What does it take to be banned?

[stelzig]

- Yes, you can easily ban anything. If that is what was decided to base the game and the direction the entire community naturally always moved/leaned towards, then I see absolutely no problem with it. It's the game most competitive players want or eventually end up wanting the more they get into the game.

As for the stage vs. character thing. Well I can't really come off with an argument as such, though I do see alot of people here saying the same thing so clearly i'm not the only one thinking that a character takes priority over a mere stage.

- The mbr is still a place of higher expertise and respect than a group of hosts that went against brawls mbr equivalent (the bbr).

- I'm not wanting to point out that everyone who wants more stages neccesarily suck, just that I don't believe in the saltiness statement and that I highly doubt so many are against stages just because they think they can't deal with it, but rather think the game itself is better off without them. It's like... Many want to throw in arguments they can truly hold on to and say "this is truly in the competitive spirit", but to me it seems like the games players have always moved more towards less stages so it's nothing new, and the arguments that finally can deem them broken aren't really important. The metaknight ban seems to stem just from some people thinking they can't deal with him and he is overpowered. I see that there are people talking about overcentralizing and that the game therefore is better off without him, but I still somewhat don't believe he truly is overcentralizing the game all that much.

- You say it yourself here as well. You don't particularely like the stages either. It's more of a "let's have them on for the heck of having them on, and because we can't find a proper and rock-solid argument to justify ourselves" rather than a true interest in playing with them on. As I said, the same can't really be said about metaknight. He's not on just for the heck of having him on, people actually play with him - appearently he's even overcentralizing the game.

I might have missed part of your post, I am a bit in a rush, and not too interested in discussing this, I know what kind of stagelist I prefer, and I know that I wouldn't ban metaknight if I were to host a brawl tournament for whatever reason, heh. Will probably still look back later on.

 

[Kal]

theres a major difference between banning a stage and a char. you dont main a stage and devote hours learning how to control and react with it.

So the difference is strictly in terms of time investment? Surely you don't feel that warrants banning stages on subjective preference.

Also, one could invest quite a bit of time into learning a stage. It may not be to the same degree as with a character, but don't dismiss the importance of memorizing stage layouts and strategies. When Pokéfloats was legal, I frequently won on it not because of any sort of character-specific advantage, but virtually always because I was clearly more familiar with the stage.

- Yes, you can easily ban anything. If that is what was decided to base the game and the direction the entire community naturally always moved towards, then I see absolutely no problem with it. It's the game most competitive players want or eventually end up wanting the more they get into the game.

You see no problem with players banning things for no reason? If the MBR decides tomorrow that the game is "richer" or "better" or "deeper" if a character, say Sheik, is banned. You're ok with that?

And despite the fact that "most competitive players" want it, you need to consider that majority rules is bull****[/i] in a situation like this.

Finally, don't overgeneralize. I'm not a bad player by any means, but I certainly want Pokéfloats, Mute City, Corneria and Jungle Japes back.

As for the stage vs. character thing. Well I can't really come off with an argument as such, though I do see alot of people here saying the same thing so clearly i'm not the only one thinking that a character takes priority over a mere stage.

Personally, I see it as just as arbitrary. Yes, you invest more time in a character than a stage, so the ban is certainly less significant, in some sense, but the degree of severity, in that way, seems like the last thing I would consider before banning something.

- The mbr is still a place of higher expertise and respect than a group of hosts that went against brawls mbr equivalent (the bbr).

The expertise isn't relevant. Bias is what has been criticized about the UNC from the beginning (that the UNC simply went out of its way to bring in more pro-ban members), and the same holds for the MBR: the MBR has a very pro-ban bias in terms of stages.

- I'm not wanting to point out that everyone who wants more stages neccesarily suck, just that I don't believe in the saltiness statement and that I highly doubt so many are against stages just because they think they can't deal with it, but rather think the game itself is better off without them. It's like... Many want to throw in arguments they can truly hold on to and say "this is truly in the competitive spirit", but to me it seems like the games players have always moved more towards less stages so it's nothing new, and the arguments that finally can deem them broken aren't really important. The metaknight ban seems to stem just from some people thinking they can't deal with him and he is overpowered. I see that there are people talking about overcentralizing and that the game therefore is better off without him, but I still somewhat don't believe he truly is overcentralizing the game all that much.

But whether the game is "better off" with any particular ruleset is subjective. The only way to avoid being a fascist here is to ban as little as possible. Once you decide "the game is better without Mute City, so we ban it," you've infringed on the right of every single player who disagrees (i.e., every single player who likes Mute City and thinks it makes for deep, rewarding gameplay) to play there.

Further, keep this in mind: once you ban a stage because "the game is better without it," you've essentially legitimized the following ban criteria:

Anything can be banned, so long as it makes the game better.

What's to prevent you from banning anything, at this point? And this slippery slope has become more-or-less realized in players who actually take this logic and want to ban FD because of chain grabs, Yoshi's Story because of the cloud, Dreamland because of the ****ing wind, and so on.

- You say it yourself here as well. You don't particularely like the stages either. It's more of a "let's have them on for the heck of having them on, and because we can't find a proper and rock-solid argument to justify ourselves" rather than a true interest in playing with them on.

I say it there to make a point. In reality, I like many of the stages. The point is that "I don't like these stages" is not a qualified reason for me to ban them. I could apply your logic to Falco, because in reality I really do dislike Falco, and I really do feel the game is "better" without him. But I know better than to ban him: my opinion that the approach game is the most wonderful aspect of Melee, and that a single character should not be able to constantly control the momentum and tempo entirely in every matchup, is subjective.

 

[kevo]

And frankly, I don't see why banning a character is a "much huger step" than banning a stage. This seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Marth main, I see? What would be a bigger blow to you, Marth being banned or Yoshi Story being banned?

Also, one could invest quite a bit of time into learning a stage. It may not be to the same degree as with a character, but don't dismiss the importance of memorizing stage layouts and strategies. When Pokéfloats was legal, I frequently won on it not because of any sort of character-specific advantage, but virtually always because I was clearly more familiar with the stage.

That's great for you. Foxes are also really "familiar" with Yoshi's Island when they waveshine heavies off the right or upsmash them into the low ceiling. Or when they laser camp for 8 minutes on Temple. It doesn't matter what YOU do, or how YOU play stages, but rather what someone COULD do, or how someone COULD play stages.

But whether the game is "better off" with any particular ruleset is subjective. The only way to avoid being a fascist here is to ban as little as possible. Once you decide "the game is better without Mute City, so we ban it," you've infringed on the right of every single player who disagrees (i.e., every single player who likes Mute City and thinks it makes for deep, rewarding gameplay) to play there.

Further, keep this in mind: once you ban a stage because "the game is better without it," you've essentially legitimized the following ban criteria:

Anything can be banned, so long as it makes the game better.

What's to prevent you from banning anything, at this point? And this slippery slope has become more-or-less realized in players who actually take this logic and want to ban FD because of chain grabs, Yoshi's Story because of the cloud, Dreamland because of the ****ing wind, and so on.

You're splitting hairs and extrapolating perfectly reasonable reasons to impose a ruleset. There is no "slippery slope" and no serious discussions to ban FD. What's "preventing" the community from banning anything is a desire to minimize degenerative gameplay while preserving rich and diverse gameplay. I like used to like Corneria a lot, and when it was effectively banned I was kind of upset. But it didn't feel like my "rights were infringed". The reality is that random Arwings knock people down and the upper blast line is around 3 inches off the ground. The reality is that it's impossible to keep all the stages (especially considering that the stages were absolutely not intended to support high level competitive play), with so many characters and strategies floating in the metagame.

Keep in mind: there is one court in basketball, and the stages in most 2D fighters are more of less identical. Sometimes people forget how good we have it in Melee.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Kirbykaze: Camping and stalling is a big difference... just saying

I actually posted a lot in the thread when they talked about MK being banned and I can honestly just say this.
They are ****ing whiners that don´t wanna learn things and don´t wanna accept things. They are trying to ban him so much that their arguments is so ****ing bad.

Useing infinite cap (that already is banned) as a argument for broken.
And also when I said one truley MK main (and Ally that plays a lot of chars) have won over the last 2 years in a national someone mention something about 5 cause things with MK are banned.

I don´t think anything in melee have a possibillity to get banned except for wobbling (I don´t wanna ban it Im just saying it is not impossible)

I agree here, though I'm not sure that stalling and camping are so different from each other. They certainly are not the same thing.

If you can't beat something, you have to get better and overcome it. Asking for something to be banned because you can't beat it is the lowest common denominator. But I also think it might be because of the game of Brawl itself. My experience with Brawl is scant but maybe MK is broken to the point that there are no good strategies and match-ups against him? I find it hard to believe that an ENTIRE COMMUNITY over the course of several years could fail to develop a balanced metagame. Then again, perhaps Melee is just that awesome.

It boggles me why people would rather complain about something than learn how to beat it. So I'm with you.

People are aware that we have plenty of unwarranted bans when it comes to stages, right? As in, our justification for banning stages like Mute City, Pokéfloats, Jungle Japes, and Corneria is roughly the same whining as what goes into banning Meta Knight. And the parallel is so good it's almost palpable: the reason these stages remain banned is because most players prefer it that way. That, or they make absurd arguments to circumvent proving these stages are broken.

I think we need to get off our collective anti-scrub high-horse. I mean, we have a ****ing backroom committee of more-or-less self-proclaimed experts who decide what rules we should use, and whenever they publish a ruleset they provide very little explanation for why anything is banned. We're not really that much better than the Brawl community. There is no Melee-equivalent of Meta Knight in terms of single-strategy dominance, so we've never had to deal with such an issue. But I would guess that, if such a thing existed, it would plague our community just as badly. And I would not be surprised if the MBR ruled in exactly the same fashion as the URC.

Well (and this is how I see it), when playing a competitive game, you want to reduce the number of random variables to where they aren't blatantly ridiculous (an arbitrary line, I know), so that the matches are as close to player vs player as you can get, while still keeping some random things in there to test the players (misfires, Peach's turnips, the cloud (which is on a timer, so it's not really random), Dreamland's wind (which I agree, it's really stupid). The cars/stage changes on Mute City, the ships on Corneria (and the dominance Fox was shown to exert on that stage), the claptrap in Jungle Japes, and the constant changing of Poke Floats (though I think it was more that people, in general, really disliked that stage) are considered to be far too random/disrupting to players to be fair in competitive play. Basically, for competitive play, we want things under a certain level of random, that can be perceived as encouraging to competitive play. I hope I explained that well enough.

My personal favorite is "Peach wins matches on Mute City which she shouldn't!"

Meh...we kinda do...but we don't completely break that stage.

'promotes camping' is mine

This. The stage doesn't really promote camping, the players do. If Mango and Shiz were to have 50 matches on Kongo Jungle, not one of them would be campy, because they aren't campy players. I don't think that you can ban stages based on play styles (which is different than banning them because they discourage competitive play, or help characters IMMENSELY (like Fox on Yoshi's Island).

This is so true, we are just as bad if not worst than the brawl community. Half of the stages are banned because we thought Fox would be broken on them, so instead of banning the character we banned all but just 7 stages now. What's worse is that Metaknight was at least proven to be an overly dominant character, Fox was never dominant even with these now banned stages, we banned the stages simply out of fear. I find it ironic that so many people in this thread are making fun of the brawl community.

Why in the world would you ban a character over a stage? The reason why MK was banned was not becase of his dominance on a particular stage, rather, it was because he dominated (or appeared to dominate) everywhere, regardless of stage. Stage/item bans should always exist before a character ban. If your favorite character was banned because they broke Hyrule, or Poke Floats, would you say, "Okay, time to go to a different character," or would you say, "No, that's not fair. Just ban the stage."

And despite the fact that "most competitive players" want it, you need to consider that majority rules is bull****[/i] in a situation like this.

I agree that the majority deciding everything is simply stupid.

Personally, I see it as just as arbitrary. Yes, you invest more time in a character than a stage, so the ban is certainly less significant, in some sense, but the degree of severity, in that way, seems like the last thing I would consider before banning something.

Yeah, it's certainly an arbitrary line, how severe banning a character is compared to banning a stage, but there isn't really a question that it would be less severe to lose, say, Jungle Japes, than it would be to lose, say, Jigglypuff, or Marth. And I think that the severity of the impact on the game should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to ban something.

But whether the game is "better off" with any particular ruleset is subjective. The only way to avoid being a fascist here is to ban as little as possible. Once you decide "the game is better without Mute City, so we ban it," you've infringed on the right of every single player who disagrees (i.e., every single player who likes Mute City and thinks it makes for deep, rewarding gameplay) to play there.

Further, keep this in mind: once you ban a stage because "the game is better without it," you've essentially legitimized the following ban criteria:

Anything can be banned, so long as it makes the game better.

What's to prevent you from banning anything, at this point? And this slippery slope has become more-or-less realized in players who actually take this logic and want to ban FD because of chain grabs, Yoshi's Story because of the cloud, Dreamland because of the ****ing wind, and so on.

I don't think that the issues of the cloud, or the wind, or CGs, are necessarily strong enough to warrant banning those stages, but I take your point on the slippery slope point. Once you ban one thing, you ban another thing, and another thing. The thing that comes to mind for some reason is Orwell's Animal Farm, and how little by little, freedoms were restricted, and things were banned. This is not really the same thing, only in the sense that it's difficult for people to simply ban a few things. However, in tournament play, I don't want to get CP'd to Flatzone just to get killed by G&W's. So, if we're banning as little as possible, maybe increase the number of bans we get after winning a match? But that's not on topic, really.

I say it there to make a point. In reality, I like many of the stages. The point is that "I don't like these stages" is not a qualified reason for me to ban them. I could apply your logic to Falco, because in reality I really do dislike Falco, and I really do feel the game is "better" without him. But I know better than to ban him: my opinion that the approach game is the most wonderful aspect of Melee, and that a single character should not be able to constantly control the momentum and tempo entirely in every matchup, is subjective.

He does control momentum, doesn't he? But I agree, likes/dislikes alone are not valid reasons for banning things. There should be legitimate, objective (or as close to objective as we can possibly get) reasons for the bans.

Keep in mind: there is one court in basketball, and the stages in most 2D fighters are more of less identical. Sometimes people forget how good we have it in Melee.

=D Heh heh heh. I like this one.

I really was just going to read this thread, but there was too much to reply too.

 

[Kal]

Marth main, I see? What would be a bigger blow to you, Marth being banned or Yoshi Story being banned?

It seems you're missing the point here. Banning Marth would be more significant to me personally because I main Marth. However, this does not mean that banning a character is somehow less "ok" than banning a stage, at least not inherently. And it doesn't mean that banning Marth is a "much huger step" than banning Yoshi's Story.

That's great for you. Foxes are also really "familiar" with Yoshi's Island when they waveshine heavies off the right or upsmash them into the low ceiling. Or when they laser camp for 8 minutes on Temple. It doesn't matter what YOU do, or how YOU play stages, but rather what someone COULD do, or how someone COULD play stages.

You are awarded with a second missing the point.

You're splitting hairs and extrapolating perfectly reasonable reasons to impose a ruleset. There is no "slippery slope" and no serious discussions to ban FD.

You're not a member of the MBR, so it's absurd to say that there is no serious discussions to ban FD. And, until I am allowed to at least view what's being discussed, what they tell me they're discussing is no proof to me. However, keep in mind that there were also no serious discussion to ban Mute City or Brinstar in the past. Now, Mute City is banned and, as far as I can tell, the community is leaning towards banning Brinstar. Because lava is janky.

The slippery slope exists because I've justified the intermediate contingency:

Once you ban something on preference alone, you legitimize that as a reason for banning. Then there is nothing to stop you from banning anything on preference alone.

What's "preventing" the community from banning anything is a desire to minimize degenerative gameplay while preserving rich and diverse gameplay. I like used to like Corneria a lot, and when it was effectively banned I was kind of upset. But it didn't feel like my "rights were infringed". The reality is that random Arwings knock people down and the upper blast line is around 3 inches off the ground.

This is one stage where you can make a concrete argument for a ban: the ceiling is incredibly low and, combined with the "arc" on the right side, as well as the stage's size, Fox has a clear advantage here. You can then argue the size of the advantage and deliberate on whether the stage is ban-worthy. You can also discuss what effect the Arwings have on consistency.

In general, "rich" is not well-defined. "Diverse" is also difficult to define with regards to gameplay. So, when it comes down to it, banning just about anything becomes "I don't like this, no one can use it."

The reality is that it's impossible to keep all the stages (especially considering that the stages were absolutely not intended to support high level competitive play), with so many characters and strategies floating in the metagame.

The reality is that I haven't said we need to keep all the stages. But we need justified bans. We can't have bans on preference alone.

Keep in mind: there is one court in basketball, and the stages in most 2D fighters are more of less identical. Sometimes people forget how good we have it in Melee.

What the hell are you going for? Love it or leave it? Or are you just saying that, because we have 9 stages legal in the MBR ruleset, that we should be grateful?

 

[stelzig]

You see no problem with players banning things for no reason? If the MBR decides tomorrow that the game is "richer" or "better" or "deeper" if a character, say Sheik, is banned. You're ok with that?

Of course there is a problem with banning for absolutely no reason. Afterall I didn't make such a lengthy post just to say that people can ban for no reason. I'm against nitpicking for an argument when it has always been clear that the community as a whole has always been neglecting that area and never really been all that interested in the remaining stages. It has always bothered me how I suddenly saw people argue so much over some silly stages, when the stages used from when I first noticed the community and saw videos always made sense to me as the stages to be played on.
It's tbh not really a big issue for me though and I do kinda miss having bans because some stages can get really tough in certain matchups. I would possibly even start going for counterpicking some of these stages in tournament matches, but would probably still not be particularely interested in having them on in friendlies - which I do think says something about them.

I realise that you're not a bad player, and I realise that alot of people want more stages. But I also believe that the main reason for a fair amount of these people is because they can't accept it being banned before finding this rock-solid argument that they can agree with. Even though they really prefer to play without them as well (didn't you say that yourself earlier)? And that's kinda the problem to me. The remaining amount (in my experience) want them because they want more variation to keep the game fresh. It doesn't seem like there's many who truly loves the competitive scene and play this game alot who are particularely interested in actually playing on pokefloats or even mute city.

Majority rules stuff. Yeah I agree. That's (sorta) also the problem with this metaknight ban. This majority voting against metaknight seem to come from salty players who can't take playing against him. This is unlike naturally always have disregarded stages, only to pick them up because maybe they could work and we never actually explained why we don't play with them.

I do think the other things I gave the mbr still matters, and not just the bias part. I also disagree that it's only bias that others have commented on anyway. Guess i'll leave it at that.

But whether the game is "better off" with any particular ruleset is subjective. The only way to avoid being a fascist here is to ban as little as possible. Once you decide "the game is better without Mute City, so we ban it," you've infringed on the right of every single player who disagrees (i.e., every single player who likes Mute City and thinks it makes for deep, rewarding gameplay) to play there.

Further, keep this in mind: once you ban a stage because "the game is better without it," you've essentially legitimized the following ban criteria:

Anything can be banned, so long as it makes the game better.

What's to prevent you from banning anything, at this point? And this slippery slope has become more-or-less realized in players who actually take this logic and want to ban FD because of chain grabs, Yoshi's Story because of the cloud, Dreamland because of the ****ing wind, and so on.

I know this is the problem to many and I agree you have to be very careful and not go overboard with it, but at the same time not make it too big of a mantra to find specification for every damn single thing. It kinda reminds me of how everything has to be explained and **** on manuals and stuff just because of idiots, nitpickers, and americans who like to sue companies for everything.

It's really not that I want a "ban everything if it makes the game better" criteria, even though i DO believe we have, and especially people in the mbr, do have a better idea of how to make this game a great competitive game than sakurai and his team did. And as such I don't think it's completely out of the question that we can't alter a little with the (defeault) rules of the game, as has already been done in many ways. We even created some counterpick system without truly having a rock-solid argument to why every battle shouldn't just be played on random with perhaps more stocks on. Randomness? If the randomness criteria was a reason for banning something, then I think you already know that means a couple of things need to be banned.

It's not even like the mute city thing has been a quick "better of without it" decision anyway, it's just the way it has always moved towards.

I guess you just cling on to strict definitions and criteria more than I do.


Note: Ok, I see later on that you decided to say that you actually do love to play on these stages. I guess you could remove my comment on you not liking them somewhere up there in this post.

 

[Kal]

Well (and this is how I see it), when playing a competitive game, you want to reduce the number of random variables to where they aren't blatantly ridiculous (an arbitrary line, I know), so that the matches are as close to player vs player as you can get, while still keeping some random things in there to test the players (misfires, Peach's turnips, the cloud (which is on a timer, so it's not really random), Dreamland's wind (which I agree, it's really stupid). The cars/stage changes on Mute City, the ships on Corneria (and the dominance Fox was shown to exert on that stage), the claptrap in Jungle Japes, and the constant changing of Poke Floats (though I think it was more that people, in general, really disliked that stage) are considered to be far too random/disrupting to players to be fair in competitive play. Basically, for competitive play, we want things under a certain level of random, that can be perceived as encouraging to competitive play. I hope I explained that well enough.

Well, your paragraph is a but clunky, but I get what you're going for. And I agree: we want to make results as consistent as possible. While there is no inherent problem with randomness (in the long run the best players will win the most often in any skill game), we plain and simply don't like the idea of having a win at the tip of our fingers and having it taken away from us because the RNG spat out a 0-10 instead of a 11-1000.

However, I have quite a few points to make here:

1) Randomness that can be accounted for is perfectly fine. Yes, the cars change quite a bit in Mute City, but they always show up at the bottom-most part of the stage. So, if you don't want to be hit by the car, stay on the platforms. As a general rule, just being random isn't bad. It's being random and being outside of your control which is bad. For example, with items on, capsules and crates can fall which explode, and they fall at random. There is nothing you can do about this, because it can happen on any part of the stage at any time. So, it would be "bad random," in some sense, and I would be more than willing to disable items on this premise.

2) You have to factor in frequency of occurrence when considering randomness. For example, even if the cloud were random (it's on a timer, but let's just use this for argument's sake), its impact is generally small enough to be ignored: yes, sometimes it saves player who should die, and sometimes it kills players who should live (sort of, though you can argue this is a player mistake and not the cloud's fault), but the vast majority of the time, it does not effect gameplay at all.

3) You have to concede that there are random factors we are already ok with. In particular, Peach's turnip. This allows for what KishPrime has dubbed the "Peach's Turnip Threshold," which essentially says that the impact of anything random has to be greater than that of Peach's turnip in order for it to be banned on randomness alone. Why? Because we already allow Peach's turnip.

Meh...we kinda do...but we don't completely break that stage.

Well, the point I was hoping people would see is that this notion of what "should" be the outcome is entirely based on the stage you're starting with. To say "Peach normally loses to Fox" already assumes that the stage being played is a starter stage. With that in mind, the argument is clearly circular, since the premise that "Peach should do worse against Fox" already assumes the non-existence of the stage being discussed.

Yeah, it's certainly an arbitrary line, how severe banning a character is compared to banning a stage, but there isn't really a question that it would be less severe to lose, say, Jungle Japes, than it would be to lose, say, Jigglypuff, or Marth. And I think that the severity of the impact on the game should be taken into account when deciding whether or not to ban something.

Perhaps you can make a practical argument here, but it still comes off as unfair. A set of ban-criteria should apply to the entire game, and should not depend on "how much" is being removed, in my opinion. That is, it would rub me the wrong way if someone were to say "we normally wouldn't ban Mute City, but it's just one stage, no big deal."

I really was just going to read this thread, but there was too much to reply too.

I'm glad you posted, honestly. There's no need to censor yourself.

Stuff

It's not really a clinginess to strict criteria (I only cling to friends who start to keep their distance). It's just that, without these strict criteria, I see no way of preventing people from being scrubby *** holes and simply enforcing whatever they want to enforce. I could very well just ban Falco at my next tournament because I do, quite literally, hate the character. I do, with (mostly subjective) justification, think he makes the game worse.

But that's the point, really. My "clinging" to these strict criteria and ideals prevents me from being a scrubby *** hole.

 

[stelzig]

I understand that, but I don't think the scrubby ******* thing has happened with the stages (I do think it did with mk ban now however), and I do think the mbr helps preventing just that. And of course simple discussion where clinging (yes, sorry I do use this word ) to these kind of things still shouldn't be done. It would make it really hard to get anywhere too - if you reach a point where the only reason you won't go on with something is that you can't attach it strictly/perfectly to a criteria, then I think it's time to just do it (not saying it is that extremely unanimous in this case with the stages). I respect your opinion though, but find my own model way more practical.

But yeah I'm not going to be particularely unhappy whatever happens with counterpick stages in tournaments in the future so I think i've wasted enough time defending them being banned now, heh. Doesn't look like we'll get any furhter either

Edit: I feel like adding this though. I'm quite against patching/updating and stuff after a game is released so it is not at all that I love to ban alot of stuff and mold my own game. I do wish that even developers would take a step back before taking steps to try and balance the game or to change how the game is played, and not just run amok.

 

[Acryte]

Finally, don't overgeneralize. I'm not a bad player by any means, but I certainly want Pokéfloats, Mute City, Corneria and Jungle Japes back.

You had me at japes

 

[Kal]

It's fine that you don't think the scrubbiness thing has happened with the stages. That's true in some cases. But what is the MBR's justification for Mute City and Pokéfloats? These stages have been legal for a decade. Now, out of nowhere, they ban them, and with no metagame shift to warrant it.

Frankly, I see as big a problem with the MBR not explaining itself as with the bans themselves.

Acryte, Japes was the the second-to-last last word in that sentence. >_>

 

[stelzig]

I can't say exactly when it happened, but I think it's been without mute city and pokefloats in europe for a while now
I get it though, and if those two stages is whats needed to get bans back (idk if the US has taken off bans from their ruleset as well?), then i'm inclined to support them too. Though I think stages that fall better in line with the rest would be better, but such stages don't exist so...

 

[Black Mantis]

After 10+ years, melee players don't really care about "balance" anymore, our metagame is pretty advanced.

This is also the same community who tried to ban sheik, jiggz, and still has debates on wobbling.

 

[Kal]

I don't recall either of the first two ban-attempts (and be sure to differentiate between the community and a small group of players, even the MBR), but yeah, half the country, if not more, wants to ban Wobbling despite it being characteristically unbroken.

 

[Black Mantis]

Well they had debates on jiggz around the time hbox was dominating.

There's a thread called "Wobbling Compromise".

Sheik debates were happening back in like 2003.

 

[Acryte]

Acryte, Japes was the the second-to-last last word in that sentence. >_>

Thats the comical part. But I agree about those stages... just because it's janky doesn't mean its broken. Besides, look at what mango did with that arwing. Use it to your advantage.

I have a separate question regarding when there is a stage that is banned only on the criteria that 1 character has a technique that makes it extremely OP. If neither player is playing that character, then shouldn't you have the option of playing on it as a cp?

 

[Kal]

Oh, so it was sort of an inversion to referencing Jerry Maguire? Or something. Whatever, you... you complete me.

Anyway, the idea that we could allow stages except in certain instances has merit, but it also has severe problems. For example, let's suppose some stage is banned for Fox, but no one else. If Fox is my only main, and you counterpick said stage, what am I to do? Similar issues arise.

Edit: my more genre savvy friend (Real Life is the genre in this case) has pointed out to me that there is apparently some sort of meta-joke going around where you quote Jerry Maguire and instead of saying "you had me at [first word]" you say "you had me at [last word]."

It's probably time for me to commit Japanese ritual suicide.

 

[stelzig]

It's also just silly and complicates things.

I'm not for banning wobbling. Just wanted to throw that out there as well ^x^

 

[Acryte]

For example, let's suppose some stage is banned for Fox, but no one else. If Fox is my only main, and you counterpick said stage, what am I to do? Similar issues arise.

Not really, if either player chooses fox then you can't pick that stage. Simple enough.

 

[Mew2King]

I assure you that nothing I have said is made up or false. What Armada said on page 2 pretty much describes it perfectly. Everybody is in it for personal-gain, more than anything I've ever seen before it's ridiculous. The way they go about all of this is terrible, but since it helps support their own personal end goals, they go along with it. It is not about right or wrong, it's about satisfying personal wants. It's very sad and messed up.

 

[Kal]

Not really, if either player chooses fox then you can't pick that stage. Simple enough.

The way we handle counterpicks is that the loser picks the stage first. So what, I say "I'm going Fox" and the opponent can't pick the stage. Then he picks a stage Fox doesn't like to use, and I change my mind and go a different character. Then the loser declares "well then, I want to go back to that stage."

"Well then, I'm going Fox." And so on. You need a contrived, unfair solution for this problem. And, in fact, we sort of do have such a solution: "The Gentleman's Clause: any stage can be used so long as both players agree to it."

I generally avoid explicitly allowing the Gentleman's Clause at my tournaments. Rules are rules and all that. But I won't enforce the fact that, at my tournaments, you can't play on Hyrule regardless of what is agreed upon.

 

[Acryte]

That's true it would offer an advantage.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Well, your paragraph is a but clunky, but I get what you're going for. And I agree: we want to make results as consistent as possible. While there is no inherent problem with randomness (in the long run the best players will win the most often in any skill game), we plain and simply don't like the idea of having a win at the tip of our fingers and having it taken away from us because the RNG spat out a 0-10 instead of a 11-1000.

However, I have quite a few points to make here:

1) Randomness that can be accounted for is perfectly fine. Yes, the cars change quite a bit in Mute City, but they always show up at the bottom-most part of the stage. So, if you don't want to be hit by the car, stay on the platforms. As a general rule, just being random isn't bad. It's being random and being outside of your control which is bad. For example, with items on, capsules and crates can fall which explode, and they fall at random. There is nothing you can do about this, because it can happen on any part of the stage at any time. So, it would be "bad random," in some sense, and I would be more than willing to disable items on this premise.

2) You have to factor in frequency of occurrence when considering randomness. For example, even if the cloud were random (it's on a timer, but let's just use this for argument's sake), its impact is generally small enough to be ignored: yes, sometimes it saves player who should die, and sometimes it kills players who should live (sort of, though you can argue this is a player mistake and not the cloud's fault), but the vast majority of the time, it does not effect gameplay at all.

3) You have to concede that there are random factors we are already ok with. In particular, Peach's turnip. This allows for what KishPrime has dubbed the "Peach's Turnip Threshold," which essentially says that the impact of anything random has to be greater than that of Peach's turnip in order for it to be banned on randomness alone. Why? Because we already allow Peach's turnip.

Yeah, I'd read KishPrime's Turnip Threshold, and that's what I was getting at, though I probably should have stated so. But i essentially agree with all you've said here.

I used to hate wobbling. The idea of a grab > death seemed broken to me, and I can understand why. But I don't think that it's that OP, ONLY because the IC's have a short grab range, and not many approaches. Getting that grab is more difficult than you'd think. So, when considering what to ban, you also have to consider the technique's strength in terms of the relative level of difficulty to enact. I've actually been playing around with ICs, and as easy as wobbling is to do, it can be quite easy to mess up, as well. Maybe that's just cause I'm bad, though.

 

[Kal]

Difficulty of execution is really only important if it creates serious practical issues. However, what you're getting at with regards to IC's grab and the relative strength of Wobbling is actually the real definition of what a technique's strength is. It's more than its inherent ability to kill your opponent: it also includes how easy it is to hit with, how much risk there is in using it, etc. This is why we don't ban Marth for having an absurdly good Fsmash, or Fox for having a 1-frame attack which also grants him invincibility on the first frame. The actual impact of the move is much more than a simple explanation of its potential to kill.

 

[JPOBS]

This is also the same community who tried to ban sheik, jiggz, and still has debates on wobbling.

There was never a legitimate following for the banning of Jiggs, and it never even got far sorry.

Sheik? You're talking about like... in 2003 :stupidleek:

The community is split on wobbling, and as such, we leave it up to individual TOs. Note that, 14 TOs didn't get together and said "wobbling is officially banned, don't like it? well **** off"
that would be a brawl thing to do

 

[ShroudedOne]

Difficulty of execution is really only important if it creates serious practical issues. However, what you're getting at with regards to IC's grab and the relative strength of Wobbling is actually the real definition of what a technique's strength is. It's more than its inherent ability to kill your opponent: it also includes how easy it is to hit with, how much risk there is in using it, etc. This is why we don't ban Marth for having an absurdly good Fsmash, or Fox for having a 1-frame attack which also grants him invincibility on the first frame. The actual impact of the move is much more than a simple explanation of its potential to kill.

Yes. If a move were only good because of it's potential to kill, Ganon would be a lot higher on the tier list. So would Bowser. I guess I've never thought of all of those things together being the true strength of a technique, but it makes a lot of sense.

 

[Kal]

Well, the thing I said was mostly semantics. What I was getting at (and what I did a poor job of getting at) is that, when discussing brokenness, you need to analyze more than simply a move's potential to kill, or any single facet of the thing being brought up. It would be like saying Ganon's fair is overpowered because it can kill in about two hits. The problem with such logic is that it fails to acknowledge that Ganon won't hit with the fair enough for it to be overpowered.

 

[Black Mantis]

The community is split on wobbling, and as such, we leave it up to individual TOs. Note that, 14 TOs didn't get together and said "wobbling is officially banned, don't like it? well **** off"
that would be a brawl thing to do

Actually we had an open poll where you could vote for mk's ban. Has that been done for wobbling?
The poll was in favor of mk banning by over 70%.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Well they had debates on jiggz around the time hbox was dominating.

There's a thread called "Wobbling Compromise".

Sheik debates were happening back in like 2003.

Were you even around in 2003? Stop spreading misinformation.

There has never been a legitimate discussion to ban any character in Melee. Just because someone creates a topic "aaarrgh i hate jiggs! i wish she was banned!" doesn't mean it ever got any real following. There has never been a tournament, to my knowledge, with any character banned in Melee's long 10-year lifespan.

The wobbling thing is a good point but it is nowhere near the same as banning a character.

 

[Mr Wizzrobe]

Banning an infinite is a legitimate concern in every fighting game and must be debated.

 

[Mew2King]

Everyone that voted (at least ALMOST EVERYONE) is in it for self-benefit, even if they don't care much either way, odds are 80% of people don't main MK and have lost to a MK before so banning him benefits them so they click on Yes. That's how it works and that's one of the reasons it's terribly flawed, especially since anti-ban didn't worry about it because THEY STATED SIX TIMES BEFORE THAT IT WAS THE "final" TIME (last few times they said it was FINAL)

they kept trying and trying until they finally had an excuse to do it

I've been in BBR since BEFORE Brawl came out and it was just called the smash back room, and I've seen everything unfold from the beginning. I spent several hundreds of hours in that back room, maybe even 1000+. I know what I am telling you guys, and it's very frustrating to know how it REALLY works. Many of those members, esp those who want MK banned, DO NOT STOP UNTIL THEY GET THEIR WAY. After failing in BBR, a few of the super-pro-bans created the BBR-RC now known as Unity Ruleset Committee, and then tried AGAIN, gathering more members that they probably knew would help their cause, until a vote to ban him was almost guaranteed to happen by that committee

since they have alphazealots smashboards backing to sticky threads, they are trying to abuse their power and influence to get their way permanently

the ENTIRE thing is terribly ****ed up

 

[Strong Badam]

This is so true, we are just as bad if not worst than the brawl community. Half of the stages are banned because we thought Fox would be broken on them, so instead of banning the character we banned all but just 7 stages now. What's worse is that Metaknight was at least proven to be an overly dominant character, Fox was never dominant even with these now banned stages, we banned the stages simply out of fear. I find it ironic that so many people in this thread are making fun of the brawl community.

Banning stages in order to keep a character or strategy from overcentralizing the game is an admirable cause. Circle camping and situations that could lead to infinites that are difficult to avoid while still fighting your opponent are undesirable just as much as random items or random stage hazards are. It also isn't just Fox that are too good on many of the stages we've banned, either; the common "dividing wall" on stages like Venom, Fourside, and Princess Peach's Castle provide permanent camping positions that would have degenerated the metagame, or the possibility would have been there.

At this point in the game's lifespan there also aren't nearly as many noobs, so majority rule is much more relevant although it shouldn't be used as a reason to ban something. Generally speaking though, the past two years' slow but sure banning of unorthodox stages have lead to a more hype & enjoyable game with less emphasis on reliance on counterpicks.

 

[Kal]

I don't agree with the statement that it leads to more "hype" (though this can be argued factually). But more importantly, that it leads to a more enjoyable game is unfounded; I don't like the game more with fewer counterpicks.

 

[kevo]

I don't agree with the statement that it leads to more "hype" (though this can be argued factually). But more importantly, that it leads to a more enjoyable game is unfounded; I don't like the game more with fewer counterpicks.

...and I like the game better with fewer counterpicks. What makes the game "better" is a matter of personal opinion. The list of available stages is a combination of compromises and what "works" pragmatically. If you don't like it, that's what the Gentlemen's Clause is for.

 

[Kal]

I was making a point to emphasize that "better" is subjective, and so you can't simply proclaim your unjustified bans are "for the best." Do you always miss the point, or is it just when you argue?

 

[SamusPoop]

Rules are normally meant to be based off of the idea of trying to create a metagame with as much compative options as possible and to stop chair throwing. I only want 7 stages maybe 8 but some bans on wobbling and master hand just make me wonder where these rules are going other than what m2k said for being souly about whoever made the said rule.

I think a Chartcer favoring ruleset would be idea in many cases to spread out non broken tactics.

All I know is we need a system based on keeping as many compative options open as possible keeping fox's laser camping without it being game breaking

 

[JPOBS]

Actually we had an open poll where you could vote for mk's ban. Has that been done for wobbling?
The poll was in favor of mk banning by over 70%.

The problem with "majority of the brawl community voted to ban MK" is that, majority of the brawl community don't even PLAY metaknight. You essentially have the Few metaknight mains VS the mains of every single other character in the game. Having a poll whereby you have a miniority vs a majority, well, no s#!t the majority are going to win. The non-MK mainers have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to lose in voting to ban metaknight.

Just because 70% of the community don't like MK doesn't mean he should be banned lol.

As for wobbling, a poll wouldn't solve anything because, most players in the community don't care about wobbling from a practical standpoint because IC players are so rare. Not to mention they aren't even good chars to begin with.

The wobbling debate is a matter of ethics: Do you think an infinite should be allowed, despite the fact that it isn't overcentralizing in any way (nobody plays ics lol)

The MK debate is a matter of practicality: Do you think we should ban the best character who beats your favorite character.

Of course the poll is gonna be overwhelming in favor of pro ban

 

[Kal]

I would be careful to call it a matter of ethics. I know what you mean, but even when I mention something as clear as "the rights of players" I tend to get a response as stupid as "no, their rights aren't being infringed because they don't have to go." A lot of people really overreact when you use terms attached to civil liberties to discuss Smash.

Regardless, infinites aren't inherently bad. They're only bad if they're broken. Otherwise, they're just really, really long combos (we have to set a limit on the length by virtue of the way Smash is designed).

But yeah, the Meta Knight debate is just a case of players grasping straws or making very silly arguments to try and enact their personal preference. Basically, enough people get together to decide they dislike something, and they ban it.

 

[sulliman1]

fair counterpick method?

choose 1 of 2 methods of counterpicking:

1. counterpick character. the winner cannot change his character but the loser can to obtain a more favorable matchup in the loser's opinion. return to the stage played in the first game, which was agreed upon by the players via the stage striking system currently implemented.

2. counterpick stage. winner can change character but loser cannot. the reasoning behind this is that the loser can select a stage considered good for his character (as mute city is considered for peach), but the winner can mitigate the effects of this so counterpicking stages isn't too powerful. this promotes both character diversity and stage diversity, assuming the counterpick stage list is expanded. the difficulty with this, as mentioned before, is discerning which stages are the most balanced neutral starting stages and which stages give slight edges but are still competitive in that any character can conceivably win vs. any other character and should be considered counterpicks.

i don't know much about anything but this seems like a fair system to me, feel free to point out holes

 

[Smasher89]

What it does take, is that the right people that wants something banned, gets some kind of power (popular oppinion, meaning smashboards is kinda politics, more then learning & teaching about the game for some people it seems to me atleast) to manipulate the rules in their way.

An example of this (M2K theory) being true is that Onetts reason to really get banned in Sweden(remember, its pal over here), was that a person wouldnt drive a bus full of people to a tournament if it wasnt banned. Wish I had more concrete examples.


How do we solluse the problem with self benefit voting for rules?, I know the exact same thing do happen in pokémon over at smogon, but doesnt at skarmbliss who just accepts the official VGC rules.
I´ve no idea about how the stagerules are made in Starcraft, would like to know if someone knows, since they seem to use some kind of rotate system or something, that could be interesting to discuss.

 

[Kal]

fair counterpick method?

choose 1 of 2 methods of counterpicking:

1. counterpick character. the winner cannot change his character but the loser can to obtain a more favorable matchup in the loser's opinion. return to the stage played in the first game, which was agreed upon by the players via the stage striking system currently implemented.

2. counterpick stage. winner can change character but loser cannot. the reasoning behind this is that the loser can select a stage considered good for his character (as mute city is considered for peach), but the winner can mitigate the effects of this so counterpicking stages isn't too powerful. this promotes both character diversity and stage diversity, assuming the counterpick stage list is expanded. the difficulty with this, as mentioned before, is discerning which stages are the most balanced neutral starting stages and which stages give slight edges but are still competitive in that any character can conceivably win vs. any other character and should be considered counterpicks.

i don't know much about anything but this seems like a fair system to me, feel free to point out holes

The first method is definitely not fair. The player has a right to choose a character he feels will maximize his chances of success. More generally, I think the counterpick system we use adheres to the following two principles:

1) Both players have the right to choose characters who they think maximizes their chance of success.
2) The losing player has the right to choose a stage which he thinks maximizes his chance of success.

Obviously, the first method doesn't allow for 1). But even then, it's pretty unfair to not be able to change your character: suppose you go Young Link because your opponent mains Jigglypuff. Then, during his counterpick, you think he will probably go Fox. If you're right, you're basically stuck playing an incredibly bad matchup as Young Link simply because you chose him for the first match.

Similar problems exist for your second method of counterpicking.