A New Take on Banning Meta-Knight

[Pazx]

Well, I hope it's new, anyway.

This proposal aims to encourage people who use Meta-Knight as a main or secondary to continue using him but not to become one trick ponies.

Since tournament matches are usually played in best of 3 or best of 5 formats and people are bored of seeing a MK heavy metagame, I propose that we impose a usage limit on certain characters (ie, MK, although an argument could be made for ICies or whoever else). The proposal is:

In a best of 3 set, players must switch characters after winning a match with Meta-Knight and are not permitted to re-use MK until the set is complete (however if they lose they are permitted to continue playing MK until they win a match or lose the set).

In a best of 5 set, MK players must switch characters after winning 2 matches with Meta-Knight and are not permitted to re-use him until the set is complete (however they are permitted to use MK until they win twice or the set is complete).

With this system in place, we would see less MK dittos and therefore less planking, scrooging, camping, and most importantly less Mach Tornado.

inb4 "no johns" + "brawl is ded lol"

 

[Pazx]

Alternate suggestion (+bump)

Limiting players to USING Meta-Knight once in a BO3, or twice in a BO5, regardless of whether they win or lose. This would encourage players not to pick MK in the first game of a set against another MK main, and would allow for even more guessing games when it comes to double blind picks. Input would be appreciated.

 

[DeLux]

I'm not going to close it, but I don't see this thread going anywhere good just by the nature of MK ban discussion. I'll be watching like always though

 

[Thor]

My own personal thinking was to change the stagelist and make special striking rules for MK vs non-MK. I have no idea how popular this idea is, but I'll offer it here:

Stagelist: neutrals = standard stuff (BF, FD, Lylat, Yoshi's, SV).
CPs [for all]: Pokémon, Halberd (I think Castle Siege is too, I don't particularly like it but whatever].
CPs [special rules about these]: Deflino [I think this is still banned... could be put here anyway], Frigate, Rainbow Cruise, Brinstar (? may have been banned for more than MK), Jungle Japes (? this stage's reasons for banning in Brawl were shaky from my understanding - based on false info), potentially other stages (I may be missing some stages that were not terrible stages, I'd have to think).

The special category operates differently.

Players get 2 bans, or one ban in a best of 5. However, if the opponent is using Meta Knight, the player banning stages may opt to use one ban to ban any number of the stages that are in the "special rules about these" category.

Pros:
- Stages that MK is dominant on/skew the matchup baldy are still easily removed from the selection process against an MK player
- If a stage is really good for MK and another player, the non-MK may opt to leave it open for picking if they want to, or pick it themselves if it is not banned
- Wider stage list for sets without MK, making ICs less dominant, among other characters
- Functionally doesn't shrink the stage list for any MK mains except those who hate all the stages in the non-standard category, a likely very small subset of MK players (because either the opponent bans 2 normal stages or one normal stage and some amount of non-standard stages, and normally one stage is banned from normal stages anyway, so they don't end up down stages they like unless they hate RC, Delfino, Frigate, and other stages that might be in this category, which seems very unlikely) [or in Bo5, they get all the regular stages, like normal when there are no bans].
- Wider stage list may attract more viewers (it probably can't hurt, especially considering one example where a doubles match took place on one of the default custom stages - the number of viewers rose, contrary to what the commentators figured would happen).
- More?

Cons:
- There would need to be a rule in place for dealing with someone who lost picking a strong MK stage and switching to MK (is this legal? Do players get to change a ban and/or must declare the intention to switch to MK if they want to pick a stage from the non-standard category? I think if winner switches, the loser sort of trapped themselves, so to speak, much as how a Falco or Fox who picks FD must switch to a backup or tough it out if the opponent switches from MK (or anyone) to ICs. But loser switching is a vastly different ballgame, since the rules didn't permit the mass banning that would occur if the player had known they were fighting MK in the first place.)
- There might be a few upset MK mains, mad that people can take them to stages where they don't do as well, but that seems rather silly to me, given that they play the undisputed [by knowledgeable players] best character in the game, and because they will still have all the stages they normally get... and they can still ban one or two of the non-standard stages that hurt them the most. This downside seems mostly irrelevant, but I thought I should at least acknowledge it.
- More? I can't really think of any...

I don't know if limiting the number of times one can pick Meta Knight in a set would actually help... it MIGHT, and depending on your local play group, may be exactly what is needed to attract more people/have a healthier tournament scene in general (i.e. not drive current people away either), but I don't know if that actually helps long-term. In some ways it strongly advantages people who never chose to main Meta Knight in the first place, because they never have to switch off their main, but it may very well be a workable idea.

 

[popsofctown]

It sounds like the goal here is to revitalize Brawl by removing Meta Knight, without screwing Meta Knight mains too hard.

I think running low tiers is a better way of doing that. Not banning Meta Knight = Meta Knight main wins, banning or restricting him = folks who invested time in nonMK brawl top tier wins, MK main loses. Low tiers = no one has invested tons of time in these characters, MK mains and Snake mains have equal chance.

Just a suggestion. If you want to revitalize Brawl at this point the best angel is a sneak attack like that that makes players feel like maybe it would be fun to enter the Brawl side event, and then the next one and then maybe it gets serious...

 

[popsofctown]

*angle not angel. Pit is the best angel.

 

[WindMajor]

My vote is to ban Metaknight and screw over all the Metaknight mains.

 

[Taytertot]

I don't play MK but, I see no reason to ban him just because MK is better then the rest. I find that having metaknight completely unrestricted gives me a unique opportunity to be challenged. As a marth player, and I realize that marth isnt one of the characters that has a true issue with MK as others do but, I don't like the idea of taking the MK challenge out of the game. Yes he's f***ing awesome in the MU's, but without MK, we as a community are not trying to rise to beat the character that everyone sets the bar at. Why is Will such a good Donkey Kong player? He beats tons of players who use characters with high advantages against DK. Why is Mekos a great lucas player? he can stand up to other characters with a low tier and win (especially in doubles, though I suppose you could argue for a separate tier list for doubles). My point is that most of the AMAZING players are amazing because they are good enough as players to win against the odds of characters like MK, which means they HAVE TO outplay them.

Do we not value the idea of the extra skill required in winning tourneys as characters other then MK? If you don't like MK don't play him, but allows those of us out there who WANT to win an uphill battle a chance to have to be smarter and more clever then our peers.

 

[PedroSmashFan2014]

Vote for no ban, or some rules that restrics the players into playing MK too many times in a row, or just to win.

 

[L∈O]

MK should always be banned entirely...

He breaks Brawl's counterpick system, it's awful...

I also support special counterpicks for stages like Frigate Orpheon and Delfino Plaza, but not for Rainbow Cruise 'cause I guess it's an exaggerated stage...

In relation to limiting number of times which MK can be picked, it could be helpful for sure, but maybe not that much, can't affirm anything...

 

[PedroSmashFan2014]

MK should always be banned entirely...

He breaks Brawl's counterpick system, it's awful...

I also support special counterpicks for stages like Frigate Orpheon and Delfino Plaza, but not for Rainbow Cruise 'cause I guess it's an overdone stage...

In relation to limiting number of times which MK can be picked, it could be helpful for sure, but maybe not that much, can't affirm anything...

maybe some sort of win limit, like after MK wins x times, the player can´t pick him anymore until he loses.

 

[L∈O]

maybe some sort of win limit, like after MK wins x times, the player can´t pick him anymore until he loses.

Until he loses? For what?

Then the guy picks MK once again, and has at least a decently higher chance of winning than his opponent, specially considering that it would be his counterpick...

 

[PedroSmashFan2014]

Until he loses? For what?

Then the guy picks MK once again, and has at least a decently higher chance of winning than his opponent, specially considering that it would be his counterpick...

So I keep to my original idea, that is, banned him temporaly if he goes on a winning streak or someone picks him just to get an easy win.

 

[Lukingordex]

Why are your guys thinking about ways of just "limiting" him? Ban him already and allow Brinstar as CP to nerf Ices by forcing them to ban this stage so they can be CP'd in BF.

 

[infiniteV115]

BF isn't really a CP against ICs, it's arguably their best stage in a lot of MUs.

Ontario has recently been running the Neo Canadia ruleset, which is essentially

7 starters (5 standard + PS1 and Siege)
6 Counterpicks (Delfino Frigate Halberd PS2 Brinstar Rainbow Cruise)

And a set of clauses (below) that basically prevent you from being taken to a CP by an MK player, but you can't force the opponent off of MK by taking them to a CP.

- If loser of last game was playing MK, he can stay MK or switch if he takes you to a starter. If he takes you to a CP, he has to switch off MK
- If loser of last game wasn't playing MK, he can take you anywhere, but if he takes you to a CP he can't switch to MK
- If winner of last game WASN'T playing MK, and he is taken to a CP, he cannot switch to MK
- If winner of last game was playing MK, he can stay or switch character regardless of where the loser takes him

If last game was an MK ditto, any stage can be CP'd (ie the above 4 clauses are ignored)
2 bans per player. DSR. Gentlemen's Clause, which overrules DSR.

And doubles is kept the same (we use the Apex 2013 stagelist) cause doubles is fine.

I'd rather just ban MK entirely but at least in my region that'd probably cause some drama, and afaik not all of our non-mk mains support the MK ban. Also MK isn't really a big problem here cause our MK mains prefer the more starter-esque stages, and there aren't many of them, and I beat them all anyway

 

[L∈O]

Ontario has recently been running the Neo Canadia ruleset, which is essentially

7 starters (5 standard + PS1 and Siege)
6 Counterpicks (Delfino Frigate Halberd PS2 Brinstar Rainbow Cruise)

And a set of clauses (below) that basically prevent you from being taken to a CP by an MK player, but you can't force the opponent off of MK by taking them to a CP.

- If loser of last game was playing MK, he can stay MK or switch if he takes you to a starter. If he takes you to a CP, he has to switch off MK
- If loser of last game wasn't playing MK, he can take you anywhere, but if he takes you to a CP he can't switch to MK
- If winner of last game WASN'T playing MK, and he is taken to a CP, he cannot switch to MK
- If winner of last game was playing MK, he can stay or switch character regardless of where the loser takes him

If last game was an MK ditto, any stage can be CP'd (ie the above 4 clauses are ignored)
2 bans per player. DSR. Gentlemen's Clause, which overrules DSR.

And doubles is kept the same (we use the Apex 2013 stagelist) cause doubles is fine.

Damn, that's a quite interesting ruleset. Never seen one like this...

I'd rather just ban MK entirely but at least in my region that'd probably cause some drama, and afaik not all of our non-mk mains support the MK ban.

Yeah, do what if there are some masochists like them? LOL...

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I think it's too early to ban MK. We should give other characters time to envolve their metagame to see if we can find any potential countpicks against him.

 

[Lukingordex]

Why do you always post a Growlithe at the end of your posts? just wondering.

 

[L∈O]

It's an Arcanine...

 

[Elegant]

I think it's too early to ban MK. We should give other characters time to envolve their metagame to see if we can find any potential countpicks against him.

This is the brawl forums bud, not Smash Wii U/3DS

 

[L∈O]

Don't worry, he's just being ironic...

 

[Baby_Sneak]

Ban MetaKnight