This is a pretty debated topic and there's probably tons of other threads on here about this. So in smash 4 lots of people want characters nerfed buffed or banned. But there are also a great amount of players that beleive players will eventually overcome characters strengths. The best example of this was when the melee competive scene was just getting started and many of Links moves into an up B was a true combo. And he was considered OP. But now the metagame has increased to the point where he is B tier. Maybe as the smash 4 meta increases high tier characters will get bumped down the tier list as well. Only time will tell.
-
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 we focus on banning/nerfing or overcoming their strengths
- Thread starter 2Fat4U
- Start date
Zelder
Smash Journeyman
There are no overpowered characters at this point in the meta. There are some characters that are stronger than others, but that's been the case with every single fighting game that has ever, or will ever exist, until someone makes Copy Paste Fighter 3, which consists of one character copy pasted 7 times.
So no, we don't need to ban overpowered characters.
Additionally, we have no real control over nerfs or buffs, no matter what anyone believes. It is done at the discretion of Sakurai and Nintendo, and it seems to be based off tourney results/gameplay data, not community outcry.
So no, we don't need to ban overpowered characters.
Additionally, we have no real control over nerfs or buffs, no matter what anyone believes. It is done at the discretion of Sakurai and Nintendo, and it seems to be based off tourney results/gameplay data, not community outcry.
RayNoire
Smash Journeyman
They aren't mutually exclusive. You can do the best you can with what you have while also hoping for improved balance in the future.
As for bans, I don't think anyone is on that train right now.
As for bans, I don't think anyone is on that train right now.
Last edited:
PUK
Smash Ace
Melee was really a bunch of tiny scene at the beginning and in this conditions the meta grows slowly.
In a less than a year we were able to devellop things that will shake the meta during apex or EVO next year. We were able to grasp most of the strenght of the top tiers, and we found their weaknesses.
We are fast, so will the tier list move? Yes, but not far from it is now
In a less than a year we were able to devellop things that will shake the meta during apex or EVO next year. We were able to grasp most of the strenght of the top tiers, and we found their weaknesses.
We are fast, so will the tier list move? Yes, but not far from it is now
Can't possibly see why it would be so debated in a competitive community. Competitive theory holds anyone who believes the game should be changed or their opponents limited in any fashion is playing outside the Competitive Arena.
It may be debated (if you call whining "debating") by non-competitive players who demand that everything under the sun which they lose to should be banned or nerfed, but they reside outside the competitive circle and the arguments would have no merit in a discussion posted in the Competitive Discussion boards.
It may be debated (if you call whining "debating") by non-competitive players who demand that everything under the sun which they lose to should be banned or nerfed, but they reside outside the competitive circle and the arguments would have no merit in a discussion posted in the Competitive Discussion boards.
NotAnAdmin
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2014
- Messages
- 426
I agree with @
PUK
.
The meta actually is still growing. I used to be one of the people that laughed at that statement, but I'm starting to see the little nuances in everyone's play, using strengths and strategies never used before. Here's a little story.
I play Falco about 90% of the time and I came across a strong Rosalina player. Rosy is considered "almost impossible" to win against due to her zoning, ranged options with Luma, and disjointed attacks in this match-up. I could have never beaten the guy with the Falco I played when the game first released. I started to pick apart a thing that Rosy relies upon heavily. Her jabs. Using Falco's fair by accident, I noticed that his fair completely ignored them while smacking the Luma away and hitting Rosy all at once. The rest is just spacing and forcing Rosy to approach.
While risky, it's a strategy we Falcos can use to an extent to counter her from now on.
tl;dr
Adapt and learn. Stop complaining.
PUK
.The meta actually is still growing. I used to be one of the people that laughed at that statement, but I'm starting to see the little nuances in everyone's play, using strengths and strategies never used before. Here's a little story.
I play Falco about 90% of the time and I came across a strong Rosalina player. Rosy is considered "almost impossible" to win against due to her zoning, ranged options with Luma, and disjointed attacks in this match-up. I could have never beaten the guy with the Falco I played when the game first released. I started to pick apart a thing that Rosy relies upon heavily. Her jabs. Using Falco's fair by accident, I noticed that his fair completely ignored them while smacking the Luma away and hitting Rosy all at once. The rest is just spacing and forcing Rosy to approach.
While risky, it's a strategy we Falcos can use to an extent to counter her from now on.
tl;dr
Adapt and learn. Stop complaining.
I'm sorry but if you can't adapt to the current state of the Meta you have no right to call yourself competitive in any fashion, regardless of the medium.
Adapt or get left behind. That's how competition and life has always worked.
Adapt or get left behind. That's how competition and life has always worked.
Raijinken
Smash Master
No banning. It's bad for any competitive scene that has gradual balance changes.
I personally like the "adapt and deal with it" approach. I get that it's a pretty new thing for Smash players to have to deal with balance changes hitting characters they've dumped tons of hours into, but honestly, if you're going to play the game, you have to play it as it's offered.
I personally like the "adapt and deal with it" approach. I get that it's a pretty new thing for Smash players to have to deal with balance changes hitting characters they've dumped tons of hours into, but honestly, if you're going to play the game, you have to play it as it's offered.
Seems the competitive-minded players are staying within the boundaries set by competitive theory: Play the game (no bans unless warranted - e.g. breaks the game or renders it non-competitive).
So why is it that we have seen so many outcries for "ban", "nerf", "restrict", "limit", "regulate", or "patch"?
Because this is a new game and with new games come new players and with new players we mostly see what is commonly referred to as "scrubs" (non-derogatory term meaning someone who is not competitive or is anti-competitive). There's such an influx of new players, many of the most vocal being "scrubs" and the demands to change the game by out-of-game rulings to recreate a game that must be played the way they envision the game to be played (i.e. in a non-competitive fashion) that the masses of these new (and vocal) players demand a mob-rule type of "democratic" majority rule:
In other words a logical "play to win" competitive community gets overwhelmed by very vocal masses of anti-competitive new players who believe and desire to change the current competitive scene into a non-competitive scene with mob-rule.
Why not have two separate factions who get all the respect they deserve? A Competitive Community AND a Casual Scene.
Competitive Community = Strictly Basic Competitive Value
Casual Scene = Liberally open rules which create a different metagame than the fundamental Competitive rules.
Problem solved.
So why is it that we have seen so many outcries for "ban", "nerf", "restrict", "limit", "regulate", or "patch"?
Because this is a new game and with new games come new players and with new players we mostly see what is commonly referred to as "scrubs" (non-derogatory term meaning someone who is not competitive or is anti-competitive). There's such an influx of new players, many of the most vocal being "scrubs" and the demands to change the game by out-of-game rulings to recreate a game that must be played the way they envision the game to be played (i.e. in a non-competitive fashion) that the masses of these new (and vocal) players demand a mob-rule type of "democratic" majority rule:
In other words a logical "play to win" competitive community gets overwhelmed by very vocal masses of anti-competitive new players who believe and desire to change the current competitive scene into a non-competitive scene with mob-rule.
Why not have two separate factions who get all the respect they deserve? A Competitive Community AND a Casual Scene.
Competitive Community = Strictly Basic Competitive Value
Casual Scene = Liberally open rules which create a different metagame than the fundamental Competitive rules.
Problem solved.