Valid reasons to warrant a Ban.

Ooofmatic

Ooofmatic

World Warrior
There has been a lot of ban discussion since the game came out. I don't want this thread to become another Yoda/Vader/Algol debate, although I'm sure they will be brought up (hopefully only as examples), but I want this thread to be about discussing what valid reasons for banning things from tournament play are, or should be.

We need to set guidelines.

Here are my thoughts on popular reasons for wanting to ban Algol or the Star Wars characters:

"Broken/Overpowered/Game Breaking Glitch"
This reason I feel should be the only valid reason to ban. It should be explanatory. Although how overpowered a character must be in order to be banned is something that might need to be discussed. Infinites fall into this category.

"They change the way the game is normally played"
Most people say "They change the way the game is meant to be played" but I don't feel anyone has the right to say how the game is meant to be played since Namco obviously meant to put the character in there. I don't think this reason is valid, but I can see why people would think otherwise, because for most people, change is bad. Although I think this reason should only apply if it's coupled together with the first one, about being broken/overpowered.

"They Don't Belong in the Game"
This reason shouldn't have any affect on tournament play, which is what the whole point of what banning should be about. This reason is more of an opinion than a fact, since Namco put them in the game, and are including them in the patches and such, then they obviously belong in SC4. They might not belong in the Soul Calibur series, but they belong in Soul Calibur 4. This reason should not affect tournament play at all in any way shape or form.

"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.

*Make a poll thread and get users to vote*
I don't think this is a good way to decide what should or shouldn't be banned. A lot of people seem to take the results of those ban polls very seriously. The truth is only tournament players will be affected by the results, so I feel the decision to ban something shouldn't be based on a poll which could be rigged, or have votes from people who won't be affected by it, or who don't care about the end result and don't take it seriously.

"They Will Not Be in SC5"
Somebody actually used this reason at one point. As an example, Ivy has played like a completely new character in every SC game. With this pattern, it can be likely that SC4 Ivy will not be in SC5 either, and that she will once again play like a new character. Does this mean that SC4 Ivy should be banned because she will not be in SC5? lol.


Anyways, as I previously mentioned I feel the most important thing to do before getting all ban happy, is to set some guidelines on what valid reasons for banning should be. That way there will be less debate and less problems, since it can be something that people can agree on, through (hopefully) common sense.
 
Agree +1.

Also, there can't be the wiggle room of "opinions" in bans.
There need to be facts for bans to happen.

I won't say exactly what you said here, but I'll just add my opinon (with the three examples you mention above, plus Apprentice):
--Vader is not overpowered. He does not change the way the game is normally played. Those are facts, and so I see no reason to ban him.
--Yoda is not overpowered. He DOES change the way the game is normally played, as he cannot be thrown and cannot be hit by high attacks in his neutral state, regardless of guarding or not. I see a plausible reason to ban him, but not much.
--Starkiller is not overpowered. He does not change the way the game is normally played. Those are facts, and so I see no reason to ban him.
--Algol is not overpowered. He is very good. He DOES change the way the game is normally played, as he has ranged attacks that aren't normally present in these kinds of 3D fighting games. Also, he has the potential to BREAK THE GAME with certain camera angles that can cause his bubbles to block the screen during fights, and the hitboxes on sidestepping into bubbles and such is very iffy, etc etc. I see a plausible reason to ban him.
 
There is only one valid reason to warrant a ban.
When the community discusses the issues and comes to a consensus. Otherwise everything else gets us nowhere. North America should have universal rules that apply to any tourney, that is posted on any forum, to which people are going to pay money, or travel...(In other words an official SC4 tournament and not some friendly group gathering.)

I propose this as the point of new discussion.

Allow Algol…and work our way around banning his consecutive projectiles.
Allow Starkiller…and remove his ability to negate a 50/50 throw mind game.
Allow Vader after some deliberation, of why we shouldn't allow him.
Ban Yoda...because him being weak is merely opinion. His design is completely garbage to SC's gameplay system.
 
If the Yoda and Vader movesets were just a little magical Chinese dude with a cane, and a slow wierd guy with a normal sword, neither of which were console exclusive, this debate would have been over on launch day. There has never been any more to the issue than Star Wars hate, propped up by the exclusivity issue as a crutch.
 
i just have to say, no bans, except maybe algol. 5$ is cheap. people buy retarded stuff all the time for lots more and then can't afford $5 for a character and stage?

but back on topic. i think bans should only be what made after the community had a thorough discussion about and not just randomly banning them for personal reasons. so basically, i agree with oof :)
 
I understand what OOFMATIC is saying, but I just have to ask...

this is still going on? Dino really did a number on you guys, huh? Seems to be the hot topic right now.
 
KingAce said:
Allow Algol…and work our way around banning his consecutive projectiles.
Allow Starkiller…and remove his ability to negate a 50/50 throw mind game.
Allow Vader after some deliberation, of why we shouldn't allow him.
Ban Yoda...because him being weak is merely opinion. His design is completely garbage to SC's gameplay system.
Click to expand...
From your points -
How would you ban Algol's consecutive projectiles? Would you allow him, but say "if you fire two bubbles within 2 seconds you lose the round"? That'd be ridiculously hard to enforce. Ban or not, there isn't a conceivable middle ground.

Apprentice's ability to negate the 50/50 throw mind game is offset by the fact that he uses up force when he does it, which means a severe depleting of his damage potential.

Vader is fine.

Allow Yoda... he's easily the worst character in the game - he has no good matchups. Why would you ban someone like that?
 
You left out the only valid reason to warrant a ban, game breaking glitches. Thats how a lot of fighting game communities base their rules off of. Almost any other reason is subject to opinion. For example the broken/overpowered reason you said is a matter of opinion. There are many people who don't think Algol is broken but no one can argue the fact a certain move freezes the game every time for example.

It is also the fairest way to make rules because it lets the game decide the rules and not people with agendas. People will always think certain characters/moves are unfair and there really isn't too much anyone can do about it. There will never be a way to make everyone happy. This is why I would rather have a force like the game rather than a person decide the rules for me.

People obviously disagree on what is broken/overpowered. If you need an example of this just check the tier discussion thread. No one can agree on who the top tier characters are. If people cant even do this how can we ban because something is broken/overpowered? So this makes banning on the basis of something being broken/overpowered quite weak.
 
KingAce said:
Allow Algol…and work our way around banning his consecutive projectiles.
Allow Starkiller…and remove his ability to negate a 50/50 throw mind game.
Ban Yoda...because him being weak is merely opinion. His design is completely garbage to SC's gameplay system.
Click to expand...

You have got to be joking.

Banning a move, that is not an infinite, is far worse than banning a character. If this ever happens we are going to have people screaming ban Asura or ban Sophitia's 236B it's absurd.

I don't use SK but I believe that his force break takes 25%? of his force bar. Considering he needs this bar to be competitive I don't see the problem. Especially given the fact that it is 50/50 so a person may be using unneccesary force when they could have guessed right anyways.

Yoda should not be banned. Every reason I have heard to ban him is just stupid.
 
OOFMATIC said:
"They change the way the game is normally played"
Most people say "They change the way the game is meant to be played" but I don't feel anyone has the right to say how the game is meant to be played since Namco obviously meant to put the character in there. I don't think this reason is valid, but I can see why people would think otherwise, because for most people, change is bad. Although I think this reason should only apply if it's coupled together with the first one, about being broken/overpowered.
Click to expand...

If the change adds new gameplay elements (ie soul gauge, random clothes destruction) then I could see it worth keeping. However, something that takes away game play features (ie high attacks, grabs, attack-throws) then it would seem detrimental and not worth keeping.

No one wants to ban yoda because he has a force-meter.
 
WuHT said:
If the change adds new gameplay elements (ie soul gauge, random clothes destruction) then I could see it worth keeping. However, something that takes away game play features (ie high attacks, grabs, attack-throws) then it would seem detrimental and not worth keeping..
Click to expand...

That's a pretty relative distinction you're making. Soul Gauge can also be seen as taking away something for the way it kills the traditional turtle strategy, and random clothes destruction takes away a lot of dignity from the game.

In reality, any change can be considered positive if you take an optimistic perspective.
 
About "They Don't Belong in the Game"

What if eventually many tourney players use Star Wars Characters? Or if there are regions with many Star Wars players? Wouldn't that affect of the image of what Soul Calibur really is? Would it be a reason to ban them?
 
Since Algol was the most popular topic when it came to banning, I'll use him as an example. The reasons listed in the countless pages when discussing Algol were mostly garbage. First of all, Oof is right when he said polls are useless. Tournament players should be the ONLY ones dictating tournament rules, it's common sense if nothing else. And then we have people who go around breaking down his moves trying to come up with reasons why he should be banned. Nothing about him is inherently buggy or unintended, so that argument fails no matter how good people think projectile are, which is just superficial and not why he's good anyway. By the same logic every character that has something that other characters don't will come under scrutiny, and then we'll start seeing some complaints about how crawl goes under mids or some shit which is crap I already hear when I play with people who don't know what they're doing.

The ONLY argument that doesn't fail when it came to banning Algol was that the tournament scene would benefit more from having more variety in the game by removing such an obviously dominant character. I admit that he is very good and difficult to play against, but that's not news in the fighting game world. Learning to deal with difficulty is what makes competitive gaming rewarding. But in the end that particular issue was resolved with the future of the tournament scene in consideration and I agree with it. I didn't want to see SCIV go the way SCIII went, the game can reinvigorate the franchise but Algol placing top in every other tournament will scare people off. However, those who complained about bubbles were ridiculous, it's a wonder Kilik is still around.
 
o_o; Hmmm, what Oofmatic said did make hella sense.

The only real legit thing that should be banned is Ivy's infinite, or any infinites so far.

Now, the star wars characters....I dunno how i feel about that. Vader/Algol/ Yoda do have superior edges on other characters, but thats in any fighting game. Also, imo they aren't even that good. ( Not talking about Algol. )
Yes, they do change the way the game is played but im rather sure the game was intended on being the way it was if the default settings came with such BS.

The force thing is pretty shittybut its not horribly broken. Apprentice breaking grabs for free IS bullshit, but its like...." What else does he have that makes him broke?" I think apprentice isn't cheap because he doesn't have ENOUGH to make him broken. Play smart. He changes the game, but its not bad enough to ban if you ask me.. It really isn't. ( Mind you, I don't like any of the Star Wars characters. )

Vader too. If people lose to Vader, its more than likely because they don't know the matchup well. The fact he has to use up just about all his force to do anything isn't very great.. He has an Ok RO game but thats also alot of chars in sc4. Vaders not cheap, just gay. Play smart.

Yoda....
^_^; I dunno. The fact he ducks all highs and grabs the entire fight for 100% free and some mids will whiff over him for 100% is absolute bullshit. I personally believe this changes the game to the point where its a problem. Restricting every character's movelist in the game to only a few single moves isn't fair. In tournament play, its bad enough only certain moves will be used anyway, and then you have to worry about something like this? This is a serious problem. If someones really good with Yoda then there could be some serious problems. If your allowing Yoda, then imo Algol should not be banned. They would both be banned because they change the way the game is played to the degree there is a problem.

Algol should be banned:
Projectiles in a 3d fighter is bullshit, however..honestly..thats not the reason I think he should be baned. I believe the problem is he is just simply overpowered. Algol is good even without the projectiles, for sure. The projectiles just make it a " Ok this shit is too much." I think in combination of what Algol is capable of doing and the bubbles....it makes him worth banning. However, banning algol doesn't feel right if you ask me guys. I know it sounds contradictory but think about it...

If we ban Algol, then its like...." Whos the next overpowered?" We will get into the routine of banning alot more and thats not good. If you want to talk about banning guys...because characters are overpowered. Why is Hilde not banned? It would be wrong right? In all honesty, she is broken guys. Just like Algol. You want to tell me shes not? o_o;
( No one can shoot shit in the game but Algol really, and no one can charge moves in the game but Hilde, that just make the opponent play different.... both are fucked up. )

So after saying all this, none of the characters should be banned. ( Except Yoda and Algol, and if you don't ban Yoda, I don't think Algol should be banned )
Don't I make some sense....?
 
PhilBond said:
If the Yoda and Vader movesets were just a little magical Chinese dude with a cane, and a slow wierd guy with a normal sword, neither of which were console exclusive, this debate would have been over on launch day. There has never been any more to the issue than Star Wars hate, propped up by the exclusivity issue as a crutch.
Click to expand...
I agree with this.
 
franman said:
About "They Don't Belong in the Game"

What if eventually many tourney players use Star Wars Characters? Or if there are regions with many Star Wars players? Wouldn't that affect of the image of what Soul Calibur really is? Would it be a reason to ban them?
Click to expand...

To this, I say that it's an image of what Soul Calibur 4 is. Besides, from all the custom characters I've seen online, it looks like people actually like the idea of guest characters. I know I absolutely loved playing as Link (being a guest there doesn't even take any work for his environment), and though I could never get him to work right, I felt Heihachi was a golden moment for SC. A character that doesn't need weapons? Hardcore. I grudgingly accepted that they weren't allowable for tournaments, though, because there was no way to put each on all consoles. If all 3 could be unlocked in all consoles, hoo boy, I would've fought just as hard as I am now and, considering that I'm a friend of the guy who organized the tournaments I played, I probably would've been able to accomplish it.

Regardless, very good post by Oof. It's put bans in some perspective for me, so I now subscribe to 3 reasons for bans.
1) Game-stopping glitches. If the game is going to freeze or fundamentally break because of a certain move, then at the very least, that move should be banned. An example I can think of is DBZ Budokai Tenkaichi 2. If Trunks uses his ultimate move against Cell, who actually is the only person he used it on in the first place, the screen just becomes one broken image of static and stays that way for the rest of the match. That's cause for a ban without question, or it would be if anyone played that game competitively.
2) Total unbalance. I have yet to see this occur, though Algol is still questionable to me. I'm open on either side of the issue. I can only think of the example Sirlin suggests in his Playing to Win articles. He mentiones Akuma and Old Sagat who were considered too broken to be used, but I believe he said Japan still allows him. The result is a "soft ban" where the real pros decided they're just not going to play as them because they can still beat whatever n00bs come along that use him, but in all seriousness, I'd favor a hard ban if they're considered so broken.
3) It will result in catastrophic loss of attendance. This certainly can't be the reason right off the bat, because you have to listen to the people who actually attend tournaments in the first place. Random posts on the internet, even within my own thread that talks specifically about attendance, can't be taken seriously by TO's. Hosting tournaments still involves finances, and if you actually lose money by hosting because so many people want something banned, then it's time to enact a ban. If you are able to break even, I don't believe it's severe enough to warrant the ban, but of course you can't wait for that to happen before you do the ban. It's got to be something you notice before it happens.

Everything else, flavor, "breaking" any "rules" players perceive, anything that's not covered by the above 3 reasons is not worth a ban. They might contribute to #3, as I believe is occurring with Yoda, but they are not worth a ban by themselves. #3 certainly doesn't involve game design by any means, but simply the practicality of running a tournament.
 
PhilBond said:
If the Yoda and Vader movesets were just a little magical Chinese dude with a cane, and a slow wierd guy with a normal sword, neither of which were console exclusive, this debate would have been over on launch day. There has never been any more to the issue than Star Wars hate, propped up by the exclusivity issue as a crutch.
Click to expand...

QFT. The same goes for Algol; if he weren't the "boss", no one would be talking about banning him. Speaking of Algol, when did he become "overpowered"? I was under the impression that he was mid-high tier. Certainly not bad, but there are definitely better characters than him.

Great post, OOF. One thing people seem to be forgetting is that SC4 can and will be patched. Unless we clearly define what warrants a ban, we could end up banning a character because he used to be good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom