Community-based PvP Balance

[Cheesy111]

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?

1) Multiple methods for suggesting who should determine what's OP are given in the original post.  They are not deciding what's fun and what's not, but what cards are limiting the meta by existing and removing those cards.  Shard of Focus, for example, could be understood to be limiting the meta by making permanents nigh-unusable without protect artifact.  Such a card would be banned by the PvP council so that the metagame would have more variety.
2) This does not make sense to me.  Rarity is not a factor in balance, and it should not be.  Not all rares are overpowered or even powerful (Trident).  Some non-rares are powerful or even overpowered (Graboid, Fire Bolt). 

[Pineapple]

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.

Top 10 players are able to play the game 'flawlessly' as in without making a mistake (both in ssbb and elements and any sport in the world).
Who cares?

SSBB bans are to remove RNG from the game so that everyone outside of the Top 10 is ranked by skill and everyone inside the Top 10 is ranked by psychological temperance.
Basically, so that every ranking is done in and of the player in respect to other players. Not RNG.

Thus, SSBB bans are completely non-relatable to Elements bans. In fact, anyone who has played an official match for each knows this fact. The banning of all but 5 stages so that players can have a fair fight is completely different from, say, banning Meta-Knight and other Tier-1 characters so that players do not need to choose Tier-1 characters in order to win. In the current meta-game, competitors, have to select from an extremely small variety of decks to prevent automatically losing, and the suggestion aims to fix that.

[vivimancer]

fair enough, you are right.

[RavingRabbid]

Meh, this quite leaves me a weird taste in mouth.

I don't know why I can't like this.

[~Zytoc~]

I approve!

 We all approve ! ^_^

[Cheesy111]

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.

Actually, it will not magnify the difference in commonly-used Elements "skills" (deckbuilding and playing skill).  It will significantly 'buff' deck creation skill. 

[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.

Actually, it will not magnify the difference in commonly-used Elements "skills" (deckbuilding and playing skill).  It will significantly 'buff' deck creation skill.

Skill is a catchall term for all skills used in PvP. Subcategories of skill tend to correlate with each other. Increasing the benefit from a subcategory of skill will increase the advantage Skill provides in PvP. Aka the difference in skill between players will magnify.