Well, overcentralization is sought to be prevented so that there is a more rewarding experience than if it were to happen. I suppose the difference would be whether it's the most rewarding experience as opposed to being rewarding at all, but this still kinda bugs me.
You see, I specifically said that the rules are not written to create
the "most rewarding" experience. This means that the rules are not written to maximize "reward".
Which means that we won't ban every little thing that could be viewed as rewarding were it banned. This in no ways means the rules are never ever written to make the game more rewarding. Not over-centralizing the game can be argued as meaning more rewarding than an over-centralized game.
So stop trying to strawman/twist my words/try to confuse the less clear-headed. I said what I said. You clearly know what I meant, judging by your reply.
OH come on. I think I gave myself more credit in these last thirty pages. Making it 'more fair' is not at all what I'm about. I'm considering this purely from the perspective of making the field more competitive, as in, trying to figure out which groups of tourneys I wanted to go to if my goal was to face the most challenging competition over time.
Banning things to artifically get rid of huge weaknesses on the part of characters with huge weaknesses, in essence giving them
a handicap = More Competitive?
I get that you see a lot of crap 'arguments' that look like what I just said, but please read me seriously.
I don't care about making more characters viable. At the time of that writing, I considered viability of characters a means to a diverse field, and as such, of utility to increasing degree of competition.
See, this is
also an old argument. We just haven't seen it around here for a while.
The rules are not written to maximize "diversity", either. They are written to prevent the
minimization of diversity (i.e. over-centralization). But we're not banning stuff to make the game more "diverse".
And the question would be: What would the threshold be? What would qualify as making the game more diverse if we ban it? Do we stop at "diversifying" a match-up once it's 80-20? 70-30? 60-40? 50-50?
How do we do this for characters that just suck in general? Captain Falcon has a crap recovery. Banning edgeguarding against him would make him a much better character. No edgeguarding CF? No edgehogging tether recoveries?
And I thought I meant 'rewarding experience' in just the sense of 'the rewards of the competitive game which are precisely the reason competitive gaming communities exist, because there is a common sensation of enjoying. . . contest, of enjoying competition, and because of this, and in (functional) worship of this end, do we think very carefully on deciding what to shape our games into, and form normative judgments of the scrub, and so on, because what we are trying to build is a system to maximize competition.'
Did you just argue we should ban the infinite to make the game more "fun"?
Or have I completely misunderstood the thesis of competitive gaming?
Competitive gaming is Competitive gaming. We play games Competitively. What is enjoyable for one person is not necessarily enjoyable for someone else.
Me, I find it highly, eh, not-enjoyable, that the community has descended into Ban Trigger Happy La La Land where things need to be "Fair", "Diverse" and "Fun" and if they aren't, well, bring in the Ban Hammer! A metagame where we banned D3's infinite would make me enjoy the Competitive scene less because of my values and principles and my view that we would have sunked to low depths of Scrubbinness. Subjective stuff!
No point arguing this. Yuna has it handled. *leaves*
Hey look, Captain, another D3 who's against the ban! Important stuff!
Wait, what?
There are VARIOUS chaingrabs, cargo throws, wall-infinities/all that stuff. I don't believe your arguement is all that viable, simply because so many characters have those options, overcentralization would be impossible.
How would overcentralization caused by so many tactics break the game? It's like saying stages without walkoff edges break the game with their emphasis on off-stage combat.
1) There are various
cargo throws?
2) You're not reading what I'm actually saying. There are few very characters who have chaingrabs that are viable for chaingrabbing people off the stage (at least not chaingrabs that work on the majority of the characters), not everyone has a jab lock (like, 12 or something have a jab lock), but that's not the point.
The point is that with walls and walk-offs around, the metagame would be over-centralized
around the walls and walk-offs. We'd camp the walk-offs, we'd develop our metagame around the walk-offs, walk-offs would be the center of the metagame.
People would pick one of the (not as many as you seem to think) characters with viable ways of walk-off killing people and then run around and concentrate on abusing the walk-offs.
The metagame would be over-centralized around the walk-off.
The game centralizes around a lot of characters with tactics that can work on those stages. Characters that become popular are those who are viable on both stages with and without walkoff edges and walls. There is no reason to ban these stages that is consistent with the understanding of what constitutes a ban in competitive gaming, simply because while those tactics will centralize the game, there are so many of them, no particular character will be overcentralizing, and the game itself will be about the ability to set up and pull off these many, many combos, rather than what it currently is.
I have no reply to this. You're talking out of your tuchas again.
D3 is already 4th best in the game. Give him walk-offs and walls and watch the metagame suffer and revolve around him. Doesn't matter if there are some others who can abuse walk-offs and walls as well. He just abuses them so well and he just chaingrabs most other characters who are good with walk-offs and walls, anyway.
Wow. You make so many assumptions in there. If D3 is unviable against half the cast, he can't make the other half unviable against himself, because he himself is unviable.
D3 is not unviable against
anyone (I think). His worst match-up is a 70-30, IIRC. And there's, like,
one of them.
much like MK is the safest option
MK has nothing on walk-offs.
O RLY?
In what alternate universe? Stop talking out of your **** behind! Do you even
know the match-ups? I very much doubt you do. Have you read up on
any of the things you throw around as "facts"?
Fact: D3's match-up against Marth is a 55:45. Read that:
55-45.
What is a 55-45? Most credible people (i.e., not some of the people in this thread) count 55-45s as
even match-ups (I certainly do). Some wouldn't. However,
no one credible would
ever claim a 55-45 to be a
counter.
In addtion, there is still the option of non-walk-off stages (typically neutral), which means Pikachu is not the best choice in the first matchup.
Yeah, the problem is that there are so many walk-offs, you cannot stage strike them all. So you would
have to face a walk-off should the opponent choose one for a counterpick. Which means that in order to win, one would have to use a character and tactics viable on walk-offs to counter walk-off-loving characters.
Thus, the game would become over-centralized around walk-offs. Also, you're talking out of your tuchas. I just wanted to reiterate it.
"D3 is a Marth counter" my tuchas!
Even if it were entirely walk-off edges and walled stages, there is nothing wrong with the metagame you described. It is competitively consistent with what is appropriate.
We could unban the various circle stages while we'e at it! Then it'd be a game of running away from each other and running the clock out while attempting to laser each other for more damage! There's nothing really wrong with that either, it'd just be boring!
Also, I just have to repeat this:
The Halloween Captain just claimed that King DeDeDe is a Marth counter!
THC, please stop talking about things you have absolutely no clue of. At least not in threads I frequent. Because I will undoubtedly read it and feel compelled to mock you openly for it.
Stop talking out of your behind. You might think that you'll get away with it, that the ignorant masses who don't know any better will just assume that you have a clue and that what you say is true. However,
I will be around.
I will be ticked off by your incessant need to spew bovine manure about things you know
nothing about and I will have to give you a solid verbal ***-kicking for it.
Again, I must ask you, where do you get all of these notions from? Either you're lying, making stuff up as you go or
you actually believe the stuff you say. And if it's the 3rd option,
why the hell do you believe in it?! Where the hell are your sources?! Where did you get the facts that you base crap like this from? Where could you
possibly have gotten it?
Are you just using flawed sources or are you actually talking out of your tuchas every other (and sometimes every two out of three) post?
And just to drive the point home:
The Halloween Captain just claimed that King DeDeDe is a Marth counter!