A URC members thoughts on the Metaknight Ban

[Player-1]

Yes I do because:
1. Characters have more to offer to the game than stages, at least IMO. So characters get priority over stages IF they're adding competitive depth to the game which MK isn't (IMO)
2. Community would also favor stages being banned before characters (this also relates back to point 1 though). Community input does have a say in rules and stuff, they're just not the end all, be all.
3. You also start getting a chain effect of bannable characters, which again relates back to point 1.

and again, can we stop bringing melee into this? We're not the melee community, and personally, I'm not familiar with the game enough to give good responses to questions regarding it except maybe in some aspects.

 

[Cassio]

Considering theres a limited amount of characters that do well on and happen to be the best at both stages, I doubt things will change. Even advocates for rainbow cruise have admitted its a time out stage, shiz is gonna be gay with or without MK.

 

[Ripple]

bizkit vs M2K was anything but gay except for the 20 seconds when the ship was there each time sinc e M2K just planked.

 

[Player-1]

PS1 is also a timeout stage with or without MK

 

[Ghostbone]

Considering theres a limited amount of characters that do well on and happen to be the best at both stages, I doubt things will change. Even advocates for rainbow cruise have admitted its a time out stage, shiz is gonna be gay with or without MK.

Work your *** off to get an SWF poll that the URC will consider for the legality of Rainbow Cruise then.
It's what we had to do to get MK banned...

 

[Yink]

I would have liked to see Brinstar and maaaaybe RC banned nation-wide before this decision was struck.

If I may:

I very much agree with this statement, but I think it should be flipped. I think I'd enjoy seeing RC banned before Brinstar and see how it goes.

I feel bad I didn't use this at my last tournament.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

If I may:

I very much agree with this statement, but I think it should be flipped. I think I'd enjoy seeing RC banned before Brinstar and see how it goes.

I feel bad I didn't use this at my last tournament.

You may indeed, so long as I may ask for clarification. My reasoning is a few posts back. What makes you dislike RC more than Brinstar?

 

[Cassio]

PS1 is also a timeout stage with or without MK

Theres no significant call for ps1 to be banned. I was just making an observation as to why public opinion would be unlikely to change.

In regards to bizkit vs m2k you may recall that the first thing youd hear when people talked about its outcome wasnt how gay m2ks tactics were, nor even how gay MK was, but rather how gay it was they were playing on RC.

 

[Yink]

You may indeed, so long as I may ask for clarification. My reasoning is a few posts back. What makes you dislike RC more than Brinstar?

We're all friends here, haha. I think my reasoning is, frankly, probably terrible, but we'll see what you think.

I see a lot of talk about "keeping one over the other" instead of banning both. If I had to look at the stage from purely a character standpoint, wouldn't Brinstar be better for more characters, even if MK was not present? I'm talking characters who would willingly go to Brinstar. I've seen:

Ness, Lucas, ROB, Peach, Fox, Wario, GaW

Now for RC, what characters would willingly go here? I'm not as versed in the stage as I am with Brinstar because I have a Ness bias lols because I typically ban RC against MK instead of Brinstar.

This might be totally irrelevant to everything and if it is, sorry I wasted your time.

 

[Cygnet]

I'm just an amateur, so I don't know how acceptable my ideas sound, but I think that RC and Brinstar should be banned because some characters just can't play on those stages regardless of who the other character is, MK or not.

RC and Brinstar are polarizing to the point where you'd have to pick up a whole new character just to cope with the existence of those stages (like Mike did, although that was tied with MK..... more like how every IC player can't be a pure IC player), and in that case, the stage overpowers the character, making it more of a "who can deal best with the stage" instead of "who is better with their respective characters." Just by virtue of choosing another character, you'd be increasing your performance on that stage more than increasing your real skill would.

And obviously, character skill should be more important than coping with a stage when it comes to competition.

(I think RC exhibits this more than Brinstar, but that's just my opinion..... and I'm not a pro player by any sense of the word, so my opinion isn't too valid at all.)

So.... I guess the stages should've been banned first and THEN MK because that would've been from least drastic to most drastic in terms of changing the metagame. The less you can change the WHOLE metagame while eliminating the problem, the better, right? Assuming that characters are more important than stages.

 

[Dr. Tuen]

We're all friends here, haha. I think my reasoning is, frankly, probably terrible, but we'll see what you think.

I see a lot of talk about "keeping one over the other" instead of banning both. If I had to look at the stage from purely a character standpoint, wouldn't Brinstar be better for more characters, even if MK was not present? I'm talking characters who would willingly go to Brinstar. I've seen:

Ness, Lucas, ROB, Peach, Fox, Wario, GaW

Now for RC, what characters would willingly go here? I'm not as versed in the stage as I am with Brinstar because I have a Ness bias lols because I typically ban RC against MK instead of Brinstar.

This might be totally irrelevant to everything and if it is, sorry I wasted your time.

It's not a bad argument, though I enjoy hearing out as many viewpoints as I can, so idk how valid I am on this discussion either.

But from what I understand, I am arguing against random elements (the acid timing and height) and you are arguing for character diversity (more characters would go to brinstar without MK).

To be fair though, we were discussing the idea of banning these stages before a MK ban. If MK were retained, then your argument doesn't hold up as well. Both stages may be retained without MK... who knows. I just would have liked to seen more large events held without them.

 

[Cassio]

Another note: people were more willing to add new stages than they were willing to keep RC or Brinstar, although adding new stages was still a minority. Once again all regardless of MKs existance and other ruleset changes.

 

[Yink]

It's not a bad argument, though I enjoy hearing out as many viewpoints as I can, so idk how valid I am on this discussion either.

But from what I understand, I am arguing against random elements (the acid timing and height) and you are arguing for character diversity (more characters would go to brinstar without MK).

To be fair though, we were discussing the idea of banning these stages before a MK ban. If MK were retained, then your argument doesn't hold up as well. Both stages may be retained without MK... who knows. I just would have liked to seen more large events held without them.

I suppose it's more so for me thinking of it a little more abstractly? If that makes sense. If you ban one from the rules, then the other will be banned in play during your matches if need be. I'm a little confused as to who really, besides MK (because I'd think Wario and GaW would prefer Brinstar over RC, but I don't main them so I could vary well be wrong) makes you go "Well, I better ban RC!"

I'm mostly just saying "If we really have to ban at least one, think more about the characters who utilize the stages". I can't argue anything about the acid on Brinstar (there's a guide for the acid patterns, and the stage does give you imo fair warning).

It was just something on my mind.

 

[Gardex]

You want to ban RC before Brinstar against G&W.

Seriously.

 

[Yink]

And there's where I was wrong, sorry dude.

 

[DeLux]

I don't think specific natural elements of the game are mutually exclusive towards one another (characters and stages).

The existence of Metaknight or Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar, while related, does not necessitate the nonexistence of the other.

Given they are both natural elements of the game, the best solution would augment, amend, abase or abolish the artificial criteria that precedent and status quo have created in a way to save and preserve as many natural elements as possible. The natural elements of the game are, by in large, not the problem. The tournament procedural system we implement could use some work as it is overwhelmingly problematic.


TLDR: Just as Anti-Ban would say removing Metaknight is not the answer, I would also say that removing Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar is also not the answer. Simple answers rarely solve complex issues in terms of policy implementation.

 

[Tommy_G]

Picking up Pit to ledge camp and time out all of you dumb *****es since I'd imagine "there'd be no need for the lgl"

Obv MK is the only reason why some of these rules are in place(banning certain stages and the LGL)

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[Marc]

Wait... so, backing up a minute here.

By the URC's logic, if the URC were to create a Melee ruleset, they would opt to legalize Peach's Castle, Onett, and Mushroom Kingdom 2, but then ban Fox?

Does anyone think that makes any sense??? That's like the most extreme thing I ever heard.

This.

You guys might not like Melee, but the fact is that the Melee community has not been effectively split into two and is still going relatively strong while the Brawl scene is already in decline after three years. The Melee scene had the choice between banning stages and banning the characters that broke them (Fox most notoriously) and always went with the stages.

This is besides the fact that most regions outside of the US banned both Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar because of the stages themselves, not Meta Knight. I'm not saying banning those stages is a definitive answer to MK placing a lot, but it's not exactly like anyone can say it's the opposite either. As it stands, it was never given a shot and the regions without those stages don't have a MK problem. Just consider this: in Europe MK's best counterpick is probably Delfino and I'm pretty sure there is a better character for every other CP stage.

Also, MK is only used in less than 1/5 of tournament matches in the US? The ****? In most Melee tournaments I enter these days like half my bracket matches involve Falco (and I'm one of few people who don't play the character at all...). Considering the complaints and legal CPs I'd expect like 40-50%. Not even going to bother with the money data anymore, but this was actually new to me.

 

[Judo777]

Tbh if IC's weren't so hard to pick up, I don't see why every player in the community WOULDN'T pick up IC's for FD. Like if characters like Diddy and Falco don't even want to fight them there that's a big deal. And tbh I think that IC's on FD is pretty freaking comparable to MK on RC or Brinstar.

GW and Wario don't mind fighting MK on RC (no of course no one would CP him there probably) at least not more than they already hate fighting MK in general. In fact I might be wrong but I believe that GW prefer fighting MK on RC as opposed to a few other stages, and GW is bottom of high tier. However NO ONE wants to fight IC's on FD.

I think the real reason why its seen as a problem is because MK is already way too good and people get mad at him getting better on a CP. IC's on the other hand aren't too good and have bad stages outside of their autowin CP.

MK and IC's are both top tiers with basically autowin CP's. The difference? IC's aren't near as good as MK in general.

Also 1/5 of every game is a whole freaking lot. Like out of a 37 character game? 1 in every 5 is MK? that is a freaking ton. And the people who don't play him regularly don't regularly win much money, with a few exceptions.

And concerning money, yea I'm sure that there are several people who main characters and second MK and give him extra money on splits. You know what I see more of at tournaments? People who claim they main one character, but when push comes to shove MK is out on the field, then at the end of the day "well but fox is my main" when everyone knows what character they got their victory with. I see this stuff happen all the time (not trying to name call people) but people will post results in a sheik thread of them taking money with her, they have their main with sheik right behind it and when asked we hear "I used sheik against a fox player for 1 set and a bowser player for 1 set."

Not name searching or trying to call him out because he is a spectacular player but he is a perfect example. Atomske frequently uses a few other characters in tournament. He is known for having a very notable D3 and a surprisingly good Wolf. But Atomske is an MK/IC main. His great achievments are formed around that combo (which btw he earns because he is good and IC's are hard to play). However I bet he has contributed a hefty amount to D3 and Wolfs money winnings because he played D3 or Wolf for a few games when his MK could have easily taken the win (obv not always true). I see cases like this WAAAAAAYYYYYY more often then I see the converse (where someone uses MK for some obscure very insigificant match and wins and they try to slap MK to the back of their characters).

Most of the time when MK is busted out its really important, which should have a VERY LARGE say in where money goes. If I only use MK in GF's where I win $1000 and play Sheik the rest of the tournament should we just be like "well he only used him for ONE set......"

 

[Marc]

Final Destination should probably not be a starter, but even outside of that stage I think ICs are quickly gaining momentum. The top 3 in Japan is ICs-Olimar-ICs and many US top players seem to at least secondary them now... and that's with the most liberal stage list by far. Their matchup spread is still up for debate, but at this rate they can only get better. I mean, they do this well while people still drop CGs and even former bad matchups like Snake are now arguably even.

 

[Cassio]

I don't think specific natural elements of the game are mutually exclusive towards one another (characters and stages).

The existence of Metaknight or Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar, while related, does not necessitate the nonexistence of the other.

Given they are both natural elements of the game, the best solution would augment, amend, abase or abolish the artificial criteria that precedent and status quo have created in a way to save and preserve as many natural elements as possible. The natural elements of the game are, by in large, not the problem. The tournament procedural system we implement could use some work as it is overwhelmingly problematic.


TLDR: Just as Anti-Ban would say removing Metaknight is not the answer, I would also say that removing Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar is also not the answer. Simple answers rarely solve complex issues in terms of policy implementation.

lol, youre trying to say this now after so much has been banned and rules created? While Id normally agree that we shouldnt attempt to mess with the game, at this point thats become the essence of the smash community and theres really no reason to not eliminate problematic issues aside from ideology that we clearly dont follow (or unless we srsly looked into a lot of other things thatve been banned). Not to mention banning the stages would solve the problem rather quickly.

Go take a look at Praxis' argument from the last MK ban movement. Removing things we dont like is the ideology we follow.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I've said this 1000 times with varying degrees of length and politeness, but the bottom line is we only serve ourselves, and this idea that anti-pan is peddling --that there is a correct answer to any Smash-related problem -- is laughable fiction. There is no morally correct answer. There is no logically correct answer. We can argue over ideology all day, and that's fine, but let's get a few things straight:

We can ban whatever and whoever we want with no respect to any statistics or precedent. This works because this is a community where, generally-speaking, logical thought and intelligence prevails over emotional whims, and we are generally pretty conservative with how we handle decisions. If you disagree and point to the MK ban as a counter-example, I would then point to the previously-held four polls and large amount of data collected on the same subject. It took us three years to do something at least half the community wanted the entire time. We didn't submit to emotional whims just because a decision was made.

We have that right as a community! We have the right to do whatever we want to make sure everyone is having fun at the end of the day. If you don't think "fun" matters because it is subjective, maybe you have a point, but just to be sure, a community poll was held and it turns out that a supermajority of players of every level held the subjective view that for whatever reason, the game is more fun without Meta Knight as a factor.

If you think you have a right to ask this large majority to continue to allow Meta Knight because of some fictional moral or "competitive" standard, you are sorely mistaken and are going to be incredibly disappointed. What we want is all that matters.

 

[Raziek]

Are people missing the concept that while MK is used around less than 1/5th of the time, he's making almost half the money?

And, you know, making it farther in bracket than most of the other characters? Just because less than 1/5th of the players are using him doesn't mean he's only showing up in 1/5th of the matches.

 

[DeLux]

lol, youre trying to say this now after so much has been banned and rules created? While Id normally agree that we shouldnt attempt to mess with the game, at this point thats become the essence of the smash community and theres really no reason to not eliminate problematic issues aside from ideology that we clearly dont follow (or unless we srsly looked into a lot of other things thatve been banned). Not to mention banning the stages would solve the problem rather quickly.

Go take a look at Praxis' argument from the last MK ban movement. Removing things we dont like is the ideology we follow.

I hear what you're saying, but whether or not removing the two stages will fix the MK "problem" isn't a certainty. There's been evidence to suggest that the issue isn't just the two stages standing as counterpicks, but rather the problem extends throughout the whole system.

Without a clear indication of what will and won't work to solve an issue, it becomes even more imperative to appeal to the central values when formulating the ruleset. In my opinion, deferring to the status quo in terms of systemic selection processes is a poor value that the community wants the ruleset to adhere to. Ironically, appealing to a system synchronized for competitive neutrality gets trumped by the status quo in terms of political feasibility.

If it were up to me, I'd synchronize the neutrality of the system and then evaluate what to do from there. But doing so would require casting out a good 1/3rd of the ruleset.

 

[zmx]

I've said this 1000 times with varying degrees of length and politeness, but the bottom line is we only serve ourselves, and this idea that anti-pan is peddling --that there is a correct answer to any Smash-related problem -- is laughable fiction. There is no morally correct answer. There is no logically correct answer. We can argue over ideology all day, and that's fine, but let's get a few things straight:

We can ban whatever and whoever we want with no respect to any statistics or precedent. This works because this is a community where, generally-speaking, logical thought and intelligence prevails over emotional whims, and we are generally pretty conservative with how we handle decisions. If you disagree and point to the MK ban as a counter-example, I would then point to the previously-held four polls and large amount of data collected on the same subject. It took us three years to do something at least half the community wanted the entire time. We didn't submit to emotional whims just because a decision was made.

We have that right as a community! We have the right to do whatever we want to make sure everyone is having fun at the end of the day. If you don't think "fun" matters because it is subjective, maybe you have a point, but just to be sure, a community poll was held and it turns out that a supermajority of players of every level held the subjective view that for whatever reason, the game is more fun without Meta Knight as a factor.

If you think you have a right to ask this large majority to continue to allow Meta Knight because of some fictional moral or "competitive" standard, you are sorely mistaken and are going to be incredibly disappointed. What we want is all that matters.

Fine, let's assume your logic makes sense. Whatever the community (majority) wants should always happen.

Most brawl players are not competitive but casuals. In fact, the majority don't even see it as a competitive fighter. They find the idea itself laughable. However they are still part of the smash community. The biggest part.

Therefore, by your own logic, brawl is not a competitive game, we should host no serious tournaments or do anything of the sort. No tier lists, no rules, items on etc.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Fine, let's assume your logic makes sense. Whatever the community (majority) wants should always happen.

Most brawl players are not competitive but casuals. In fact, the majority don't even see it as a competitive fighter. They find the idea itself laughable. However they are still part of the smash community. The biggest part.

Therefore, by your own logic, brawl is not a competitive game, we should host no serious tournaments or do anything of the sort. No tier lists, no rules, items on etc.

First things first: this "only casuals wanted him banned" routine doesn't get less wrong the more you say it.

Second: get real. Brawl wasn't designed to be a competitive game. It's a party game and there's a game buried in it somewhere that we enjoy playing competitively, and there's nothing with that. We stripped out the elements that are, by popular opinion, contrary to this goal and play what's left to see who's the best. I'm not alone when I say we could definitely do a better job of figuring out which elements work. Maybe I'm more alone when I say I think the URC does a pretty good job at reacting to and fixing problems in the rule set quickly and effectively so bad things don't happen more than a few times. Maybe we should be voting more.

Third: your point doesn't even make sense. We didn't consult any casuals. Real casuals don't post here or care to vote. New accounts were locked out of the poll and there were precautions taken to control who voted, this of course completely ignoring the fact that good players wanted him banned too.

 

[zmx]

75% if people voted pro-ban.

I'm going to go ahead and say this number isn't as accurate as one thinks. This is because pro-banners are a lot more active and assertive about their opinion than anti-bans. People that want change will always shout louder than those content with the way it is. It's just the nature of it.

So someone like me, that's anti-ban (though not strongly), and doesn't care at all that much since I don't see it affecting me too much (was developing MK as a secondary but w/e) wouldn't have voted in the first place. Also, since a lot of people think polls are interesting (but ultimately meaningless) again, they might not have bothered to vote.

Just my two cents on that particular statistic.

As a side note let's hope the new metagame doesn't result in Ice Climber dittos in every GF. That would be horrible. I'm sure even the most assertive pro-banners would rather watch MK dittos.

 

[zmx]

First things first: this "only casuals wanted him banned" routine doesn't get less wrong the more you say it.

Second: get real. Brawl wasn't designed to be a competitive game. It's a party game and there's a game buried in it somewhere that we enjoy playing competitively, and there's nothing with that. We stripped out the elements that are, by popular opinion, contrary to this goal and play what's left to see who's the best. I'm not alone when I say we could definitely do a better job of figuring out which elements work. Maybe I'm more alone when I say I think the URC does a pretty good job at reacting to and fixing problems in the rule set quickly and effectively so bad things don't happen more than a few times. Maybe we should be voting more.

Third: your point doesn't even make sense. We didn't consult any casuals. Real casuals don't post here or care to vote. New accounts were locked out of the poll and there were precautions taken to control who voted, this of course completely ignoring the fact that good players wanted him banned too.

I think you misunderstood my post. I probably wasn't clear. I'll try again.

I'm saying casuals make up most of the smash community. I don't think anybody can deny this unless they are arrogant enough to claim that they are not part of the community.

Since according to you we need to do what the majority wants, we need to consult the casuals for every important decision and how brawl is supposed to be played. That's because in this case they ARE the majority.

But this of course is absurd and not what the smash community does. Therefore your argument (whatever the majority wants should be the case) doesn't hold water.

 

[Tesh]

This blog is extremely disappointing now...

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I think you misunderstood my post. I probably wasn't clear. I'll try again.

I'm saying casuals make up most of the smash community. I don't think anybody can deny this unless they are arrogant enough to claim that they are not part of the community.

Since according to you we need to do what the majority wants, we need to consult the casuals for every important decision and how brawl is supposed to be played. That's because in this case they ARE the majority.

But this of course is absurd and not what the smash community does. Therefore your argument (whatever the majority wants should be the case) doesn't hold water.

I'm not talking about a majority, I'm talking about a supermajority, and even though it doesn't matter, I can satisfy you by repeating once again that a supermajority of top 100 players wanted him banned too. We don't even need to consult casuals to make this decision.

 

[Player-1]

Wait... so, backing up a minute here.

By the URC's logic, if the URC were to create a Melee ruleset, they would opt to legalize Peach's Castle, Onett, and Mushroom Kingdom 2, but then ban Fox?

Does anyone think that makes any sense??? That's like the most extreme thing I ever heard.

uhhhh, I don't know where the **** you got that from seeing as how I said nearly the exact opposite. Can you...like....stop acting like jebus and strawmanning everything?

 

[Ripple]

Zmx, why are you even arguing with sfp when you KNOW EXACTLY what he means?

 

[ElDominio]

75% if people voted pro-ban.

I'm going to go ahead and say this number isn't as accurate as one thinks. This is because pro-banners are a lot more active and assertive about their opinion than anti-bans. People that want change will always shout louder than those content with the way it is. It's just the nature of it.

So someone like me, that's anti-ban (though not strongly), and doesn't care at all that much since I don't see it affecting me too much (was developing MK as a secondary but w/e) wouldn't have voted in the first place. Also, since a lot of people think polls are interesting (but ultimately meaningless) again, they might not have bothered to vote.

Just my two cents on that particular statistic.

As a side note let's hope the new metagame doesn't result in Ice Climber dittos in every GF. That would be horrible. I'm sure even the most assertive pro-banners would rather watch MK dittos.

Assuming this was true...
So?

Is it pro-ban's problem that they actually DID something? It's not pro-bans fault anti-ban couldn't/didn't want to properly defend their stance. I guess it's just how democracy works isn't it?

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[Cassio]

lux i see what you mean, but I have more to say later.

I've said this 1000 times with varying degrees of length and politeness, but the bottom line is we only serve ourselves, and this idea that anti-pan is peddling --that there is a correct answer to any Smash-related problem -- is laughable fiction. There is no morally correct answer. There is no logically correct answer. We can argue over ideology all day, and that's fine, but let's get a few things straight:

We can ban whatever and whoever we want with no respect to any statistics or precedent. This works because this is a community where, generally-speaking, logical thought and intelligence prevails over emotional whims, and we are generally pretty conservative with how we handle decisions. If you disagree and point to the MK ban as a counter-example, I would then point to the previously-held four polls and large amount of data collected on the same subject. It took us three years to do something at least half the community wanted the entire time. We didn't submit to emotional whims just because a decision was made.

We have that right as a community! We have the right to do whatever we want to make sure everyone is having fun at the end of the day. If you don't think "fun" matters because it is subjective, maybe you have a point, but just to be sure, a community poll was held and it turns out that a supermajority of players of every level held the subjective view that for whatever reason, the game is more fun without Meta Knight as a factor.

If you think you have a right to ask this large majority to continue to allow Meta Knight because of some fictional moral or "competitive" standard, you are sorely mistaken and are going to be incredibly disappointed. What we want is all that matters.

lol, im sorry but your ideology here is just incorrect. I used to think like this about most things though, so I understand why youd want things to be this way, but youre living outside reality.

Same goes to you eldominio.

 

[Ripple]

No, you didn't say the exact opposite. M2K pointed out how Melee always chose to ban overcentralizing stages rather than characters, but you said "we're not the melee community". Implying that if the Brawl community were to make a Melee ruleset, it would ban Fox.

So what if we were to do it? Would it be any different than what we are doing now to people?

People won't agree on everything together.

you're just meatriding the melee community because their general philosophy agrees with yours ( banning stages over characters) and calling us extreme because we aren't following them

 

[Xubble]

lol, im sorry but your ideology here is just incorrect. I used to think like this about most things though, so I understand why youd want things to be this way, but youre living outside reality.

And you don't give a reason as to why it is wrong. Can you elaborate, cause I'm completely agreeing with SFP.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[Smooth Criminal]

The biggest thing is finding evidence supporting that RC and Brinstar should be banned to start with.

Anyone care to elaborate on how we go about doing that...?

Smooth Criminal