Valid reasons to warrant a Ban.

Funny that the areas where Algol still is tournament legal haven't found him to be overpowered. In fact Algol hasn't consistently dominated any area to my knowledge (tournament wise). So the 'definitely unbalanced' crap needs to go. Being a whiner who doesn't man up and actually tackle the initially hard fights will of course get you nowhere. After awhile all the bubbles in the world still make him beatable, especially since you can step (forward into the bubbles) and GI then. It can be a scary thing to do without getting very comfortable with it, but it's one valid way to deal with bubbles.
 
I only read the first post so far, but this caught my eye:

"People Shouldn't be forced to download the DLC character"
I've seen this reason posted a lot. And as I mentioned somewhere else, with type of logic, tournaments should go by the unpatched, out-of-the-box version of SC4, since people shouldn't be forced to get the internet in order to download the patch. $5 isn't much for a character, especially since it will be tournament players that this will be affecting, and they are the ones that will spend much more than that just to travel to the tournaments.
Click to expand...
People shouldn't be forced to pay for a character that's not in the original release to enter a tourney. Patches are free, so that's not the same thing at all. I personally don't care for Algol/Vader/Yoda being allowed in tournies. However from a neutral and fair point of view (considering that even free bonus characters are banned), I think that at minimum Yoda should be banned because of the forced $$$ issue.

It's not the money, but the principal of situation. If Yoda and the other disputed characters are allowed, I say let everyone be allowed, including bonus characters like Shura, CAS characters (if they can be imported), etc. I mean, how is it possible to have a good reason for banning them and not anyone else?

EDIT: OK, I've read the thread and stand by my point.
 
shauno said:
I only read the first post so far, but this caught my eye:


People shouldn't be forced to pay for a character that's not in the original release to enter a tourney. Patches are free, so that's not the same thing at all. I personally don't care for Algol/Vader/Yoda being allowed in tournies. However from a neutral and fair point of view (considering that even free bonus characters are banned), I think that at minimum Yoda should be banned because of the forced $$$ issue.

It's not the money, but the principal of situation. If Yoda and the other disputed characters are allowed, I say let everyone be allowed, including bonus characters like Shura, CAS characters (if they can be imported), etc. I mean, how is it possible to have a good reason for banning them and not anyone else?

EDIT: OK, I've read the thread and stand by my point.
Click to expand...

Paying:
I can see both sides on this one. However, I think there's a good counterargument in the concept that it could be considered an extension of the purchase price. It's ugly logic, but extending it back, you could say that you shouldn't have to purchase the game to compete in the tournament. The fact of the matter, though, is that nobody is forcing anyone to purchase the SW characters. You could say that you would be at a disadvantage without it, but that's really doubtful. There have been people who have won tournaments (in various games) and didn't even own the game. You don't have to pay the $5 to enter the tournament. But even if you did, most tournaments have entry fees, anyway. Like I said, I can see it going either way with reasonable justification. Ultimately, though, I feel that when you consider the many costs involved in tournaments, travel, the purchase of the game, etc., the issue really just fades into the background.

Bonus Characters:
I'm going a bit out on a limb, knowledge-wise, on this one, but I think people have raised hit-box issues with created/bonus characters. Also, allowing Shura would negate Cervantes, as she's identical except with longer range. Things like that. These are just a couple of things, and I'm sure others will follow me up with some more descriptive reasoning in the same vein.
 
^^^ Oh, I know why bonus/CAS characters are banned, but if we are being asked to take a liberal view in allowing Algol/Vader/Yoda to be used in tournies, then to me no argument should be used to ban any character unless they are completely 100% old-school SSF2T Akuma broken. Instead, a case-by-case look at each should be used, and to me that means Yoda's forced $5 fee keeps him off the list at minimum.

BTW, congrats on the GREAT tourney win Offmatic!!!!!
 
Just a little quick statement.

I've found that a single GI'ed bubble is a much more useful tool pressure wise to the rest of the cast than to Algol himself. Especially considering the fact that he completely lacks a usefull unblockable attack. Yes of course this is just my opinion and may be complete bullshit to all of you but that is just what i've noticed and believe.
 
shauno said:
^^^ Oh, I know why bonus/CAS characters are banned, but if we are being asked to take a liberal view in allowing Algol/Vader/Yoda to be used in tournies, then to me no argument should be used to ban any character unless they are completely 100% old-school SSF2T Akuma broken. Instead, a case-by-case look at each should be used, and to me that means Yoda's forced $5 fee keeps him off the list at minimum.

BTW, congrats on the GREAT tourney win Offmatic!!!!!
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Even still, though. Algol, Yoda, and Vader don't have that big banner reading, "BONUS CHARACTERS" waving above them. I think that label and the cloned nature of the characters really places the bonus characters outside the realm of characters intended for competitive play. I think the "liberal view" hits a roadblock on that issue.
 
AMillionHP said:
Just a little quick statement.

I've found that a single GI'ed bubble is a much more useful tool pressure wise to the rest of the cast than to Algol himself. Especially considering the fact that he completely lacks a usefull unblockable attack. Yes of course this is just my opinion and may be complete bullshit to all of you but that is just what i've noticed and believe.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of it that way. I really like that point.
 
I want to throw this video into the mix


Here we have what most people would consider a "worst case scenario" Algol player who uses bubbles like they're going out of style. On the other side we have a Rock player who... well, they're playing Rock, considered one of the worst characters in the game. The Rock player was still able to eek out a win.

If the concerns about Algol were valid, wouldn't we see a much more dominant performance against a character that is widely accepted as low tier? Especially when the tactics that lead to an Algol ban are exploited to the extent they are in this video? We see bubbles at every open opportunity, as well as wandering bubbles that interrupt the Rock player from behind, and yet it doesn't appear to be as devastating as those who support the Algol ban make it out to be. Obviously this is only one example, but it was the first example that I found on youtube and illustrates my point beautifully.
 
I'll give the quick lesson on the quick issues of Yoda & Vader, on favoring banning both because they're console characters.
1) You already need an internet connection for patches which will be used.
2) They cost less than a typical tournament entry fee. If you can afford to play in tournaments, you can probably afford to get the character. It's simply a necessary cost to study effectively and be a good player.
 
That video is really good evidence. Great find.

Like you said, it's a worst case scenario. The Algol player did just about everything people say makes him broken against a character that people say is the worst in the game, yet the results speak for themselves.
 
Banning a character because of cost only makes sense if the cost is prohibitive. $5 is not prohibitive to anyone this side of 1935.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom