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!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
Aside from teaching people to pick up a secondary character, (which last I checked was a good thing), It gives the option to ban MK, but also adds the option to counter... (poor explanation)
Let's say Player 1 mains Dedede, and Player 2 mains Donkey Kong.
Player 2 wins RPS, he bans Dedede, basically avoiding that horrid match up. If Player 1's second best character does awful against Donkey Kong, he can ban him. Basically making it a secondary only match, Which is great if you are horrible at a certain match up.
Other Scenario:
Unity ruleset allows all infinites.
Player 1 mains Ness, Player 2 Mains Marth.
Player 1 wins RPS, and bans Marth. Basically not guaranteeing the loss of his set.
TLDR, Teaches players to learn another character, Helps with match ups that you are just naturally terrible at, (can't learn it for whatever reason), Makes un-winnable sets a bit more fair, and gives a fair reason to ban MK.
In my eyes, this works, but my opinion might change if it was actually implimented into play, and I see that it doesn't work.
It is good for people to pick up new characters, but they shouldn't be forced to do so if they're seeing a reasonable amount of success with their current character(See: San, Will, Vermanubis, etc.).
Right now, assume that only one Brawl tournament has happened this year, and it only paid to first place. If a MK/Snake user wins $100 at this tournament, the "Character" column will receive $50 for both characters, while the "User" column will receive $100 for both characters.
Since we're basing this off the total pot sum for all tournaments, we can assume, through the use of splitting, that MK and Snake, as characters, win 50% of all tournament money, but we can say with certainty that MK users and Snake users win 100% of all tournament money. In the "Characters" column, the percentages add up to 100%, but not necessarily in the "Users" column.
Of course, the "Average" column is just the mean of the other two columns, because the "Characters" column shows how much money a character would win if they were used at the barest possible minimum, while "Users" column shows how much money a character wins if they were used as much as possible. The "Average" column seeks to eliminate those inaccuracies.
For the record, in the 4th ban vote, I'm willing to bet that the Anti-Ban did not split between characters when they measured how much money he won from tournaments. I could very easily claim that MK actually made an increase from 30% to whatever percentage of money MK mains(rather than the character himself, or the average of the two) are making, which is 52%. However, for the sake of leniency and fairness, I went with the "Average" column because that is indeed more accurate than the "Character" or "User" columns.
I just see John12346 doing a lot of work, making encouraging posts, and carrying intelligent discussions in practically every thread he's in.
Okay let me reiterate: why didn't get get in along with you?
It's a good chart and you both put a lot of work into it - but he tries to bring it into other threads and make it applicable outside the thread.
I know you're friends with Pierce7d, maybe that's why.
All of you guys have a pretty strong buddy-buddy system.
I just see John12346 doing a lot of work, making encouraging posts, and carrying intelligent discussions in practically every thread he's in.
Okay let me reiterate: why didn't get get in along with you?
It's a good chart and you both put a lot of work into it - but he tries to bring it into other threads and make it applicable outside the thread.
I know you're friends with Pierce7d, maybe that's why.
All of you guys have a pretty strong buddy-buddy system.
I'm not friends with pierce, so IDK what you're talking about. and I don't know why you are mad and have an attitude.
and I bring this up in the BBR, where more influential discussion takes place.
john is more active than me and posts a lot of good stuff and IDK why he didn't get in, maybe you should ask. but just because he does that does not mean I didn't deserve this or that I don't do my fair share.
updating the character popularity is more of a hassle than updating monetary gain on his chart, but maybe not the line graphs
Holy ****, I've never been complimented like that before. Thanks a lot for that, Ill; it really means a lot to me.
But honestly, it's not too important that I didn't make it into the BBR. As long as people who bring important or intellectual information to the site, much like Ripple, are accepted into the BBR, then it will have served its purpose in the long run. And as long as the BBR continues to accept such people into their ranks on a regular time-interval basis, everyone who fits that such criteria will be in there at some point, with some later than others.
Now then, perhaps we should get back to discussing MK? Anyone who's read even 1% of my posts will know that this is a topic I intend to go in on with guns blazing, if you know what I mean...
Also, that probably means you should cut down on that post, Ill, so this thread doesn't get closed for "spamming"...
My friends and I actually do casuals like this sometimes. Since we all side a lot of characters. This is fun for learning match ups since a side character can only do so well without match up experience.
As for this being an actual rule, this doesn't seem like it'd get the vote seeing how there wouldn't win by a landslide. Though if we were to bump the stage ban to 2 stages, it would be interesting to see what would happen if players were able to either ban 2 stages or ban a character (one or the other). Either way, with 2 stages or a character, my metaknight loses its best stages or is banned period
Diddy and/or Snake could very well end up dominant enough to warrant a ban under this same "money earned" standard.
Not as likely, but just because they have even/disadvantaged match-ups doesn't mean it's a far fetched idea.
Edit @ John12346: You should definitely get a mod to make another thread with a better title and move the posts there. I only stumbled in here on a whim and found really important MK discussion happening.
You risk trolls, but would probably gain exposure, which is a big step to getting that poll.
MK is far easier to learn then Diddy or snake. Pro level or scrub level, Diddy and snake both rely on grenade and banana shenanigans. Both of these take quite a bit of time to learn and master. Most people who just pick up these characters either can't master that mechanic or rely on it too much and fail at using there other moves. MK has no real gimmick. His gimmick is being good. Really good. No matter what way you play him. He's flexible enough to play it campy, plank, time out, gimp with no fear of being gimped himself, and abuse his great frame data and disjoint to go aggro. A style that very rarely can be done in brawl.
No matter who you are MK can fit your style. This is why I don't believe people will dominate with snake or diddy. They're not as flexible
We really should bring this into a legit "Should metaknight be banned" thread we can have a proper debate with those who support a ban and those who are against it. Trolls are likely, but then again they exist everywhere in smashboards. I say ignore em if they come and just discus the MK thing out. Really hyped for this if your making it happen John~! <3
I don't see why John would even want in the BBR. What he has done here is alot more useful than anything they have done lately (unless all the work put in by Dazwa counts). Maybe they should apply to join him eh?
Diddy and Snake are far to vulnerable to juggles and gimps to wind up like MK.
They've already earned more money than all of the characters around them (albeit, a small but noticeable difference), and both characters would benefit from MK being gone. I'm suggesting that we don't disregard the possibility that a similar dominance can take place in MK's absence.
In the "money earned" category, anyway.
As far as match-ups go, I doubt they'll change much at all in the long run.
A similar dominance can not take place without MK even if ever MK user changes to Diddy Kong lol
This argument that character X would be over-centralizing if every good player switched to them is so wrong and bad I don't even know what to say about it and I really wish people would stop making it.
I do not remember the last time a Metaknight won a decent-sized tournament in my region.
M2N was the most recent one. Top three were (in that order) Marth, Marth, MK
Then there was Dogusch. Top three were Diddy, Marth/Peach, Snake
Then there was MSN1. Top three were Marth, MK, Marth.
At a german "national" (34 people) we got MK, Falco, MK... Which I suppose is a little more like what you guys here in the states have... But beyond that, there was IIRC one more MK that actually made it into the bracket in the first place.
MK just isn't a problem in Germany/France/Netherlands... So he's prolly not gonna be banned around here. We have a marth problem... Specifically Ramin and Leon coming to all of our tournaments. Seriously, you guys, it's not fair-we haven't had a german winning a german-based international since... Well it's been a while and it's kind of depressing.
... But really, MK problem? Just ask Quiksilver what he thinks of Europe's "MK problem".
Europe doesn't have a Meta Knight problem because players in Europe want to have fun, more than they desperately want to win. That doesn't mean Europeans don't value winning, but the attitude is everywhere, from the way the game is played (waaaay less campy, and no, I'm not saying no one camps) and to who mains what characters (Europe's players tend to just play a character they like). Even when Leon switched away from Peach because that ***** can't win a tournament to save her life, he only changed to Marth, who, while better, isn't MK. In the US, someone who has plateaued would simply switch to MK and start placing better today.
Did nobody notice me pointing out that with MK gone the checks to Diddy and Snake would become more prevalent, essentially preventing them from being 2nd MKs?
We really should bring this into a legit "Should metaknight be banned" thread we can have a proper debate with those who support a ban and those who are against it. Trolls are likely, but then again they exist everywhere in smashboards. I say ignore em if they come and just discus the MK thing out. Really hyped for this if your making it happen John~! <3
Alright, let me address this now, and everyone, make sure you're reading this, because this is extremely important.
About one month ago, I actually contacted A1phaZ3a10t(no namesearch) about the very topic of MK's legality, and whether or not we could open a thread about it. I sent 2 PMs in question, with the second one containing the first, so I'll just go ahead and post the second PM I sent.
John12346 said:
This is, of course, regarding the PM I sent you before about opening a discussion on whether or not we need to open up a debate and poll on the MK ban issue. You still don't have to give me your decision yet, because I really want you to completely consider all factors including the stress such a topic may put on the moderators, all of the current information we have on MK, etc... I just wanted to give you a poke to make sure you haven't completely forgotten about my request! ^^;
I felt now would be a good time to contact you, considering the Character Legality discussion opened by Supreme Dirt was shot down into the dust. Anyway, I just want to add an addendum to what I've told you in the previous PM request.
The creation of such a thread WILL obviously put a lot of stress on the moderators, depending on the amount of spamming/trolling that takes place in said thread. However, I feel that, by putting the thread at the level of "Character Legality Discussion," rather than a "MK Ban Discussion" thread, along with some smart moderation, we can make this possible with little to no injury. From there, IF it's determined that we actually need a ban poll, all we need to do from there is create a thread with a poll asking the all important question, containing the full arguments from both sides, and the voter filter, of course, and lock the thread from the get-go.
Essentially, what I propose is that we open a "Should we talk about MK's legality?" discussion under the pretense of a "Character Legality Discussion." In this way, a LOT less flames are likely to be drawn, and the moderators' jobs will be made a lot easier. And of course, if we actually make it to the poll, then there's no problem because no flaming or trolling of any kind can happen in a locked thread, right?
Anyway, this might be a lot for you to swallow, but lemme just remind you of the questions I'd like answered:
- Do you support the opening of a thread to discuss the legality of characters? If yes, I will make it a point to get into contact with the higher officials of the site to ask the question of whether or not we can get permission to open the thread.
- If it actually comes down to it, and we get a poll opened, can we count on the BBRRC to accept the result and integrate it into the Unity Ruleset if 66.6% majority agrees on the same option?
Make sure you also take into account all of the information I gave you in the previous PM, which you may also view here, if you need it. And like I said, please take your time with thinking of your answers, then answer with gusto!
John12346 said:
Okay, the first thing you need to be made known right off the bat is that I'm pushing for the discussion of MK, to see if a poll is even necessary or not. I'm not pushing for the poll or the ban yet, because ample discussion needs to take place before all of that.
In addition, I also feel that we should wait a set period of time with the current Unity Ruleset in place before we even bring up the topic(3 months? 6?). The main reason for this is due to the fact that the community has a lot of other loose ends to tie up in the Unity Ruleset, such as the stagelist and other controversial rules. Introducing a "MK possibly poll for ban in the future" thread right now probably wouldn't be the best idea.
So IF you do give me an okay to go ahead with this project, give me a period of time I should wait before popping the topic at all, alright?
.
.
.
.
.
Alright, so here are the three points I need to make you aware of...
Alternate Accounts
First and foremost, I, and many other people feel that the vote itself is actually warranted, due to the results of the first 4 ban votes getting ****ed up by fake account voters. With both sides pumping votes into their side, we have very skewed results in the end.
Allow me to explain the implications of this. Let's say that, during the 4th ban vote, we had 500 votes for ban and 100 against, right? It'd be pretty clear cut in that case. But then let's assume we had alternate accounts on both sides dump in 2000 votes each for their side. The vote would then be 2500 vs 2100, which is not really conclusive at all.
I'm sure the result skew in the ban votes wasn't as bad as the example I just gave, but you get the point. To fix this end, we're going to need some kind of voter filter, that simply denies access to voting if you have less than 100 posts. A simple fix that negates alt. account votes by a long shot.
Now, the reason why this point virtually mandates a re-vote is due to the fact that, it was actually possible that the pro-ban actually did receive enough votes during the 4th ban vote to actually ban MK. My reasoning for getting a poll and a rediscussion is so we can find the absolute truth of the matter.
People Want to Talk About MK
I'm sure you've been cruising the Competitive Boards, right? And I'm sure you've noticed something in a lot of the threads you'll find there; a lot of people tend to talk about MK in their posts. What I believe is that people are actually waiting for the topic to be brought up so everyone can let the maximum extent of their information on the topic fly.
A common counter-argument to opening a rediscussion on MK is "The whole MK ban movement has died down." I'm sure you know as much as anyone that that's a load of ********. The reason why no one talks about MK is because of the whole fiasco that occurred over a year ago. We were subsequently denied permission to even bring up the subject of MK by Hylian(?) and Omni(?) (I might be mistaken on the names).
Anyway, the main point I'm trying to make here is that we honestly do want to talk about MK and his legality, but we're not allowed to, at present. To solve this end, we not only need permission from the BBRRC to do this, but we also need permission from administration to talk about it(which I will do next if you give me a yes, btw).
Just remember that I'm not the only one who wants to talk about this subject. A lot of people are waiting for this.
New Information on MK
This one is pretty obvious. We've found new information on MK over the course of the year, whether it be:
- New ATs
- How he ***** the CP system
- His monetary values
- His time-out abilities including planking
- And how we have surgical rules keeping him legal in the game.
As it was determined in the 4th ban vote, MK was winning around 30% of tournament money in 2010. Now, in 2011, MK has risen all the way up to the mid 40%s. Whether this is a case of character dominance or simple overcentralization, it's definitely a point that cannot be overlooked.
In addition to that, there are others who are ready to argue why the surgical rules in the game against MK are simply desperate attempts to keep him legal, and are henceforth not necessary(this topic isn't my forte, but I know a lot of people who can talk about it).
Anyway, what all of this data goes to show is that we do deserve at least a re-evaluation of MK in this day and age, because it does appear that the problem has worsened from past years, and it's something we shouldn't be turning a blind eye against.
.
.
.
.
.
Remember, right now, the only thing I wish to get the community talking about is the new data we've found on MK, and an evaluation on whether or not we actually need a ban poll. Nothing extravagant, we need to take this slow... one step at a time, right?
Anyway, those are all of the points I had to make. Please think things over long and hard, and use your best judgment to decide how to proceed from here.
But regardless of what your decision may be in the future, at least let me know now you've received and thoroughly read both PMs, and are still thinking about your decision. It would be a shame if my words fell on deaf ears!
What happened afterwards, is that A1pha told me he'd bring it up with the Staffer's Shack(even though I was kinda hoping he'd bring it up with the BRC, but w/e), and discuss whether or not this would be a legitimate topic to bring up.
Essentially, I was shut down because of the main reason that it would attract too much trolly attention. Now, while I, along with the rest of the users here at the Metagame and Ruleset Discussion are almost thoroughly convince that that's NOT going to happen, we need to show the mods:
- That we, as a community, have matured far enough to the point that we can discuss such a topic to a reasonably mature extent.
- And that the uproar for such a topic is so great, that it circumvents the ruling set down by the Staffer's Shack.
I know it sucks, but that's how it's gotta be. Start pitching ideas.
(And for those curious, B10n1c S0n1c told me that he can make a voter filter and will do so when and if the time arises, so don't worry about that.)
- That we, as a community, have matured far enough to the point that we can discuss such a topic to a reasonably mature extent.
- And that the uproar for such a topic is so great, that it circumvents the ruling set down by the Staffer's Shack.
You can show the quality threads that's been posted in the Competitive Forum. Hell, there were pretty controversial subjects discussed in the Unity Ruleset thread. The subjects there may not equal the level of banning a character, but if they were discussed in a predominantly civil way, then you have a case.
As for the uproar, wouldn't you need quite a bit of people for that lol?
Indeed. We have provided reasoning for it. Allow both sides to bring up their arguments in one topic, prevent further posts in the topic, have the poll up that requires at least 100 posts to vote in.
- We should open up a short(maybe long?) official discussion on whether or not we should open a ban vote, and that the BRC should accept the result and implement it into the Unity Ruleset.
- If it happens, and a ban poll is opened, the thread should consist of both sides' arguments, the poll with the voter filter(which B10n1c S0n1c CAN do), and LOCK THE THREAD so no discussion, and subsequently, no flaming/trolling can happen.
Edit: ChKn, you didn't have to check, I just wanted to point out that a lot of people wanted it, lol
Seriously, you guys, it's not fair-we haven't had a german winning a german-based international since... Well it's been a while and it's kind of depressing. 
But really, MK problem? Just ask Quiksilver what he thinks of Europe's "MK problem". 
