• 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!

Feelings on MK and the MK ban after Apex

Status
Not open for further replies.

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
1. MK with no limits is broken (no LGL, huge stage list, etc. This is obvious)

2. Limits specifically targeted towards MK are gay

3. Either accept those limits/cater the ruleset to him or remove the character from play

That's all there is to it. The game imo is better off with him gone from a balance perspective. Don't care about people's feelings or people who mained him. If your job is to objectively look at the best solution, I would not spare the character because people who played him "wasted time" or have to switch if it meant making the wrong decision. If it's broken or heavily damaging, then bye bye.

Don't care what people do with MK at this point, but it's clear you have to change the game specifically for him if you want him legal. We can't play a version of Brawl that does not specifically aim to nerf MK. MK with no LGL or Brinstar Norfair Green Greens etc is a very gay MK lol. Gonna have to nerf him to make him acceptable.
 

Cassio

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,185
MK with no limits would get owned by items.

In that regard game changes are specifically what made him so powerful if this is really being looked at objectively. Item play while frowned upon is not uncompetitive, we just decided to willfully force changes, so I have a hard time having issue with additional forced changes and see arguments against it as hypocritical. If people really want to make a philosophical argument of developers intent or fairness then they should be arguing for item play. Its probably the most balanced version of brawl.
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
Those game changes were not implemented specifically to affect MK. A MK LGL/cutting down the stage list so MK isn't so gay/ground time rule (because Wario doesn't actually need that, we're putting that in for MK). Cutting out items/putting on a timer/etc is not comparable.

I'm not making the argument of developer intent or fairness. Technically for fairness, you would cut out every character but 1 and force everyone to play the same character so that the game is completely even. No more tier imbalances if the only character is Jiggs, Diddy, MK, Ganon, etc. What I'm saying is that after you establish the general guide lines like stock timer blah blah, chances are that yeah you still need some rules targeting him to keep him in check. Coin battle MK would **** if there was no LGL. Get some hits in, get the coins, plank. GG. Items on? Well that's a bold claim that he isn't still the best character with items on. Sure gameplay can differ, but it's not like he magically lost the ability to shuttle loop or pursue Smashballs to any spot or catch items tossed at him.

Picking up the game and shaping it away from items/gay stages does not mean we took a B tier character and turned him God mode. MK is a pretty good character regardless if you had a 20 min timer, 40 stock, conservative/liberal stage list, etc.
 

Cassio

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,185
Comparable in what way? Theyre both changes were forcing on the game so theyre definitely comparable in that way, the reason may not be the same but what relevance does the reason hold? Even still Id say having a reason to change the game is a better than having no reason at all.

The major point is that once we force changes onto the game, why does it matter that specific limits are included? I dont see why that would be considered wrong or bad. Especially when theyre monsters of our own creation (not just in regards to MK either).
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
If specific limits are fine, where do you draw the line?

Are we limiting the character simply to enjoy the game more, or because the game is definitely more balanced with the changes implemented? Or even both?

If we make changes to the game simply to enjoy it more, you have a hard time justifying exactly where to stop. Especially if you're not doing it specifically to preserve or balance the game. MK on the edge isn't broken but it's gay so we have a LGL. MK in the air for 10 minutes isn't broken but it's gay let's stop that too. Why not take it further to enjoy the game more? After all you're opening up the door at that point.
 

Cassio

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,185
The door was opened a long time ago.

Remove all items?
>Have to remove half the stagelist
>Have include a timer
>Decide to implement the completely arbitrary percent based win since Sudden Death is 'stupid'

And that still doesnt solve all the issues that went along with it. Any specific changes that come as a result of an arbitary change we'd made before are very reasonable. I dont see the conflict with adding other extra rules to make the game more enjoyable, at this point its essentially a necessity from our choice. Even if it is targeted at a specific character, I dont see that as worse than arbitrarily adding and removing things in the first place.

Not that I think it matters, but I think a good line would be to limit changes to fix the flaws the game developed after item removal.
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
What flaws qualify for that? MK qualifies for that but other characters don't? Or if other characters qualify for that, what changes and why?

You still need a justification for it. Even if you consider any changes after the "initial" wave to not be as bad, that doesn't mean you should implement them. Limiting MK's ability to Shuttle Loop wouldn't be worse than legalizing Hyrule or turning Starmen on. But does that mean we should do it?

You know how good this game could be if we gave low and mid tiers a shot at beating a character like G^W or Marth who traditionally destroys them? Or limited the gay things in this game to balance it across the board? If arbitrarily changing characters/imposing limits is acceptable, why not implement it on a greater scope for even more balance in the game? We have the power and if they are changes that clearly benefit the game's balance, I see no reason to stop with just MK or Dedede's infinite or similar things.

If making these arbitrary changes for a better/more enjoyable game is ok, then why stop shallow?

If making these arbitrary changes is not ok, then why are we using them? (and I mean past items/stock/etc)
 

Attila_

The artist formerly known as 'shmot'
BRoomer
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
6,025
Location
Melbourne, Australia
It's not Kyuubi, it's 9B, confirmed by the Japanese.

No they have six, those 3 are the starters, then they have Lylat, Yoshi's Island and Delfino as counter-picks.
1. It is pronounced 'Kyuubi'. Watch Japanese matches and listen to the commentating. Unless all the commentators are wrong.

2. Depends which tourney and which region. Standard rules only have the standard 3 stages. They did experiment with more stages in the lead up to apex though.

1. MK with no limits is broken (no LGL, huge stage list, etc. This is obvious)

2. Limits specifically targeted towards MK are gay

3. Either accept those limits/cater the ruleset to him or remove the character from play

That's all there is to it. The game imo is better off with him gone from a balance perspective. Don't care about people's feelings or people who mained him. If your job is to objectively look at the best solution, I would not spare the character because people who played him "wasted time" or have to switch if it meant making the wrong decision. If it's broken or heavily damaging, then bye bye.
Probably the most sensible post in the whole thread. It's completely true, and anti-ban folk really can't respond.

My only query regarding the MK ban is that the Japanese would not follow suit. On an international scale, this would most likely really blunt competitiveness.
 

Orion*

Smash Researcher
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
4,503
Location
Dexters Laboratory
I'm not one of the ones freaking out that we need to best the japanese though.

Besides, no one has played me cuz I'm from Colorado. I could actually be supertrela.

:phone:
it bothers me that a lot of the people that argue for pro ban on this website like you, irregardless of my opinion that you have lackluster understanding of the game-

you don't go to tournaments, and you live in regions that would make it hard for you to do so or have any experience vs top players in general. yet somehow *****s have this mindset that their opinion is like the next golden standard and that you need to post 10000 times more than everyone else on swf
 

Ghostbone

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
4,665
Location
Australia
1. It is pronounced 'Kyuubi'. Watch Japanese matches and listen to the commentating. Unless all the commentators are wrong.
I'm confused now as one of the commentators on the Apex stream said he was talking to the japanese players and they corrected him when he said 'kyuubi', hmm.
2. Depends which tourney and which region. Standard rules only have the standard 3 stages. They did experiment with more stages in the lead up to apex though.
Ok
Yea I heard they had tournaments with the Apex stagelist, and I imagine they were practising heaps on the stages they're not used to.
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
Orion, CALM YOUR LOINS IMMEDIATELY SIR

CALM THEM NOW
 

Black Mantis

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
5,683
Location
Writing my own road...................
1. MK with no limits is broken (no LGL, huge stage list, etc. This is obvious)

2. Limits specifically targeted towards MK are gay

3. Either accept those limits/cater the ruleset to him or remove the character from play

That's all there is to it. The game imo is better off with him gone from a balance perspective. Don't care about people's feelings or people who mained him. If your job is to objectively look at the best solution, I would not spare the character because people who played him "wasted time" or have to switch if it meant making the wrong decision. If it's broken or heavily damaging, then bye bye.

Don't care what people do with MK at this point, but it's clear you have to change the game specifically for him if you want him legal. We can't play a version of Brawl that does not specifically aim to nerf MK. MK with no LGL or Brinstar Norfair Green Greens etc is a very gay MK lol. Gonna have to nerf him to make him acceptable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzDOpvukhNo
 

~ Gheb ~

Life is just a party
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
16,916
Location
Europe
None of the arbitrary "nerfs" were put in place because of MK only as far as I can see.

:059:
 

The Ben

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
420
1. MK with no limits is broken (no LGL, huge stage list, etc. This is obvious)

2. Limits specifically targeted towards MK are gay

3. Either accept those limits/cater the ruleset to him or remove the character from play
1. No it isn't. If it were there wouldn't be so many rules discussions after all this time.

2. That doesn't even make sesne? Are you stating that the limits only like other limits or that the limits are happy?

3. This isn't really a point. It's a statement and an awfully facetious one at that. You've essentially said something that isn't obvious is obvious so you don't have to back it up, then made a nonsensical follow up statement, and then topped it off by declaring yourself the winner.
 

DMG

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
18,958
Location
Waco
Slippi.gg
DMG#931
Gheb: a lot of the limits aren't MK specific (besides MLG having a different LGL for MK than other characters, which is something many people still want), but are basically there for MK. Do we *really* need a ground time rule to stop darn Wario/TL/etc from ruining the game? Or a scrooging rule to prevent Pit from breaking the game? I mean sure most of them aren't MK specific, but let's be honest we won't have a scrooging rule because we're worried about our good buddy Charizard: it's cause of MK. For that very reason, you have people that made sure to include the entire cast in rule changes. Everyone has a LGL/scrooging rule/etc, even if they clearly don't need it and arguably MK+ a few characters. Instead of even thinking about putting it specifically on the characters who would infringe on it, you slap it on everyone and just say it's a universal change intended to better the game, hiding that it's predominantly aimed at MK. Same as the people that want rules on MK only specifically for the point that it would stand out and get him banned sooner and instantly dismissing other characters. If we're being completely honest, 80% of popular rule changes or additions considered are predominantly for MK. Rule changes that wouldn't be would be a change to the % win rule after time runs out for example.

Ben:

1. MK without limits of any kind is very easy to prove broken. Even if you disregard IDC (which I do, I don't count that vs MK even though you could in that spot), he hands down breaks the game if you have no LGL, no limit on how he can stall or fool around or be MK. Are you really disputing that? Just about any person who actually plays the game could tell that hey, MK without stuff around is pretty dern strong. You want a LGL-less metagame or no strains on him? Huehuehue

2. Character specific limits/nerfs are not as solid as many people would like them to be. To go so far as to hinder what a character can do is already admitting that he's strong enough to warrant attention. People who would prefer to keep MK in the game, with checks/limits around, that is their method of dealing with MK. People that don't want that would rather have him banned. That would be their way of dealing with MK. Either way, regardless of what side you're on, you're finding a way to address MK.

3. It's a point because doing nothing means you allow basically "god mode" MK and that's unacceptable. A game with a neutered MK is a better game than one where he reigns free (and yes that's what happens if he has nothing around to hold him back). That version of the game is unacceptable, hence you are forced to take some action on him. Limit him/keep him in check, or remove him. I didn't say it as in "My idea is better, your idea sucks" or "CLEARLY you have to ban him or you're stupid" so idk where you are going with that. Just stating what the situation is/has been.
 

Verde Coeden Scalesworth

Flap and Swish~
Premium
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
34,216
Location
Cull Hazard
NNID
Irene4
3DS FC
1203-9265-8784
Switch FC
SW-7567-8572-3791
I'm confused now as one of the commentators on the Apex stream said he was talking to the japanese players and they corrected him when he said 'kyuubi', hmm.
Translation time. 9 is said as "Kyu" in Japanese. Bi would still be with the regular Katakana or Hirigana of "Hi", although it is pronounced based upon the planned word.

In other words, 9B is indeed pronounced Kyuubi, or Kyuuhi, depending who you ask.

As for all this, glad to see him gone. For people saying that he made characters better, he clearly didn't. Otherwise they would've surpassed him or he'd at the very least have at least one bad match-up. He clearly doesn't, so his dominance is something that's just not deniable. All the facts just further prove it. Even if you interpret the data is that he didn't win nearly as much cash, it doesn't change that nobody comes close to him in that, and never will.

Likewise, the idea that fighting against him improves the metagame is rather flawed. Our problem is that the metagame is centered around him. If the only reason we bother to get better is because of him, that's the problem in itself. He should not be the only reason to get better. I agree the mentality is bad, but so is the problem that people DO switch their Mains to him to make winning easier. It's very sad, but true. Saying people don't is an utter lie, and we all know it. Yes, he is the key factor in the metagame, which is bad in itself. This isn't comparable to Melee since even the best character doesn't win that much.

On another note, if you keep saying we should take only one tournament as the gospel, the one who won also happened to be Meta Knight, which is yet another problem we're talking about. We want other characters to win. Diversity is a very good thing, after all.

What bothers me here is that people want more than one ruleset from the URC. That sounds... the opposite of their purpose in general. Unified Ruleset Committee. Having one overall ruleset for everyone to follow puts everyone on the same level of knowing what to expect and practice for. Trying to separate ignores the purpose and doesn't help.

As for Meta Knight restricting others' metagames, it's in fact true. Many people have quit because they want to keep playing their true character, but can't because one beats their low tiers so badly that it's discouraging. The thing about trying to fight a common goal does not work here. Why? Because that common goal is not a static one. It's not like practicing to finally beat that boss. At all. Even if you beat that boss, now they come back and beat you again, starting the cycle all over. It does not end.

Moving on, we come up with the other problem. People still want to put out more rules to nerf him. Okay, first, if you're suggesting more rules to make him worse, you're admitting he's a problem in itself(whether broken, OP, or whatever term you think best fits). Likewise, we should not reduce our stage list any more for one character. We banned Items, we banned Stages. We even banned problemsome techniques before in general. What is it that makes it that a character is immune to this thing? They're not. That's a pure Double Standard. You can argue whether he's banworthy or not, but saying that we cannot ban him didn't work then, and won't work now. He can indeed be banned like anything else.

Finally, we go to the last thing; What we saw in Apex. First, while there's no question that Japan won, there's also the problem thinking that they won once, where we've won the other times, so they're overall better than us no matter what. This is not true. They bettered us this one time. Who's to say they'll do it again? That's all the more reason to not take Apex as the Gospel. What we did see is that despite how we normally play with MK, is that he can be played even better as is. Meaning that as much as we put into him, there's more to him that we already know. What does that also mean? That he's even more powerful than we thought. If it doesn't shine a red light on how we thought he was not broken whatsoever, then we really need to look further at the objective parts too.

Yes, we can learn from them, but advancing other characters' metagames is something that's a very interesting byproduct of the ban, and wasn't even the main purpose of it. Although it's going to be some people's reasons(and it's quite a legit point). MK can come back someday, after we've improved the other characters' metagames, meaning we can finally find new ways to play, thus, improving the entire styles. The chances of him dominating with a new refresh are rather low, after all. I don't expect the MK's to suddenly own again after his unban(if it's for atleast a year). But not giving the ban a chance does not help the community grow. More people are showing up due to him being gone, which sounds like the community is growing in itself. If that's not one of the best things for the community, then I don't know what is.
 

Cassio

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,185
What flaws qualify for that? MK qualifies for that but other characters don't? Or if other characters qualify for that, what changes and why?

You still need a justification for it. Even if you consider any changes after the "initial" wave to not be as bad, that doesn't mean you should implement them. Limiting MK's ability to Shuttle Loop wouldn't be worse than legalizing Hyrule or turning Starmen on. But does that mean we should do it?

You know how good this game could be if we gave low and mid tiers a shot at beating a character like G^W or Marth who traditionally destroys them? Or limited the gay things in this game to balance it across the board? If arbitrarily changing characters/imposing limits is acceptable, why not implement it on a greater scope for even more balance in the game? We have the power and if they are changes that clearly benefit the game's balance, I see no reason to stop with just MK or Dedede's infinite or similar things.

If making these arbitrary changes for a better/more enjoyable game is ok, then why stop shallow?

If making these arbitrary changes is not ok, then why are we using them? (and I mean past items/stock/etc)
lol, those are all very good questions. The thing is several of them were already answered for us, these changes are already an integral part of our ruleset (even before we touch on MK). Are you aware that before before items were removed from melee no timer was ever used? I once tortured myself reading the item debate thread, and Matt Deezie made a post about a match that took 18 minutes when they took off items. His argument against removing items was that it required using a timer on stock matches because of camping, as well as a solution for timeouts since the community would unlikely be favorable to sudden death. I had this discussion with AZ and he agreed that items would remove the need for a timer.

Both camping and timeouts are flaws we dealt with because of items, as well as the stages we removed. Its apparent the community finds these arbitrary changes a-ok. So wheres the limit? Theres likely no objective answer, but what I can say is theres little to distinguish between determining timeouts by percent and an lgl, or removing additional stages after weve already removed several. Our ruleset is simply destined to be unfair and arbitrary.
 

Ghostbone

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
4,665
Location
Australia
Translation time. 9 is said as "Kyu" in Japanese. Bi would still be with the regular Katakana or Hirigana of "Hi", although it is pronounced based upon the planned word.

In other words, 9B is indeed pronounced Kyuubi, or Kyuuhi, depending who you ask.
Yea I already knew that, the japanese players apparently said it isn't pronounced like that though.
 

Flayl

Smash Hero
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
5,520
Location
Portugal
Not banning a character because a lot of people spent time on it is the stupidest thing I've read today.

I still remember when we went from "too early" to "too late" without there ever being a sweetspot. Good times.
 

Conviction

Human Nature
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
13,390
Location
Kennesaw, Georgia
3DS FC
1907-8951-4471
What the hell? Kyuubi. 9 is Kyuu two u's because it's a long vowel, it's always bi, never hi. I don't know where you got that from but that's definitely a pronounciation difference. Kyuubi, not Kyuuhi.

:phone:
 

Jdietz43

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
2,625
Location
Milwaukee
Did you not even read my post?
Lol, don't bother bro (or broette). Just sit back with popcorn and laugh at the people who think no one would ever abuse a ruleset with MK and no lgl. It's what I told my friends to do, they seem to be silently enjoying themselves so far. :p
 

TheReflexWonder

Wonderful!
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
13,704
Location
Atlanta, GA
NNID
TheReflexWonder
3DS FC
2492-4449-2771
What the hell? Kyuubi. 9 is Kyuu two u's because it's a long vowel, it's always bi, never hi. I don't know where you got that from but that's definitely a pronounciation difference. Kyuubi, not Kyuuhi.

:phone:
H is next to B on the standard keyboard; it was probably a typo.

That said, the Japanese players specifically corrected players and asked them to call him "Nine-B," so, let's start calling him that.
 

Kimidori

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
122
Location
Spokane, WA
H is next to B on the standard keyboard; it was probably a typo.

That said, the Japanese players specifically corrected players and asked them to call him "Nine-B," so, let's start calling him that.
Why don't we just start calling him Nine Tails because that's the Japanese translation of "Kyuubi". I'm pretty damn sure 9B knew that Nine in Japanese is Kyuu, and B would be considered bi. If it translates to a demonic fox with nine tails, I'm sure we can assume it was purposeful. Also Kyuubi's IC's are sexy. ;D

For everyone else talking about it, Meta Knight does have his limits, but his limits should not be so restricting, and at are this point pathetic. The only reason Meta Knight is so overpowered in our metagame is that we have stages he can use to his advantage. I mean really, we have over 10 stages, don't we?? Over 10 stages, and not one Meta Knight is bad at. That's why he can counterpick, because just about every other character has a bad stage. And he doesn't. If the characters didn't have those bad stages, maybe he wouldn't be so broken and unfair.

Keep in mind, however, I'm not at all stating he won't be the best in the game. He's the best everywhere, and it will stay that way forever. Banning Meta Knight won't get us any better at the game.
And in case you guys haven't seen from two pages ago,
1. Japan's Meta Knights are on another level than ours
2. Japan is able to deal with Meta Knight even on his new level easily (Their best players are IC's and Olimar mains)
3. America can't deal with Meta Knight very well

Obviously, the difference is the stages. Meta Knight has NO COUNTERPICKS WHATSOEVER. Every other character has a stage they don't do well on. He doesn't. And people wonder why he's broken? He's not broken. Meta Knight + Stages only he always has an advantage on = Of course he's broken.
 

Thino

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
4,845
Location
Mountain View, CA
Gheb: a lot of the limits aren't MK specific (besides MLG having a different LGL for MK than other characters, which is something many people still want), but are basically there for MK. Do we *really* need a ground time rule to stop darn Wario/TL/etc from ruining the game? Or a scrooging rule to prevent Pit from breaking the game? I mean sure most of them aren't MK specific, but let's be honest we won't have a scrooging rule because we're worried about our good buddy Charizard: it's cause of MK. For that very reason, you have people that made sure to include the entire cast in rule changes. Everyone has a LGL/scrooging rule/etc, even if they clearly don't need it and arguably MK+ a few characters. Instead of even thinking about putting it specifically on the characters who would infringe on it, you slap it on everyone and just say it's a universal change intended to better the game, hiding that it's predominantly aimed at MK. Same as the people that want rules on MK only specifically for the point that it would stand out and get him banned sooner and instantly dismissing other characters. If we're being completely honest, 80% of popular rule changes or additions considered are predominantly for MK. Rule changes that wouldn't be would be a change to the % win rule after time runs out for example.

Ben:

1. MK without limits of any kind is very easy to prove broken. Even if you disregard IDC (which I do, I don't count that vs MK even though you could in that spot), he hands down breaks the game if you have no LGL, no limit on how he can stall or fool around or be MK. Are you really disputing that? Just about any person who actually plays the game could tell that hey, MK without stuff around is pretty dern strong. You want a LGL-less metagame or no strains on him? Huehuehue

2. Character specific limits/nerfs are not as solid as many people would like them to be. To go so far as to hinder what a character can do is already admitting that he's strong enough to warrant attention. People who would prefer to keep MK in the game, with checks/limits around, that is their method of dealing with MK. People that don't want that would rather have him banned. That would be their way of dealing with MK. Either way, regardless of what side you're on, you're finding a way to address MK.

3. It's a point because doing nothing means you allow basically "god mode" MK and that's unacceptable. A game with a neutered MK is a better game than one where he reigns free (and yes that's what happens if he has nothing around to hold him back). That version of the game is unacceptable, hence you are forced to take some action on him. Limit him/keep him in check, or remove him. I didn't say it as in "My idea is better, your idea sucks" or "CLEARLY you have to ban him or you're stupid" so idk where you are going with that. Just stating what the situation is/has been.
Good one.

Are you actually trying to argue that the limits that have been put in place like LGL or scrooging are intended to specifically target MK and that other characters dont NEED them?

Before we continue that, I'd like you to explain why Peach Bomber and Rising Pound are banned in Melee. because Peach and Jiggs are such unacceptable characters?
 

Kimidori

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
122
Location
Spokane, WA
Thino strikes again <3 Lol

Edit: And if DMG is right then they will remove the LGL after MK is banned.
 

Hylian

Not even death can save you from me
Administrator
BRoomer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
23,165
Location
Missouri
Switch FC
2687-7494-5103
Why don't we just start calling him Nine Tails because that's the Japanese translation of "Kyuubi". I'm pretty damn sure 9B knew that Nine in Japanese is Kyuu, and B would be considered bi. If it translates to a demonic fox with nine tails, I'm sure we can assume it was purposeful. Also Kyuubi's IC's are sexy. ;D
How can you assume it's purposeful when PLAYERS FROM JAPAN came here and told us it wasn't and it is pronounced 9(Nine)B.

????????
 

Gea

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
4,236
Location
Houston, Texas
Before we continue that, I'd like you to explain why Peach Bomber and Rising Pound are banned in Melee. because Peach and Jiggs are such unacceptable characters?
Neither are banned. Using them to stall is banned. A peach can legally wall bomb up the wall and recover. Planking isn't really the equiv here, those are more like Sonic staying underneath the stage.

Shino stalling would be more like planking, and that isn't banned because it doesn't stall out matches.

And if DMG is right then they will remove the LGL after MK is banned.
Who else is it there for, exactly?
 

Thino

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
4,845
Location
Mountain View, CA
Neither are banned. Using them to stall is banned. A peach can legally wall bomb up the wall and recover. Planking isn't really the equiv here, those are more like Sonic staying underneath the stage.
I was talking about using them to stall, and how exactly are they not equivalent?

Are there stalling techniques that are more acceptable than others?

I thought stalling in general was frowned upon by the community.
 

Gea

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
4,236
Location
Houston, Texas
Because planking is putting the character in a place where they can still be approached. Whether or not it breaks the game via risk/reward is another thing...

But with peach bomber and rising pound... it would be like if tethers never auto-dropped after awhile and you found a stage you could grapple the bottom of (like Dreamland) and just hung there. Anyone who wants to kill you dies in the process of getting to you to land the hit.

Edit: The community also decided that planking != stalling and thus it did not fall under the stalling rules. Putting yourself in an advantageous situation and forcing the other character to approach (or running away) was not seen as disabling the match from continuing at all, which is the key difference.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
10,050
For everyone else talking about it, Meta Knight does have his limits, but his limits should not be so restricting, and at are this point pathetic. The only reason Meta Knight is so overpowered in our metagame is that we have stages he can use to his advantage. I mean really, we have over 10 stages, don't we?? Over 10 stages, and not one Meta Knight is bad at. That's why he can counterpick, because just about every other character has a bad stage. And he doesn't. If the characters didn't have those bad stages, maybe he wouldn't be so broken and unfair.
One of the biggest points in the pro-ban's arguments is that if one believes in limiting Metaknight, it automatically and inarguably assumes that Metaknight is broken because he cannot be handled in his unrestricted form.

You talk about how the limits shouldn't be as restricting as they already are, but the issue with limiting is that it makes very little sense in the first place. Nobody ever limits characters in other games, they just ban them. Both ways that we currently limit Metaknight are extremely flimsy, and therefore, it has made people believe that Metaknight cannot be properly limited. They have a point too, because not one person has ever found a good idea to limit Metaknight that isn't either unfair or ********.

Banning stages? That's a global change aimed at Metaknight. Unfair to the rest of the cast. LGL? As flimsy and indirect as an Air Time Limit. It's ********. Ban EDC/IDC? Big enforcement issues. Not as ******** but still very abusable, therefore ********. All the efforts at limiting Metaknight fail at either being discrete, enforceable, or warranted, which is why pro-bans will argue that MK should be banned. So if unrestricted he cannot be, and there's no way to restrict him, then a ban of Metaknight will fall very well fall under all three of those criterias (discrete, enforceable, warranted).


1. Japan's Meta Knights are on another level than ours
No they're not. Didn't you see Otori vs. Nairo? We're practically even.

2. Japan is able to deal with Meta Knight even on his new level easily (Their best players are IC's and Olimar mains)
3. America can't deal with Meta Knight very well

Obviously, the difference is the stages.
In their ruleset, yeah, but that's not the only difference between America and Japan. Nor is it the most convincing difference as to why they're "better than us".

Meta Knight has NO COUNTERPICKS WHATSOEVER. Every other character has a stage they don't do well on. He doesn't. And people wonder why he's broken? He's not broken. Meta Knight + Stages only he always has an advantage on = Of course he's broken.
No matter what the stage list is, Metaknight will ALWAYS have an advantage, because he's good at all the stages, unlike the rest of the cast. I've always been firm in my belief that if you want to balance Metaknight out with the rest of the cast, you have to add more stages than what we already have, instead of removing them, because that way, the rest of the cast can have stages where they can do well in, and not just Metaknight.
 

Kimidori

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
122
Location
Spokane, WA
How can you assume it's purposeful when PLAYERS FROM JAPAN came here and told us it wasn't and it is pronounced 9(Nine)B.

????????
Even so, I call it Kyuubi. I assume it's purposeful because it has an actual translation lol. And a cool one at that. But until 9B comes here and tells us otherwise we can call him whatever the hell we want :)
 

Kimidori

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
122
Location
Spokane, WA
One of the biggest points in the pro-ban's arguments is that if one believes in limiting Metaknight, it automatically and inarguably assumes that Metaknight is broken because he cannot be handled in his unrestricted form.

You talk about how the limits shouldn't be as restricting as they already are, but the issue with limiting is that it makes very little sense in the first place. Nobody ever limits characters in other games, they just ban them. Both ways that we currently limit Metaknight are extremely flimsy, and therefore, it has made people believe that Metaknight cannot be properly limited. They have a point too, because not one person has ever found a good idea to limit Metaknight that isn't either unfair or ********.

Banning stages? That's a global change aimed at Metaknight. Unfair to the rest of the cast. LGL? As flimsy and indirect as an Air Time Limit. It's ********. Ban EDC/IDC? Big enforcement issues. Not as ******** but still very abusable, therefore ********. All the efforts at limiting Metaknight fail at either being discrete, enforceable, or warranted, which is why pro-bans will argue that MK should be banned. So if unrestricted he cannot be, and there's no way to restrict him, then a ban of Metaknight will fall very well fall under all three of those criterias (discrete, enforceable, warranted).




No they're not. Didn't you see Otori vs. Nairo? We're practically even.



In their ruleset, yeah, but that's not the only difference between America and Japan. Nor is it the most convincing difference as to why they're "better than us".



No matter what the stage list is, Metaknight will ALWAYS have an advantage, because he's good at all the stages, unlike the rest of the cast. I've always been firm in my belief that if you want to balance Metaknight out with the rest of the cast, you have to add more stages than what we already have, instead of removing them, because that way, the rest of the cast can have stages where they can do well in, and not just Metaknight.
I don't believe Meta Knight should be limited. If there's an LGL, it should go for everyone at the same number. We don't have to limit him. Changing the stages also is not only directed towards MK. It will improve the entire cast as a whole, I'm just making a point it will make it so we don't HAVE to ban him. It's not aimed at Meta Knight at all. Meta Knight or no Meta Knight, something should be done about the ******** stages anyway. It's a fact if we want to get better at the game.

Japan is on a different level than us. If you haven't seen, they have incredible adaptation skill (Which our best players lack, such as M2K vs OCEAN). Not only that, but I'm pretty sure if we were even they wouldn't have taken out all of our best players with Olimar. Also, it was practically luck and our ruleset that contributed to Nietono not winning. Nietono and Otori have a 5-2 winset. Also, I find it amazing that someone who has NEVER won a tournament could come to America and win the biggest one of all (Where their own players still came), and still be considered equal to us. That doesn't work.

He may be better than the rest of the cast on all of the stages, but he won't be as be as much better without all of his ******** counterpicks he can abuse the hell out of. If one character is good on all terrain, he can take his opponents to any terrain they're not good on and beat them. Stages wouldn't have as much as an effect on our game as they do now if we just took away all of those lame counterpicks so people couldn't just pick a stage and increase their chances of winning tenfold. They certainly have pulled this off in Japan. So why can't we? The fact that we have a different mindset is an excuse. There's no reason that we can't take stages away and prevent counterpicks from affecting the outcome of the game. Sure, there's character matchups, but that's a given when you get the game.
 

Hylian

Not even death can save you from me
Administrator
BRoomer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
23,165
Location
Missouri
Switch FC
2687-7494-5103


No they're not. Didn't you see Otori vs. Nairo? We're practically even.



LOL WHAT?!?!?! Were you at the tournament or are you just speculating from that one set? Otori/Rain both consistently beat M2K in mk dittos, Otori beat pretty much every single one of our top mk players in MM's or in tournament, or pretty much all of the top 6 japanese beating almost all of our top players in MM's, even Otori beating M2K/Anti in teams, Nairo has never come close to doing something like that, especially with a mk player considered worse than himself.

NOT TO MENTION the fact that Otori has never won in japan AND LOSES TO OTHER MK PLAYERS THERE. Regardless of how close his set with Nairo was he still won, and still beat all our other players.

If you were at the tournament the level of skill the japanese were displaying was CLEARLY over ours, and pretty much all of our top players will tell you that.
 

TheReflexWonder

Wonderful!
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
13,704
Location
Atlanta, GA
NNID
TheReflexWonder
3DS FC
2492-4449-2771
Even so, I call it Kyuubi. I assume it's purposeful because it has an actual translation lol. And a cool one at that. But until 9B comes here and tells us otherwise we can call him whatever the hell we want :)
You're just being a silly weeaboo.

As far as the main topic, I think the game has too many movement options to count out more polarizing counterpick stages; we could definitely improve from being forced to use a more neutral stagelist, but, we lose a perfectly viable part of the metagame in disallowing those stages, too.
 

Kimidori

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
122
Location
Spokane, WA
You're just being a silly weeaboo.

As far as the main topic, I think the game has too many movement options to count out more polarizing counterpick stages; we could definitely improve from being forced to use a more neutral stagelist, but, we lose a perfectly viable part of the metagame in disallowing those stages, too.
Okay, I hope you don't mind me completely arguing you here.

Perfectly viable? Not at all. Not even close. If the stages are giving full on advantages to some characters over others to the point of skill being compeltely irrelavant, and we want to keep that, then well, "we" are stupid. Keeping those stages in will just keep us in our sheltered little world where we can just win by picking a stage. Why do you think Melee only has neutrals now?

I think Brawl has even better of a reason to take out ridiculous stages than Melee. Why is this? Because we have a character that is good on all of them. Not just half, but all. And yet other characters will come and beat MK, then MK will just CP a stage that character does bad on because he can abuse the hell out of CPs. People need to understand this. And once again, this isn't for just one character. MK or no MK, these stages need to go if we want to get good at this game.

Almost everyone has seen M2K vs OCEAN by now, right? Well, did you see that M2K won by "counterpicking" Delfino, then TIMING OCEAN OUT? I mean really, we call this guy the best. Or at least we used to. OCEAN put in some hard *** work into ROB, and it payed off. What do you think would happen if M2K was playing with Japan's ruleset? Do you think M2K still would've won that second match? Or do you think Ocean would've 2-0'd him?
 

Bobwithlobsters

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
421
Location
Oakdale MN
Ok it has taken me three days of reading to catch up with this thread but now that I am here I want to talk a bit about the “Conservative Stage List”.

Basically what this conservative stage list consists of is removing the vast majority of stages that favor aerial combat in favor of stages that favor grounded combat under the reasoning of a more “balanced” stage list. Now why are the stages being discussed on the chopping block? I hear a lot of reasons like “it is better for competition”, “MK won’t be as broken”, or “they are janky”. What it comes down to is that theses janky stages are only janky is because MK is just so powerful on these stages. Problem is these are preferred stages for numerous aerial characters that do not deserve to have their ideal counter picks removed while all of the ground based characters get a stage list that is catered to their needs.

The reason that people think that this stage list would be a good way of balancing MK is because he is the most powerful aerial character in the game. So by performing a surgical nerf on MK by limiting all stage picks that encourage aerial combat we perform a global nerf that hurts all aerial characters such as G&W and Wario. The reason that this does help balance MK is that the only characters that can even go close to toe to toe with are only on par with him on the ground. So we are changing the metagame to accommodate MK by hurting all aerial characters just to get him to drop from S+++ tier to S tier so that we can maybe accommodate him?

I believe that this is a big part of why the Japanese performed so well here in America. Due to them having a stage list that emphasizes ground combat and when they come over here we change our stage list to a more “conservative” stage list which just happens to be more ground based so of course they performed well. Look at their two best players, they main two of the most ground based characters in the game, ICs and Olimar.

I hear a lot of talk of a character ban should be a last resort, and I agree with this but how much damage needs to be done to the whole structure of our metagame and “Global rules” that are there only to balance MK with the rest of the cast while damaging many other characters in the crossfire before we say it is time to stop hurting the bystanders and use our last resort?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom