you have patience, and the fact it doesn't seem invincible might turn off a lot of players.

At least... that's my hope.

 

[DavemanCozy]

I know that more time is needed to determine whether something is truly degenerate, hence why I said "Not unless there's a good reason to." If there going to be bans, then hopefully we'll follow through with them (*cough* Brawl MK *cough*), and hopefully you're correct about my slippery slope being a fallacy.

At this point, I'm just tired of the argument going around the entire community. I'd honestly prefer to see a mix of customs on and customs off tournaments as we move along the lifetime of Smash 4, give both sides a chance to play the game how they want.

 

[deepseadiva]

I think we have some easy decisions ahead of us.

"Would we rather ban all customs or some customs?"

"Would we rather ban 1 custom or install a ledge grab limit?"

"When tournament organizers determine what (if anything) is banned, they should choose only bans that are enforceable, discrete, and warranted."

This is my issue with the "ban all customs" movement. I don't believe banning Kirby's uh, Ice Breath is warranted. Or Peach's Toad counter that puts you to sleep. Or the Captain Falcon kick that stuns you. No one is going to argue that those are broken and need to be banned. But a blanket ban is still in place for them?

Banning specific customs is the best middle ground. It's enforceable and discrete. We've already banned one anyway: Olimar's Tackle Order in doubles.

 

[Ulevo]

This is certainly the more crude way of putting it, but people need to stop being scrubs and play the damn game. Nearly every player theorycrafting on the notion of banning characters and customs has no credible tournament experience, nor has ever placed well in a competitive tournament against known, reputable players. Case in point, you don't have the experience or knowledge to talk about this with legitimate context given the games short history.

Once upon a time in the Melee world, according to the community consensus, Link was considered cheap, thoughts of banning Sheik were tossed around, Falco was considered bad, Ice Climbers was never a competitive character, Marth was pragmatically the best character in the game, and Jigglypuff was never going to win a major. It took years to get to where we are with Melee today, and we're still evolving.

tl;dr why is this thread open?

 

[deepseadiva]

Banning a character and banning a custom are not equal comparisons.

 

[BestTeaMaker]

Banning specific customs is the best middle ground. It's enforceable and discrete. We've already banned one anyway: Olimar's Tackle Order in doubles.

That's banned in doubles for the sole reason of the nasty glitch involved with any sort of reflectors, not because people considered it janky or broken.

 

[Ulevo]

Banning a character and banning a custom are not equal comparisons.

They both support the notion that banning is an appropriate tool that can be used to balance the game as opposed to be used as a lost resort option to keep the game alive, or competitively fair.

 

[deepseadiva]

They both support the notion that banning is an appropriate tool that can be used to balance the game as opposed to be used as a lost resort option to keep the game alive, or competitively fair.

But what about stage bans? Character bans should be a last resort and should almost never happen. Custom bans I think are more comparable to stage bans. Something we can do very easily when warranted.

 

[Raijinken]

But what about stage bans? Character bans should be a last resort and should almost never happen. Custom bans I think are more comparable to stage bans. Something we can do very easily when warranted.

It's not quite as easy as that. Very rarely is a stage ban targeted at a specific character (I'd say never, but I don't know that for sure). Any custom ban will, by nature, be character-targeted. While banning a custom is easier to implement and enforce than, say, banning a matchup-specific footstool infinite combo that resulted from a glitch, it still has the effect of hindering the character's full potential in at least some, if not all, matchups. For that reason (and pretty much that alone), I'd say it's more comparable to a character ban than a stage ban (it also negatively impacts, especially for Palutena should we end up banning Lightweight or Superspeed, some of a player's practice in using a character, much like a character ban negates that practice entirely). But even then, we're comparing apples to oranges to steak. The bans are all impactful, but two are more similar than the third.

 

[Yoship]

no counter timber, please. that's a nightmare.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

But what about stage bans? Character bans should be a last resort and should almost never happen. Custom bans I think are more comparable to stage bans. Something we can do very easily when warranted.

This has got to be one of the most infuriating posts I've ever encountered. The premise (that we can and should easily ban stages with little good reason is infuriating). The failure of logic (both players have to agree on a stage; both players do not have to agree on a character!) is infuriating. The conclusion (that we can and should easily ban customs) is infuriating. Mostly the premise, honestly. I don't know if you noticed, but there are a lot of people quite angry about this! There are a lot of people who see the banning of Wuhu Island and Skyloft as a travesty.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

It's not quite as easy as that. Very rarely is a stage ban targeted at a specific character (I'd say never, but I don't know that for sure).

Actually, it's pretty common. Temple was banned in part because of Fox. Delfino and Halberd were banned in some regions because of Meta Knight. Shadow Moses Island was banned in part because of King Dedede. I believe Kongo Jungle 64 was banned in Melee due to Peach, although I could be wrong on that one.

 

[cot(θ)]

So for anyone who hasn't seen it, this is Tweek vs. ADHD at KTAR XII (and yes, I know the OP's opinion is not based on KTAR XII - this is for everyone's reference):

Now I'm going to ask a serious question - what was wrong with this match? ADHD wasn't playing at a "lower skill ceiling" than Tweek. His strategy requires a lot of skill to execute correctly. And despite the low rates of damage, each interaction between the two players was very meaningful.

In my opinion, this is not 'toxic' or 'cancerous' gameplay. This is matchup variety. I do not see a single thing wrong with this match - what I see is a community and commentators who are biased towards a rush-down Melee style of gameplay. You can see it clearly from the commentators - they claim that ADHD has become the "worst player to watch", yet you can feel the excitement from both the spectators and the commentators during the entire match. The tension was so real, and every percent could have been the difference between victory and defeat.

Fact is, this matchup is part of the game, and I like it.

One tournament is enough to convince you it's fine, yet tournament results that would note otherwise wouldn't be indicative to your standards.

We do not prove that characters, stages or moves are "fine". We assume they are fine until proven broken. This is the necessary course of events - if game elements are guilty until proven innocent, they will never be proven innocent, because they will never be used.

 

[Judo777]

Actually, it's pretty common. Temple was banned in part because of Fox. Delfino and Halberd were banned in some regions because of Meta Knight. Shadow Moses Island was banned in part because of King Dedede. I believe Kongo Jungle 64 was banned in Melee due to Peach, although I could be wrong on that one.

No that's not true, almost no stages were banned for a particular character. A character does not warrant a stage ban. Just ban that stage against that character if its a problem (the exception was Brinstarin Brawl due to MK but everyone knew it was because people were doing ANYTHING to keep MK legal even if it involved adding a bunch of stupid rules).

Temple was banned due to circle camping. Fox may have done it best (id make an argument for Pit doing it better) but many many characters could effortlessly circle camp as long as they had a lead and had better mobility.

I was unaware of Delfino or Halberd ever being banned especially since Halberd was considered a poor stage for MK.

Shadow Moses wasn't banned for King Dedede (granted it was a great stage for him) that stage was banned for like TONS of reasons. Walk offs promote blastzone camping, you could get behind the tower walls forcing the opponent to break them, people never died in the middle so the match revolved way more around teching to the point that it was the most important skill on the map.

Most people who are well versed at stage legality will tell you that stages are almost never banned for specific characters.

 

[deepseadiva]

Now I'm going to ask a serious question - what was wrong with this match?

Planking aka stalling.

We should probably ban Timber Counter. Or even Timber Counter + Extreme Balloon Trip on the same set, but I have a feeling that won't be enough, as preferable as that would have been. Bans should be the lightest touch possible.

 

[TheHypnotoad]

No that's not true, almost no stages were banned for a particular character. A character does not warrant a stage ban. Just ban that stage against that character if its a problem (the exception was Brinstarin Brawl due to MK but everyone knew it was because people were doing ANYTHING to keep MK legal even if it involved adding a bunch of stupid rules).

Temple was banned due to circle camping. Fox may have done it best (id make an argument for Pit doing it better) but many many characters could effortlessly circle camp as long as they had a lead and had better mobility.

I was unaware of Delfino or Halberd ever being banned especially since Halberd was considered a poor stage for MK.

Shadow Moses wasn't banned for King Dedede (granted it was a great stage for him) that stage was banned for like TONS of reasons. Walk offs promote blastzone camping, you could get behind the tower walls forcing the opponent to break them, people never died in the middle so the match revolved way more around teching to the point that it was the most important skill on the map.

Most people who are well versed at stage legality will tell you that stages are almost never banned for specific characters.

http://www.ssbwiki.com/Banned_stage

"Especially poor matchup balance by providing a rather extreme advantage for certain characters (such as allowing the character to utilise excessive, gamebreaking camping, or utilise infinite chain throws, as in the case of Fox in Temple for the former, or King Dedede in Shadow Moses Island for the latter)."

 

[Piford]

No that's not true, almost no stages were banned for a particular character. A character does not warrant a stage ban. Just ban that stage against that character if its a problem (the exception was Brinstarin Brawl due to MK but everyone knew it was because people were doing ANYTHING to keep MK legal even if it involved adding a bunch of stupid rules).

Temple was banned due to circle camping. Fox may have done it best (id make an argument for Pit doing it better) but many many characters could effortlessly circle camp as long as they had a lead and had better mobility.

I was unaware of Delfino or Halberd ever being banned especially since Halberd was considered a poor stage for MK.

Shadow Moses wasn't banned for King Dedede (granted it was a great stage for him) that stage was banned for like TONS of reasons. Walk offs promote blastzone camping, you could get behind the tower walls forcing the opponent to break them, people never died in the middle so the match revolved way more around teching to the point that it was the most important skill on the map.

Most people who are well versed at stage legality will tell you that stages are almost never banned for specific characters.

Rainbow Cruise, Delfino Plaza, Brinstar, and Frigate Orpheon (I don't understand this one though) were all banned because of Meta Knight. Many places didn't follow the Delfino Plaza ban though, and at Apex 2015, they just banned Meta Knight on Delfino Plaza and Halberd. In Melee, quite a few stages were banned because of Fox, specifically all the ones with walls like Peach's Castle (would've likely ended up being banned anyways) and quite a few stages were banned because Peach and Puff were too good on them (Mute City, Brinstar, Congo Jungle, and Rainbow Cruise). If a character is too good on a certain stage, to the point where it is basically impossible to win unless you chose them, then the stage should be banned for being too good for that character. It's a much harder ban to determine though and definitely isn't one that should be thrown around. It's much more of a problem when multiple stages are an insta-win for a character rather than one stage.

 

[Ulevo]

But what about stage bans? Character bans should be a last resort and should almost never happen. Custom bans I think are more comparable to stage bans. Something we can do very easily when warranted.

We ban stages because we can't use all of the stages available because we run in to problems regarding competitive integrity. We do not however run in to this issue with custom moves. Certain moves are better than others, and some of them arguably make the gameplay interactions less deep than we'd like, but that is not a cause for a ban.

The idea that you're even suggesting this with no major tournament history to call from is both silly and disappointing.

 

[deepseadiva]

We ban stages because we can't use all of the stages available because we run in to problems regarding competitive integrity.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

We do not however run in to this issue with custom moves.

Oh. Interesting scientific fact. I was not aware that was 100% factually established already.

The idea that you're even suggesting this with no major tournament history to call from is both silly and disappointing.

Is it not the same to say "we will never ban a custom move" with the exact same criteria? I'm not saying we need to ban any specific move immediately, or even with the next month, or even the next year. I'm just saying it is an option we should be able to consider going forward. After testing and data and multiple tournaments (of course of course of course). Please excuse all my sarcasm in this post, but I really don't think it's "silly and disappointing" to have that option on the table. I think it is a very reasonable thing to consider.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Planking aka stalling.

Way to ignore his question completely, along with the thrust of his argument.

 

[Ulevo]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm



Oh. Interesting scientific fact. I was not aware that was 100% factually established already.

It's post like this that make people like you a waste of time. This is a debate of opinion. I'm arguing as a matter of majority consensus, not fact. Your attempt at satire here is stupid.

Is it not the same to say "we will never ban a custom move" with the exact same criteria? I'm not saying we need to ban any specific move immediately, or even with the next month, or even the next year. I'm just saying it is an option we should be able to consider going forward. After testing and data and multiple tournaments (of course of course of course). Please excuse all my sarcasm in this post, but I really don't think it's "silly and disappointing" to have that option on the table. I think it is a very reasonable thing to consider.

What's disappointing and silly is that the considerations are already being laid on the table when there is no evidence for it. Case in point:

We should probably ban Timber Counter. Or even Timber Counter + Extreme Balloon Trip on the same set, but I have a feeling that won't be enough, as preferable as that would have been. Bans should be the lightest touch possible.

The idea that you're confiding in common sense doesn't absolve your argument. I'm not disagreeing that having the option is good, that would be nonsense. I'm disagreeing about this thread having exposure, and people like you feeling the need to entertain the idea without sufficient evidence.

 

[CeruleanFlow]

Personally, I think that the Timber Counter and Extreme Balloon Trip, and even the Big Gyroid together just are boring to watch.

That's just my opinion however. I also believe Cot was correct in saying that the spectators and commentators were very into the match, because every percent did matter. I just personally don't like the idea of occasionally forcing a match to time out, because if that's all tournaments are, there will most likely be a large group of people that will complain about watching that.

With all of that being said, the usual Diddy or Rosalina up-air game isn't necessarily the most exciting to watch either. It's tough to please everyone when it comes to something like that though.

All of this is of course my opinion and I would like to hear your opinions as well.

 

[deepseadiva]

I don't see anything wrong with speculation. With today's EVO ruleset announcement I do think it's very likely: 1) customs will become universal. And 2) we will see the banning of Timber Counter to disable planking. 3) no other custom bans beside that one. Those are my calls and you can call that nonsense, but not everything needs 5 years of testing to be evident.

I dunno I just don't think banning very very specific customs needs to be this huge ideological battle.

 

[Unknownkid]

I don't understand why we are banning Timber Counter for "Planking" when Explosive Balloon Trip was the main component for ADHD's tactic. Can we ban WFT's Header too because it promote planking as well (at least in Europe)?

 

[Zzuxon]

There is one custom that should be banned: Order tackle in doubles. It is very easy to imagine a novice Fox and Olimar team taking the whole bracket by exploiting it's glitch alone.

Here is why customs aren't broken:
Diddy is dominant in a non custom meta.
In a custom meta, Diddy would still prefer his defaults, he stands to gain very little from customs.
In a custom meta, Diddy would probably still be dominant.
Therefore, customs can't make any character better than default Diddy.
Therefore customs aren't broken.

There is one exception to this line of reasoning: Order Tackle in doubles. It easily makes Olimar better than Diddy; that custom is broken.

Regarding Timber counter:
I shouldn't be surprised that a substantive number of people in the smash community want to ban a move, not because it is unfair, but because it promotes an unpopular playstyle. I shouldn't be surprised.
But I am.