So, I want to generalize the 3S discussion into something productive. Let me start with what Viscant said about banning for balance. (Not the correct term, I will get into that)
It is certainly true that when you ban the best thing, the next best thing then becomes the best thing. However what Viscant’s post failed to acknowledge is that there can be hugely varying degrees between how much better the best thing is.
What is strange is that the longest-played tournament SF game does in fact ban for balance. Which is not controversial at all. In fact, stranger still is that the banning of Akuma was largely pre-emptive.
“Banning for balance” is the wrong term. What players want to avoid is degenerate situations. These occur when a very tiny sliver of the total game takes over the entire game. In ST if Akuma were playable the game would degenerate into an Akuma-fest. In Magic:The Gathering affinity decks caused a degenerate environment where affinity was far and away the best deck and every contender had to either be affinity or specifically counter it. In Madden online for the PS2 the game devolved into pick a quaterback who can run and swap between bootlegs and deep passes. (Or so I am told - no personal experience there)
My point is that there will always be Magic decks better than others, or Madden strats better than others. But you can still talk about the health and diversity of the Magic environment or of Madden teams and tactics.
Why is it that we have no problem banning Akuma in ST when Akuma has not really proven to be an issue? How many people have played in a lot of tournaments that were ruled by Akuma? Not many. The ST community chose early on to ban Akuma for the health of the game. Yes we shy away from making those decisions in other games.
Clearly banning something like RCs is troubling in that they are impossible to detect, can be done by accident, etc. But banning characters, grooves, super arts, throwing dip settings around - these are easy to enforce, impossible to err by accident, impossible to get around on the sly.
Capcom does not release version updates, only sequels. (This is not quite true but close enough) As players we can make up for that. When rules are horribly broken we can adjust them.
MVC2 has an upper tier, but the game is not degenerate. Even among a ton of Mags you can see a lot of different tactics. Some players go for resets, some go for sure damage, some use a lot of snapbacks, some will combo into tempest, some into shockwave. There is variety.
Chun-Li in 3S is about a 50% damage low forward. That is her entire game. Every Chun plays almost the exact same as every other Chun. Yun is about abusing his super as well. Again nearly every Yun plays the same.
The problem with 3S is not that 3 characters are the best. The problem is that the game is defined by literally 3 moves. It is impossible to watch a Chun vs. Chun top 8 match and not realize that something is horrible wrong. Even someone who knows nothing about fighting games can recognize the problem with an entire game based around landing one move out of a total of hundreds.
I don’t want this to be an anti-3S thread. The point of this is to get people to rationally look at why we don’t ban certain things. The reasons people give are:
1: If it’s in the game, it’s in the game.
We can change the rules all we want. Akuma is in ST.
2: Banning things is not "playing to win."
If the thing being banned is banned for everyone, it does not affect whether or not you are playing to win at all. You can still do everything in your power, within the rules. Some would say not abusing glitches is not playing to win. The point is playing to win is defined within the rules.
3: The creators intended it to be this way.
Who cares? This doesn’t matter.
Again, think of ST Akuma. He is selectable in the arcade. Clearly he is in the game. We ban him for only one reason - the health of the game demands it. And the game is better for it. Imagine someone saying what Viscant said above, about Akuma: “You can either get used to it or play something else.” Rather than the simple step of banning Akuma we can simply allow a great game with one tragic flaw to be ruined?
Rules change in competitive endeavors all the time. When was the last year a rule in football or baseball didn’t change?
As players we have the ability to alter the rules, not the make a game “easier” but to make it healthier. And we know altering the rules for the health of the game can work.
This is about more than should be ban RCs or should we ban Chun-Li or her super art. My question is this:
We know that banning things for the same of game health should work, and we already do that in the longest running tournament SF game. So why are people so opposed to the same thing in other games?