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!
Actually, anytime pre-2007, when the MBR started publishing an "official" ruleset.
*
I think it should be fair to avoid any sort of corrupt nonsense. Not the majority, nor the TO, should be telling everyone else how to play the game according to subjective preference. Can you imagine if we all agreed that Peach made for skills not worth testing, and decided to ban her? Once a precedent is set for banning things on subjective preference alone, this opens up the option to ban anything for the same reason.
How do you define this? You could argue something like this for randomness, but what about stages like Rainbow Cruise and KJ64, with no or minimal randomness? These stages are absolutely "deterministic."
You could argue that allowing certain characters functions in the same way. Rules are rules, and there isn't much reason to allow for characters which make for skewed matchups, but not stages.
"It's not player vs. player" and "I'm a player vs. player purist" is what we've heard so far, and so many of us feel we have no choice but to address the ban criteria. There isn't much point in addressing the reasons for specific stages, because anything we say will fall back to the statements I've listed above.
You can't build the game from the ground up. There is no blank slate to start on. Please, explain this architect analogy in depth. Do you start off with all characters allowed? Do you start off with Battlefield only and start adding stages?
You were saying Sheik was unbeatable at the top level. I disproved it by citing an example. If Sheik was truly unbeatable vs. non-top tier characters, surely Axe wouldn't have been able to beat M2K, right? Therefore, your assumption that we should ban Sheik if we ban KJ is false.
It's not about how many matchups are bad, it's about the stage having an inherent flaw of being too large, which makes stalling really easy. The reason it should be banned is because it does not test the player, but rather gives a guaranteed loss to anyone who refuses to use a fast character. I can't believe I'm even having to argue this point. I'd thought it be obvious that a stage that makes ANY character auto-lose would be banned, let alone 3/4ths of the cast. Sometimes it really just seems like people don't actually care how the game is played because they would rather just jerk off to their ruleset being less "scrubby" because they've kept in all the little bells and whistles the game developer threw in.
I think the process is perfect. It's the same one used in Halo these days because there is so much customization available for maps, weapons, player traits, etc. The problem is most people are hooked on Sirlin and how we should go the other way. I got trolled out of the No Johns Ruleset thread because I stated that we should be adding stuff in if it's beneficial, not removing it if it's ban-worthy by Sirlin's criteria (which isn't very profound considering no other fighting games have ever had to worry about banning anything OTHER than broken characters).
Bones, do you understand the difference between a single anecdote and an actual statement on whether Sheik is unbeatable at the top-level? A single example proves no more that Sheik is not worth banning than an example of Ganon beating Fox on KJ proves that KJ is not broken.
In other words, it's broken. A guaranteed win is broken, and that's fine. However, brokenness is a measure across the entire game. You can't simply claim that a guaranteed win being provided in a certain subset of the matchups means that the stage is broken.
This is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't think a stage that made a certain character auto-lose would be worth banning for that reason alone. If, for example, the entire cast could auto-beat Fox on Brinstar, but everyone else played there the same, I would not claim that the stage should be banned, because it does nothing towards "centralizing" the metagame. All it does is force Foxes to either change characters or lose. Which is perfectly fine, the way I see it, because similar situations (though perhaps less severe) exist with certain character matchups on the starter stages.
No, it's simply a realization that, if I were to try and make the game play the way I saw fit, we'd see an influx of local tournaments with Falco banned. We all have preferences, and we all see some things as inherently unfair. But I've come to realize that these things I see are subjective, and that I want to be painfully careful before I jump to the conclusion that something should be banned.
One thing to keep in mind is that these decisions being made in Halo are different than explicitly banning things. They would me more akin to choosing between Time and Stock. And there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to play Stock over Time, because the difference is just a different way to play exactly the same game. It would be no different than playing 3/5 instead of 2/3 in a traditional fighter, or wanting to play Lightning Melee over standard.
*
Um ... Signature? (I guess at this point I should get used to being ignored and just gtfo
).
