what are the reasons to ban a character?

[BBQTV]

this is not a ban meta knight thread


i forgot the reasons a character should be banned. i remember one was that a character has to be alien to the entire cast

what were the rest?

 

[Ghostbone]

Same reason anything is banned.

Over-centralization.

 

[WindMajor]

If he plays to such unbeatable degrees as this guy or this guy, and absolutely everyone used him because it was play him or lose, then I would start pushing for a ban.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

http://gametheorybootcamp.blogspot.com/2010/12/arguing-against-subjectivity-crafting.html
There's your criteria. Have fun using it effectively if it isn't blatantly obvious though.

 

[Sephy95]

If the guy is incredibly good i guess.

 

[san.]

We have no accepted criteria.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@San: would you call mine good reasoning?

 

[teluoborg]

In one word : No.

 

[Hippieslayer]

@San: would you call mine good reasoning?

No, yours is revolving around establishing a system that will decide what is right and wrong in all cases and then naively believing it to be perfect and subjecting to it like some kind of religious followers. In short, it's dogmatic, not reasonable.

Reasonable is when people discuss what they like in the competitive brawl scene, what they don't like, and in both cases why and then proceed to make decisions together about the game.

 

[Flayl]

When a character's worst and only even matchup is itself

 

[D Who?]

When a character's worst and only even matchup is itself

Not that this thread is about Metaknight, but if you look at the world rankings, in the top 100 there are around 40 mk's (Although this system is flawed). Most players who are good on a national level have pocket mks. He has levels that just make matches not winnable. Brinstar for ex. Sorry for stating the obvious on that one. But I do understand that most higher tiered characters don't have as much of a hard time against him, and though difficult, is beatable and to the community, it is all a matter of learning the MU. But you can think of it this way, if you take two players who are exactly the same and made one Metaknight and the other Wario or any other character for that matter, the Mk is going to have the advantage and most likely win. Not only does he have all the tools he needs to win, he has more.

But MK is a great challenge and there is no better feeling than that of going into GF match with a great MK player and having a really close set and coming out the winner of the tourny. It's like killing a god


Juss saying.

 

[Ghostbone]

When a character's worst and only even matchup is itself

Not quite.

You wouldn't ban Pikachu from SSB64 tourneys for example, despite his worst match-up being himself.

 

[Gatlin]

Usually when something is, "Use this character or you are going to (most likely) lose."

Even though it is not impossible to win against said character, the chances would be heavily against you if you were to use someone else against the character. Only makes it more fun trying, though.

 

[Flayl]

Not quite.

You wouldn't ban Pikachu from SSB64 tourneys for example, despite his worst match-up being himself.

If it's true that Pikachu is that good, then I would ban him. But I wouldn't know, does he really have no even matchups besides himself?

 

[Jonas]

Imo the best criteria is tournament results, because tournaments are where theory becomes practice. If one single character just dominates the top 10 or so, time to ban. The amount of neutral or favorable match-ups isn't really important.

 

[Flayl]

I would hope people wouldn't base matchups on anything less than practice o.O

 

[John12346]

SSB64 Pikachu isn't bannable because he loses 1:99 to Isai. Maybe Isai is bannable.

Just sayin' ;p

 

[Dnyce]

Imo the best criteria is tournament results, because tournaments are where theory becomes practice. If one single character just dominates the top 10 or so, time to ban. The amount of neutral or favorable match-ups isn't really important.

That's a good plan... we'll just make our way through the game until 1 character is left - then we'll have no one else to ban. ;o

SSB64 Pikachu isn't bannable because he loses 1:99 to Isai. Maybe Isai is bannable.

Just sayin' ;p

There's multiple people capable of beating isai.

 

[Ghostbone]

There's multiple people capable of beating isai.

When he's playing with link or Samus on their worst stages against their worst match-ups.

He still wins most of the time >.>

 

[Jonas]

That's a good plan... we'll just make our way through the game until 1 character is left - then we'll have no one else to ban. ;o

That's not what I meant. I said we should ban a character if he always takes all the top spots, like top 10 or 20, not if he just wins.

I would hope people wouldn't base matchups on anything less than practice o.O

I'm just saying that "he doesn't have any match-ups worse than 50-50" is not a good argument, as long as he's still beatable.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

The BRoom is too lazy to establish a thread explaining this no one knows the official criteria.
No character requires a ban so there's no point.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

When a character's worst and only even matchup is itself

Okay. Now, let's assume a game where every character is very different from all the others.

No, yours is revolving around establishing a system that will decide what is right and wrong in all cases and then naively believing it to be perfect and subjecting to it like some kind of religious followers. In short, it's dogmatic, not reasonable.

That's nice, you've called my theory dogmatic and unreasonable without demonstrating why it is either.

Reasonable is when people discuss what they like in the competitive brawl scene, what they don't like, and in both cases why and then proceed to make decisions together about the game.

No, that's subjectively deciding "what we can agree on". Which is horrible. The appeal to results takes the competitive level of the game from one factor-the competitive depth. To argue that maximizing this is a bad idea is folly.

 

[Flayl]

Okay. Now, let's assume a game where every character is very different from all the others.

... what?

10whats

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

If it's true that Pikachu is that good, then I would ban him. But I wouldn't know, does he really have no even matchups besides himself?

The physics in Super Smash Bros 64 is very noticeably different than in Brawl, almost every one in SSB64 (Except maybe Samus.) has a 0-death combos. Thus while it is still a really hard match up vs Pikachu (If you are playing a character other that Pikachu or Fox) You still have a really good chance of victory if you play intelligently and creatively. Unless that Pikachu is isai in that case your chances of winning are zero.

I guess my point is that Super Smash Bros 64 while similar to brawl is a different game and the rule set that would make scene for that game would not make scene for brawl, and vice versa.

 

[Flayl]

I know how the engine works. I understand no SB64 player even wants to ban him. I'd still ban him due to my philosophy concerning undeserved advantages.

 

[Hippieslayer]

Okay. Now, let's assume a game where every character is very different from all the others.



That's nice, you've called my theory dogmatic and unreasonable without demonstrating why it is either.



No, that's subjectively deciding "what we can agree on". Which is horrible. The appeal to results takes the competitive level of the game from one factor-the competitive depth. To argue that maximizing this is a bad idea is folly.

Subjectively deciding what we can agree on and compromising has been proven inductively to lead to better results than constructing a system of thoughts just for the sake of appealing to humanity perverse strive for perfection. Especially when the latter is in fact never perfect but allways unflexible and prone to cause harm in the cases where it is unpreferable. In fact this is a very commonly occuring phenomenon and one that tends to seperate modern politics and philosophies from those of the eighteenth century and earlier on where all schools of thoughts tended to be focused on perfecting their own systems which are now largely abandoned.

You really like to throw words like subjective and objective around way too much, especially when you don't motivate why subjectively deciding upon something is bad, which seems kind of weird when you want people to agree with your own subjective opinions :O

 

[Life]

Philosophically: Is the game better for competition without the character?

Consider the additional depth ("you have to know one additional matchup" versus "more matchups become important because those characters aren't destroyed by the character in question"; that is, absolute depth versus character viability), attendance with and without the character (important, because each player is slightly different from the other and thus more strategies will be used; much more difficult, as many other factors go into attendance), whether an outright character ban or a surgical nerf is better (the parallel in Brawl is LGLs). Possibly others, it's getting late.

But practically speaking: will the TO be better off with the character banned? (Existence of BRC tells me no.)

This logic should be applied to stages as well. (I think this is what BPC is talking about when he says "Appeal to Results". Am I correct in saying so?)

 

[Hippieslayer]

Philosophically: Is the game better for competition without the character?

Consider the additional depth ("you have to know one additional matchup" versus "more matchups become important because those characters aren't destroyed by the character in question"; that is, absolute depth versus character viability), attendance with and without the character (important, because each player is slightly different from the other and thus more strategies will be used; much more difficult, as many other factors go into attendance), whether an outright character ban or a surgical nerf is better (the parallel in Brawl is LGLs). Possibly others, it's getting late.

But practically speaking: will the TO be better off with the character banned? (Existence of BRC tells me no.)

This logic should be applied to stages as well. (I think this is what BPC is talking about when he says "Appeal to Results". Am I correct in saying so?)

Indeed whether or not banning Metaknight would be a good thing remains speculation, what I oppose in BPC talking as if though his thoughts on the matter were objective truth just because he's got well formulated and fleshed out opinions with good arguments to back them up.

 

[Dnyce]

When he's playing with link or Samus on their worst stages against their worst match-ups.

He still wins most of the time >.>

If I was talking about beating his bad characters, I would've mentioned it. Same goes for him winning most of the time.

Maybe I should make myself a little more clear, since you seem to remain ignorant.

There are multiple people capable of beating isai's pikachu and fox (consistently), as well as other characters he plays too.

That's not what I meant. I said we should ban a character if he always takes all the top spots, like top 10 or 20, not if he just wins.
I'm just saying that "he doesn't have any match-ups worse than 50-50" is not a good argument, as long as he's still beatable.

Right... so when mk takes all the top spots we ban him. Then when snake takes all the top spots we ban him. Then when diddy takes all the top spots, we ban him - etc. That's what you're essentially saying.

 

[Tesh]

Dominance alone isn't really a great criteria. People will flock to whatever is the easiest or strongest option. Even if its not broken.

 

[Jonas]

Right... so when mk takes all the top spots we ban him. Then when snake takes all the top spots we ban him. Then when diddy takes all the top spots, we ban him - etc. That's what you're essentially saying.

That's not what I'm saying at all. The tier list does not dictate tournament results.
For instance, if MK was over-centralizing to a degree that everyone in top 20 at every tournament ever used him, a ban would probably be justified. If he was banned though, that wouldn't automatically make Snake take all the top 20 spots.

Just look at any competitive game that's somewhat balanced (ie not having an unbeatable character that anyone who performs at least decently at tournament uses) and you'll actually see character diversity among the top placers. This is because being best does not necessarily equal being over-centralizing.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

... what?

10whats

Whoops. Somehow, I forgot to finish my sentence. It's supposed to read, Imagine a game where all the characters are unique. There happens to be one character who goes between 55-45 and 60-40 with the whole cast (usually leaning towards 55-45) with a few exceptions in low tier going 70-30 or worse his way. Almost no character, and certainly no character who would be viable without him there, has him as their worst matchup. Is it still right to ban him?

Subjectively deciding what we can agree on and compromising has been proven inductively to lead to better results than constructing a system of thoughts just for the sake of appealing to humanity perverse strive for perfection. Especially when the latter is in fact never perfect but allways unflexible and prone to cause harm in the cases where it is unpreferable. In fact this is a very commonly occuring phenomenon and one that tends to seperate modern politics and philosophies from those of the eighteenth century and earlier on where all schools of thoughts tended to be focused on perfecting their own systems which are now largely abandoned.

You really like to throw words like subjective and objective around way too much, especially when you don't motivate why subjectively deciding upon something is bad, which seems kind of weird when you want people to agree with your own subjective opinions :O

You think my school of thought is imperfect as far as results go (given accurate, perfect parameters)? Give me a concrete example where a game which is less deep is better for competition (in a way that is comparable; for example, SSBB versus SSBB without Final Destination, or Street Fighter 2 Turbo vs. SF2T sans Akuma). I haven't seen it fail yet. Its failure comes when you try to give it unsure (for example, we can't tell if brawl is a more deep game if MK is legal-there are too many variables to really be able to tell) or indiscreet (ones you can't compare; for example, Brawl vs. Call of Duty: Black Ops-they are two very different games, it really is comparing apples and oranges) parameters to work with. But beyond that? It is perfect. Think it isn't? Give me one example.

Subjectively deciding on something is bad for quite obvious reasons-subjective opinions on an objective subject can (and very often are) flat-out wrong. Best example: a certain smash community thinks the best, most competitive way to play is with the only legal stage being Bridge of Eldin (or, more extremely, Temple Hyrule). This is so obviously wrong it's not even funny-the game is broken on both of those stages. And yet, you would claim that they're fine with doing that. And then deciding to ban Lazer camping, and running away, and... You get my point.

 

[Ghostbone]

Whoops. Somehow, I forgot to finish my sentence. It's supposed to read, Imagine a game where all the characters are unique. There happens to be one character who goes between 55-45 and 60-40 with the whole cast (usually leaning towards 55-45) with a few exceptions in low tier going 70-30 or worse his way. Almost no character, and certainly no character who would be viable without him there, has him as their worst matchup. Is it still right to ban him?

Well it would depend on many factors. Like how many people main/second said character, and how often that character wins. And whether character diversity would be increased without said character.

 

[Flayl]

Whoops. Somehow, I forgot to finish my sentence. It's supposed to read, Imagine a game where all the characters are unique. There happens to be one character who goes between 55-45 and 60-40 with the whole cast (usually leaning towards 55-45) with a few exceptions in low tier going 70-30 or worse his way. Almost no character, and certainly no character who would be viable without him there, has him as their worst matchup. Is it still right to ban him?

To me yes it is. Although I think 55-45 ratios are bull**** and don't really exist.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ok. Why? Hell, he might not even be the best character in the game (look at SF3's Chunli!). Explain why your philosophy is, realistically, a good thing in a case like that.

 

[Flayl]

Because it makes the game, in my eyes, more competitive. I don't think it's competitive to force a mirror match or disadvantage game 1. A player can choose to play a disadvantaged matchup if he wants to, but he should have all the tools available to him so he doesn't have to.

SF3 Chunli isn't the best character in the game btw, Yun is.

 

[Judo777]

Because it makes the game, in my eyes, more competitive. I don't think it's competitive to force a mirror match or disadvantage game 1. A player can choose to play a disadvantaged matchup if he wants to, but he should have all the tools available to him so he doesn't have to.

SF3 Chunli isn't the best character in the game btw, Yun is.

It's debatable. But that's ur point anyway right? MK isn't debatable at all.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Because it makes the game, in my eyes, more competitive. I don't think it's competitive to force a mirror match or disadvantage game 1. A player can choose to play a disadvantaged matchup if he wants to, but he should have all the tools available to him so he doesn't have to.

SF3 Chunli isn't the best character in the game btw, Yun is.

Really? I thought Chun li went like 70-30 with everyone except Yun, and Yun went like 55-45 with the whole cast.

That said, what if the character:
-Is very hard to use
-Adds an amazing amount of depth to the game by being completely different from every other character
-Takes a very different mindset
...etc. Basically, what if the character just adds a ****load of depth to the game just by being there? Like, say, Metaknight? So what if the best you can do, matchup-wise, is a 50-50 by picking him (or arguably Fox, Falco, or Ness)? This isn't necessarily bad, especially when you consider that most people know the matchup back to front, and most characters have worse matchups.

 

[Ghostbone]

...etc. Basically, what if the character just adds a ****load of depth to the game just by being there? Like, say, Metaknight? So what if the best you can do, matchup-wise, is a 50-50 by picking him (or arguably Fox, Falco, or Ness)? This isn't necessarily bad, especially when you consider that most people know the matchup back to front, and most characters have worse matchups.

Completely subjective, some people would say the depth added by increased character viability with MK banned outweighs the depth of MK being there. So in a sense there's less depth overall with him there.
Similar to Old Sagat in SSF2T. (who's borderline bannable)

And Fox and Falco (lol at ness >.> MK is heaps good against him) really only even go close to even (more around 55-45 or 6:4) on their best stages against him.
It is definitely a bad thing, it obviously over-centralizes the meta-game around him.
(it's obvious, any time a new technique is found the first question is "does it work on MK?" match-up discussions always start with MK, the community hypes up random characters as MK counters all the time)
Which is why people know the match-up inside out. YOU NEED to know the match-up better than the MK to have a chance at winning. I don't see how that's fair.

Dammit we're not supposed to discuss banning MK.....

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Completely subjective, some people would say the depth added by increased character viability with MK banned outweighs the depth of MK being there. So in a sense there's less depth overall with him there.
Similar to Old Sagat in SSF2T. (who's borderline bannable)

It's not subjective. It's simply incredibly complex. But in MK's case... who's more viable with him around? Which characters who don't already have some very hard counters have him as their worst matchup? Between very few and none.

And Fox and Falco (lol at ness >.> MK is heaps good against him) really only even go close to even (more around 55-45 or 6:4) on their best stages against him.

You should look into TKD.