Forum:Banning Characters

Forums: Index → Brawl Talk → Banning Characters

This is not another 'Lets ban Metaknight' topic. In tournaments, randomness is frowned upon. Items are banned because they spawn randomly. Many stages are banned because they have random effects (take WarioWare, Inc. for example). So, what about banning characters? Here are some with random effects:

Peach (SSBB) -Down B summons an item with random damage/knockback -fsmash randomly selects from three available options of damage/knockback

Olimar (SSBB) -Pikmin Pluck summons a random colour of pikmin

Luigi (SSBB) -Green Missile has a 1 in 8 chance of a misfire

King Dedede (SSBB) -Waddle Dee Toss will randomly select between waddle dees, waddle doos, and gordos, as well as capsules occasionally

Mr. Game & Watch (SSBB) -Judge does a random amount of damage/knockback, as well as a random effect

Pokemon Trainer (SSBB) -Razor Leaf curves in a random direction

Random Character -It might already be a rule that you can't click this button.

Just wondering what you guys think about banning characters due to randomness. It makes sense, in my opinion, but I'm not sure if people would be willing to ban charecters. ParadoxJuice (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Choosing a character with random elements has drawbacks, too. Judge can also do 12% damage to the G&W. Miles (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

More of a reason for them to be banned. ParadoxJuice (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Less. Creates balance. Miles (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Banning characters violates First Amendment rights. Yes, it may only apply to the U.S., but spreading some of our values to the rest of the world through Brawl wouldn't hurt, would it? - GalaxiaD ^Talk 01:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New rule: Don't talk about the constitution or the amendments if you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I've said this many times, the first amendment only states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." The operative word here is congress. Independent organizations are allowed to impose whatever restrictions they see fit on their members . I know that there are exceptions to this, but they stem from cases with orders of magnitude more impact on civil rights than this. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, harsh much? I now know that freedom of choice is not part of the First Amendment, but freedom of speech is also not the only right it allows. It also allows freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. All that aside, I apologize for the inaccuracy of my previous comment and any confusion it may have caused. - GalaxiaD ^Talk 00:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. At first I thought this was vandalism, then I realized that I'm not dealing with a vandal, but more like an idiot with a keyboard. That kind of reminds me of the strange case of duplicity that confounded Voltaire whist he was hammering out his version of the Grey's Anatomy (no, not the crappy show, the real book that actually talked about the human body and not just the two parts that go in each other). Anyhow, you people really don't know what you're talking about. You see, characters that do random things do them in a way that we know is coming. Anyway, the person playing the character is as equally effected by that. Remember when the Peloponnesians experimented with intercontinental ballistic missiles? The missles were set to go off once somebody broke Dwayne Johnson's (aka The Rock) high score in Donkey Kong. So the Chinese decided to set up a room of infinite monkeys playing infinite games of Donkey Kong, meaning of course that missles went off, killing off Franz Ferdinand and starting the Cola Wars. Because of this, President McKinley, while dying from the sting of a rare poison dart frog said to once have been Princess Diana's cousin's pet, established social security. Because of social security, McKinley's vice president, William Wallace, the famed Scotish hero, took over after his death. During William Wallace's reign, the commission on Making Sure that You Have A Clue What the First Amendment Says and Does was established, but it failed in its mission after an attack from Sun Tzu's hermitage on Pluto, all pissed off cause he's no longer a planet. Naturally, this brought Diana to Pluto's side, as she too was upset about not being chosen for planetary status by Richard Garfield. So they teamed up, got some rocks, and BAM, now we have a fucking asteroid belt. Anyway, if you want to actually know what Mao Zedong meant when he wrote the first amendment, it was that I can say the last sentence and the Articles of Confederation can't say that I can't. Not you can't say, but the government can't. In summation, don't worry about the swine flu. I've dealt with it before, and it can be defeated with some vinegar and twice baked potatoes, mixed with a vial of Michael Jordan's blood. Drink twice before meals and don't eat tacos. 13375poolR (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

13375poolR : I've got two questions for ya :

- Did they ask your help in any way ? - How long did it take you to write such a bunch of craps ? :D

To answer Paradox, no characters should be banned : this randomness is a price to pay. And there are many others moves to use if you get crappy effects with them. :D Metalink187 (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You want to ban MG&W because of the hammer? A 12% chance of the 9 on the hammer means out of 100 times MG&W does that move, it will only happen 12 times. For Olimar, when you see a certain color a Pikmin you know what to expect and how to react to it. Luigi's missile can be easily dodged. What do you mean randomness is frowned upon. Some people might like randomness in the battle. My opinion is randomness in a battle (not too much) can actually be fun. Randomness a reason to ban characters? Just my opinion. Unknown the Hedgehog 22:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, no? First of all, this entire banning idea is terrible, as there is a way to beat every character with any character, it just takes a lot more practice with some. No offense, but I clearly remember you flaming at Smoreking simply because he was chaingrabbing you with Falco, and you quit the match. When Olimar draws a pikmin it doesn't matter; all of them have uses. White ones rack up damage, purple ones have near-perfect KOing power (good for taking out heavyweights like they do in the actual game olol), red ones do a lot of damage without latching (second highest knockback; this is all explained on the Olimar article by the way), yellows have hitstun for... er... whatever you can do with hitstun in Brawl, and blue ones are like balanced with the ability to swim and resist water, so you DON'T know what to do when he has a crew of different types, unless of course by some miracle he assembles all five of one kind. Luigi was just ridiculous; he's mid-tier for crying out loud. If Peach didn't have turnips or "items", she'd suck almost as bad as Captain Falcon. Waddle Dee toss is a reliable projectile, having a chance of throwing a wild card gordo only helps him. Random Character... hm, tell that to NinjaLink.

Tl;dr - Stages and items are the only things that should be banned... like, ever. Blue Ninjakoopa 23:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of banning characters. So what if there's randomness? The overall chaos that erupted on the screen is always what made Smash fun, IMO. On a side note, what does tl:dr mean? I speak l33t, but not internet.L33t Silvie ^{Your epidermis is showing.} 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Randomness isn't frowned upon simply because it's random, it's frowned upon because it often creates arbitrary imbalance. Moreover, there's a difference between arbitrary randomness that consistently produces imbalance and randomness which is built into characters. That Olimar summons a random Pikmin is not a source of imbalance, nor is Razor Leaf curving in a random direction or Peach's forward smash. Even with the possibility of a Misfire, Luigi's recovery still isn't all that great. Similarly, even though I know that Judge may have a particularly powerful effect every once in a while, I'm not gonna waste my time using Judge a hundred times when I could instead use other, better moves. The expected value of a single use of Judge pales in comparison to, say, G&W's n-air (in SSBM, anyway, -- I don't really play SSBB). And besides, there's a reason that, in spite of the randomness you cite, none of the character's you've mentioned is threatening to knock Metaknight out of the number one spot any time soon. When considering overall character balance, the fact that Peach will pull a dead every once in a while isn't a sufficient source of imbalance to make Peach "unfair" by any standard. Same goes for DDD. So really, there's no compelling reason to ban any of the characters you've mentioned. – Defiant Elements +talk 23:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

^verbose Blue Ninjakoopa 23:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In terms of sheer size, your post was longer so uhh... yea. – Defiant Elements +talk 23:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You seriously misinterpreted what I said. I never said that these characters are cheap, nor did I say that they suck. I said that they create an imbalance. The colour of pikmin that Olimar summons greatly effects the battle, but it takes no skill to summon a purple or white. It also takes no skill to get a 1 on G&W hammer-you could have crazy skills hitting with that hammer, yet you still get a 1. Same goes for the other way around. 9 could happen, with absolutely no skill involved. Throwing skill out the window is what is frowned upon. If you're fighting ganon on Pokemon Stadium, and it changes to the very anti-ganon air version, then Ganon can easily say that it is not their opponents skill that beat them, but the stage happening to switch to air. Same goes for Olimars pikmin-if he gets a purple and kills you with it, it is not the players skill that beat you, but the fact that they got a purple pikmin. Works the other way around, if you never get a purple, it is not your fault that you could not KO the opponent, but the fact that you always got blues. Sure, these are small things, but so is the summoning of items. Get a Mr. Saturn? Not a very big deal, but they are out of tournements just because they don't take skill to use. Items are banned due to randomness, even if the changes are small. Stages are banned due to randomness, even if it is something small. So why not charecters? ParadoxJuice (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's another selective reader! No sir, you misinterpreted what we were saying to you. There is no "imbalance" to be honest. And that's all there is to it. Blue Ninjakoopa 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

PJ is right, it doesn't take skill to pull out a purple or white Pikmin but, here's the thing, it's how you use the color. There's probably someone out there who has the best Olimar and can when a match with all blues. Yes a few stages and all items are banned due to randomness but, PJ no offence but, aren't you the one who said camping is a skill? If I remember right, camping is frowned upon. You also said that you like 75m which has randomness on which way the fire moves and randomness on when the springs start to come out. Also you said that Olimar works good there which he also has randomness. So you want to start banning characters when you go to a banned stage that has randomness with a character you want to be banned because of randomness? Unknown the Hedgehog 01:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I said I like 75m as a faithful recreation. And yes, camping is a skill, not a very difficult skill to use, but that is a tottally different conversation. ParadoxJuice (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It also takes skill to use items. But they're banned because they randomly spawn, creating a large misbalance. ParadoxJuice (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "how you use the color"? If you mean what I think you mean, then you're repeating everything I just said. Blue Ninjakoopa 04:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you bothered to actually look at what is banned? Small amounts of randomness in stages is not an immediate ban. One example: Kongo Jungle's randomly appearing Klap Trap. The question of randomness is not a binary statement of if it is random or not, but a continuous look at if the randomness impacts the game to become the dominant factor in winners and losers. So a Klap Trap appears and took one of four stocks. Big deal. Even if that was the last stock of a Caveman Game, the Klap Trap was not the dominant force in the game. Wario Ware on the other hand basically makes the actual fighting unimportant because the bonuses granted by the microgames (as well as the ridiculous knockback of the stage elements) is so dominant that it completely rewrites the gameplay. As for items, they are not banned because they take no skill to use. In fact, most pro players agree that there are specific skills to using items. However, the spawning of items is completely out of the control of the player and happens to frequently with too much impact on gameplay to be considered conducive to a competitive environment. As for the characters you mention, they fall into the first category of random elements that require attention, but do not predominate the gameplay. Judge, for example, is a matter of risk-reward. As DE said, the neutral-aerial is the more consistent move, but it cannot match the power of Judgment 9. So there's a choice involved for the G&W player. Also, there is the choice involved for the opponent. Do they leave themselves open to the off chance that a Judgment 9 might kill them to capitalize on a greater advantage? These kinds of decisions are what players should be having to make every second of a competitive game. Using a random move is just as disadvantageous or advantageous to the user as it is to the receiver. Understanding the likelihood of different moves happening is part of the game. We're not talking about a character who basically starts the game, flips a coin, and that determines who wins or loses. Oh, and on a side note, Peach won't pull items if they are set to off and none, like the SBR requires. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but I think that the randomness from the 9 Judge things does kinda takeover the match. That Ivysaur Razor Leaf randomness is way too small to rule a match, not enough to ban 3 characters for (yeah, there is all that stamina and stuff, but still). Luigis misfire is pretty small, also, but it still can mess up a match when you KO without even charging it. Peachs down B isn't big dominant enough to change a match. Olimars pikmin do really change the match, a lot. And the Gordo also changes the match. WarioWare is very random, and its the kind that dominates a match. The Klaptraps do change the match signifigantely, but they appear on schedule ever 10 seconds. But what you mentioned about losing 1 stock because of randomness isn't a big deal, I highly disagree. Losing a stock is a big deal. It may not be like 'flipping a coin to see who wins the match', but it is like 'flipping a coin to see what happens'. ParadoxJuice (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What? Peach can pull a bob-omb or Mr. Saturn even if items are set off. Blue Ninjakoopa 04:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, the two things that are part of her attack randomizer. What I was referring to was the other items that she sometimes pulls if items aren't set to off and none. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 05:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What other items are there? I hate Peach, so I don't know a lot about her. And I barely play any Peach players either olol. Blue Ninjakoopa 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've only ever seen her summon various turnips and the occasional capsule and bob-omb. You are on a wiki about this stuff, though, so I suspect the Vegetable article has some info. Looks like it can pull out Beam Swords and Mr. Saturns. Though, I suspect this won't happen if items are off. ParadoxJuice (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh

I dunno, this doesn't seem enough to ban characters for. Still, that occasional KO because of a random element from these characters is EXTREMELY annoying. I'm talking about getting hit by a lvl 9 Judge, or getting KO'd by a misfire when Luigi only charges it for 1-3 frames. Really, why doesn't Nintendo take a hint from all that stuff that got banned in Melee due to randomness? I dunno, Nintendo seems to like leaving out some of the most obvious features. Not being able to charge smashes with the D-pad (seriously?), the uber-broken Metaknight, and not having a way to stop certain characters from being chosen via Random Select like you can with stages. Its those little things in an otherwise perfect game that get on my nerves. ParadoxJuice (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand how you think Brawl revolves around yourself. Please, explain. Blue Ninjakoopa 23:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Lulwut? When did I say that? ParadoxJuice (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You pretty much imply it when you spout things such as "it gets on my nerves" and "it messes up my chances of winning" or "I'm assuming most of you agree with me". Blue Ninjakoopa 23:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, what you think I'm 'implying' is absolutely different from what I'm actually saying. Since when does saying things such as 'this gets on my nerves' imply that I am self-centered? I never said it messes up my chances of winning, I said that it is possible to get skilless KOs. And I never even said anything remotely close to "I'm assuming most of you agree with me". ParadoxJuice (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

When you made this blog, did you actually think you were going to prove something? Honestly? Come one man, this is Smash-****ing-Wiki. There's nothing worth risking your account to prove. You created this blog because you think some of the caracters are unfair or cheap, and you think they should be banned. How many people do you think would agree with that? I've been banned seven times, I hope I'm not encouraging anything crazy. Blue Ninjakoopa 03:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You have serious problems, Ninjakoopa. I'm not surprised you've been banned several times. Yes, this is a wiki, but these are the forums. How could bringing this up possibly risk my account? They can't ban me from the wiki for something I did in the forums. Yeah, I don't have that many contributions, but the point remains. You just don't get it, do you? I never said these characters were cheap, I said they were random. Items are banned 'cause their random, stages are banned 'cause their random, see a pattern? There are some characters which are random, so why not ban them? I just wanted to voice my opinion to the community, to see what others would have to say about it. ParadoxJuice (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've counted eight walls of text, nine if you include 13375poolr's above rant. Didn't think that a forum for banning characters based on randomness would take that much. Besides, I stick with my above view: the chaos is what makes me love Brawl.L33t Silvie ^{Your epidermis is showing.} 00:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to remember that those that play Smash Bros. competitively are in the minority. If Nintendo wanted to make a Smash Bros. game designed for tournament play, they would have done so. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Excactly. And tournaments (the minority) change things to be designed for tournament play (banning stages, disablig items), so I was just wondering why they don't go to the extent of completing the tournament setting by getting rid of every thing random. Anyways, you guys seem to disagree because these are really small things rarely become match changing. Thats everyone elses opinion, but my opinion is that these things should be banned because of the match-changingness. Anyways, I don't host tournements, just curious to see what everyone else had to say. ParadoxJuice (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

@Paradox Juice: Well, what I as a tournament organizer have to say is said above. The criteria used to determine banning don't lead to banning characters.

@Toomai: I don't give a damn what Nintendo intended. I paid $50 for SSBB and I will play it however I want. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 01:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity (and also to bring this conversation to an end), what is the criteria for banning? ParadoxJuice (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, all of this fucking complaining is going to discourage SSB's prime director to make another Smash game. Blue Ninjakoopa 03:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, what mama doesn't know... Blue Ninjakoopa 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. You see, me paying $50 is all that Nintendo cares about as far as making another Smash game. They made their money, and now they want more. Even if I'm just buying the game to force feed it to Osama bin Laden, all they care about is that I bought it. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Sakurai made Brawl because he wanted smash to be more child friendly (yet he rated it teen; probably because most professionals aren't nine-year-olds), not to get Nintendo money in their pockets... well, not entirely. 1) I don't see how Osama bin Laden has anything to do with this situation and 2) how the hell do you know "they want more"? They're already doing better than their rivals so why would they be trying to take a greedy approach to fame? Nonetheless, Brawl+ is what Brawl should have been like. and they're realizing their mistake. Blue Ninjakoopa 15:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Think of this. To your opponent, you ARE the most random factor in the game. They can almost never tell what you are thinking of doing. Wavedashing is random. Items are random, but everyone knows that there is a CHANCE of items appearing next to them. Just because there is randomness in a match doesn't mean your helpless against it. Some one throws a bomb at you! Are you doomed? No. Instead you catch it in mid-air and throw it back at your taunting opponent. If you were him, would you think it was random? Possibly... Would you have ever seen it coming? Probrably not... But the chance of your opponent doing that IS random! So why don't they ban people for doing unexpected things? Its random isn't it? Oh yes, randomness is frowned upon most standard tornaments. (Don't care if you do so don't say.) Learner4 (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, that is different from randomness. Its strategy. If you're in the air, and your opponent is next you, you have to make a choice-would it be better to use a fair or a nair? You truly can't tell if a bomb is gonna be spawned. You can't tell which pikmin Olimar is gonna summon. And you definately can't tell which Microgame the WarioWare stage will throw at you next. But, you can tell which attack your opponent will use next-its all strategy. If you're at 140% damage, then its only natural that you're opponent will begin to use high knockback attacks. But if your at 0%, its only natural that you're opponent will use high damage attacks. This is what seperates tournament play from casual play, this is what seperates button mashers from strategizers, this is what seperates good players from bad players. Its also why I thought that some characters should be banned. According to Clarinet Hawk, the criteria for banning doesn't lead to banning characters. ParadoxJuice (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference between banning characters and banning stages is one of complexity. Stage are generally banned for two reasons: either they interrupt the match too severely (WarioWare, the Summit) or they give an unfair advantage/disadvantage to certain characters/groups of characters (Hyrule Temple, the Flat Zones). Characters, on the other hand, need consideration of each of their matchups, combined with each stage, to be deemed bannable. And then compare that with the possible metagame without the suspect. That's some pretty complex stuff. And of course, there's the fact that there's no precedent in Smash Bros. for banning a character. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 16:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)