"Ban completely or ban nothing"

[theunabletable]

no it isn't. you start playing another character and move on. if MK gets banned so be it, but I don't want to be handicapped with silly superfluous rules like "you can only CP neutrals" because everyone thinks he's too good but doesn't want to just man up and ban him.

If you don't want to be handicapped with "silly rules" then pick up another character.

I'm fine with playing with "silly rules" if it makes the character I play and have practiced with and spent time on un-broken and not banned.

That makes absolutely no sense. Why should I be unable to play the character I've practiced with just because you would rather not have be handicapped by "silly rules"? If you don't want to be handicapped by those rules, and are already willing to pick up another character if MK gets banned, don't play the character they apply to.

It makes no sense to drag down the people who ARE willing to play with those rules.

 

[etecoon]

If you don't want to be handicapped by those rules, and are already willing to pick up another character if MK gets banned, don't play the character they apply to.

why would I play anyone else when I can play MK and still have no disadvantaged matchups? xyro's stage rule doesn't make MK any less of a ******** character than he is, it doesn't really serve anyone's best interests.

if you think that MK needs to be handicapped then you're admitting that he's too good, in which case a ban is in order anyway.

 

[theunabletable]

why would I play anyone else when I can play MK and still have no disadvantaged matchups?

Then play as MK.

But if only CPing to neutrals changes him from bannable to non-bannable, there is no reason to NOT do that.

xyro's stage rule doesn't make MK any less of a ******** character than he is, it doesn't really serve anyone's best interests.

It doesn't serve anyone's best interests? Well considering Falco, Diddy, and ICs do **** well against MK on neutrals, I'd say it's in their best interests.

Why should we outright ban him if a simple easy to enforce rule would make him unbannable (I'm not even saying he should be bannable)?

 

[etecoon]

well for one the main reason he's up for ban discussion again is his stalling abilities which are still very good on BF and SV is one of his best stages for it. MK is strong on neutrals, it's been said that the conservative stage list that we use promotes his dominance when you don't have borderline stages like green greens or pictochat that are better vs him. secondly, none of those characters beat MK regardless.

 

[theunabletable]

well for one the main reason he's up for ban discussion again is his stalling abilities which are still very good on BF and SV is one of his best stages for it.

Then when MK can CP ban SV.

I haven't personally seen scrooging done on BF, so I can't comment on that.

MK is strong on neutrals

The top tiers generally are...

secondly, none of those characters beat MK regardless.

How do we know for sure? ICs wouldn't have auto-lose on MKs CP anymore, and they'd automatically go to one of their 3 strongest stages.

So what if he doesn't have a disadvantaged matchup? That doesn't mean he's bannable.

And if it ever gets to the point where he is going to be banned, but making it so he can only CP neutrals would stop him from being bannable, there is NO LOGICAL REASON TO NOT ADD THAT RULE

 

[Prawn]

well for one the main reason he's up for ban discussion again is his stalling abilities which are still very good on BF and SV is one of his best stages for it. MK is strong on neutrals, it's been said that the conservative stage list that we use promotes his dominance when you don't have borderline stages like green greens or pictochat that are better vs him. secondly, none of those characters beat MK regardless.

How exactly is pictochat good vs him?

Granted the only "serious" experience I have is wifi, but when I play mk on there I abuse the **** out of it

 

[napZzz]

Chaos is right, lets say MK does get banned.....people that don't play or don't like Diddy, Snake, Falco etc. (not me) will start saying that "Snake broken" or "Diddy's broken" blah blah blah.....and that "those characters will too many tournaments".
Just think about; and quit the ****ing whining about MK. Everyone that still wants MK banned believe me I was like "you guys" once. But certain people and their posts under the "Why MK should NOT be banned" thread CHANGED my mind. I main ROB, don't you think I want MK banned.
NO! Because, well because of multiple reasons. GO read the "Why MK should NOT be banned" thread.

do you read what you post? i hate to say it, but this is just a big steaming pile of **** in text form. :/ hay did you evur heer that like, after mk the next 3-4 characters are fairly balanced in terms of placing on the tier list and winning tournaments and that they aren't really ahead of the other good characters? what a dumb thing to do banning mk and making the game more balanced, i meen srsly guiz

There's a reason this is called a logical fallacy. Even if it sounds like it makes sense because you really believe it makes sense, it's actually untrue and illogical.

There's no evidence at the moment that Diddy or Snake would dominate the game nearly to the extent that MK does.

This is the most hilarious part about this debate flame war. It is highly unlikely that anything is going to change. The Anti-banners "won" the last poll, so there isn't a strong feeling for a necessary change.

Basically, the Anti-banners are scrooging it up beneath Smashboardsville with their stock lead, while the Pro-banners are saying "what the **** is this ****, I should just go play SF4." Or whatever the real fighting gamer kool kids play now.

****, even the scrubs in minnesota know their ****. Beast.

I haven't even read it and I cosign with every single statement made in Hot's post. Regardless of ban stance.

lol again

agreed 10x

 

[WindMajor]

Banning MK won't stop people from planking or scrooging.

The only thing MK has on him is the IDC, but that's one easily enforceable technique. Why ban the character when you can just ban one small thing about him?

 

[Overswarm]

Banning MK won't stop people from planking or scrooging.

The only thing MK has on him is the IDC, but that's one easily enforceable technique. Why ban the character when you can just ban one small thing about him?

Because you can't.

 

[solecalibur]

What could we even ban? nado? what if someone misclicks it?

 

[Eddie G]

I propose we take away MK's privilege to ban a stage if/when he wins a match. He should still be entitled to counterpick a stage upon losing, but the other characters kind of need certain stages to help fight him more efficiently in their own ways and allowing MK mainers to pile a stage ban on top of his numerous advantages is rather excessive. My personal example is Peach vs MK on Pokemon Stadium 1. It reeeeeally helps her out in an otherwise ridiculously uphill matchup.

edit: and if the player chooses to switch their character, then there you have it...the character they use will actually be affected in some legitimate way by the stage choice just like ours, eliminating the need to restrict ban privileges. It also isn't a "surgical change" per-se since we're not actually picking apart the character or his moveset, but merely an out-of-match factor.

edit 2: In the case of a MK ditto, the normal stage counterpick/ban process should proceed normally.

Does this seem like an acceptable proposal overall?

 

[Overswarm]

No, it is not.

That is a minor change that only affects one aspect of Metaknight. There are many.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

I'm totally 100% anti-ban, but what Overswarm and SFP say about it not being practical to ban one aspect is true.

If we really need to make anti-MK stage selection rules, anti-MK planking rules, etc., then he should just be banned outright.

The thing is, we really DON'T need to make those rules. Nonetheless, it's not a good anti-ban argument to say "just remove his counter picks!" or "he can only play on neutrals!" or whatever. If that actually NEEDED to happen, then he should be banned.

A somewhat all-or-nothing stance is always the most appropriate when it comes to banning just about anything. Try to ban as little as possible, but if you have to ban something, make it concise and enforcable.

For instance, let's take the current topic of ledge grab limits... trying to enforce a set number of ledge grabs is pretty silly, and is pretty much the equivalent to saying "MK can only use the Infinite Dimensional Cape glitch for 50 seconds". That would be a really bad approach... which is why we ban the IDC all together, because trying to quantify it is not enforceable, realistic or practical.

Furthermore, enforcing LGL rules affects more characters than just MK, and can have a very negative effect on their gameplay. I'm not sure how I feel about scrooging rules just yet, but they definitely seem better than LGL rules.



The argument that so many pro-banners make, that "we can't keep micro banning everything; at this point we should just ban him" is valid.

Trying to make millions of band-aid fixes to make a character not "broken" is totally impractical.

If he really needed those fixes, he would be bannable. The thing is that he really doesn't need any of those fixes.

There has been almost no evidence that "planking always wins" or that it is "broken"... on the contrary; there have actually been very few high level tournament sets won exclusively by planking or even consistently by it. Of the ones that were one that way, air-camping generally would have been just as effective.

We can all point at things like DEHF vs Dojo... but that wasn't even bad at all, it takes two to tango, and furthermore that is ONE match out of many and a very small amount of total matches have had that "problem", especially at a high level.




Again... he doesn't need these micro-rules and shouldn't be banned.

Good points though, OS and SFP

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

Hotgarbage's post is the reason why this thread was created....wow

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No, it is not.

That is a minor change that only affects one aspect of Metaknight. There are many.

Eh. I also think that a rule like this would be better than outrightly banning him. Nuking this aspect of MK is nothing but a surgical nerf, but I don't see the negative repercussions for it for anyone other than... well, MK. MK not getting a counterpick or a ban would make it a lot more doable for several characters, especially because he's virtually guaranteed a win on his counterpick.

 

[Overswarm]

When you decide in advance that banning Metaknight shouldn't happen, you'll be willing to make a lot of illogical changes to his game to try to make ends meet. Just get rid of 'em.

 

[Justblaze647]

Get rid of him? But he's so good...

What would Brawl be without MK?

 

[link2702]

When you decide in advance that banning Metaknight shouldn't happen, you'll be willing to make a lot of illogical changes to his game to try to make ends meet. Just get rid of 'em.

^


like many many many others have said so many times before, when you're trying to put little mini bans on tactics/his game, then you're admitting he's broken and needs a full ban.



why even bother picking anyone else when you have him? mk breaks the entire cp system of brawl, he's never gonna be put at a disadvantaged matchup by anyone, the closest he's got are diddy and snake which are argueably 50/50, IF they are on their good stages...but guess what...? mk can ban their best stages, and/or cp them on a stage that they suck at, yet they can't do anything like that to him since he has no stages that he honestly does bad on, and then the matchup is tipped in Mks favor


but meh...ima moving to the melee scene myself now, so oh well.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

What could we even ban? nado? what if someone misclicks it?

This game is not technical enough to mispress any buttons.

 

[etecoon]

How exactly is pictochat good vs him?

Granted the only "serious" experience I have is wifi, but when I play mk on there I abuse the **** out of it

it depends on who your character is as with any stage, some characters would do worse vs him there as opposed to neutrals. it's a large stage that makes it hard to gimp and the stage hazards do a lot of damage, so if you're a heavyweight with good vertical KOing or diddy or someone it can be good.

Banning MK won't stop people from planking or scrooging.

no other character can reasonably scrooge at all. no other character can bypass a ledge grab limit so easily.

 

[VodkaHaze]

When you decide in advance that banning Metaknight shouldn't happen, you'll be willing to make a lot of illogical changes to his game to try to make ends meet. Just get rid of 'em.

I think we should allow him to be used but only in one match per set or something like that.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

If you must limit a character it implies that he is hurting the metagame and thus should be banned anyway.
-.-
OP is wrong.

Yes, but if he is hurting the metagame although not to an extent that he warrants a ban, then limits make sense because they level the playing field a bit more without removing him from the game.

 

[etecoon]

I think anyone facing ganondorf should have a 90% handicap because it levels the playing field

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

But Ganondorf is not broken, and that does nothing to level the playing field.

 

[etecoon]

if we're going to arbitrarily impose limits on high tier characters to balance the game instead of simply banning them, why shouldn't we arbitrarily give aid to lower tiers? surgical game balance is a silly idea, if MK is that bad then he just needs to be banned(not saying that he is). if he's not broken then there's no need for these kinds of rules to begin with.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You're comparing a simple, useful nerf to a top tier to a ridiculous, less than helpful buff to a low tier (seriously, a 90% handicap would help nothing).

 

[etecoon]

saying MK can only CP neutrals isn't that useful, we've already been over this

 

[Eddie G]

saying MK can only CP neutrals isn't that useful, we've already been over this

Who ever said it had to be just neutrals? I certainly didn't.

MK: No stage ban upon winning, still allowed to counterpick (any legal stage) upon losing. That's it. :/

And to your point about not arbitrarily giving aid to lower tiers as well Etecoon: This proposal does, in fact, give aid to characters lower on the tier list; not by means of a pre-set handicap or anything of the sort...but by allowing them to have a clear shot at using a stage in their respective favor (depending on the player's planned strategy to combat MK) without allowing MK to take that potential chance away from the other character. As I've already said, it's just preventing MK from stacking an unnecessary advantage since he is (for the most part) unaffected by stages to a noticeable degree while the other characters in the game are.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

if we're going to arbitrarily impose limits on high tier characters to balance the game instead of simply banning them, why shouldn't we arbitrarily give aid to lower tiers? surgical game balance is a silly idea, if MK is that bad then he just needs to be banned(not saying that he is). if he's not broken then there's no need for these kinds of rules to begin with.

So you're saying any time a character has anything that makes them really good, we should get rid of the entire character as opposed to eliminating the certain aspect of their game that makes them really good? That's completely ridiculous.

 

[Overswarm]

OR

we can just do this:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=263082

So you're saying any time a character has anything that makes them really good, we should get rid of the entire character as opposed to eliminating the certain aspect of their game that makes them really good? That's completely ridiculous.

There's more than one aspect. Do you know why "scrooging" exists? Because someone banned planking and MK said "no u".

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I wasn't talking about MK. I was speaking theoretically in order to argue something etecoon said. Don't take things out of context.

 

[Overswarm]

I wasn't talking about MK. I was speaking theoretically in order to argue something etecoon said. Don't take things out of context.

The principle is the same. You can rarely balance something to "even"; it's generally weakening something until the original losing character now wins, or not weakning it enough and then the result is still the same. It's very difficult to surgically change something in a game; look at the attempts in games like Brawl+!

 

[Eddie G]

Wow, take back what I just proposed OS. I was beginning to give up on convincing this brick wall of theorists of anything, so I was trying to shoot for something along the lines of compromise. Your new thread, however, re-sparked my hopes of continuing with pro-ban's plight.

 

[6Mizu]

The principle is the same. You can rarely balance something to "even"; it's generally weakening something until the original losing character now wins, or not weakning it enough and then the result is still the same. It's very difficult to surgically change something in a game; look at the attempts in games like Brawl+!

OS do you dislike B+?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think he's just saying that some tweaks made to it are very hard to guess on.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

The principle is the same. You can rarely balance something to "even"; it's generally weakening something until the original losing character now wins, or not weakning it enough and then the result is still the same. It's very difficult to surgically change something in a game; look at the attempts in games like Brawl+!

True enough, I suppose.

If we are talking about MK, let's look at it this way for a second:

What about the MK mains? Are we going to kick them to the curb and force them to learn someone else? If we surgically change the game, then they just are not allowed to do a certain tactic, but if we globally change the game, then they must stop using the entire character.


I agree with you for the most part, and I understand that the above is a flimsy argument, but it's just something to think about.

 

[C~Dog]

It depends if the overall benefit of banning MK will be better than potentially losing the people who main him now.

 

[Overswarm]

True enough, I suppose.

If we are talking about MK, let's look at it this way for a second:

What about the MK mains? Are we going to kick them to the curb and force them to learn someone else? If we surgically change the game, then they just are not allowed to do a certain tactic, but if we globally change the game, then they must stop using the entire character.


I agree with you for the most part, and I understand that the above is a flimsy argument, but it's just something to think about.

Agreeing to an inferior decision to help out people who have been using a character that is far and away the best in the game is not an optimum choice, nor does it fix all of MK's problems.

If you just want to "keep MK users around", there's not much you can do. They have to pick a new character.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

It could potentially fix enough of his problems for him to fit in with the rest of the cast. That is, if the rules were tailored so they could be enforced and actually did something to nerf MK.

I agree that it's not an optimum choice. I propose that that is put into place before MK is banned. If he continues to dominate with these rules in place, then there's no doubt in my mind that he warrants a ban.

 

[Overswarm]

I hate to break it to you, but people have been using these rules all over the US before the SBR has even made a single mention of them.



It also brings about another problem: if you're willing to weaken the top character to make things more even, why not strengthen those that are sooooo far below they can do nothing?

The above isn't a huge argument against it; the natural tendency for surgical changes to fail (and the history of them failing for MK) is enough, those are just icing on the cake.