What Should Banning Characters/Tactics Accomplish?

[Jewdo]

Before we even set banning criteria for characters and tactics, we need to establish a goal for such bans. What are character bans trying to accomplish?

Stage banning went pretty smoothly because we had a near-unanimous agreement on what level of influence we wanted Stages to hold in competitive play. All stages that either had walls or walk-offs that enabled easy infinites, gave large, random swings of advantage to different players in different positions onscreen, or affected the risk/reward element of the match moreso than player skill were quickly eliminated. Nobody complained because we agreed - stages shouldn't choose who wins, player skill should.

I'm fairly sure that, once our community (or SBR) agrees on what Bans should do for the meta-game, we can reach character and tactical ban decisions more quickly and easily. So let's begin by asking ourselves - What should banning accomplish? Broadening the meta-game? Protecting the lower tiers from falling into dis-use? Or simply ensuring that a competitive balance exists, regardless of how many (or how few) characters that entails?

So far, opinions as to the goal of banning seem divided into several different camps. A few that stand out to me are:

(1) Ensure that the game has as many viable characters as possible

(2) Ensure that every character can be beaten by at least one character that isn't him/herself. In other words, at least two characters must be playable at the highest level.

(3) Ensure that every character can be beaten by at least one character that isn't him/herself, and the character that beats him can be beaten by at least one character that isn't the initial character. In other words, at least three characters must be playable at the highest level.

(4) Ensure that nothing literally breaks the game by freezing, over-loading, or otherwise crashing it, and no more.

(5) _______________________ (other; you fill in the blank)

But we'd need to define what we're going for FIRST, because all of the above goals (and still more than aren't listed) conflict with each other. Rules written to achieve Goal 1, for example, would ban more characters than Goal 2 would intend. Rules written for Goal 2, also, would ban fewer characters than Goal 3 would intend. A criterion written for Goal 4 would do nothing to achieve Goals 1, 2, or 3 as well.

What do YOU think the goal of character/tactic banning should be? Maybe SBR can provide some input. I wouldn't be surprised if they're already thinking about this sort of thing. Happy posting, and please keep it polite. ^ ^

 

[XxBlackxX]

IMO the ONLY thing that SHOULD consitute a ban is if the said character/technique breaks the game as whole and makes SSBB as a WHOLE (most important word here) unplayable competitively. over-centralizing is an example of this. if a character is so dominant that it becomes "pick character X or lose", then it is ban-worthy.

things that do NOT consitute a ban:
"it is unfair"
"it makes matchups impossible to win"
"it makes certain characters unviable"
"it will make the game more fun"
"character X could improve his metagame if this was banned"

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I think that a tactic that breaks every matchup it is used in should be banned.

 

[Yuna]

What are bans trying to accomplish? Preventing the breaking of the game. If the ban doesn't prevent the game from breaking as a whole, then it's most probably not warranted.

I think that a tactic that breaks every matchup it is used in should be banned.

Sheik's F-tilt lock says "Hi".

 

[Grunt]

Sheik's F-tilt lock says "Hi".

wut?
I was unaware that Ftilt locks made it 100-0 matchups.

 

[Yuna]

wut?
I was unaware that Ftilt locks made it 100-0 matchups.

I was unaware of that the term "breaks the match-up" only applies if the match-up is 100-0.

 

[XxBlackxX]

wut?
I was unaware that Ftilt locks made it 100-0 matchups.

that's irrelevant, really.
not ftilt locks, nor infinites, nor cg's, nor almost anything you guys complain about, should consitute a ban because NONE OF THEM ARE UNIVERSAL. IDC was banned because it was universal and broke the game as a whole. these techniques are not.

 

[Grunt]

I was unaware of that the term "breaks the match-up" only applies if the match-up is 100-0.

no seriously, 100-0 or not does it really break matchups?

 

[Yuna]

no seriously, 100-0 or not does it really break matchups?

Sheik's F-tilt lock breaks the match-up... at least by the whiny standards employed here on SWF where everything has to be "fair".

 

[Grunt]

oh.
I was going to say, no way it's that good.

 

[M@v]

Sheik's F-tilt lock breaks the match-up... at least by the whiny standards employed here on SWF where everything has to be "fair".

As a fox main I despise ftilt lock lol(but I certainly dont mind it when Im using sheik)But at the same time, people I know despise fox for his uptilt chains. A lot of characters have their certain , how should I put this, "easy to use" tactic.
Its part of the game, and you deal with it.

 

[fruityman]

If you encounter a breaking technique
which has consistency and/or high return
to the point where you could spam it
and is also universal then it is worth
meriting a ban due to the limitation of
viable characters.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

even though I despise metas, i now don't think they should be banned

but anything that makes matchups literally useless SHOULD be banned

the only thing I am for banning anymore is D3's infinite, it makes 5 characters basically tourney unplayable vs D3

 

[XxBlackxX]

even though I despise metas, i now don't think they should be banned

but anything that makes matchups literally useless SHOULD be banned

the only thing I am for banning anymore is D3's infinite, it makes 5 characters basically tourney unplayable vs D3

BS argument. the infinites are not universal. there ARE 31 other characters in the game you know. the infinite doesn't make brawl unplayable as a whole, so it doesn't need to be banned. anyways, lots of characters have "useless matchups", fox or falcon for example. Let's ban using Pika vs. Fox! Let's ban edgehogging Olimar!

 

[yummynbeefy]

What are bans trying to accomplish? Preventing the breaking of the game. If the ban doesn't prevent the game from breaking as a whole, then it's most probably not warranted.


Sheik's F-tilt lock says "Hi".

it isnt that broken you can di out of it if u di up and away

 

[The Halloween Captain]

even though I despise metas, i now don't think they should be banned

but anything that makes matchups literally useless SHOULD be banned

the only thing I am for banning anymore is D3's infinite, it makes 5 characters basically tourney unplayable vs D3

Can we all agree that when something is completely understood to be broken by all sides in all it's possible uses, it should be fixed?

 

[Melomaniacal]

Yes, but even before we figure out the criteria for a ban and the purpose of a ban, we need to discuss the criteria of discussing a ban. What constitutes a discussion of a character or technique in relations to a ban?

 

[Pr0phetic]

What constitutes a discussion of a character or technique in relations to a ban?

The community constitutes it enough I feel, if it concerns the Smash scene, its concerns us as a whole to figure out what's in best interest. However, no ban is mandatory aswell.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Can we all agree that when something is completely understood to be broken by all sides in all it's possible uses, it should be fixed?

YES, if by "broken" you mean it breaks the game AS WHOLE and not just matchups.

 

[Jaigoda]

BS argument. the infinites are not universal. there ARE 31 other characters in the game you know. the infinite doesn't make brawl unplayable as a whole, so it doesn't need to be banned. anyways, lots of characters have "useless matchups", fox or falcon for example. Let's ban using Pika vs. Fox! Let's ban edgehogging Olimar!

This isn't completely true. The ban criteria is only for the five characters that it can be used on. Also, the infinite literally takes the entire stock from that specific character, whereas the Pika vs. Fox chaingrab only works up to around 80%. And edgehogging Olimar is only viable in certain cases, and often will get you stage-spiked anyway.

The thing about the D3 infinite is that it is essentially a 0-death technique that is virtually unescapable. The only thing like that is the laser/jab/banana-lock on a wall, which is why stages with permanent walls are banned (and though this works on all characters, it's completely avoidable by teching, which makes it far harder to set up than D3's infinite, which requires only a grab).

 

[JOE!]

why should something that ruins 5 characters viability not be looked at for banning (against said chars at least)

all it means is that you could be the best mario/samus up against any old D3, and the d3 might just walk all over you, regardless of player skill due to a game exploit

do silly techs really need to work on all chars to be banned?

 

[XxBlackxX]

This isn't completely true. The ban criteria is only for the five characters that it can be used on. Also, the infinite literally takes the entire stock from that specific character, whereas the Pika vs. Fox chaingrab only works up to around 80%. And edgehogging Olimar is only viable in certain cases, and often will get you stage-spiked anyway.

The thing about the D3 infinite is that it is essentially a 0-death technique that is virtually unescapable. The only thing like that is the laser/jab/banana-lock on a wall, which is why stages with permanent walls are banned (and though this works on all characters, it's completely avoidable by teching, which makes it far harder to set up than D3's infinite, which requires only a grab).

80% plus an usmash, usually KO'ing because fox is so light.
yes, all that is true, but it's not universal. the whole point of banning, people, is to make sure that Brawl is still playable as a whole. and atm, it still is because there are 31 other characters, 772 other matchups. therefore, infinites don't over-centralize, so no need for ban.
actually, wall infinites+walkoff ARE over-centralizing, because it becomes, "pick char that can wall infinite+do it or you lose"

why should something that ruins 5 characters viability not be looked at for banning (against said chars at least)

all it means is that you could be the best mario/samus up against any old D3, and the d3 might just walk all over you, regardless of player skill due to a game exploit

do silly techs really need to work on all chars to be banned?

no, but only if it gets a point when it's "pick character X and use tactic Y or LOSE". then it will be over-centralizing and SSBB will NOT be playable as a whole then. right now, this isn't the case.

 

[Tenki]

it isnt that broken you can di out of it if u di up and away

I was pretty sure it was down (and away??), because if you go downwards, you get closer to the ground, and...

closer to the ground + 'stale move' (less hitstun ??) --> shield

 

[Pr0phetic]

Gah, double post, delete.

 

[Pr0phetic]

Personally I feel absolutely nothing is lost from the banning of the infinite, and I play D3. But im just me, I voted, im done.

 

[Jaigoda]

actually, wall infinites+walkoff ARE over-centralizing, because it becomes, "pick char that can wall infinite+do it or you lose"

Wrong. As I said before, if you know how to tech, which ALL characters can do quite easily and any skilled person will tech 90% of the time (and pros are still often grabbed by D3 in a matchup), you almost completely negate any ground locks. They are still banned because of the off chance that you're in a situation where you're unable to tech and he's in the position to infinite you. It's not universal, it's not super easy to set up. In fact, I doubt even 10% of matches would have a laser/jab lock in them if walls were not banned.

Oh, and one thing to mention: Say stages with walls were not banned, and there was no way of abusing them besides Dedede's chaingrab. Dedede would **** about 2/3rds of the cast on these stages, simply because he can infinite them off the wall. BUT, it doesn't work on all of the cast (what is it, like 9 or so of the cast isn't infinited by D3?), so under your criteria the walls shouldn't be banned because IT ISN'T UNIVERSAL. So even though he would have near-100-0 matchups on the majority of the cast, he wouldn't warrant a ban because it's not universal.

Am I the only one who thinks this is terrible logic?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Wrong. As I said before, if you know how to tech, which ALL characters can do quite easily and any skilled person will tech 90% of the time (and pros are still often grabbed by D3 in a matchup), you almost completely negate any ground locks. They are still banned because of the off chance that you're in a situation where you're unable to tech and he's in the position to infinite you. It's not universal, it's not super easy to set up. In fact, I doubt even 10% of matches would have a laser/jab lock in them if walls were not banned.

Oh, and one thing to mention: Say stages with walls were not banned, and there was no way of abusing them besides Dedede's chaingrab. Dedede would **** about 2/3rds of the cast on these stages, simply because he can infinite them off the wall. BUT, it doesn't work on all of the cast (what is it, like 9 or so of the cast isn't infinited by D3?), so under your criteria the walls shouldn't be banned because IT ISN'T UNIVERSAL. So even though he would have near-100-0 matchups on the majority of the cast, he wouldn't warrant a ban because it's not universal.

Am I the only one who thinks this is terrible logic?

Technically...

You are right. It is very inconsistent to not include these stages because they add depth to the metagame. I think I'm quoting this.

I also think the logic is terrible.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Wrong. As I said before, if you know how to tech, which ALL characters can do quite easily and any skilled person will tech 90% of the time (and pros are still often grabbed by D3 in a matchup), you almost completely negate any ground locks. They are still banned because of the off chance that you're in a situation where you're unable to tech and he's in the position to infinite you. It's not universal, it's not super easy to set up. In fact, I doubt even 10% of matches would have a laser/jab lock in them if walls were not banned.

Oh, and one thing to mention: Say stages with walls were not banned, and there was no way of abusing them besides Dedede's chaingrab. Dedede would **** about 2/3rds of the cast on these stages, simply because he can infinite them off the wall. BUT, it doesn't work on all of the cast (what is it, like 9 or so of the cast isn't infinited by D3?), so under your criteria the walls shouldn't be banned because IT ISN'T UNIVERSAL. So even though he would have near-100-0 matchups on the majority of the cast, he wouldn't warrant a ban because it's not universal.

Am I the only one who thinks this is terrible logic?

as long as D3 would have a counter(s), no, he shouldn't be. example: melee, the 4 top tiers made almost all characters below high tier unviable (of course they were still used, they almost won no tournies).
the logic is only terrible because you don't understand how competitive rulesets are supposed to work.(ban AS FEW THINGS AS POSSIBLE, NOT AS MANY THINGS AS POSSIBLE while keeping the game playable.)

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

as long as D3 would have a counter(s), no, he shouldn't be. example: melee, the 4 top tiers made almost all characters below high tier unviable (of course they were still used, they almost won no tournies).
the logic is only terrible because you don't understand how competitive rulesets are supposed to work.(ban AS FEW THINGS AS POSSIBLE, NOT AS MANY THINGS AS POSSIBLE while keeping the game playable.)

Brawl is different than melee, also, there were matchups in melee where bottom or low tier do well vs top tier. For example, luigi and m2 did fine vs fox, falco, and Falcon.

Can you think of any other matchup that allows a bottom tier to kick a high or top tier's a*** in brawl?

Are there any matchups above even medium tier where falcon or Link counters in brawl?

Are there any characters that have a 100-0 matchup in melee?

I understand also how tournaments work. I have participated enough in them from smash 64 all the way up to brawl.

 

[metaXzero]

that's irrelevant, really.
not ftilt locks, nor infinites, nor cg's, nor almost anything you guys complain about, should consitute a ban because NONE OF THEM ARE UNIVERSAL. IDC was banned because it was universal and broke the game as a whole. these techniques are not.

@IDC statement.
Just wanted to say only as a stall. Anything else will remain unproven...