Valid reasons to warrant a Ban.

Demarcus: I feel the need to inform you that it is possible to copy and paste quotes from other users into a single post. No need to quote every person individually with multiple posts unless you run out of room (I don't know the size limit for posts though).

Also my comment about sieg did mean what dullyanna said, but I was certainly thinking of Amy, Taki (yeah she's asian whatever), and X when I said that as well. They can punish sieg WS on block, which is normally a move that gives him frametraps on block. Nightmare vs Cassandra she can guaranteed punish his WS on guard every time with a knockdown, while hardly anyone can do this. She can also punish nightmare's 3B on guard whether he uses his 3 options or not. Playing against an experienced player (for a given matchup) will certainly cut down your movelist, unless you like losing.
 
DiBiddilyBop said:
And again, I personally don't think that is enough reason to warrant a ban. I think the only reason to warrant the ban is if a character is so overpowered or broken that they are the only choice at high level play. Technically speaking, Scheherazade has a larger hit box than Amy, so she makes the trade having longer reach for being easier to hit. Shura is the only custom that is 100% better than her counterpart.

And my Hilde comment may seem silly at the moment, but I could see a point down the road where high level play necessitates picking Hilde to win tournaments solely based on her ringout game.
Click to expand...

I guess I'd argue that her additional range far outweighs her infinitesimally larger hitbox, but I think it's an "agree to disagree" moment.

In the same way that Hilde's RO game is top notch, her damage output is poor. She's more susceptible to B grabs, as it forces her to break her C3 B charge, which is her best RO tool, and most of her long range moves are extremely linear and easy to step.

It's still early, so I guess we'll see, but I'm pretty skeptical about it.
 
Felix007 said:
I guess I'd argue that her additional range far outweighs her infinitesimally larger hitbox, but I think it's an "agree to disagree" moment.

In the same way that Hilde's RO game is top notch, her damage output is poor. She's more susceptible to B grabs, as it forces her to break her C3 B charge, which is her best RO tool, and most of her long range moves are extremely linear and easy to step.

It's still early, so I guess we'll see, but I'm pretty skeptical about it.
Click to expand...

I just want to give you kudos for using the phrase "infinitesimally larger". I loved that.

---

I also think that a lot of people haven't truly experienced the insanity that is a good Hilde player on a map with ring-outs. I still remember the first time that happened to me. I was completely blindsided. I took my hat off to the guy, because up until that point I had absolutely no idea she could be that good.

Perusing the dark depths of the intarwebz - one can find some pretty amazing videos showing how particularly effective she can be (including a 100%dmg wall-splat combo).

I say this not just in musing, but to just add a little weight to the argument that she's ban-worthy. NOT BECAUSE I THINK SHE IS, but because of the logic (or lack thereof) present in past decisions. Algol's insta-ban, the arguments to ban Yoda, and the general inanity of the Star-Wars-Isn't-Soul-Calibur mindset, if perpetuated through similar reasoning, would lead to banning of Hilde in the relatively near future.

The only fix, in my opinion, is to revisit the original decision-making process that led to the original bans. People complaining is not sufficient justification. As I said in my outrageously verbose defense of Algol on CaliburForums, a preponderance of EVIDENCE - not the collective whining and complaining of the stubborn or inexperienced - is the foundational requirement in any ban-related decision.
 
Felix007 said:
I guess I'd argue that her additional range far outweighs her infinitesimally larger hitbox, but I think it's an "agree to disagree" moment.

In the same way that Hilde's RO game is top notch, her damage output is poor. She's more susceptible to B grabs, as it forces her to break her C3 B charge, which is her best RO tool, and most of her long range moves are extremely linear and easy to step.

It's still early, so I guess we'll see, but I'm pretty skeptical about it.
Click to expand...

I don't even think we disagree. Sheherazade is definitely better than Amy. I just don't think it merits banning the character, regardless. But yeah, really it's just beating the dead horse of a moot point anyway.

NAGA said:
I just want to give you kudos for using the phrase "infinitesimally larger". I loved that.

---

I also think that a lot of people haven't truly experienced the insanity that is a good Hilde player on a map with ring-outs. I still remember the first time that happened to me. I was completely blindsided. I took my hat off to the guy, because up until that point I had absolutely no idea she could be that good.

Perusing the dark depths of the intarwebz - one can find some pretty amazing videos showing how particularly effective she can be (including a 100%dmg wall-splat combo).

I say this not just in musing, but to just add a little weight to the argument that she's ban-worthy. NOT BECAUSE I THINK SHE IS, but because of the logic (or lack thereof) present in past decisions. Algol's insta-ban, the arguments to ban Yoda, and the general inanity of the Star-Wars-Isn't-Soul-Calibur mindset, if perpetuated through similar reasoning, would lead to banning of Hilde in the relatively near future.

The only fix, in my opinion, is to revisit the original decision-making process that led to the original bans. People complaining is not sufficient justification. As I said in my outrageously verbose defense of Algol on CaliburForums, a preponderance of EVIDENCE - not the collective whining and complaining of the stubborn or inexperienced - is the foundational requirement in any ban-related decision.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I feel about the bans. Algol was banned off of collective whining, not for any good reason. Same with Yoda or any of the Star Wars chars where they're banned.

Right now Hilde shouldn't be banned, but I could see a point where players get so good with her that she might merit a ban. We'll see if her potential lives up to where I could see it going. It may never come to that.
 
Right. I doubt it will, but people have to realize that Pandora's box was opened when they made the initial bans. It doesn't logically stop anywhere reasonable, because it didn't logically start anywhere reasonable.
 
DiBiddilyBop said:
I don't even think we disagree. Sheherazade is definitely better than Amy. I just don't think it merits banning the character, regardless. But yeah, really it's just beating the dead horse of a moot point anyway.



This is exactly how I feel about the bans. Algol was banned off of collective whining, not for any good reason. Same with Yoda or any of the Star Wars chars where they're banned.

Right now Hilde shouldn't be banned, but I could see a point where players get so good with her that she might merit a ban. We'll see if her potential lives up to where I could see it going. It may never come to that.
Click to expand...

I bet you can't even list the arguments that were posted for Algol's ban...let alone counter them.

Hilde?
Why do people keep bringing this character up...I get ringed out more from Kilik's command throw asura bullshit than Hilde. Hilde's potential is well known. Nobody's even thought about banning her...not even other countries...there was some bullshit about banning button binding with her...but that was about it. You can fight Hilde and not get ringed out constantly...if you slip up that's your fault.


This video shows the Algol I wanted in tournaments when the Algol ban discussion started. And I bet it would have worked if Tiamat and the other Algol players weren't so stubborn.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=UyP7MFAC3h8

The reality is, there is no way this game is gonna be played without something getting banned. Maybe in your area or Japan...but not in America. As persistent as you guys are, you're a minority, and unless you can compromise instead of being set in your own personal ways...nothing is gonna change.

If you paid close attention...you would see that aside from the bonus characters(the clones) The SW and Algol...are getting banned because they negatively effect SC's Universal system.
 
I really don't care about Vader, Apprentice or Algol - broken, overpowered... who cares!? Yoda on the other hand, I am sorry, a character where a good half of every other characters moveset becomes obsolete is a bit off imo. Looking forward to those Tournament vids: Finals - Siegfried vs Yoda BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB......BBBBBBBBBB ... Siegfried wins ... serious though, Yoda in Soul Calibur IV is just as much a valid Character as Gon was in Tekken 3.
 
KingAce:
The problem with your argument is that it's based purely on opinion and not on fact. You shouldn't take banning to be an inevitability and use that concept as justification for its inaction. The idea that they "negatively effect SC's Universal system", while respectable, isn't sufficient justification. It's a completely subjective criteria that's being applied in that case, and when acted upon in the absence of hard evidence, the whole process fails.

The suggestion of banning Hilde is ridiculous. I agree. However, when you take the justification and logical process applied to the banning of Algol and SW characters, it's applicable here. There's no bright line drawn that separates what's ban-able from what isn't. It turns into a situation of, "if enough people complain... then we ban it," which is completely wrong.

There is not sufficient justification or evidence to support a ban. The bans were preemptive and lacking the reason and evidence that should be mandatory in all decisions of that magnitude. For someone who doesn't like/play Algol, this is a useless discussion. For the rest of us who care about either a) the inclusion of the characters for playing-sake or b) the principle of the matter and the precedent a mistake could set, this is a very important issue, and its proponents shouldn't be written off as stubborn or stupid (not saying that you did that, just saying).

The issue needs to be reevaluated and given the proper attention it deserves. The current logic, as it stands, sets a dangerous precedent.
 
Naga is correct. This has basically just snowballed further since the bonus character bannings way back when.

Also Kingace, the bubbles are a 'you fuck up a bunch and you will die' scenario. It doesn't take just one slip in your defense to get wrecked by Algol. The assertion that these characters mess up the 'universal system' is BS as well since the universal system still works just fine with these characters in the game.

I dont even know why i'm going on about this, the failed arguements of premature banning are pretty deep rooted at this point.
 
NAGA said:
KingAce:
The problem with your argument is that it's based purely on opinion and not on fact. You shouldn't take banning to be an inevitability and use that concept as justification for its inaction. The idea that they "negatively effect SC's Universal system", while respectable, isn't sufficient justification. It's a completely subjective criteria that's being applied in that case, and when acted upon in the absence of hard evidence, the whole process fails.

The suggestion of banning Hilde is ridiculous. I agree. However, when you take the justification and logical process applied to the banning of Algol and SW characters, it's applicable here. There's no bright line drawn that separates what's ban-able from what isn't. It turns into a situation of, "if enough people complain... then we ban it," which is completely wrong.

There is not sufficient justification or evidence to support a ban. The bans were preemptive and lacking the reason and evidence that should be mandatory in all decisions of that magnitude. For someone who doesn't like/play Algol, this is a useless discussion. For the rest of us who care about either a) the inclusion of the characters for playing-sake or b) the principle of the matter and the precedent a mistake could set, this is a very important issue, and its proponents shouldn't be written off as stubborn or stupid (not saying that you did that, just saying).

The issue needs to be reevaluated and given the proper attention it deserves. The current logic, as it stands, sets a dangerous precedent.
Click to expand...

Huh!
Merely opinion heh?
I would like to see where in history anything has been banned because it was factual. You people don't even understand what you imply when you state logic. And yes you're a minority, you're always a minority in this community...this will never really change. Purists I mean.(Same people that support glitches in the game)

Whether you want a ban or not...it is merely YOUR individual opinion. If you think we should ban something, it's an opinion. If you think we shouldn't ban something, again an opinion.

The facts, since you want them are these.
Algol's bubbles.
*Algol along with his own attacks, the opponent is dealing with a multitude of highs/mids/ and lows. sometimes within the same frame.
*They can block the screen when spammed.
Thus for a brief moment neither player can see what is going on the screen.
*They interfere with combos.
You know what a combo is? Guaranteed damage...this is a ridiculous thing to begin with, in the history of this game even Night terror could eat combos.
*The attack that hits you in the future/attack you can't anticipate or track.
Surely when you can no longer see the bubble you think it's gone, but if they was a wall behind you, eventually it might come back and hit you or make you block at a very crucial moment.
*Bubble Shield.
As the name implies, some characters can't attack straight through, they have to 8wr around it. And the bigger the ring the longer it takes to get to Algol. Very sad very pathetic, because he can still hit you with lows while you're in the process.
*You can GI the bubbles.
Yes you can, however this is most efficient at close proximity. Otherwise it's pretty useless. Because if you chose to GI a bubble at long range then Algol can simply move and spam others or GI it back. To which your situation hasn't changed.
*Along with the Bubbles he can teleport.
Simple cat and mouse game.
*Time is your enemy.
When time is running out, forget it, unless you can teleport like Raphael, or attack through the bubbles like Hilde, Cervantes, or Kilik. You have already lost...
*Advantage or Disadvantage?
Normally when you have advantage you are free to attack or something. With the bubbles on the screen, you might have to wait and block, or get interrupted...thus losing your advantage.(This happens) Maybe GI the bubble and give up a more damaging prospect.

Starkiller(The Apprentice)
*A+B throw break.
How relevant is it that this move uses up his force gauge? Don't know don't care. For sometime the player of this character may only press one button on a pad(two on stick) to break what in SC is considered a 50/50 mind-game. We whined and whined about how namco was making changes, that would make the game scrubbier by removing the mind game aspect of it. This didn't really happen, we didn't get cancels back maybe X did, however, Namco pulled through.

As far as the ever evolving meta-game of SC4...what does it add to it..nothing. Throw breaking is a skill that everyone appreciates and envies. When a throw is broken the one who breaks it usually gains control of pressure...this how SC4's engine works.

Throws determined a lot in SC4, the difference between a win and a lose, they ring out, and do tremendous damage for comebacks. One character in the game, who simply ignores the luck, reading your opponents throw habits, recognizing the frames of either A or B throws, with one relaxed easy decision button press, again why should we allow him to do that?

It is unique to that character only, yet it takes away so much from the meta-game. That's the fact.

Yoda
*Weird hit boxes.(Universal SC's system.)
*Can't be thrown.(Universal SC's system.)
*Highs are situational.(Universal SC's system.)
*Combos might be situational.(Universal SC's system.)
*Some mids don't hit in random situations.(Universal SC's system.)
*Reverse Algol.
This means if I pick Taki or the Apprentice and attack this jumping jelly bean. Get a health advantage.
I can just jump around all day it wouldn't even touch me. This isn't even theoretical. OOFMATIC makes damn sure you're always in range, I was successful to do this with Asta, so other characters would have no problem doing this.(any way it's a joke of a fight)
*You spend $5.00.
It's your money, no one should tell you how to use it.
*He sucks.
This isn't a fact, but it has been used as an argument to keep him. This is an opinion.
*Weak Soul Guage.
Nice...and? GI's and attacks replenish this. Not an effective argument to keep him...because we still have all those other issues.

The most respectable competitive game is the one most balanced. This is especially true in this country. In SC3 I thought VC was like steroids...people pretty much used the same logic some of you guys are using. Every gaming community,(I am a respective starcraft fanatic.) Has it upon themselves to level the battle field as much as possible, so that everyone has a fun competitive atmosphere. This is what a respectful community is about. If a patch isn't administered, then it is up to the players to resolve any balance issues, if they consider any. This is all opinion. The fact is, SC universal system applies to everyone. Each character might have different tools however, if those tools affect that system...it is within logic to discuss them. Because the universal system is where every character is equal, we might argue about tiers and match-ups, but you can gi, throw, ringout, etc...each and every character in the game. Aside from a character's mixup tools, the System is where SoulCalibur's most important mind games reside. This system is why Keev's Rock beat Kayane's Xianghua in SC3...because he used awesome GI's, connected throws, and could throw break, in high level fight. A character consider in the game to be the weakest, beat the one considered the strongest rallying on SC's Universal system.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4008n_gnouz-rb5-sc3-keev-vs-kayane_videogames
So anything that effects that system, (the equalizer) is a valid reason to consider it bannable.


I am always looking out for what is best for competition and the community.
Your arguments are all selfish and ego driven. Most of you can't even look past yourselves when discussing these issues. You want a character because it is unique...that's nice and all. But what does that character offer the game? They take and take, and give nothing in return. We have existed without Yoda players we will continue to do so. Algol needs work. Starkiller's A+B crap gives nothing to competition. Your attitudes are further pathetic because you keep on taking shots at other characters like Hilde. It's funny because the only ones considering reasons to ban her, are the ones against bans...that sort of sophist arguing fails miserably.

Vader...argue amongst yourself.
 
KingAce said:
I am always looking out for what is best for competition and the community.
Your arguments are all selfish and ego driven. Most of you can't even look past yourselves when discussing these issues. You want a character because it is unique...that's nice and all. But what does that character offer the game? They take and take, and give nothing in return. We have existed without Yoda players we will continue to do so. Algol needs work. Starkiller's A+B crap gives nothing to competition. Your attitudes are further pathetic because you keep on taking shots at other characters like Hilde. It's funny because the only ones considering reasons to ban her, are the ones against bans...that sort of sophist arguing fails miserably.
Click to expand...

Umm, I'm pretty sure that a very nontrivial portion of people that aren't in support of bans don't even main the characters in contention. Our attitude isn't pathetic because we choose to overcome difficulties with the tools we have in game, not by banning it for arbitrarily stupid reasons like the ones you gave. If you are really looking out for the community at least understand this much of the opposing arguement...
 
You do place far too much value upon yourself. You accuse us of being purely opinion while you have nothing but facts. You have no respect for another point of view, nor do you have respect for the people making them. You are truly behaving like a dick, and I'll thank you to at least treat us with the respect we as humans deserve.

To your supposed "facts."
Algol
1) I will not debate that Algol definitely covers the entire spectrum from high to low. He does have plenty of good moves on all 3 ranges, but the key word there is "good." "Good" is a word used strictly in opinion, not fact. Sure, you did not use it, but the debate would be easily solved already if he had mostly bad options. The key factor here is that they are worth using, something which is decided entirely on opinion. Even a universally held opinion is still strictly opinion, which is why we study "game theory" and not "game fact." I'll be coming back to this point more, but I needed this first issue to get it across.
2) This one I'll throw to you as fact. Players are unable to see through bubbles when they block the screen. Once again, this applies to the players, plural. Anyone who knows how to play with or against Algol is going to take advantage of this fact. The one that can capitalize on this best and first is the one who will prevail. After all, you don't have to see the characters to give them commands.
3) Sure, they can interfere with combos, but again, this is only a point when you are going to blindly go into combos in the face of them. Skilled players (again, I'm using a word that is opinion/theory) recognize the problem of attempting combos into these, and thus will adapt properly. When a tactic is normally very sound, but something exists which hurts its effectiveness, sometimes even bad tactics will prevail. This plays right into the concept of risk vs. reward.
4) The fact that you can't anticipate the attack you can't see is factually wrong. Let's take Soul Calibur out of the equation for this one and just put in any generic action game. Are you unable to account for enemies behind you simply because you can't see them? If someone throws a boomerang at you and it misses, do you then ignore that boomerang? No, you acknowledge that it still exists and can still pose a threat to you. With enough skill, it is possible to understand simultaneously a) the speed and trajectory of the element in question, and b) the world around you. I doubt that anyone is actually skilled enough to predict that right to the moment it will occur, but I've seen enough savants to know that it is possible to understand mathematical and spacial concepts to that extent. Coming back to Soul Calibur, I recognize that if a bubble goes off of the screen, unless I see 4 new ones after that point, I have to acknowledge that it may still exist and accommodate for it.
5) When you are forced to walk around and/or impact properly, this actually puts the game into a simpler example of game theory. Each one of you is going to have to predict what the other is going to bring to you. If there is a best move for any situation, it is my job as his opponent to recognize that move, anticipate it, and counter properly.
6) To the problem of impacting long-distance bubbles, I can easily see a point where it just may be necessary to have the timing perfected and do nothing but run into them. Bounce it off, walk up. Assuming perfect execution on this, eventually the gap will be closed. Of course this would be absurdly difficult, but if perfected, it makes for an ideal answer to the trapping. Eventually, as the gap closes, Algol's going to have to do something about that new situation.
7) Teleportation still leaves him open for a significant window once behind. When I notice that my opponent is the type to utilize it, I can and have taken advantage of that opening.
8) I won't argue that time can be your enemy. Again, this is totally theory and not fact, but yes, there's always the option of stalling for time no matter who you are.
9) As I went into before, if you have to go for something that's no so damaging because the otherwise good move isn't valid, then that's what you should do. Not all moves have to be game-breaking. Even getting in all the little chips you can while still protecting yourself will give up the win.

Starkiller
Again, you decide to consider your opinions as fact. A meta-game by its very definition consists only of theory and never on fact. If you can't understand this, then I think it's time you bought a dictionary. As for my opinion, I'll certainly agree that Starkiller essentially gets a free ride in repelling grabs. The cost is minimal and it is extremely unlikely that doing this would cause you to be stunned. Basically, the only disadvantages it presents are the almost negligible possibility of stun and that, for a brief moment, you can't do a 100% force combo. What happens, then, is that assuming the opponent can break out every time you attempt a grab, is that all grabs become straight attacks on the force gauge. This probably means that they're not worth using, so you have to change your game up. I guarantee you that I'll have to play differently in every matchup, and this is simply something that Starkiller has in his advantage. I'll work with it.

Yoda
You assume that because that Yoda's unique properties make him not part of the Soul Calibur system. Again, this is going to be a difference of opinion. My opinion, and yes, even this I will call opinion, is that it is part of the system because it is actually programmed into the game. It is no accident by any means. The reason I call this an opinion is because it is all based on one's perception. You perceive it to be breaking the rules because it's never been done before. I perceive it not to be because the game itself makes its own rules. We will have a fundamental difference of opinion here. Your primary argument is that he breaks the rules and thus should be banned. You can have this opinion, certainly, but it will never be fact. If he was hacked into the game and never actually released, ok, you have a fact that the game was not programmed to support it, but this is not the case.

On your more general comments.
1) Just how selfish are you accusing me of being? Do you accuse me of wanting them in here just because I like them? No, I am arguing for what I perceive as the health of the game. Lots of characters with lots of tools, threats, and answers makes for a healthy game. Easily beatable characters are always fine by me because their power does not outweigh their weakness. It is also definitely not about my ego. I fully recognize that I am not the best guy out there and probably won't be. I also recognize, however, that every good game has answers to every threat and if those answers don't exist, then either the game is not good or that element must be banned. I'm not against banning, I just don't see the use here.
2) What do unique characters offer the game? They have the most to offer of all. The more one has to adjust for each different character, the more vibrant the game becomes. Take the most basic example of Janken (aka Rock-Paper-Scissors). Any element in that game can beat half of its competitors and lose to half its competitors. That makes for a pretty good metagame to me, even if simplistic. I enjoy Magic: the Gathering quite well because it defines itself as having immense options available to it, especially with the cards that explicitly break the games rules.
3) I think Algol could use some fixing, sure. Starkiller's grapple break is definitely a must-use, and forces me to adapt. Neither of these warrant a ban.
4) I have never actually suggested banning Hilde. I only mention her because so many of the issues I see brought up could be applied just as much to her, so if one is banned, she is banned, too. It is merely a sarcastic suggestion used to show others' own hypocracy.

Finally, let me just reiterate the importance of respect. Now, you decided to make a thorough list of all your reasoning for the bans, so although I hate this "nitpicking" technique of going after every bit of someone else's post, it was really the most appropriate in this case. Not once have I attacked you or your opinion. I've shown how what you consider facts are actually opinions, disproved one of your facts, and suggested you may need to refresh yourself on the definition of the word "fact." I've countered your arguments and all the while shown you have every right to believe what you do. However, you seem to have attacked us anti-ban people with your first and last few statements, pretty much on a level like political parties attacking each other.
You can certainly disagree with anything I'm saying. When you start considering your opinion/theory as some kind of provable fact and start attacking me and my colleagues because of that, you've crossed the line. Please show us the proper respect when making your arguments, because when you talk to me, I'm far more likely to listen than when you talk at me.
 
Thank you for taking the words right out of my mouth. Having finals hampers my ability to respond adequately when nitpicking is necessary, so I'm really glad you saved me the trouble. Well said.
 
Aww christ, here we go again.

You don't ban good things; you ban things that break the game.

Algol's bubbles can block the screen and prevent play. I don't care if it's rare, if it never happens, it can and it might happen at an extremely important time. (Namco should fix this.) Grounds for ban consideration.
Yoda changes how normal SC4 is played, with high, mid, low, and throw. I don't care if you can actually hit him with high attacks, you still can't throw him and hitting him with highs/lows is situational. Grounds for ban consideration.

Those are the ONLY TWO that I really see in all of this.
 
Yes, I came off mean, could have been a lot meaner.

Organous
You should be able to tell the difference between facts and opinion, since you constantly mention them in your post. But it seems you don't or lack in self explanation.

Algol
My previous post told you the facts and explained them clearly. All that was posted about Algol's bubble ability were factual periodic occurrences that have been observed. And it is for that evidence that he was considered for a ban. That wasn't opinion. Opinion would be my take on it. And my take on the ban, was I wanted Algol in without the bubbles, because there definitely unbalanced with the rest of the cast. This statement is truer in certain match-ups...like Talim so I hear. And trust me this character is good without them.

Starkiller.
Again I mention the fact...that his A+B is a single button press on a pad(two buttons on a stick) that negates what is considered a 50/50 mind game. This a fact. My opinion on it, is that it offers nothing to the game, and simply takes away from the meta-game. It's funny because you mention rock-paper-scissors, but how would this type of throw break system work into that comparison?

Yoda.
You assume a lot here. You use the word SC system...what do you exactly mean? I used the phrase SC's Universal System, where I explained every character was equal. Therefore when it came to tiers, or a discussion on which character had better tools...what equalized these match-ups was the players ability to utilize that system.
Fact, Yoda isn't applicable to some parts of that Universal system. And for that reason people have considered him bannable. This was the point for addressing his displacement. He not being part of the game has nothing to do with it. If I consider Starkiller and Vader by opinion, good additions to SC4's roster; how can my reasons to ban Yoda border on the argument that he doesn't belong in the game? What exactly does Yoda's unique attributes offer the meta-game? In my opinion nothing.

The whole change your game up argument.
Every match-up requires something like this for a player to get the desired results. Adaptation is a very important aspect of competition. However, there is a fine line that is definitely determined by opinion, between what people will adapt to...on a bases driven by intergrity and fairness. This is all opinion BTW. Adapting to steroids is crossing that line. Or in a basketball game a player with a height on 4 feet against one with 10 feet. Things of this nature don't exist in competition because they carry no realistic ground of fairness. People are more interested in a balanced game where skill is the determinant. So if a 4 feet basketball player can take on a 10 feet basketball player doing so in style with maximum results. This will more than like entertain people, and they will demand more. However, if it is a straight-up massacre then it brings very little interest if at all, and can't even be called competitive. That same mentality works in competitive video games. I will use starcraft as an example. This is argueably the most balanced video game ever created...it has been patched and patched until it reached a level where it could be called an e-sport. Notably the game has glitches, some are banned some are allowed in professional competition. Those glitches that are allowed are universal to all three races...the later aren't.

So the real argument here is.
Within a roster of 20 something characters, because of their uniqueness, we have three that don't play within the set system that the rest are subject to. Why shouldn't the community, after some analysis... organize them in such a way that they can easily become incoparate with 90% of the other cast, if all to be gained is a further emphasis on a balanced and competitive atmosphere?

I frown upon the whole lets leave everything the way it is, because first of all it never works. If people disagree then we must find a resolution and compromise. It is selfish for each side to ask things to go their way...this is a community yet I haven't seen anyone talk about compromising within reason. No one but myself of course. The fact is nobody is gonna get their way. If we're divided and can't act mature enough to organize ourself as a community that has already suffered similar crap from a glitch(VC), then we will just have to repeat the past...every region does whatever they like. And these discussions become pointless drama since no one's is logically looking for resolution just childish stubbornness.
 
To KingAce: I think the strongest argument you could ever give me is to win tournaments with these characters if allowed. All I care about is balance, and if you can show me these characters are unbalanced, you have a very strong argument against me. I'm not being stubborn at all. I simply have a different philosophy than you do. I will say, however, that the two of us are not playing the same game.
To Ignis: Yes, stuff that breaks the game should be banned, but you seem to have a more liberal definition here. The camera blockage is very temporary, so by the time someone can take advantage of it, it will have either moved on by itself or one's own movements will end up moving the camera so that it's not an issue. Yoda does not stop the game from functioning, either, just breaks your self-imposed rules that Namco, as the programmers, did not program in here.
An example of breaking the game to the point of ban: DBZ Tenkaichi 2, Trunks Vs. Cell. One particular move in this matchup will totally break the visuals, even though the game will still play. You cannot see anything for the rest of the match. There is no way out of this when done. In literally every other matchup, the move is just as balanced as any other in the game (disregarding that it's a degenerate game in the first place). This is far worse than a momentary camera blockage.
 
So SK is bannable just because of his A+B throw break? Please. It is a fact that you can't throw him effectively. It is an opinion that this somehow destroys the metagame. Furthermore, it is an opinion that this is a metagame worth preserving in the exact state that you want it. Even if it does, it only destroys one aspect of the metagame, and there is plenty of metagame left to play.

2d fighters tend to have only one command for throw breaks and that doesn't destroy the throw game. Tekken is similar in that you can actually see the throw to break, hence, no guessing game for throws. You ask where the rock paper scissors element comes in with the Apprentice. I argue that there is no real rps game going on, but even given that consideration, it still is neither game breaking, nor does it need to be banned.

That's because these games go on to be perfectly playable and in fact, rather fun. The way I see it, your arguments tend to be something like "I don't like this aspect of a character because I can't do something I do against everything else" and that in general is a very weak argument for a ban.
 
Just to ride in on you guys' coattails on this one, one of the biggest things to keep in mind is that Algol and others were banned without evidence. KingAce, you can get tied up in misconceptions of fact/opinion, but you still can't get past the issue of evidence.

If Algol, Starkiller, or any of the others had run tournaments, this would be a different issue. There might be some factual evidence to support your opinion.

In this case, the banning took place preemptively so as to prevent any evidence from coming into existence. The idea was that it would prevent "inevitable" damage control. Once (using Algol for this instance) Algol was used to destroy people in tournaments and "ruin" Soul Calibur, it would be too late to ban him because the worst of the damage would have already been done. That was the whole idea. Prevent the damage - i.e. evidence - from ever existing in the first place.

So you can theory fight your way into a corner with this one, but there should still be evidence in cases of a ban implementation. In this case, there is little to none. The driving force behind it all was the collective whining and complaining of individuals in the community who were either too stubborn or too inexperienced to adapt to a newly-implemented feature in the series.

The issue should be officially revisited. Plain and simple. There are enough intelligent, skilled players in the community clamoring for it to justify the second look. Seriously, KingAce, why argue against that? If you're right, and there is sufficient fact to back up your statement, won't you come out on top anyway? Shouldn't you get behind the movement if for no other reason than to make all of us selfish, stupid, ego-driven, and childish simpletons eat our words?

Then you might actually have the faintest shadow of a reason to act like a butthole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back