> If you're worried about the game stagnating, don't be; if someone only knows one strategy, they're not going to get very far in a tournament anyways. The more choices there are in the tournament, the more adaptive you have to be to win, not less adaptive.
Bans are really only useful if something is truly and completely broken; and that's not something that one should see in a game. If a game can only be fixed by removing characters, it's a sign that the underlying game is flawed and in need of serious repairs. I don't feel Sentinel Tactics is a bad game, and certainly not bad enough that we need to talk about allowing character bans. Yes, some characters may need a little tweaking, but forcing people not to use characters that they've bought and paid for is just asinine.
...And don't even get me started on TCGs which take the banning approach...
> Woah, don't immediatly rush to table-flipping hostility just because someone disagrees with you!
Huh? I displayed no hostility; someone was refusing to address my points, and I made it known that I wasn't going to waste time on such, and promptly dropped the conversation. After years of debating on the internet, I've found that if people continuously gloss over your posts without actually addressing them, they're generally not going to get the point after a second or third attempt, and it's better to just move onto the next person.