ban system

[Enyu]

please put a ban system for both players at the start of the round. some characters are ridiculous

[Agreus]

A ban system in a game with 10 (soon 11) characters ?
In a genre where most competetive players focus on mastering one single character ? Sounds like a bad Idear.
If both sides can ban 1 character thats 20% of the roster gone.
It will take years until we have 20 characters and I would say 10% of the roster is still too much that could be banned
Learn you matchups and work on your personal skill.
Every information we got from the devs of this game points in the direction that they take balance serious and seem to have a good grip on what needs to be done.

[Enyu]

Originally posted by Agreus:

A ban system in a game with 10 (soon 11) characters ?
In a genre where most competetive players focus on mastering one single character ? Sounds like a bad Idear.
If both sides can ban 1 character thats 20% of the roster gone.
It will take years until we have 20 characters and I would say 10% of the roster is still too much that could be banned
Learn you matchups and work on your personal skill.
Every information we got from the devs of this game points in the direction that they take balance serious and seem to have a good grip on what needs to be done.

seems to me not well balanced if matchups are always 80% against the same characters, ban system will force players to actually grind their skills and not just go from meta to meta i think

[Agreus]

Originally posted by Enyu:

Originally posted by Agreus:

A ban system in a game with 10 (soon 11) characters ?
In a genre where most competetive players focus on mastering one single character ? Sounds like a bad Idear.
If both sides can ban 1 character thats 20% of the roster gone.
It will take years until we have 20 characters and I would say 10% of the roster is still too much that could be banned
Learn you matchups and work on your personal skill.
Every information we got from the devs of this game points in the direction that they take balance serious and seem to have a good grip on what needs to be done.

seems to me not well balanced if matchups are always 80% against the same characters, ban system will force players to actually grind their skills and not just go from meta to meta i think

Could that be a regional problem ?
Last time I played you could see pretty much every character in a match.
Obviously depending on your rank you may see certain characters more than others becourse they are easyer to pick up than others and the typical flavour of the month influx that happens to every characters from time to time.

[Stoque]

Originally posted by Enyu:

seems to me not well balanced if matchups are always 80% against the same characters, ban system will force players to actually grind their skills and not just go from meta to meta i think

If everyone refuses to be flexible with their fighters, then punish them with a fighter that counters them.

[Criminal.]

or just balance the characters maybe?

[Enyu]

Originally posted by Stoque:

Originally posted by Enyu:

seems to me not well balanced if matchups are always 80% against the same characters, ban system will force players to actually grind their skills and not just go from meta to meta i think

If everyone refuses to be flexible with their fighters, then punish them with a fighter that counters them.

That's my point so I have to fight one round against the meta then I am forced to play a counter good enough to gh to go against that specific meta. Sorry but that's not the point of a competitive. The ideal competitive game has actual balance. The perfect balance is not possible I am aware of that. But a ban system gives the devs an idea on which character is getting the most bans is one big reason for them to look into that character.

[Songbird]

You seem to have some really unhealthy ideas about how the game is balanced that are completely at odds with reality. There is no "meta character". Wrastor, Orcane and Maypul are significantly harder to play than the other characters and thus see less play (even though Wrastor is one of the best characters). Kragg, Zetterburn, Clairen, and Loxodont are easier to pick up and thus see more play, even though Lox is one of the worse characters. Forsburn is kind of in the middle. And the difference in balance is extremely minor where it does exist.

A ban system in a game where well over half of the players solo main a character makes no sense.

[Enyu]

Originally posted by Songbird:

You seem to have some really unhealthy ideas about how the game is balanced that are completely at odds with reality. There is no "meta character". Wrastor, Orcane and Maypul are significantly harder to play than the other characters and thus see less play (even though Wrastor is one of the best characters). Kragg, Zetterburn, Clairen, and Loxodont are easier to pick up and thus see more play, even though Lox is one of the worse characters. Forsburn is kind of in the middle. And the difference in balance is extremely minor where it does exist.

A ban system in a game where well over half of the players solo main a character makes no sense.

Just because my views doesn't align with yours. I see your points and I agree ofcourse some are harder than others and therefore those get picked more often. But the characters in question from my experience currently are ranno, maypul and fleet. While in the early stage it was 90% zetter (he was extremely easy to get into I admit) then he got a little nerf and it switched over to ranno.

The reason a game like this has a community that hard mains a single character is exactly where the problem is, it's not a counter argument. For example you said wastor is the strongest character, so if someone masters wastor that will force other player to counter pick against wastor while the wastor main can always remain playing with his main. While someone who already mains the wastor counter will have. No issue and therefore not ban wastor.

A ban system will force people to atleast main 2 characters and bring more variatey and make the game more about skill than mastering a single character. And recently it's heavily drifted on some specific characters.

Now ofcourse this is just an idea like it or not I would still be curious to see how it would affect the game. I haven't even made clear of the banning would be for each round seperatly or you make one at the beginning and it remains for the rest of the match.

Also there is no reason for you to get so defensive this is the discussion section after all so please try to behave like everyone else. Thank you.

[Agreus]

Originally posted by Enyu:

Originally posted by Stoque:

If everyone refuses to be flexible with their fighters, then punish them with a fighter that counters them.

That's my point so I have to fight one round against the meta then I am forced to play a counter good enough to gh to go against that specific meta. Sorry but that's not the point of a competitive. The ideal competitive game has actual balance. The perfect balance is not possible I am aware of that. But a ban system gives the devs an idea on which character is getting the most bans is one big reason for them to look into that character.

But isn´t that the same thing as what a ban would do ?
You say yourself that banning would force poeple to play more characters and that this would in your view have more skill than mastering a single character(which is debatable unless you mean mastering multiple characters).
Now the current situation forces YOU to learn multiple characters to counter the one you can´t handle on your main.
Its the same situation only that the person who has problems needs to adapt instead of forcing the person who is winning into a potentially loosing situation through taking their options away which sounds like a way better or in my opinion fairer aproach.
The loosing side needs to adapt thats how confrontations work a ban would be a help for the lower skilled player in this situation.

As for stats about who gets banned the most to influence balancing thats not needet.
They already have stats of who gets played how often, against what character they normally win and loose and how often + the devs here acutally play their own game at a decently high skill level as far as I could see I dont believe there is much more they could do to get a better overview of the characters powerlevel.

[Enyu]

Originally posted by Agreus:

Originally posted by Enyu:

That's my point so I have to fight one round against the meta then I am forced to play a counter good enough to gh to go against that specific meta. Sorry but that's not the point of a competitive. The ideal competitive game has actual balance. The perfect balance is not possible I am aware of that. But a ban system gives the devs an idea on which character is getting the most bans is one big reason for them to look into that character.

But isn´t that the same thing as what a ban would do ?
You say yourself that banning would force poeple to play more characters and that this would in your view have more skill than mastering a single character(which is debatable unless you mean mastering multiple characters).
Now the current situation forces YOU to learn multiple characters to counter the one you can´t handle on your main.
Its the same situation only that the person who has problems needs to adapt instead of forcing the person who is winning into a potentially loosing situation through taking their options away which sounds like a way better or in my opinion fairer aproach.
The loosing side needs to adapt thats how confrontations work a ban would be a help for the lower skilled player in this situation.

As for stats about who gets banned the most to influence balancing thats not needet.
They already have stats of who gets played how often, against what character they normally win and loose and how often + the devs here acutally play their own game at a decently high skill level as far as I could see I dont believe there is much more they could do to get a better overview of the characters powerlevel.

Oh I am definetly not denying the devs work and I did buy the game day 1 bcuz I trusted the team that is working on it. It's just an idea I would like to see the impact it could have (it won't happen anyway). I replied to someone mentioning the point you mentioned.

Yes the lower skilled player has to adapt but don't you think if someone masters let's say the currently strongest character (the person I replied to claimed it to be wastor) now everyone has to go against his wastor on round 1 and chances will be very high he will lose that round and on second round it's his last chance to counter pick while the first rounds will most likely always go to the wastor mains, statistically if we go with him being the strongest character and someone mastered it. A ban system would push people to more learning the game in general instead of saying yea idc about the other characters let me just find a way to main this meta character and win my way to the top.

Idk i just feel like a competitive mode like the ranked mode should have something like this. While casual can still be free to pick and meta abuse as much as one likes.

[Songbird]

Can you please stop making arguments against this strawman player that exclusively picks the best character in the game because they are the best and then automatically wins because character differences are so extreme that they're impossible to beat? Because your entire argument is complete hogwash since it rests on this ridiculously stupid premise.

People play the character(s) they find the most fun to play, generally. Most matchups in this game are like 55-45 at worst, no character other than maybe Kragg has no losing matchups, and the worst matchups in the game (Orcane into Clairen, Loxodont into Fleet, maybe a couple others) are still winnable. And the general stance has been that you just counterpick character as loser if you feel you don't want to play the matchup, though 99% of the time no one is interested in switching characters mid-set online.

[Enyu]

Originally posted by Songbird:

Can you please stop making arguments against this strawman player that exclusively picks the best character in the game because they are the best and then automatically wins because character differences are so extreme that they're impossible to beat? Because your entire argument is complete hogwash since it rests on this ridiculously stupid premise.

alright this is the last time I am going to respond to you, as you seem to not be able to have a simple discussion. This post wasn't made to fight other opinions but simply have a conversation with the community, which i am having with the others. This is not a Me-vs-community situation. So I invite you to just ignore my post from now since you getting ignored either way by me.

[Calamity Heart]

As much as I would like to never fight Clairen again, I'd rather support the push to get people better at fighting characters they don't like, or balancing characters that may need it.

I don't like the idea of being able to tell someone they can't play their main just because I'm bad at fighting them. That does nothing to improve my play, it's just a toxic little bandaid over my own skill issue. It's grade-school ♥♥♥♥. I'd rather me and my opponent be rewarded for switching it up, or incentivized to do so, and not be forced to do so because either one of us is a salty little ♥♥♥♥♥.

Do something like make a random character on the roster give +25-50% experience in the second/third round of a set, or give a blanket +25-50% experience for choosing Random. Give coin bounties for playing a character that you don't often play, with a +20% bonus reward if you win the round. If you lose a lot to a certain character, make a system where that character is your 'Rival', and defeating them boosts the xp reward, or gives you coins/bucks

Do something to encourage people to diversify their playstyle and get good, rather than coddle them and let them ignore their issues.

[Enyu]

Originally posted by Calamity Heart:

As much as I would like to never fight Clairen again, I'd rather support the push to get people better at fighting characters they don't like, or balancing characters that may need it.

I don't like the idea of being able to tell someone they can't play their main just because I'm bad at fighting them. That does nothing to improve my play, it's just a toxic little bandaid over my own skill issue. It's grade-school ♥♥♥♥. I'd rather me and my opponent be rewarded for switching it up, or incentivized to do so, and not be forced to do so because either one of us is a salty little ♥♥♥♥♥.

Do something like make a random character on the roster give +25-50% experience in the second/third round of a set, or give a blanket +25-50% experience for choosing Random. Give coin bounties for playing a character that you don't often play, with a +20% bonus reward if you win the round. If you lose a lot to a certain character, make a system where that character is your 'Rival', and defeating them boosts the xp reward, or gives you coins/bucks

Do something to encourage people to diversify their playstyle and get good, rather than coddle them and let them ignore their issues.

thats an interesting take on it. Ofcourse if you describe it like that it sounds bad and like the easy way out. But same could be said for people who just look up who is in meta and spam the ♥♥♥♥ out of that character which happened, and as soon as that character got nerfed you saw people switching to the next annoying character. I don't know i clearly see and understand the opposite opinion aswell. I still like to just have the conversation about it. And your suggestion does feel like a healthy middle of this debate.

edit: I really like your suggestion as a good solution on this. :D

[Poole [>'']>]

you unfortunately need to learn bad matchups