Jewdo
Smash Journeyman
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. ^ ^
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. ^ ^