Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
I'd certainly say that, assuming my idea of "add more counterpicks and stage bans" is taken into consideration, then removing metaknight's ability to ban stages, or more than one stage, would retain stage viability, retain character viability, and not even nerf characters against metaknight.
Play diddy first game.
If I could gather a collection of "high-level" metaknight player data, see how often they won on their counterpicks in terms of losing on them, and it resulted in something reasonable--then maybe. It would have to be after they lost game 1, however, for it to prove anything meaningful because the starter stages are supposed to be the median of bias. If metaknight is winning on his counterpicks almost consistently despite the opponent already having 1 stage ban, yet losing on starter stages and game 3 of every set, what does this tell you? Not even a character so versatile like Wario would come up with reoccurring data like that.
This.
Unless you know who your opponent is going to play (example, if you know it's TKD and you pull out your pocket Pika), MK is on average the best option by a fairly decent margin--as he has the best MU spread.
(slight edit, full disclosure)
Srsly. Free Jungle Japes. Although I disagree on the ban thing. Did you read the thing I put in collapse tags?
>implying that MK is everyone's best character.
Metaknight is beatable as is with all the rules we've placed on him already.
100% dominance isn't possible and isn't needed to ban him. and just because top players lose doesn't mean anything. top MK players usually lose to other top MKs.The point? He isn't winning 100% of the tournament money because he isn't an unstoppable force of God. There have been numerous instances in Brawl history in which top MKs lose to players using other characters, and because of that, we know that he's not dominant enough to warrant any more special treatment. Any more additional MK-restricting rules wouldn't be because they're actually warranted, but because they're wanted to make the character easier to deal with.
the BBR should reach a definition on this term in case MK starts taking home more money than he is now
Pray for someone listening to your claims.
That's not what I was trying to say though.
I'm listening, but I'm only in the BBR and not the BBRRC.
lol the BBR doesn't have that many top players.
because most were elitest *******s who felt that their opinion mattered more than everyone else because they won more
um so top players are elitist because they don't believe in similar game principles?
Its the same as how a solder may be fantastic in combat but not fit to make diplomatic choices regarding war.
this isn't slavery
Obviously this is not slavery but that was not the point of my statement about slavery. The intention was to illustrate that simply because the system has worked in the past and people accept it, that does not justify the system.
There IS a way of playing this game that is objectively better than any other way, backed up by years of competitive game knowledge, and that is the one most liberal supporters, well, support.
I have heard BPC making reference to some sort of proof that liberal rulesets are "objectively better" however I have yet to see this proof. How can a ruleset be "objectively better"? "better" is such an opinion based standard.
