Community-based PvP Balance

[Chapuz]

I agree,
Ban Photon 

[ralouf]

The PvP Council will be a small group of skilled, experienced, active PvP players that develop the League Ban List

[nilsieboy]

i approve this idea.

[Cheesy111]

As part of a relevant discussion between me and RantRooter.

[17:43:41] Cheesy111 [»] RootRanger: For example, your meta would almost completely eliminate denial. I do not see that as a good thing at all.
[17:45:05] RootRanger [»] Cheesy111: True.
[17:45:41] Cheesy111 [»] RootRanger: So you're eliminating complete styles of play in favor of being able to use more cards. More cards does not necessarily equate to more variety.
[17:47:33] RootRanger [»] Cheesy111: that's a fair point

[bogtro]

In theory, good.

In practice, not so sure.

[Pineapple]

There's no need to go as far as ban overpowered cards. If there really is a way to determine which cards are overpowered, and to what extent they're overpowered, but some community members are against drastic measures such as banning those cards or separating decks into tiers, then we can just limit the amount of cards from higher tiers, i.e. no more than 2 Discords or 2 Nova or 5 Firebolts or 4 Dimensional shields.

[vivimancer]

Ever play super smash bros. brawl tournaments?  No, not many people did.
But those that did wanted to start banning things that they saw made the game predictable or 'boring,'
They started with one level, they said Yoshi's Island was broken
and they moaned and cried and it was banned from the competative tournaments.
And then Superflat world, Mushroom world 1&2, hyrule castle etc etc etc.  Untill tournaments were played on 5 maps out of 41. Which was so tedious every-one went and played some thing else.
My point is that banning stuff doesn't help because you're giving us less options which mean more players are forced to use the same tactics, in SSBB that ment people would fall into the same predictable paterns. If the meta was dominated by one or two decks then yes we would need to do some thing about it but the solution is balancing not banning.
But the meta isn't any where near that bad, graboid isn't the only viable earth deck, firestall isn't the only viable fire deck, its about experimentation and adptation.

Also, the  idea of a PvP council sounds horrible, I mean really horrible.Just off the top of my head, who gets to decide who these elite PvPers are and how do you stop them from abusing the meta for their own ends?

[Cheesy111]

Ever play super smash bros. brawl tournaments?  No, not many people did.
But those that did wanted to start banning things that they saw made the game predictable or 'boring,'
They started with one level, they said Yoshi's Island was broken
and they moaned and cried and it was banned from the competative tournaments.
And then Superflat world, Mushroom world 1&2, hyrule castle etc etc etc.  Untill tournaments were played on 5 maps out of 41. Which was so tedious every-one went and played some thing else.
My point is that banning stuff doesn't help because you're giving us less options which mean more players are forced to use the same tactics, in SSBB that ment people would fall into the same predictable paterns. If the meta was dominated by one or two decks then yes we would need to do some thing about it but the solution is balancing not banning.
But the meta isn't any where near that bad, graboid isn't the only viable earth deck, firestall isn't the only viable fire deck, its about experimentation and adptation.

Also, the  idea of a PvP council sounds horrible, I mean really horrible.Just off the top of my head, who gets to decide who these elite PvPers are and how do you stop them from abusing the meta for their own ends?

1) Multiple methods of determining that are suggested in the original post.

2) ...I do not follow.  How can you abuse the meta for your own ends? Everyone is hurt the same by a ban whether it be on graboid, toadfish or poison. 

[Pineapple]

Ever play super smash bros. brawl tournaments?  No, not many people did.
But those that did wanted to start banning things that they saw made the game predictable or 'boring,'
They started with one level, they said Yoshi's Island was broken
and they moaned and cried and it was banned from the competative tournaments.
And then Superflat world, Mushroom world 1&2, hyrule castle etc etc etc.  Untill tournaments were played on 5 maps out of 41. Which was so tedious every-one went and played some thing else.
My point is that banning stuff doesn't help because you're giving us less options which mean more players are forced to use the same tactics, in SSBB that ment people would fall into the same predictable paterns. If the meta was dominated by one or two decks then yes we would need to do some thing about it but the solution is balancing not banning.
But the meta isn't any where near that bad, graboid isn't the only viable earth deck, firestall isn't the only viable fire deck, its about experimentation and adptation.

Also, the  idea of a PvP council sounds horrible, I mean really horrible.Just off the top of my head, who gets to decide who these elite PvPers are and how do you stop them from abusing the meta for their own ends?

And, as Cheesy did not reply to your post about Brawl Tournaments, I'd like to say that Brawl is a skill-based game. The whole point of tourney bans were to remove RNG from the game and make everything more predictable by limiting people's non-skill options, a goal that is completely different from the one suggested in the thread (increasing number of options that do not force an auto-loss). Imagine if chess tournaments were sometimes played on a 5x5 or a 9x7 grid, and one player had 3 more Queens. That's what Yoshi's Island with Items on was like.

[Onizuka]

People who design the meta can plan in advance for the new meta, possibly create decks that with their ability to influence the meta will work the best. Weak points IMO but points nonetheless.

[OldTrees]

I would again suggest caution. A ban hammer tends to keep swinging long after the metagame is able to take care of itself. I do not have the pvp skill to judge what cards should and should not be banned for a test metagame. However banning cards merely to weaken decks does cause a chain reaction that shrinks the metagame more than I think is worthwhile. There is a difference between banning an extra queen (SoFo) in chess and banning a potent opening (Dim Shield).


On a side note: The banning will magnify the difference in skill between players as they guess at the new metagame.

[vivimancer]

And, as Cheesy did not reply to your post about Brawl Tournaments, I'd like to say that Brawl is a skill-based game. The whole point of tourney bans were to remove RNG from the game and make everything more predictable by limiting people's non-skill options, a goal that is completely different from the one suggested in the thread (increasing number of options that do not force an auto-loss). Imagine if chess tournaments were sometimes played on a 5x5 or a 9x7 grid, and one player had 3 more Queens. That's what Yoshi's Island with Items on was like.

Top 10 players are able to play the the game 'flawlessly' as in without making a mistake (both in ssbb and elements.) Against a player that does not know what they are doing, they will win all the time.  if there are no outside variables are introduced and other player also plays perfectly they will always draw.  If the RNG is introduced the dead lock maybe broken even if a player is inperfect in his style but just very lucky.

And this is the crux of the matter, who decides whats OP? What secret cabal of persons gets to decide whats fun and what isn't, if balance is the issue why not just ban all rares?