• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Should requirements for a ban be made before release?

_Keno_

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
1,610
Location
B'ham, Alabama
It just seems like the reason there was so much controversy surrounding the MK ban was because anti-ban supporters thought the ban requirements were being set-up purposely to include metaknight while the pro-banners thought the opposing requirements were being set-up to purposely exclude him.
 

SmashChu

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
5,924
Location
Tampa FL
It just seems like the reason there was so much controversy surrounding the MK ban was because anti-ban supporters thought the ban requirements were being set-up purposely to include metaknight while the pro-banners thought the opposing requirements were being set-up to purposely exclude him.
You can never ban something before release. You have to test it first. Part of the problem with the item ban is that is was a default ban.

Actually, Smash needs to stop banning stuff to being with.
 

_Keno_

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
1,610
Location
B'ham, Alabama
You can never ban something before release.
Uh...I never said we were banning stuff before release. I said we could make the banning requirements before release, which is absolutely possible.

Actually, Smash needs to stop banning stuff to being with.
Given the default settings of the game and some of the absolutely noncompetitive aspects of brawl (which very well may be continued in smash 4), some bans are definitely needed. I mean, I dont think anyone would still be playing brawl if DDD was perfectly allowed to counterpick you to any stage with a wall and legally able to chaingrab you for 8 minutes.

Even melee needed some of the ridiculous stages to be banned.
 

Claire Diviner

President
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
7,493
Location
Indian Orchard, MA
NNID
ClaireDiviner
It's pointless to ban things prior to release since, as SmashChu stated, playtesting needs to be done. As for items, I can imagine those will be banned by default as well, only because they're always banned in the first three Smash Bros. games, so it stands to reason to believe the same will hold true for Smash 4.

As for banning in general, there are various reasons why certain things are banned, whether it's because of a stage offering unfair advantages such as allowing infinite chain throws, or game-breaking stalling and camping potential, things will be banned eventually, so that's a given.

I do think I get where you're coming from (the OP). I think you're asking if the requirements for MK's ban should be implemented in Smash 4, so that if a character were to meet the requirements upon playtesting, said character should/would be banned before they become too dominant a force in the metagame, is that right?
 

Johnknight1

Upward and Forward, Positive and Persistent
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
18,966
Location
Livermore, the Bay repping NorCal Smash!
NNID
Johnknight1
3DS FC
3540-0575-1486
Characters are never going to be banned before the game's release in smash bros.
You can never ban something before release. You have to test it first.
You can ban stuff that are obviously super broken stuff at the time of release. The moment we all saw New Pork City Dojo update, and we saw the stage's size, platform layout, and the Great Chimera hazard, it was banned in everyone's mind. It wasn't even a question. Other such large stages or stages that you have to fight like FlatZone 2, 75M, and Hyrule Temple got similar treatments. The same went for items like the Hammer, Super Spicy Curry, Smash Balls, and Pokéballs after we saw more demo footage of them.
Part of the problem with the item ban is that is was a default ban.
Not really. Many people had Japanese Wiis and had played Brawl earlier. Through early Japanese (Wii) Brawl tournaments and play testing, most of us realized items broke Brawl competitively at every level. Thus, items were banned in most tournaments by the time of Brawl's NTSC and PAL release.

Many of us thought actually thought before Brawl's release that items would be intially tournament-legally, because items were said to be more "balanced." We were wrong! :laugh:
Actually, Smash needs to stop banning stuff to being with.
Depends what you mean by what should/shouldn't be banned. This statement could be translated many ways. For instance, if smash doesn't ban huge campy stages like Hyrule Temple, overpowered items like Pokéballs, and invincible glitch moves like Meta Knight's infinite down B with thousands of dollars on the line and hundreds of participants, then only the cheaters, stallers, and all-around anti-action losers will win, and the competitive scene would literally implode in itself.
 

_Keno_

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
1,610
Location
B'ham, Alabama
You can never ban something before release.
It's pointless to ban things prior to release since, asSmashChu stated, playtesting needs to be done.
Characters are never going to be banned before the game's release in smash bros.
Why do people keep saying this? This is not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether or not we should make the guidelines that dictate what should be banned before release or just decide what to ban subjectively afterwards.

I do think I get where you're coming from (the OP). I think you're asking if the requirements for MK's ban should be implemented in Smash 4, so that if a character were to meet the requirements upon playtesting, said character should/would be banned before they become too dominant a force in the metagame, is that right?
Kind of, it's hard to ban characters so early in a game though because other characters could potentially CP it or something. I dont have any good guidelines in mind or anything, I just think something should be made.
 

JediKnightTemplar

Smash Lord
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
1,092
Location
Midland, Michigan
I don't think it's very viable to even set up any requirements as we don't know how the game will even play. I think it's pretty safe to say items will be banned for the obvious reasons, but beyond that you can't even put down any parameters outside of one character horrifically outclassing the others, which is just common sense.
 

lordvaati

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
3,148
Location
Seattle, WA
Switch FC
SW-4918-2392-4599
you mean a ruleset deciding the terms for a ban?

well one could argue that if they have an immense advantage over the cast, have no bad stages in the entire game, actually made stages illegal by their actions, and have very exploitable moves that promote stalling or make it impossible for the opponent to do anything, then they could be banned.

...but first, we have to see who is in the game. :awesome:
 

Johnknight1

Upward and Forward, Positive and Persistent
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
18,966
Location
Livermore, the Bay repping NorCal Smash!
NNID
Johnknight1
3DS FC
3540-0575-1486
Yeah, we can't ban characters from the get-go. After a few years maybe, but not immediately. However, after a short time, we could easily ban stalling-based tactics, broken techniques and moves (infinite grabs, things like Meta Knight's down B, etc), and whatnot. However, it would be hard to tell if that stuff is ban-worthy before a smash game's release.
Why do people keep saying this? This is not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether or not we should make the guidelines that dictate what should be banned before release or just decide what to ban subjectively afterwards.
I gave some parameters:
-I said that large stages like Hyrule Temple, 75M, Big Blue, the Bridge of Eldin, and New Pork City, stages should be banned before the game's release in tournaments.
-I said that stages that force you to actively fight against the stage most of the time, like FlatZone 2, Big Blue, and Wario Ware, should be banned from the get-go.
-Stages that are hard to move around (with cramped spaces, or stage movement that forces you to stop fighting) like Mario Bros., Infinite Glacier, and Rumble Falls, should be banned immediately.

If there are tournaments that use these stages with high level players that show that these stages can work in tournaments in any capacity (1v1, 2v2, or even 3v3 if we get that in smash), they should be "sampled" in a few tournaments or tests. If those work out, we could continue to increase the sample size.

For items, IMO items should be banned from all but a few "experiment" tournaments from the get-go. If any amount of items work and don't break the game, we could increase the sample size of tournaments that use those. If it keeps working and helps balance the game, continue to expand item use in tournaments in such a scenario.
 

Mr.Jackpot

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
1,727
Location
WA
You can never ban something before release. You have to test it first. Part of the problem with the item ban is that is was a default ban.

Actually, Smash needs to stop banning stuff to being with.
It'd not a ban if it's an in-game option, it's just a choice of what option to use, but it'd be nice if we did some item legality testing for Smash 4.
 

Johnknight1

Upward and Forward, Positive and Persistent
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
18,966
Location
Livermore, the Bay repping NorCal Smash!
NNID
Johnknight1
3DS FC
3540-0575-1486
^^^ You mean like what I suggested in the post above yours=??? :awesome:
For items, IMO items should be banned from all but a few "experiment" tournaments from the get-go. If any amount of items work and don't break the game, we could increase the sample size of tournaments that use those. If it keeps working and helps balance the game, continue to expand item use in tournaments in such a scenario.
 

lordvaati

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
3,148
Location
Seattle, WA
Switch FC
SW-4918-2392-4599
I do however feel we should change the way items are tested and have each individual item weighted, like we do with stages. keep the broken stuff like Crates and Pokeballs banned, but allow legal stuff like Mr. Saturns,food,and stickers to remain.
 

Johnknight1

Upward and Forward, Positive and Persistent
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
18,966
Location
Livermore, the Bay repping NorCal Smash!
NNID
Johnknight1
3DS FC
3540-0575-1486
Items have been tested in tournaments for years, and largely the opinion the best of the best reach is that they reward players based on luck rather than skill. And competition is about proving who is the best player based on skill, not based on luck. Thus, the entire premise of items in smash bros. and how they are implemented is anti-competitive.

Another reason items are largely banned because containers can still fall, 1/8th of which are explosives.

As for Mr. Saturns, they can be chained together for combos. In Melee, many of these combos with certain characters are broken. I'm not sure how bad it is in Brawl, but judging by how much worse items are in Brawl than in Melee, this is only worse.

Food, on the other hand, rewards the person who is closest to the spawning point. This encourages item spawn camping, and is based on luck instead of "skill." Thus, we would have more camping in competitive matches, which as we all know is less exciting, and takes away from the competition.

Stickers... don't do anything... and there is no option to turn them on or off, unless you turn on or off items.
 

Disfunkshunal

Manners Maketh Man
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
5,864
Location
Planet Bomber
NNID
Disfunkshunal
3DS FC
1848-1876-3249
No since there are way too many variables to predetermine what may be considered broken. All assumptions would be based primarily on the information we have at the time and the precedents set in the previous games but since the information would be constantly updated and since things could be perceived differently from sakurai's description and considering the fact that all 3 past games play differently and that the fourth ssb intends to uphold that tradition we would be shooting in the dark.

Also iirc there were/are a few item tourneys. Here's the ruleset http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=164675
:phone:

:phone:
 

lordvaati

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
3,148
Location
Seattle, WA
Switch FC
SW-4918-2392-4599
Another reason items are largely banned because containers can still fall, 1/8th of which are explosives.


containers can be turned off in Brawl.

I was offering food as an example. and though the common argument now is because of randomness, wouldn't set positions be worse? because then the game would revolve around going to pick up specific items in areas, which would make the game as campy as your food example.and people would then use that as a example to ban them....

it seems like every time something happens to make them legal,someone comes up with a new reason to keep them banned. kinda biased, if you asked me.
 

SmashChu

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
5,924
Location
Tampa FL
Uh...I never said we were banning stuff before release. I said we could make the banning requirements before release, which is absolutely possible.
On that point, I'd say it's not a smart thing to do.

In relation for the Meta-Knight ban (I disagree, but I'm rolling with it for this point), you had to first get the sense that the character is broken. You have to test it to get a sense of "is this character dominating the game." The game needs to be played first. You need to know where the game is going before drawing a line in the sand. A developed metagame is important, because things change. In other words, it's better to wait.

The point someone made about items holds true. You need to test it first.

BTW, glad to have a civil conversation about items. Nice to see. My beef is that they really aren't tested. SRK has done more testing with items than Smash Boards has.
 

Johnknight1

Upward and Forward, Positive and Persistent
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
18,966
Location
Livermore, the Bay repping NorCal Smash!
NNID
Johnknight1
3DS FC
3540-0575-1486
@ funk
What I'm referring to are competitive fairly large-scale tournaments. Clearly, item tournaments do happen, although they tend to be in a less competitive atmosphere and have few attendees. Such tournaments will never be large-scale tournaments, unless they are Nintendo hosted and free like that (LAME!) Brawl tournament that they had on those HDTVs (all that lag) and Wiimote and Nunchucks (which is awful). :urg: I went to a Brawl tournament 4 years ago that had an items side tournament... which I entered :bee: ...and lost! :facepalm:

@ vatti
Well, with these games, you have to eliminate unneeded things that promote camping, stalling, and camping. The food item(s) doesn't add anything that enhances the competitive scene, and it only has negative qualities, again, such as promoting camping in allotted item spawning locations, rewarding players for being in a "random place at the right time." That doesn't sound like it follows the competitive mantra.

You gotta remember, with hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars on the line, that such things as "fun" doesn't mean much, and thus we are subjective to the "best chances the best player wins" viewpoint in order to make things the most "fair" for everyone. Nobody wants to lose $3,000 because somebody randomly got food and won because of it.

And with the explosive crates and whatnot, I was referring to Smash 64 and Melee.
 

_Keno_

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
1,610
Location
B'ham, Alabama
In relation for the Meta-Knight ban (I disagree, but I'm rolling with it for this point), you had to first get the sense that the character is broken. You have to test it to get a sense of "is this character dominating the game."
So for example, the requirements for a ban to you would be "a character dominating the game" or "broken." I mean obviously you'd have to be more specific like "no bad match-ups" or "no counterpick stages" but you get the point?

I think I'm not being clear that I'm saying we make the guidelines for banning stages, items, characters etc before the game comes out and then apply it after the community becomes familiar with it.

A developed metagame is important, because things change. In other words, it's better to wait.
Yeah, i agreed with this idea in a previous post.
 

Johnknight1

Upward and Forward, Positive and Persistent
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
18,966
Location
Livermore, the Bay repping NorCal Smash!
NNID
Johnknight1
3DS FC
3540-0575-1486
It is better to wait for a "universal ban" of a character (like Meta Knight in Brawl). Instead of outright universally banning said character, have "test" tournaments without, in this example, Meta Knight in Brawl. Then (in that Brawl Meta Knight example), you judge everything by the results. If (again, the Brawl example) the Meta Knight users still place high without Meta Knight, then that simply tells you the players who play Meta Knight are simply dominate.

If you get other results, however, you have to try to translate them differently, and get more of a sample size. I guess, in the end, I like things tested (that have previous been deemed universally banned/unbanned) before it is universally applied. No need to jump to conclusions on stuff without much knowledge in a developing game. :laugh:
 

SmashChu

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
5,924
Location
Tampa FL
So for example, the requirements for a ban to you would be "a character dominating the game" or "broken." I mean obviously you'd have to be more specific like "no bad match-ups" or "no counterpick stages" but you get the point?

I think I'm not being clear that I'm saying we make the guidelines for banning stages, items, characters etc before the game comes out and then apply it after the community becomes familiar with it.
No. What's I'm saying is no test. Just let it play out and see what happens.
 

Disfunkshunal

Manners Maketh Man
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
5,864
Location
Planet Bomber
NNID
Disfunkshunal
3DS FC
1848-1876-3249
@john
I'm going to be honest- I only read the first two posts before responding. The part about items was just me saying that some people did give items a chance. With that being said, you are weak because real men use items and win.

:phone:
 

t!MmY

Smash Hero
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
5,146
Location
Oregon
NNID
t1mmy_smash
Turning Stages and Items to 'Off' is not banning them; it's a game setting choice.

In a way there were criteria for banning characters before Brawl's launch, but it came from Sirlin's article ('Playing to Win') as the precedence. Basically he says that competitive gamers should embrace the game as-is and play without burdening it with outside rules. The exception is when something obviously breaks the game - and I don't mean a technique or character that is 'too good' but outright breaks the game (such as game freezing, game crashing, and run-time errors). The only exception that might be made would be a character that is so overpowered (OP) that it completely destroys an otherwise awesome game (such as 'Old Sagat' in SF2:T). But it has to be such an OP character that the entire community comes together in harmony and agrees to it's ban.

There's you're pre-launch criteria for banning elements/characters.
 

Tiberious

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
250
Turning Stages and Items to 'Off' is not banning them; it's a game setting choice.

In a way there were criteria for banning characters before Brawl's launch, but it came from Sirlin's article ('Playing to Win') as the precedence. Basically he says that competitive gamers should embrace the game as-is and play without burdening it with outside rules. The exception is when something obviously breaks the game - and I don't mean a technique or character that is 'too good' but outright breaks the game (such as game freezing, game crashing, and run-time errors). The only exception that might be made would be a character that is so overpowered (OP) that it completely destroys an otherwise awesome game (such as 'Old Sagat' in SF2:T). But it has to be such an OP character that the entire community comes together in harmony and agrees to it's ban.

There's you're pre-launch criteria for banning elements/characters.
(bold for emphasis)

Umm, don't you mean Akuma? He was the one who went 10-0 against the rest of the cast in Super Turbo. O.Sagat is good, but he's not banned, anywhere. Some places choose not to play him (referred to as a 'soft ban'), but that's scrubbiness showing its head.

Now, re: items. Testing with Brawl showed that the items had spawn windows based on time. It was plus or minus within a fixed distance from each 'cycle'. What spawned and where was somewhat random, but generally preferred going closer to the player that's behind. Doesn't really matter, though, as if you controlled space well enough, items were yours to claim. It just presented a choice: does a player surrender edge control to go after an item, or try to score the kill and then get it? These kinds of tactical decisions are made all the time anyway, so why fret over adding another?
 
Top Bottom