I can't believe that we get banned for targeting.

[x_Super_Nova_x]

It's called strategy, Nintendo.

 

[Splooshi Splashy]

There's been 1 question I had about this since day 1 of the 3DS release: Does this include FG or even FF Teams? Because if so...
*SHUDDERS at the VS , VS , and VS MUs that can happen there, where one of the best strategies for dealing with those there as , , and is letting the partner handle it for over 50% of the match*

 

[Deleted member]

Getting banned for targeting 1 person happens to me every now and then :/

 

[1FC0]

Yeah good thing it does not happen in FG 1v1 though.

 

[Tino]

It's called being too aggressive. It's quite fair, honestly. I don't do it at all myself because I respect the people I play against unless they decide to be disrespectful to me or others.

 

[1FC0]

It is not fair. FFA's cannot be fair. They are just messing around. They are not competitive.

Also it is not called being too aggressive. Aggressive means that you attack a lot, not that you target one player. You can get banned for targeting while a more aggressive player does not get banned because he is aggressive against everyone.

Neither is it disrespectful. It is just a game, and FFA is not even competitive. How disrespectful can you be in a game that is only suitable for just messing around?

 

[Deleted member]

I think a rule like this was implemented after Basic Brawl. In that mode, some players will unfairly target one opponent; this ban was created to prevent something like this from occurring.

I do sympathize because I do find it better to attack one opponent at times in free-for-alls. At the same time, if you wouldn't get banned for attacking one opponent, then we would see some 1 vs. 3s in For Fun and For Glory.

 

[InfinityAlex]

Maybe not an intention, but a byproduct seems to be a lot less "friendlies" online.

 

[Maysoon]

It's called being too aggressive. It's quite fair, honestly. I don't do it at all myself because I respect the people I play against unless they decide to be disrespectful to me or others.

Seriously, it isn't called being "too aggresive." And it isn't fair, if it strategically better to eliminate a target asap then you should do it. The person playing the character should've known what they were getting themselves into by picking a good double character. People aren't gonna stop being competitive so I think people should just deal with it. Go play FF if you don't want to get rekt by people who know how to win.

 

[InfinityAlex]

And then there's the whole "Chasing two rabbits scenario". It's hardly bullying, so I don't see why Nintendo has a problem with it. I myself would like to know how such a system works. What criteria justifies a player being "targeted"?

 

[Hitzel]

IMO it's pretty dumb simply because often your best chances of winning come from taking out a specific player, especially since your opponents lose points when you KO them in FFA's.

 

[Maysoon]

Because Nintendo aims to be player friendly and is trying to appeal to their younger audience the most. The only reason why FG exists is because of Melee and the birth of competitive smash. Not trying to discredit Sm4sh though. But I think that Sakurai experiences conflict of interest with the games. Nintendo wants to cash in on the competitive scene, but Sakurai wants to focus on the party aspect, thus causing issues like this to arise.

 

[Brinzy]

It is not fair. FFA's cannot be fair. They are just messing around. They are not competitive.

Also it is not called being too aggressive. Aggressive means that you attack a lot, not that you target one player. You can get banned for targeting while a more aggressive player does not get banned because he is aggressive against everyone.

Neither is it disrespectful. It is just a game, and FFA is not even competitive. How disrespectful can you be in a game that is only suitable for just messing around?

I'm pretty sure I had this discussion with you before.

Just because free-for-all has a literal meaning in the real world doesn't mean Nintendo is fine with you targeting one player for two minutes. It was most likely put in the game to counteract those dumb taunt parties from Brawl that would jump on the one person who actually wanted to fight and not taunt, but it also works nicely to deal with players that refuse to fight two other players in a FFA.

 

[Hitzel]

I'm pretty sure I had this discussion with you before.

Just because free-for-all has a literal meaning in the real world doesn't mean Nintendo is fine with you targeting one player for two minutes. It was most likely put in the game to counteract those dumb taunt parties from Brawl that would jump on the one person who actually wanted to fight and not taunt, but it also works nicely to deal with players that refuse to fight two other players in a FFA.

The problem is that this punishes people who have legit reasons to focus fire on a single player.

 

[Brinzy]

The problem is that this punishes people who have legit reasons to focus fire on a single player.

Not to play devil's advocate or anything, but what situation would you find yourself in where you would need to focus one player?

I mean I guess if that player is winning really hard, then it's probably because the others are giving him or her easy kills, so you could fight them while taking the easy kills yourself to deny them...

Furthermore, if they have a really high score to begin with... there's a good chance that you aren't targeting them for two minutes. Maybe you started focusing them after 45 seconds. That's not even half the match, so Nintendo wouldn't do anything about that, presumably.

I can't think of any other situation, really.

 

[Hitzel]

Not to play devil's advocate or anything, but what situation would you find yourself in where you would need to focus one player?

I mean I guess if that player is winning really hard, then it's probably because the others are giving him or her easy kills, so you could fight them while taking the easy kills yourself to deny them...

I can't think of any other situation, really.

Focusing people who are winning like you said, to prevent other players from getting kills, etc. And there are also games that naturally turn into isolated 1v1's without it being BM.

If an entire lobby is consistently attacking one person all game without ever attempting to hurt each other, even when it's in their best interest, I can see temp bans being warranted, but me focusing down players for tactical reasons isn't ban worthy.

 

[Brinzy]

Focusing people who are winning like you said, to prevent other players from getting kills, etc. And there are also games that naturally turn into isolated 1v1's without it being BM.

If an entire lobby is consistently attacking one person all game without ever attempting to hurt each other, even when it's in their best interest, I can see temp bans being warranted, but me focusing down one player for tactical reasons isn't ban worthy.

It could be Nintendo's way of saying to play 1v1 if you want to 1v1. I don't necessarily agree with this idea, but that's a possibility.

However, I doubt simply focusing down one player who is winning is considered ban worthy, because it takes time for that player to be winning. Usually whenever I am winning in FFAs, I don't start getting focused until after the first minute has passed... and nobody has had a problem with this as far as I know.

I would not be surprised if the games that get flagged for this type of behavior get replays sent to Nintendo. They probably watch the game to see what really happened. I wouldn't ban anyone for what you are describing, but I would ban someone for only targeting one player over the course of basically the entire match while deliberately not attacking others.

 

[1FC0]

I'm pretty sure I had this discussion with you before.

Just because free-for-all has a literal meaning in the real world doesn't mean Nintendo is fine with you targeting one player for two minutes. It was most likely put in the game to counteract those dumb taunt parties from Brawl that would jump on the one person who actually wanted to fight and not taunt, but it also works nicely to deal with players that refuse to fight two other players in a FFA.

Where did I say that FFA's literal meaning in the world has anything to do with it? Nice strawman.
You may find taunt parties lame, but some people find them fun. They could say that you ruin it for them.

And how is targeting one player showing disrespect? Smash is made for fun, so why all the etiquette? If you honestly get offended by the way that people play in a party game then I think that you should lighten up.

 

[Brinzy]

Where did I say that FFA's literal meaning in the world has anything to do with it? Nice strawman.

And how is targeting one player showing disrespect? Smash is made for fun, so why all the etiquette? If you honestly get offended by the way that people play in a party game then I think that you should lighten up.

You didn't actually directly say it, but that's the core of your argument - this is referencing the last time I had this discussion with you as well as in this thread.

FFA's cannot be fair. They are just messing around. They are not competitive.

This basically means that because FFAs aren't competitive (to you) and that they're just messing around (to you), then whatever happens should just happen and players shouldn't be punished for targeting one player in a FFA.

Also I never said I was offended by the way people play. I also never said that I found what people did to be disrespectful. I'm just putting up a theory as to why Nintendo bans for this. You're right, Smash is made for fun - so if you're deliberately (and potentially) ruining someone's fun by targeting only them in a free for all, then you're part of the reason why Nintendo monitors this to begin with.

There's a difference between targeting a player who may be winning and simply jumping on just one player for the entire two minute match while ignoring the other two players.

You may find taunt parties lame, but some people find them fun. They could say that you ruin it for them.

If the point of smash was to sit around and spam taunts all day while attacking anyone who doesn't play by someone's dumb arbitrary rules, then you might have a point.

However, it's not... so interrupting the fun of someone's taunt party is not remotely the same as ganging up on one player who actually is trying to win. If you want to have a taunt party, get together with your friends and mash taunt in your own games. It has no place online and nobody is going to defend you if your party gets "ruined."

 

[1FC0]

Still keeping the strawman up? Are my real arguments that good?

And spamming taunts or spamming attacks what does it matter FFA's are mindless anyway.

 

[Yorsh]

I'm pretty sure I already saw the exact same thread...

There is 4 "reasons" to hard-focus a player :
- He is better than the others. Well, he is better than you, so he deserves to win. Play better and you will win. Also, focusing him won't make you win, only makes him loose.
- He annoys you for some reason. Same thing, you don't want him to win. That's harassment and punishable.
- He is bad and easy to kill. I admit, it works, but...do I really need to explain why you shouldn't ?
- Because your strategy is to focus one player until he dies. Ok, why not. Once you killed him, just go for the opponant with the highter %, and you are fine.

 

[Purin a.k.a. José]

I think this is to avoid Taunt Parties, but somehow it does not make sense. Taunt parties are already impossible to do (maybe dancing and stuff), and Strategy is a thing. What if I am trying to avoid one guy who targets, but can't hit me and smashing him when trying to get other guys? If I can't get them but only hit him, why should I get banned and not him?

 

[Kodachi]

This doesn't happen on 2v2 does it lol

 

[Splooshi Splashy]

As someone who frequents FG Teams the most out of all the other rooms in FG, because of how uncommon it is for fighting games to have team battles of any sort (ex. the Yu Yu Hakusho fighter for the Sega Genesis, Bleach DS 1 & 2, PS All-Stars, etc.), I'm actually concerned about whether or not excessively targeting one person gets you temp banned in FG Teams, because some MUs can be very bad for some characters (ex. VS , VS , etc.), and FG Teams is one of those rooms where you can have a partner that can help you deal with those bad MUs.

For example, the & VS & teamups. 's Flare Blitz gets easily stuffed by 's arsenal (especially Cans & non-shot-up Clays), which wants around when his Gordos get easily reflected by 's arsenal (especially Gunmen), which can help cover 's other approaches when he tries to get in on .

From that example, during a part of the match where the two teams are seperated from each other, Dedede would prefer to focus on Charizard for over a minute than Link, since Charizard is not as good at reflecting Gordos as Link is, unless the dog is close by to cover the King with his arsenal when he approaches Link. Likewise, Charizard would rather focus on Dedede than Duck Hunt for over a minute, since the King is not as good as DH is at stuffing FB, unless Link can cover the Flying Fire type with his arsenal when he approaches the dog. If the heavyweights get their wish, then that leaves DH to focus on Link, which is definitely an even-ish MU that could tilt in Link's direction, depending on how fearless he is in letting the Hylian Shield block Gunshots and raw Clays and not pressing non-block buttons as he walks towards the dog.

Of course, part of the fun/thrill of team battles is the jockeying of focuses and positions. Whose team gets their desired MUs and positions? Can Triple D single out Charizard, or will Link be in position to actively stand in the King's way? Can Duck Hunt be there for the King when his Gordos get sent back to him? Will Link be able to clear the path for Charizard to Flare Blitz the dog when he's at KO percent?

So I ask again: Is it possible for someone to get temp banned for excessively targeting one person in FG or even FF Teams? If the answer is yes, then one of the appeals of team battles might just go away....

 

[Sucumbio]

I play FG Teams all the time, never happened to me once (banned that is - I focus a player all the time. It's a fairly common strategy in teams).

 

[Altea77]

I get kicked unreasonably often... It's really as simple as one player coming after me, I kill him, and then before I move on to someone else, he re-spawns and comes right back after me. I fight back, and boom, i'm kicked.

If the point of smash was to sit around and spam taunts all day while attacking anyone who doesn't play by someone's dumb arbitrary rules, then you might have a point.

However, it's not... so interrupting the fun of someone's taunt party is not remotely the same as ganging up on one player who actually is trying to win. If you want to have a taunt party, get together with your friends and mash taunt in your own games. It has no place online and nobody is going to defend you if your party gets "ruined."

Taunt parties are just a way some people like to play. Just because it's not the "point" of smash, doesn't mean you should be forbidden from doing it if it's fun to you. So by that logic, I suppose for example, that we are not allowed to goof off in Legend Of Zelda games? We are not allowed to run around Kakariko village and pass time in between dungeons? We must go immediately from dungeon to dungeon? Because after all, the point of LOZ is to beat the dungeons... Now you see how stupid that "not the point of smash" argument is.

You're also completely misunderstanding why people like taunt parties. Taunt parties with friends would severely decrease the amount of fun had. The fun in taunt parties is communicating and interacting with random people. Taunt parties with friends would get stale quick. When you play with friends, you want to fight them, because you know them, and competition is more appealing with people you know personally. You want to be the best out of your friends. Online though, there are so many people, with very little personnel behind them, that fighting them could easily feel just like fighting CPU's if you don't interact. Taunt parties add replay value to online. Mindlessly fighting a bunch of random, practically nameless people in timed matches with no benefit for winning gets old quick. Taunt parties give a way to interact, and add many more options of things to do in matches, because of Smash's flexibility. I mean jumping around and using cool moves over and over is pretty fun in itself for a while, but the interaction through it is the real reason taunt parties are still around.

 

[Altea77]

ignore double post

 

[Brinzy]

Taunt parties are just a way some people like to play. Just because it's not the "point" of smash, doesn't mean you should be forbidden from doing it if it's fun to you. So by that logic, I suppose for example, that we are not allowed to goof off in Legend Of Zelda games? We are not allowed to run around Kakariko village and pass time in between dungeons? We must go immediately from dungeon to dungeon? Because after all, the point of LOZ is to beat the dungeons... Now you see how stupid that "not the point of smash" argument is.

Except LoZ is largely 1-P and doesn't involve online interaction in a game mode where the objective is to KO as many players as possible while avoiding KOs.

Your comparison is totally stupid.

 

[Altea77]

Except LoZ is largely 1-P and doesn't involve online interaction in a game mode where the objective is to KO as many players as possible while avoiding KOs.

Your comparison is totally stupid.

You missed the entire point of the comparison then, if you think it was stupid. The point was in both games, you aren't doing what the game intends you to do. Stating that LOZ is one player, and smash is about KOing people really has nothing to do with anything I am saying. It's totally irrelevant.

 

[Brinzy]

You missed the entire point of the comparison then, if you think it was stupid. The point was in both games, you aren't doing what the game intends you to do. Stating that LOZ is one player, and smash is about KOing people really has nothing to do with anything I am saying. It's totally irrelevant.

Except it is entirely relevant, because if someone who randomly joins the game doesn't want to be a part of your taunt party and you gang up on them, you are banned for targeting. This rule was put in place for people with this hard-headed mindset that they can do whatever they want to anyone, even if that makes the game miserable for someone else.

This is absolutely, positively different from screwing around in a 1P game. You can say I missed the point all you want, but the connection that you've repeatedly failed to make is in online smash, you're forcing someone to either play by your arbitrary rules or you and those with you will gang up on them for not spamming taunts with you. Nobody cares what you do in a 1P game.

If you want to have a taunt party with people, go for it. Taunt and run around in circles. It's when you gang up on someone and form alliances over several games just because they didn't want to taunt with you that is the problem.

Given all the responses in this thread from people who aren't getting this, it is no wonder Nintendo had to come up with this rule.

 

[Altea77]

Except it is entirely relevant, because if someone who randomly joins the game doesn't want to be a part of your taunt party and you gang up on them, you are banned for targeting. This rule was put in place for people with this hard-headed mindset that they can do whatever they want to anyone, even if that makes the game miserable for someone else.

This is absolutely, positively different from screwing around in a 1P game. You can say I missed the point all you want, but the connection that you've repeatedly failed to make is in online smash, you're forcing someone to either play by your arbitrary rules or you and those with you will gang up on them for not spamming taunts with you. Nobody cares what you do in a 1P game.

If you want to have a taunt party with people, go for it. Taunt and run around in circles. It's when you gang up on someone and form alliances over several games just because they didn't want to taunt with you that is the problem.

Given all the responses in this thread from people who aren't getting this, it is no wonder Nintendo had to come up with this rule.

I never once said anything about ganging up on people who don't taunt party with us. You literally had to put words in my mouth to make your argument work. I'm talking strictly about people who say you shouldn't taunt party at all, because it's not the point of the game, not people who get mad because they get teamed up on for not taunt partying. That's an entirely different issue then the one I was addressing. For the issue I was specifically addressing, my comparison worked perfectly fine. You're fighting an imaginary battle at this point.

 

[Brinzy]

I never once said anything about ganging up on people who don't taunt party with us. You literally had to put words in my mouth to make your argument work. I'm talking strictly about people who say you shouldn't taunt party at all, because it's not the point of the game, not people who get mad because they get teamed up on for not taunt partying. That's an entirely different issue then the one I was addressing. For the issue I was specifically addressing, my comparison worked perfectly fine. You're fighting an imaginary battle at this point.

If that's not what you're talking about, why did you quote me talking about something else entirely?

You see, if you never responded with nonsense, this would've never happened.

 

[Altea77]

If that's not what you're talking about, why did you quote me talking about something else entirely?

You see, if you never responded with nonsense, this would've never happened.

If the point of smash was to sit around and spam taunts all day while attacking anyone who doesn't play by someone's dumb arbitrary rules, then you might have a point.

Is what I made the comparison to, but actually you're right. I completely glanced right over the part where you said "while attacking anyone who doesn't play by someone's dumb arbitrary rules" so I guess you were in the right to assume I was talking about that. I made the comparison specifically to the part where you said "If the point of smash was to sit around and spam taunts all day".

 

[Brinzy]

Is what I made the comparison to, but actually you're right. I completely glanced right over the part where you said "while attacking anyone who doesn't play by someone's dumb arbitrary rules" so I guess you were in the right to assume I was talking about that. I made the comparison specifically to the part where you said "If the point of smash was to sit around and spam taunts all day".

Oh I see.

Sorry, let's be friends.