Feelings on MK and the MK ban after Apex

[Thino]

Well that is half true.

See they still need data to show where the line was drawn. The Poll in itself showed what was too far with 75%.

People are different, some may be people who say he is too far with only a smig of good results, others may be fine even if he was Ivan Ooze broken and say it is a fair metagame.

Which more or less is why the community as a group should decide over indidivduals.

But it seems that everyone using data as argument use it in the opposite way aka as if the line was drawn before MK was banned, which is clearly not the case.

The poll (even though I still have to read Cassio's post about it) has been the deciding factor for the ban, but when it comes to the data, the line has been drawn because MK was considered broken not because he actually crossed a line that was pre established by the community in the first place.

The way the data, tournament results and statistics look pre-Apex are effects of his dominance, not causes of his ban.

That was my point when talking about using data.

Now you tell me that people need to show where the line was drawn.. for what purposes except informative ones?

And by that I mean why does it matter, especially now, that someone thinks that MK was only slightly dominant or Ivan Ooze-like?

 

[John12346]

Personally speaking, I see things like monetary gain, an intense moveset, and an OP timeout game as more like prerequisites to the ban. They can't CAUSE the ban to happen under most circumstances, but I couldn't see MK getting banned if he was winning only, like, 5% of the money or something, or if his moveset was super crappy like Ganon's.

What pushes MK into bannable criteria are the fact that pretty much everyone admits that rulesets need to be modeled around MK's existence in Brawl. The LGL that is already in place(or if you want to make an argument that a LGL is necessary for the game, then the fact MK has a lower LGL than everyone else), for example, as well as the various ruleset proposals to make MK less OP(air time limit? scrooging limit?), and most notably, the fact that people are trying to butcher the stagelist to like 5 or 6 simply because Metaknight, and Metaknight alone breaks those stages. No other characters seem to ever come up as justification for most of these ruleset changes; just Metaknight.

Rulesets are supposed to be modeled without any regard to character, so when we have to make Metaknight the focus of our ruleset, and that we have to pay careful attention to the ruleset so that it nerfs MK as much as possible... well... I feel that is what justifies the ban.

The poll is simply what caused the ban. It's a culmination of what most people's thoughts were on the ban, and while this seems like a simple prerequisite to the ban, it does seem likely that this was what the final push was to get MK banned. Whether or not the poll is legitimate is controversial, as there seems to be some heated discussion going in Cassio's thread, but there we have it.

MK being an OP character who wins too much money is a prerequisite to banning.
MK warranting multiple ruleset changes to keep him in line with the rest of the cast is what makes him bannable.
And the poll is what caused the ban, I think.

My two cents.

 

[Strong Badam]

most stagelists are dumb as hell regardless of whether or not MK is banned

 

[John12346]

Well, which stages in Unity are dumb? Brinstar, RC, and PS2, I guess?

What I think is that RC/Brinstar just feels janky at first glance, because of the acid/uneven layout/movement/walkoffs, but our impressions of the stage are made like 10000x worse because almost every time either stage is chosen, so is Metaknight and then we see the stages be used really retardedly and everyone just clamors for a ban, y'know?

I'm gonna be trying to get some discussion going for all of the controversial Unity stages at some point, but for now, it seems that Brinstar discussion is going smoothly enough, at least. We can't seem to find any real issues with Brinstar just yet, but we'll see how it goes, right?

 

[Kink-Link5]

Lylat and Castle Siege are both pretty dumb as well, and MK has nothing to do with those stages.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

People don't like Lylat, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the level. People should know when/where it tilts.

 

[Steam]

you guys are saying stages are dumb and giving no reasons. you are contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion that way....

 

[_Kain_]

People don't like Lylat, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the level. People should know when/where it tilts.

I'm happy someone finally said this. Lylat's tilts shouldn't even be that much of a factor, and should never EVER be compared to anything related to Brinstar. Or any janky stage to begin with.

If I see another person complain about SV's platform moving, FD's ledge, and Lylat's tilt in relation to stages like RC or Brinstar my head is gonna explode

you guys are saying stages are dumb and giving no reasons. you are contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion that way....

Each side has their own perspective and no one is willing to budge. It's basically agreeing to disagree. Don't be ignorant and say nothing has been said as to why the stage is broken when plenty of reasons have been given, it's just different perspectives, and no one willing to budge from how they view the stage.

Basically, it's a useless discussion, people will think what they want, and that's that.

 

[Strong Badam]

Well, which stages in Unity are dumb? Brinstar, RC, and PS2, I guess?

What I think is that RC/Brinstar just feels janky at first glance, because of the acid/uneven layout/movement/walkoffs, but our impressions of the stage are made like 10000x worse because almost every time either stage is chosen, so is Metaknight and then we see the stages be used really retardedly and everyone just clamors for a ban, y'know?

I'm gonna be trying to get some discussion going for all of the controversial Unity stages at some point, but for now, it seems that Brinstar discussion is going smoothly enough, at least. We can't seem to find any real issues with Brinstar just yet, but we'll see how it goes, right?

Starters | Counterpicks
Battlefield|Delfino Plaza
Final Destination|Frigate Orpheon
Smashville| Lylat Cruise
|Pokémon Stadium 1
|Yoshi's Island: Brawl

my stagelist
I should really remove PS1 tho.

 

[DMG]

Get rid of Frigate, replace with Castle Siege

 

[Steam]

Each side has their own perspective and no one is willing to budge. It's basically agreeing to disagree. Don't be ignorant and say nothing has been said as to why the stage is broken when plenty of reasons have been given, it's just different perspectives, and no one willing to budge from how they view the stage.

Basically, it's a useless discussion, people will think what they want, and that's that.

I'm talking to exclusively kinklink and strong bad. they just keep comming in and say x stages should be banned because they are stupid/bad/etc.

 

[Strong Badam]

why shouldn't they be banned, steam? you should be able to defend them pretty convincingly, no?

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Stadium 1 promotes crazy-safe switching opportunities for PT. I need it.

 

[DMG]

I need it because Wario can infinite people in a few spots with Dthrow

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Doc King needs it to advance DDDs metagame with slope infinites.

 

[Steam]

why shouldn't they be banned, steam? you should be able to defend them pretty convincingly, no?

for one there is (or at least should be) an innocent until proven guilty policy with banning anything. it's up to the ones that want it banned to provide reasoning.

but brinstar and rainbow shouldn't be banned because they are stages no elements on either that are both random and don't give ample warning (rainbow is competely non random in fact). Neither stages have a centralizing strategy either. I really see no reason to ban them.

 

[Browny]

Ban them because they are ****ing terrible stages.

Get this ridiculous, unfounded idea out of your head that 'more stages = more competitive' and you'll realise 'wait a minute, RC/brinstar are actually terrible stages which focus more on running away, than actually putting an attack into the enemies hitbox.'

 

[DMG]

But running away is legit! Just because you can't catch me on RC doesn't mean we should get rid of it. Just means you need to play someone that can catch me!

 

[Akaku94]

Ban them because they are ****ing terrible stages.

Get this ridiculous, unfounded idea out of your head that 'more stages = more competitive' and you'll realise 'wait a minute, RC/brinstar are actually terrible stages which focus more on running away, than actually putting an attack into the enemies hitbox.'

Get this ridiculous, unfounded idea out of your head that RC/Brinstar are terrible stages, and you'll realize that you guys are trying to ban stages that have nothing wrong with them.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

On Rainbow Cruise, if you just get on the side that the stage is moving toward, the opponent has to come to you in order to stay alive. A lack of aggression is not the issue.

Brinstar is kind of silly because of some characters' goofy hitboxes, but it isn't so bad outside of that except for characters with awful mobility.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Snake ****ing ***** on Rainbow 0_0

Agreeing with this.

Lucario blows here though, that part is true.

But it seems that everyone using data as argument use it in the opposite way aka as if the line was drawn before MK was banned, which is clearly not the case.

The poll (even though I still have to read Cassio's post about it) has been the deciding factor for the ban, but when it comes to the data, the line has been drawn because MK was considered broken not because he actually crossed a line that was pre established by the community in the first place.

The way the data, tournament results and statistics look pre-Apex are effects of his dominance, not causes of his ban.

That was my point when talking about using data.

Now you tell me that people need to show where the line was drawn.. for what purposes except informative ones?

And by that I mean why does it matter, especially now, that someone thinks that MK was only slightly dominant or Ivan Ooze-like?

Because you need to define where the community said the line was as a point to look on. It's partly informative but you nee to show why people made the case.

Each side has their own perspective and no one is willing to budge. It's basically agreeing to disagree. Don't be ignorant and say nothing has been said as to why the stage is broken when plenty of reasons have been given, it's just different perspectives, and no one willing to budge from how they view the stage.

Basically, it's a useless discussion, people will think what they want, and that's that.

Ding.

 

[Cassio]

See they still need data to show where the line was drawn. The Poll in itself showed what was too far with 75%.

Except that poll is bunk. Youre also aware of this so Im surprised to see you cite it.

The LGL that is already in place(or if you want to make an argument that a LGL is necessary for the game, then the fact MK has a lower LGL than everyone else), for example,

tbqh the MK specific ledge grab was terrible. If anyone needed a character specific lgl it was pikachu, who's frame data cuts his time on the ledge by exactly 1/2 and should have had double the ledge grabs if character specific lgls were needed. MK specific lgl without one for pika just looks like silly bias or incompetence.

 

[Roller]

I don't want to point fingers, but time and again, I see players post in favor of keeping RC and Brin legal, then get CP'd there and use it as a john.

I do not see people johning about losing on ****ing Frigate, Lylat, PS1, etc even 1/10th the amount I see johning about RC/Brin. There's a reason. The stages promote abusing obstacles to limit opponents options/strategies, instead of their own skills with spacing, reading, etc. I believe competitive means the stage allows for the more skilled player with better reading skills, spacing, and unpredictability to win. That does not happen on Brinstar.

 

[John12346]

That's because every time we see a match on Brinstar, we also see Metaknight on it >___>;

I'm still holding that seeing MK **** up the stages RC/Brin as bad as he did for 3.5 years straight gave us a really, REALLY bad impression of the two stages, leading us to believe that they're both janky stages, when in reality, they may not be.

They need to be assessed more thoroughly first, for sure.

 

[-LzR-]

Starters | Counterpicks
Battlefield|Delfino Plaza
Final Destination|Frigate Orpheon
Smashville| Lylat Cruise
|Pokémon Stadium 1
|Yoshi's Island: Brawl

my stagelist
I should really remove PS1 tho.

You must be an IC main.

 

[DMG]

Except that poll is bunk. Youre also aware of this so Im surprised to see you cite it.

tbqh the MK specific ledge grab was terrible. If anyone needed a character specific lgl it was pikachu, who's frame data cuts his time on the ledge by exactly 1/2 and should have had double the ledge grabs if character specific lgls were needed. MK specific lgl without one for pika just looks like silly bias or incompetence.

I thought the general idea was that if anyone was trying to grab the edge more than X times, they were trying to stall and we don't like that? I mean why would Pika need double? Should IC's get double despite the fact that they aren't gonna be using the edge for planking anytime soon? Do tethers need more?

If Pikachu grabs the edge 30-35 (or whatever we put the LGL to), he shouldn't have a reason for this many grabs EVEN with his half timer. What are you doing, dropping down and using Upb over and over looking for a chance to go onstage? If that's the case, why not raise the LGL or remove it for anyone that sucks at planking? Doing character specific LGL's or rulings also means you do away with the notion that we need a universal LGL to keep the game moving, since you would have MK with his own, a few other characters with a standard/bigger one, and a LOT without one. Unless we're really gonna keep one on just in case you see a legendary match where a Falco has more than 60 LG's and found a way to successfully plank his balls off.


I don't mind doing individual LGL's and stuff, but you're gonna need a good case for raising LGL numbers. Pikachu having quick framedata off the edge is less of a reason to give him more than if he actually sucked at planking.

 

[Akaku94]

But nobody's planking is broken except MK! It's not like there's another char out there timing people out by planking; let them plank, then get dair-spiked, then problem solved...

 

[Kink-Link5]

Akaku forgetting that Donkey Kong exists like always.

 

[Sorto]

Personally speaking, I see things like monetary gain, an intense moveset, and an OP timeout game as more like prerequisites to the ban. They can't CAUSE the ban to happen under most circumstances, but I couldn't see MK getting banned if he was winning only, like, 5% of the money or something, or if his moveset was super crappy like Ganon's.

What pushes MK into bannable criteria are the fact that pretty much everyone admits that rulesets need to be modeled around MK's existence in Brawl. The LGL that is already in place(or if you want to make an argument that a LGL is necessary for the game, then the fact MK has a lower LGL than everyone else), for example, as well as the various ruleset proposals to make MK less OP(air time limit? scrooging limit?), and most notably, the fact that people are trying to butcher the stagelist to like 5 or 6 simply because Metaknight, and Metaknight alone breaks those stages. No other characters seem to ever come up as justification for most of these ruleset changes; just Metaknight.

Rulesets are supposed to be modeled without any regard to character, so when we have to make Metaknight the focus of our ruleset, and that we have to pay careful attention to the ruleset so that it nerfs MK as much as possible... well... I feel that is what justifies the ban.

The poll is simply what caused the ban. It's a culmination of what most people's thoughts were on the ban, and while this seems like a simple prerequisite to the ban, it does seem likely that this was what the final push was to get MK banned. Whether or not the poll is legitimate is controversial, as there seems to be some heated discussion going in Cassio's thread, but there we have it.

MK being an OP character who wins too much money is a prerequisite to banning.
MK warranting multiple ruleset changes to keep him in line with the rest of the cast is what makes him bannable.
And the poll is what caused the ban, I think.

My two cents.

Alright. Well I think chaingrabs should legally be able to go on indefinitely if the character or player can do it. Or else ban IC. The chaingrab limit really mainly effects them. Sure other characters have specific infinites. But IC can infinite the whole cast. They should be allowed to do it indefinitely. Or if we make a rule that limits them then they are banworthy. Again infinite limits other characters but only in certain matchups or certain stages. I would compare it to planking in the mk can plank everyone. But DK can plank some characters. Ban IC they need a character specific rule and they almost singlehandedly (well I guess doublehandley thanks to nana) effect the ruleset.

I am just using YOUR basic argument for another characters. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Infinite limits affect a lot of characters. Anyone with a Jab lock, Fox's Reflector, Marth's Ness/Lucas chaingrab, Dedede's Bowser/DK chaingrab, a bunch of characters on Wario...There are many more, I'm sure.

 

[Sorto]

Infinite limits affect a lot of characters. Anyone with a Jab lock, Fox's Reflector, Marth's Ness/Lucas chaingrab, Dedede's Bowser/DK chaingrab, a bunch of characters on Wario...There are many more, I'm sure.

Anything on Wario is Character specific. Same with Ness and Lucas. Fox reflector is stage specific.

DK can plank olimar. A bunch of characters can plank falco. These are character specific planks, not like any other character can plank on every stage against everyone like MK.

IC are the only character that can chain every character infinitely. There metagame also uses it. Sure a bunch of characters have jab locks but they don't have setups and again they are only infinites on specific stages because of smash di.

Planking effects a lot of matchus for specific characters if you exclude mk. Infinites effect a lot of matchups for specific characters if you exclude IC.

However MK can plank everyone safelyish.

IC can infinite everyone reliably.

That is what I am saying. Please read my posts reflex. Planking isn't truly for just MK. Same with the infinite rule not just effecting IC. But for those who say the planking rule mainly just for MK, that is equal to say the infinite rule is mainly for just for IC. Because when it comes to the current metagame this is true. Other characters have planks that win them matchups they would otherwise lose (RB vs Will). Just like other characters have infinites that effect certain matchups (Dk vs DDD). DDD should be allowed to stall out DK with an infinite if DK can stall out olimar with a plank.

 

[-LzR-]

Sorry, IC chaingrab isn't an infinite.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Sorry, IC chaingrab isn't an infinite.

How isn't it an infinite? o.O

Smooth Criminal

 

[Sorto]

Sorry, IC chaingrab isn't an infinite.

I used to main IC. I made videos of infiniting every character. And for practice I would attempt to get characters up to 999. My max is 380. But for fun I would practice on opponents at 999 and was able to do it. I believe it can be infinite, unless you have PROOF of otherwise. And if it is not infinite then it should definitely be allowed to go as long as you want. Since It would run the timer somewhat but not be able to done forever is should be totally legal then it is not a true stall since the opponent can mash it and it can't last 8 minutes on its own.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Anything on Wario is Character specific. Same with Ness and Lucas. Fox reflector is stage specific.

DK can plank olimar. A bunch of characters can plank falco. These are character specific planks, not like any other character can plank on every stage against everyone like MK.

IC are the only character that can chain every character infinitely. There metagame also uses it. Sure a bunch of characters have jab locks but they don't have setups and again they are only infinites on specific stages because of smash di.

Planking effects a lot of matchus for specific characters if you exclude mk. Infinites effect a lot of matchups for specific characters if you exclude IC.

However MK can plank everyone safelyish.

IC can infinite everyone reliably.

That is what I am saying. Please read my posts reflex. Planking isn't truly for just MK. Same with the infinite rule not just effecting IC. But for those who say the planking rule mainly just for MK, that is equal to say the infinite rule is mainly for just for IC. Because when it comes to the current metagame this is true. Other characters have planks that win them matchups they would otherwise lose (RB vs Will). Just like other characters have infinites that effect certain matchups (Dk vs DDD). DDD should be allowed to stall out DK with an infinite if DK can stall out olimar with a plank.

If I'm not mistaken, certain stages prevent Ice Climbers from reliably chaingrabbing a fair amount of the cast (Lylat? Yoshi's Island?).

Diddy can reliably infinite the cast, as well.

 

[-LzR-]

Delux namesearch and explain that they are not really infinites. Or if I am wrong, prove me wrong.

 

[Sorto]

If I'm not mistaken, certain stages prevent Ice Climbers from reliably chaingrabbing a fair amount of the cast (Lylat? Yoshi's Island?).

Diddy can reliably infinite the cast, as well.

It can be done, just different timing. And even so, you can use a walking chaingrab to a flat section to make it easier.

Diddy and Pikachu (unless qac can be smash di-ed out of) are the only true two arguments. But the metagame doesn't use there infinites. So the rule is not for them just yet. If diddies and pikas were infiniting all over the place then the rule would apply to them. But they are not...

Also, I had a backroomer once metion to me pikachu being able to quick attack cancel from the ledge to the tip of the stage (similar to wolfs side b) in a matter that would make him have an almost mk level plank in terms of invicibility and safety. So it could be equal to the diddy argument in that the metagame isn't using it. Can I have a frame expert inform me on this if frame data proves or debunks this?

 

[Strong Badam]

Stadium 1 promotes crazy-safe switching opportunities for PT. I need it.

The stagelist or ruleset in general is not an opportunity for us to attempt to balance the game.

for one there is (or at least should be) an innocent until proven guilty policy with banning anything. it's up to the ones that want it banned to provide reasoning.

You'd be correct if this game were intended for competitive play, but it isn't. We had to shape it via options and in some cases surgical rules to make it playable. Rather, stage-wise, we should only include stages that are proven to be competitive.
The community chose this mindset when they banned items without sufficient testing. SRK & Evo2k8 are the only people that truly took your ideology to heart; the rest of the community is two-faced and hypocritical.

but brinstar and rainbow shouldn't be banned because they are stages no elements on either that are both random and don't give ample warning (rainbow is competely non random in fact). Neither stages have a centralizing strategy either. I really see no reason to ban them.

Then ban G&W's hammer because the 9 doesn't give ample warning. Or dashing because tripping doesn't give ample warning. "But storng bard those are character things and we can't ban those!" Meta Knight

That's because every time we see a match on Brinstar, we also see Metaknight on it >___>;

Then why are people still complaining about them even when MK is banned....?

You must be an IC main.

I use Pikachu. RC & PS2 are probably my character's best CPs; believe it or not, I'm not trying to make my character better with my stagelist.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Squirtle's Jab Lock setups may not be reliable (though "reliable" is open to interpretation; Squirtle can cause it on an opponent who isn't on a platform), but he has more than most characters, and he can infinite the cast on any reasonably-flat stage when he lands it due to true pivot and Jab2.

 

[DeLux]

ICs CGs are technically not infinites on I've confirmed the 6 lightest characters in the game and Ness/Lucas.

Essentially what happens is that the game refreshes movement frame by frame. So in terms of geometry, people move a bit each frame to give the illusion of linear movement.

As knock back increases, the distance a person travels per frame increases to give the illusion of faster linear movement.

As the percent increases, there comes a point where in one frame the character will undergo knockback that is larger than the ICs grab range, thus making regrabbing impossible.

It's always possible to regrab someone using the standard P Bthrow > N Pivot Grab (which introduces tripping to make it non-infinite for all characters for one). However, Dthrow/Fthrow end at percents below 999 against the characters I mentioned. If someone can only use Bthrow to reliably CG, it's no longer a standing infinite and is a walking CG that will end due to stage length.