Should DLC be temporarily banned from tournaments like mk9/inj not mkxl

[STB Shujinkydink]

Don't ban them. Everyone has access to the character and can use them. I think it hurts the community as a whole. I think what we should be focusing on more is communicating with NRS. I'm sure they'd rather not fund a 10k pot bonus to see 8 of the same character. We should find a way to communicate with them and have changes made quickly

 

[Second Saint]

1 month should be good. Wasn't that actually about how long Predator had before he got major tournament play? Dropped at the beginning of July, wasn't allowed at Evo, and had to wait until the next tournament, which was...mid August?

Didn't stop him from being busted, but people had some idea of what they were up against at least.

 

[Crusty]

What did I just read?

Are people really suggesting just move the tournament date? That's the most unrealistic response I've read so far on banning dlc.

 

[CrazyFingers]

Also, the idea of moving an entire major for one game is idiotic at best.

 

[SM StarGazer]

If DLC comes out a least ONE MONTH before Evo I think it should be allowed.

 

[SM StarGazer]

4 straight weeks os enough time to practice a DLC character in regards to MU knoweldge for your mains. 1 month or bust.

 

[Zoidberg747]

Out of all the DLC characters of the past 3 games there are maybe 3 or 4 that weren't completely broke on release. A lot of them even had game-breaking glitches as well (Hello Freddy...)

They should be banned at all majors a minimum of one month, possibly up to two. I don't see an issue with that.

What we need to understand though is that it may not 100% be up to us. If NRS is giving those 10k pot bonuses and they want their DLC on display, they'll probably get the DLC unbanned. Mr. Wizard has also been against banning pretty much anything in the past (he's relaxed a little bit though) so thinking that he'll allow a ban on ALL DLC for the first EVO is a bit optimistic in my eyes.

As far as talk of who is going to decide whether they are unbanned or not, I don't think we should leave any room for subjectivity. If the character has game-breaking bugs and glitches (Think Freddy's projectile glitch) then keep them banned until that is hotfixed. Otherwise, you should let it rock.

The chance of NRS not patching a character within one month of release is slim anyway, but even if they didn't patch them one month is plenty of time to lab against the character and figure out the basics of fighting them. If they end up being the best character in the game...then so be it. I just feel like if we try and argue over whetehr someone should be "unbanned" any really good DLC will never be unbanned because people won't want to deal with gaining another bad MU or whatever. Maybe i'm just being cynical but I feel like that's what would happen.

 

[untitledsix]

MK9: Sonya, Kenshi, Freddy
Injustice: Zod, Sinestro, Bane
MKX: Mileena, Demo Sonya

These are some examples of super strong characters that didn't have their potential unlocked until a considerable length into the games life. So I wouldn't say the good stuff gets found early.

I'd say the basic stuff gets found early.

None of those were deserving of a ban though.

 

[colby4898]

The characters are available for anyone to use, it should not be banned.

 

[SonicFox5000]

I think about 2-3 weeks is fine. An entire month is a little too harsh and 2 months is outta the question. By that point wed have more than 1 dlc character to look into. I think they should be banned based on relativity to X tournament. Ex:
Char releases may 20th
Tourny is may 28th
Ban
Vs
Char releases may 20th
Tourny june 14th
Dont ban.
I am a strong believer that 2 weeks is more than enough time to learn a single character, especially with a community as a whole

 

[EMPEROR PRYCE]

Unless there is some kind of circuit being ran that leads up to a final. Sorta like CPT then DLC should be fair play.

It's not our fault nrs can't bring out new characters without them being game breaking, but it's a disservice to the people who purchase the season passes if they can't use these characters when they travel to do so. It's also a disservice to the viewers, which without a lot of this wouldn't be possible, or at least to the point it's at now.

The whole viewers don't matter/stream monster thing is bullshit. NRS wouldn't be throwing 10k a tournament without the proper viewership and advertising they get from it. Which probably still doesn't add up to cover it all, but it helps. And people don't purchase the skins to help fund the pot bonuses so they can HEAR about who won. They purchase them so they can SEE it live. In that regard the viewer is almost as important as the people competing and it's wrong to not credit them.

I say DLC should be fair game unless they are released a week or 2 before a tournament hosting a NRS funded pot bonus. And even still I believe it should be NRS that has the say so on whether the character should be legal or not.

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

So does a DLC character that releases day 1 with the rest of the cast, for example Dark Seid or Goro count? I mean they are technically DLC, but if they release day 1 then they should be allowed in any tournaments I believe. They are in the same boat as any other non-DLC character that released day 1

No because they're not really true DLC

They're marketing ploys to encourage Pre orders but in the end everyone gets goro/darkseid

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

My main question about this is, "What happens when that period is over? Who decides what stays or goes?"

The reason I ask is, the community often hasn't been on one accord about a character *until that character's prowess was on display in a tournament*. Before then we get rumors, rebellos, sone people saying it's broke, other people saying they can deal with it and everyone else needs to level up, and there's often no patch (or a minor patch that doesn't completely address the issue).

Then the tournament itself ends up being the catalyst that gets everyone on the same page.

So my question to @Pig Of The Hut, @A F0xy Grampa @PLAYING TO WIN and others, is if you really think that after a 1-month period of not having a character displayed in tournament, that this community can honestly come together and make a coherent and firm decision that is clearly communicated to TOs about whether the DLC will be allowed (if it hasn't been patched to everyone's satisfaction yet). The community's history says no.

Remember that both Tanya and Scorpion received earlier nerfs, and that only after the non-vanilla versions caused a major ruckus were they nerfed again into their final forms. It's food for thought.

Well in the case of alien I would say released in march fixed in October.

Freddy was released in aug fixed in Oct

Everything we knew about why these two were a problem was found instantly by most tournament players. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out

We all knew these needed to be fixed

 

[Pig Of The Hut]

I think about 2-3 weeks is fine. An entire month is a little too harsh and 2 months is outta the question. By that point wed have more than 1 dlc character to look into. I think they should be banned based on relativity to X tournament. Ex:
Char releases may 20th
Tourny is may 28th
Ban
Vs
Char releases may 20th
Tourny june 14th
Dont ban.
I am a strong believer that 2 weeks is more than enough time to learn a single character, especially with a community as a whole

But the problem w this logic is the problem characters mentioned were not fixed within the two weeks

Nrs releases wb products busted at key times and they have to make them OP for sales because no one wants to buy an underpowered character . To coincide w a new Freddy movie Freddy came out around that time and he was busted

If they're identified as OP or busted then they should be banned until fixed

 

[SonicFox5000]

But the problem w this logic is the problem characters mentioned were not fixed within the two weeks

Nrs releases wb products busted at key times and they have to make them OP for sales because no one wants to buy an underpowered character . To coincide w a new Freddy movie Freddy came out around that time and he was busted

If they're identified as OP or busted then they should be banned until fixed

Well obviously. End this should be applied for any character TBH. If a character has a block infinite/infinite right off the bat, that character should be soft banned. Same with DLC. If theres anything thats considered ban worthy, then ill happily stand behind it and ban it. If they are just really good, im all about them staying because I want to see HOW they are really good etc etc. Now if we only had like a week to find out why, sure ban em etc. But a month seems too excessive. I just think that if there are two majors coming up, the dlc char should be banned at the first one if its within less than two weeks of that tourny and should be allowed for the next major right after that.

 

[SM StarGazer]

But the problem w this logic is the problem characters mentioned were not fixed within the two weeks

Nrs releases wb products busted at key times and they have to make them OP for sales because no one wants to buy an underpowered character . To coincide w a new Freddy movie Freddy came out around that time and he was busted

If they're identified as OP or busted then they should be banned until fixed

I agree. Gamebreaking mechanic are a nogo like Sonic said. However its all time dependent for me.

Let's say Spawn gets release 3 weeks before Ceo or Evo. He shouldnt be banned unless he has gamebreaking unblockables or glitchy hitboxes. Stuff that MUST be fixed. But if he has something like...a mid thats really strong or an extremely plus string then he shouldnt be banned. Not unless said 0lus frames make it so you stuck with no way out.

As long as the character can be beaten, with acutal.skill and not because patches killed them, then I see nothing wrong with taking the time out to learn and counter said character.

But were also not looking for another Tanya....Gooddamn please dont let that happen again NRS....fuck I still have nightmares.

@Anyone hold me.

 

[SM StarGazer]

Well obviously. End this should be applied for any character TBH. If a character has a block infinite/infinite right off the bat, that character should be soft banned. Same with DLC. If theres anything thats considered ban worthy, then ill happily stand behind it and ban it. If they are just really good, im all about them staying because I want to see HOW they are really good etc etc. Now if we only had like a week to find out why, sure ban em etc. But a month seems too excessive. I just think that if there are two majors coming up, the dlc char should be banned at the first one if its within less than two weeks of that tourny and should be allowed for the next major right after that.

Oh by the way Im coming for you. I dont know when. I dont know how. But if someone doesnt end your streak before I get to you Imma be hunting that ass. Till then....you have been warned.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Well in the case of alien I would say released in march fixed in October.

Freddy was released in aug fixed in Oct

Everything we knew about why these two were a problem was found instantly by most tournament players. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out

We all knew these needed to be fixed

But remember, there was no ban on any MKX character.

I rember before CEO people were still saying "You guys need to level up and lab it more, find solutions" about Tanya. It wasn't until after CEO that the holdouts finally broke down and admitted how ridiculous she truly was -- and then it still took months and two patches to completely fix her.

Which again begs the issue... If it's been a month, and the character is still not fixed (highly likely if they haven't been seen in a tournament during that time), who decides what happens then?

And is the community capable of making a consesus decision about what to do after the month is up, collectively, and relating that to TOs in a clear fashion?

 

[coolwhip]

The thing is, we actually knew in some cases, but there were some people arguing that said characters were fine for whatever reason. Case in point: the multiple Scorpions in Top 8 at CEO 2013.

Along those lines -- do you still think Scorpion was ok simply because he didn't win?

That's a nice way to attempt at distorting history in order to come off as being right.

The problem with the narrative at the time isn't that people were simply asking for Scorpion to be banned early on until we can decide if he's really broken or not.

They wanted him banned UNTIL he gets nerfed, no matter how long it took...all the while accepting Pre patch Superman and Black Adam.

So yeah, I'm sure you can tell the difference between the above, and this thread's legitimate premise.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

That's a nice way to attempt at distorting history in order to come off as being right.

The problem with the narrative at the time isn't that people were simply asking for Scorpion to be banned early on until we can decide if he's really broken or not.

They wanted him banned UNTIL he gets nerfed, no matter how long it took...all the while accepting Pre patch Superman and Black Adam.

So yeah, I'm sure you can tell the difference between the above, and this thread's legitimate premise.

This is proving my point.

Imo if the character isn't fixed in that timeframe, the month ban doesn't do much good.

And then, if the community can't decide whether a character is broken or not (like with Scorpion), then taking a month just to end up with a split opinion and send a mixed message to TOs, isn't that great of an outcome either.

If you're honest with yourself, the likelihood of split opinion is even greater before a character has been seen in tournament play (and it's been this way with most Injustice and MKX DLC).

We're basing this on the assumption that the whole community can come to a common agreement on whether a DLC character is ok or not, after 3 weeks to a month, without having seen that character in tournament play. History says this will end up in controversy and confusion.

This is the reason I ask these questions.

 

[Azarashi Elder]

Unless there is some kind of circuit being ran that leads up to a final. Sorta like CPT then DLC should be fair play.

It's not our fault nrs can't bring out new characters without them being game breaking, but it's a disservice to the people who purchase the season passes if they can't use these characters when they travel to do so. It's also a disservice to the viewers, which without a lot of this wouldn't be possible, or at least to the point it's at now.

The whole viewers don't matter/stream monster thing is bullshit. NRS wouldn't be throwing 10k a tournament without the proper viewership and advertising they get from it. Which probably still doesn't add up to cover it all, but it helps. And people don't purchase the skins to help fund the pot bonuses so they can HEAR about who won. They purchase them so they can SEE it live. In that regard the viewer is almost as important as the people competing and it's wrong to not credit them.

I say DLC should be fair game unless they are released a week or 2 before a tournament hosting a NRS funded pot bonus. And even still I believe it should be NRS that has the say so on whether the character should be legal or not.

I disagree with any opinion that says fans / viewers are owed broken DLC characters in tournament, either to use or watch. No way.

When you buy a season pass, you know exactly what you're getting, which is the game, the skins, the characters and what have you. No where in the purchase agreement, does it state that you have the right to see broke-A$$ shenanigans in tournament, okay... Just like you don't have the right to see every character being used. If they're weak or not viable, no one is going to play that character and they don't have to cater to your wishes in order to get that character on stream.

Yes, tourneys are advertising, there's no doubt about that, but so are twitch streams and YouTube videos. If a character is banned for a month or two, that isn't the end of the world. The game will still sell like hotcakes anyway.

Besides, the tournament viewership is a Fraction of the paying customers . Most of the fans are deep into story mode and couldn't care less about Dragon or PL. If you buy the game, you're buying a product and you're not entitled to any sort of tourney footage or any footage at all.

Plus, your wishes, as a spectator, do not trump the wishes of the people going out to the tourneys. Without those people there IS NO friggin tourney, okay? If you're playing in a tournament and you want a character to be legal, fine. Go to the organizer and state your case.

But I say, in all seriousness, if you're a stream monster / fan/ viewer whatever, you've got to fall back and respect the wishes of the people that are putting on that show.

 

[coolwhip]

This is proving my point.

Imo if the character isn't fixed in that timeframe, the month ban doesn't do much good.

And then, if the community can't decide whether a character is broken or not (like with Scorpion), then taking a month just to end up with a split opinion and send a mixed message to TOs, isn't that great of an outcome either.

If you're honest with yourself, the likelihood of split opinion is even greater before a character has been seen in tournament play (and it's been this way with most Injustice and MKX DLC).

We're basing this on the assumption that the whole community can come to a common agreement on whether a DLC character is ok or not, after 3 weeks to a month, without having seen that character in tournament play. History says this will end up in controversy and confusion.

This is the reason I ask these questions.

This indeed proves the point you raised in this thread, which is valid, and I agree with it. But, the way you phrased your question implied, at least to me, that you thought the Great Scorpion Scare of 2013 was justified in full, and that's a topic we've thoroughly discussed before so I didn't see the point of rehashing it.

 

[ForeverKing]

2-3 weeks ban sounds good to me. Also you kind of have to see a character play in tournament to see how good they are, so it doesn't make sense to ban somebody for too long when tier lists and how good a character is and things like that are all opinion

 

[CrimsonShadow]

This indeed proves the point you raised in this thread, which is valid, and I agree with it. But, the way you phrased your question implied, at least to me, that you thought the Great Scorpion Scare of 2013 was justified in full, and that's a topic we've thoroughly discussed before so I didn't see the point of rehashing it.

The point I was making was that different people view these things in different ways (even years later) -- and thus that coming to one solid community consensus about what to do after 3-4 weeks is tough and we should really think this through.

I wanted to make sure we still disagreed, and it seems we do (I think Scorpion and his CEO-era meta was patently ridiculous).

But the broader point is that this is why it's hard to have the community collectively 'decide' when something is too bad to let fly in tourney (especially with no tournament matches/results to reference during a hypothetical 1-month ban).

Also you kind of have to see a character play in tournament to see how good they are

This is partly what I'm afraid of. Usually no one ever agrees about how ridiculous DLC characters are until they see them in tournament play.

 

[SHAOLIN]

Since nobody brought this up I guess could say something: Why can't this be consider a soft ban? Ban the DLC character for a month from Regionals and Majors, anything goes for Locals and Casual play.

Sounds like a plan to me.