Fourth and final community vote about Meta Knight.

[:mad:]

Self-quoting again. This is the second time I had to do so.

Not a single person in this thread compared the two because that would be ****ing stupid.

Your post was a waste.

 

[Fatmanonice]

Oh.
Thanks

I truly suck at SF games so I didn't know.
X(

It's also referenced alot because David Sirlin, pretty much the man who has defined competitive gaming, has been on the development staff of the most recent games in the series so that the franchise caters to the competitive community as best as possible.

@ Master Knight:

I agree with Straked, it's a complete waste because the Advance Wars series isn't even truely competitive.

 

[Master Knight DH]

Not a single person in this thread compared the two because that would be ****ing stupid.

So is all this complaining about Meta Knight in the first place. Your point?

If you freaking want to force people to play by "Goliath"'s rules rather than "David"'s, then at least DO IT RIGHT.

 

[DarkPikmin]

This is not as fun as the tier list debate. Make it so you can only use MK in one set of a tourney as a counter pick or something dumb like that.

 

[POKE40]

This is not as fun as the tier list debate. Make it so you can only use MK in one set of a tourney as a counter pick or something dumb like that.

Well you see, the tier list wasn't quite a debate. It was more of OMG and WTF?


This however, the "MK: to be banned or not to be banned debate" is one of the most, if not "the" most, radical debate ever in Smash history.

Things are bound to get dirty unfortunately.
The gasoline is on the floor and the one careless statement and then...
Boom! Flame war!

 

[da K.I.D.]

why would we do something that even the guy who suggested the idea thinks is dumb

LOL

 

[Boxob.]

I wish to put an argument forth about the two thirds vote bull **** we have going on over here.

I personally feel that a required two thirds (or anything other than above 50%) to be unfair. I'll explain why. I can't make this as lengthy as I would usually, due to an injury on my right hand, making this all very hard to write.

While I can understand the SBR's thought process behind a two thirds vote; it isn't, in any way, fair. Let's take for example (without all the bull**** and such) the USA's presidential election procedure. Even when, let's say, the past however many presidents run the country under one way (let's say republican). When an apposing view point holding candidate steps up the plate, he does not need over 2/3's vote to rule the same game in a completely new way. You get what I'm sayin' dawg?

We as a community, are practically divided. Forget he and she's a scrub, who's pro, who doesn't go to tourneys and who doesn't care. In a vote, a fair vote; it is most best decided by who has the most votes. This isn't a court procedure. MK ***** but we're treating him as a legitimate convicted rapist(lul).

In my opinion, the standard of 2/3's shows me that the SBR is mostly stubborn. They know better than the most of us, that the community itself is almost 50/50. It puts the pro-banner's in an unfair position. Why should their side be an uphill battle when it very well COULD be the way it should be? If most of the people in this dedicated community wish to play the game one way, shouldn't it be played that way? (don't bring up items or stages and scrubs who enjoy them, this is different).

That's all I can write right now. Responses would be nice, though.

 

[DarkPikmin]

If that does happen it would be lulz. I called it!

 

[Fatmanonice]

So is all this complaining about Meta Knight in the first place. Your point?

If you freaking want to force people to play by "Goliath"'s rules rather than "David"'s, then at least DO IT RIGHT.

No, you don't get it... It's an extremelly poor comparision because people don't play Advance Wars competitively like they play Smash. I've never even heard of an Advance/Battlion Wars tournament ever being held. In this context, you might as well be comparing Smash to Mario Tennis. Both games are "competitive" but Advance Wars is not competitive as set by competitive gaming standards.

 

[MarKO X]

i think the brawl vs melee debate was worse.
it got to the point where mods were like, "okay, guess what? stop it. now. forever." and would give ppl infractions if they tried to start it up again.

 

[ZeonStar]

What if we just made small amends for metaknight's brokeness? Like maybe he cant counterpick or something like that?

 

[POKE40]

i think the brawl vs melee debate was worse.
it got to the point where mods were like, "okay, guess what? stop it. now. forever." and would give ppl infractions if they tried to start it up again.

Good grievance.

I'm glad I was still a scrub during that time.


I would agree.
The Brawl vs Melee extends its wings farther than this discussion.

But I have a feeling that Brawl vs. SSB4 won't be that bad XD

 

[Master Knight DH]

No, you don't get it... It's an extremelly poor comparision because people don't play Advance Wars competitively like they play Smash. I've never even heard of an Advance/Battlion Wars tournament ever being held. In this context, you might as well be comparing Smash to Mario Tennis. Both games are "competitive" but Advance Wars is not competitive as set by competitive gaming standards.

AW competition bans FAR less. And in DoR, Caulder is competitively banned. Meta Knight is being debated, yet people are acting like Meta Knight is as broken as Caulder if not moreso.

It is you who doesn't get it. I was making my point that the SSB community's mindset is being stupid.


For those wondering, I'm anti-ban anyway. The lack of glitch/exploit banning makes me further against banning Meta Knight, but the mere fact that Meta Knight has a working on-balance weakness is more than enough to set my position.

 

[Masmasher@]

SSB4 shouldnt happen if its gonna be as bad as this...
Though i see alot of posts that the community shouldnt compare brawl to other fighting games and the standard qualifications for banning a character. Maybe since the pro ban side had some criteria the community should have had a vote on it to see if it was worthy criteria to compete in the first place?
IDK

 

[SnowballBob33]

I just had an awesome idea

We are never going to agree on this so we should compromise.

Zeon brought up a good idea. Maybe we should make it so that you aren't allowed to COUNTERPICK metaknight. You are still allowed to use him, you just can't pick him after you lose. That means MK mains keep their main and he kinda takes away from the broken CP system.

 

[phi1ny3]

Good grievance.

I'm glad I was still a scrub during that time.


I would agree.
The Brawl vs Melee extends its wings farther than this discussion.

But I have a feeling that Brawl vs. SSB4 won't be that bad XD

Judging from Sakurai's interview, it sounds like either SSB4 is either not going to happen or smash is going on a looooooong hiatus.

 

[Boxob.]

We are never going to agree on this so we should compromise.

Zeon brought up a good idea. Maybe we should make it so that you aren't allowed to COUNTERPICK metaknight. You are still allowed to use him, you just can't pick him after you lose. That means MK mains keep their main and he kinda takes away from the broken CP system.

That's a terrible idea.

Just because you would have to pick MK from the start, doesn't make him not broken lol. He would still have his recovery, safer options, matchup ratios, and everything else that everyone is ****ting bricks about.

 

[Clai]

I can also respond to your earlier post if you want to, but I'll take the timesaver and just reply to what you have here. Hope that's not a problem.

Of course they aren't totally irrelevant. I just think that a lot of the anti-ban sign sees another game, sees how that community deals with things, and say "That is how it should be for Smash" without so much as a second thought as to WHY. I am merely asserting that any decision made, be in to ban, or not to ban, be made by the same standards as anything else we have banned; stages, items, techniques, etc.

The reason that we judge our criteria for banning a character by looking at how other fighting games look at the problem is because the criteria that other fighters use to ban characters are, more often than not, the same criteria that has existed since fighters existed. When we're dealing with something as game-changing as removing a character from the competitive scene, it's best to just go along with the standards that have already been set- that way we know that these criteria have withstood the test of time and we aren't being too heavily subjective about it.

We SHOULDN'T, though, use the same standards for removing a character as banning items/stages, etc. because although banning characters is a dilemma that plenty of fighting games go through and thus we have a precedent of following, the concept of items and crazy stages is so foreign from traditional fighters that we have no choice but to make our own standards- standards, I remind you, that serve the purpose of making this game as close to a traditional fighter as possible, regarding the competitive scene.

If the decision to keep MK around is made with the SBR sitting down and saying: "This is what smash is, as we (the 'ruling body' for lack of a better term) have defined it in terms of what is and isn't fair and level competition" and comes up with keeping him around- then I am fine with that decision (I may not like it, but I can accept it) as opposed to them sitting down and saying "Well, in SF or GG there is this one char who... and, MK isn't like that, so we aren't going to ban him" then I will be... to some degree upset.

Just because removing a character would make it 'fair' and 'balanced' among the Smash community, doesn't necessarily mean we have to go along with that decision. We're treating Brawl like a competitive fighter, and thus we have to use the same standards as other fighters use when it comes to the treatment of its characters. Brawl isn't balanced, but it's not so unbalanced that one character causes an overcentralization of the metagame (if you think that it does, state your reasons why and I'll answer those reasons; anyone from the anti-ban side will tell you Metaknight does not centralize Brawl any more than the best characters of other fighting games centralize their metagames, and again, these are the standards we have to follow if we're treating Brawl like a competitive fighter), and therefore we just have to accept playing an unbalanced game.

Essentially, I want the decision to be made in the context of smash as it has been defined. Being influenced is one thing, looking to some precedent is one thing- but to make such a weight decision simply because "it worked/didnt work" for ANOTHER community is something I disagree with.

Even if you disagree with it, it's something you're going to have to deal with, as precedents exist because they work, and have worked for some time now.

All I'm asking is that pro and anti ban alike assess it from the POV of the SMASH community.

The majority of the Smash community, as seen from the posts here from Smashboards, don't know anything about the standards of removing a character from a competitive fighter. Heck, the majority of this community doesn't even play this game competitively. we can't cater to their wishes simply because they outnumber the people that know what they're talking about.

Avarice Panda mentioned something like this, and I just want to point out that its not that the traits are inherent in any "best character" but rather that THIS "best character" is apparantly leagues ahead of the others. (Referring to the tier list & explanation of how the tiers were broken down). Though the gap has closed, it seems to be wider than any the community has experienced.

True, but in order to ban the character, we have to prove that the character is causing an overcentralization of the metagame, meaning that the metagame is reduced to 'counterpick MK with MK or lose." That has not happened in Brawl.

And people have been getting better. Brawl's still a young game. MK is an amazing character at wrecking people who don't know how to play well; ex. tornado spam. It works if you don't know how to beat it. But as for bans, we don't care how much of a learning curve there is to being able to beat MK; the question is whether or not at a high-level of play he is beatable.

Technically, when referring to bans, the question is whether at a high-level of play, Metaknight causes an overcentralization of the Brawl metagame. Generally, if the character is unbeatable in high levels of play, the community will catch on and start using that character to the point where he causes an overcentralization of the metagame. Also keep in mind that the character can't have a prohibitively high learning curve to the point that only the rarest of individuals can actually use him at the highest levels. No character can overcentralize the metagame if not enough people are seeing the character at its highest level where it adversely affects the metagame.

To give an example, Melee Fox, if played perfectly to the exact frame, would be absolutely unstoppable, completely devastating the other characters with its one-frame shine. However, since its impossible to fully abuse that shine to broken levels, we are unable to see Melee Fox at this unbeatable level and we are left with beatable, but still very good, Fox players.

At a high level, people DI shuttle loop and often get out of and/or punish tornado. If it took us a long time to get to that point, it doesn't matter. If there are 1000 threads about it on smashboards, it doesn't matter. The question is whether or not it's beatable, or degenerate. Show me vids where people lose to MK not because they weren't making mistakes, but because his traps are virtually perfect. At least in reasonable trade with some mistakes made by the MK.

Example of trap: U-air-->opponent airdodges-->D-air, its a frame trap. Of course, other chars have other frame traps. A lot of "tricks" with MK result in frame traps like multiple shuttleloops, drill rushes ending with a platform cancel, the frame advantage MK has over shields and airdodges, etc etc. Its not so much that these traps exist, but its that they buff already very good moves.

For a more obvious example, look at any match that an MK has won due to stalling out the clock, be it by ledge or "air" camping. His options more or less create "traps" against some chars that result in them being unable to reasonably do anything.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I'm pretty sure that it's covered in what I said above.

MK has largely centralized the metagame, to this point (and prolly for longer still). Centralizing =/= over-centralizing. It's okay for things to be central, if it takes us that long to overcome the obstacles necessary to reach high-level play.

I see we are in agreement here. No arguments to say about this.

Then explain why in the world MK can live as into the mid-high hundreds when comparably weighted chars don't? And, I don't mean that as a smart-arse comment, I'm just curious.

Stale moves, poorer DI on account of the other characters (Don't tell me you've seen a Squirtle/Jigglypuff play on M2K's level), the comparably weighted characters get gimped easier than MK, pick any reason.

The point I was trying to make is that MK both shuts down approaches, and can approach much easier than other characters facing the same projectile onslaught.

With Metaknight's terrible horizontal aerial speed and the inability to cancel out projectiles with its attacks? I'd like you to explain why you think the bolded part is true.

This is an interesting point. The "human factor" does come into play, but we have to realize that just as the MK can make a mistake, the other player can as well. And, most MU discussions/ratios are more or less based on the assumption that "these are the things you need to do, and you have to do these right". While they take account for human error, they do so minimally, inasmuch as: "If you space this poorly, you'll get hit with this". Because of the stringent nature of the discussion concerning how matchups are to be played... it seems somewhat impractical to call *any* matchup in terms of a ratio (which I rarely ever do). I was merely using the term "perfect character" to illustrate that if someone played him 100% accuratley, they would never lose in theory, something that, to my knowledge, can't be said about any other character/matchup.

When talking about matchups, you have to assume that the other player is playing at the same level of play. So even when we're talking about someone playing MK at a 100% level, the only way we can judge the character instead of the player simply being loads better than everyone else is that if we brought along an opponent who is also playing their character, at 100% too. So remove player skill as a variable, since they are equal, a 45-55 or even a 40-60 matchup still gives the disadvantaged player a reasonable chance of winning.

No, not at all! I think the two are incredibly even. I was just saying that the performance of two players, even though they are the best, do not single-handedly rewrite matchups unless it is a continued trend (IE, more than a handful or two of sets)

Well, the performance of two of the best players, if viewed, could give people discussing the matchups something they haven't thought of before. Remember, the match-up ratios are thought up by human beings and they can't account for every possible situation when they're discussing the matchups. So, in a sense, the performance of top players can change a match-up discussion, whether it's to confirm what the people discussing the matchup are saying, or to change what these people currently think.

Good stuff from you as well... and like I told Avarice- you bring up some interesting points that made me ponder. Good stuff.

If you want me to go over your previous post, I will be happy to do so. Just give the word and a reasonable amount of time and I'll get to it.

 

[swordgard]

We are never going to agree on this so we should compromise.

Zeon brought up a good idea. Maybe we should make it so that you aren't allowed to COUNTERPICK metaknight. You are still allowed to use him, you just can't pick him after you lose. That means MK mains keep their main and he kinda takes away from the broken CP system.

You cannot compromise, either something is broken and should be banned or it isnt.


I actually voted anti ban by accident, i wanted to see polls results : (


EDIT: Either way, i had planned on abstaining from voting in order to protest agaisnt this poll. I believe way too many uninformed people can vote on this. Which is why i had planned to protest against it by not voting >.< .


Double edit: To all the people saying MKs lightness is his only weakness you are wrong. Not only on it being his only weakness, but on that actually being a weakness. Being light means you are immune to D3s chaingrab, while dying a bit faster on bigger stages it is more often the falling speed which will determine how fast you will die. MK is light enough not to get chaingrabbed by D3, fast faller enough to allow him to live long enough, but not too light to die at super low % or too fast faller to get comboed by infinites of the like that fox suffers from. It is all in all one of his greatest strenghts, being immune to D3's cg is a huge asset.

 

[MarKO X]

lol @ can't compromise.

 

[infomon]

DuLL_RaZer: thx for your comments. I'm too tired to reply to stuff now, might get to it later, but nothing critical.
But btw in your last post, I guess some of the quote formatting got messed up, and you quote me without it being in quote tags.... so it looks like you're saying it.... lol

Clai: good stuff, tho see the above... some of your quoted sections from DuLL (like the part you agreed with lol) was actually my reply to him

 

[Fatmanonice]

I wish to put an argument forth about the two thirds vote bull **** we have going on over here.

I personally feel that a required two thirds (or anything other than above 50%) to be unfair. I'll explain why. I can't make this as lengthy as I would usually, due to an injury on my right hand, making this all very hard to write.

While I can understand the SBR's thought process behind a two thirds vote; it isn't, in any way, fair. Let's take for example (without all the bull**** and such) the USA's presidential election procedure. Even when, let's say, the past however many presidents run the country under one way (let's say republican). When an apposing view point holding candidate steps up the plate, he does not need over 2/3's vote to rule the same game in a completely new way. You get what I'm sayin' dawg?

We as a community, are practically divided. Forget he and she's a scrub, who's pro, who doesn't go to tourneys and who doesn't care. In a vote, a fair vote; it is most best decided by who has the most votes. This isn't a court procedure. MK ***** but we're treating him as a legitimate convicted rapist(lul).

In my opinion, the standard of 2/3's shows me that the SBR is mostly stubborn. They know better than the most of us, that the community itself is almost 50/50. It puts the pro-banner's in an unfair position. Why should their side be an uphill battle when it very well COULD be the way it should be? If most of the people in this dedicated community wish to play the game one way, shouldn't it be played that way? (don't bring up items or stages and scrubs who enjoy them, this is different).

That's all I can write right now. Responses would be nice, though.

Not to mention that the pro side has the burden of proof while, when it comes to debating standards, the anti side isn't at any fault if they simply ask the pro side to provide more evidence by basically crossing their arms and saying "oh yeah, prove it!" or saying "this isn't enough evidence to show that... blah, blah, blah." In this sense, the pro side is automatically put at a disadvantage.

Good grievance.

I'm glad I was still a scrub during that time.


I would agree.
The Brawl vs Melee extends its wings farther than this discussion.

But I have a feeling that Brawl vs. SSB4 won't be that bad XD

Well, Sakurai did say that he wants each Smash game to have its own "feel" to it which explains why Melee and Brawl are as different as night and day when it comes to basic mechanics. Regardless, Sakurai does appear to be aware of tier lists because the high tier characters usually get nerfed in the following game:

Smash Bros to Melee-

Nerfed hard- Ness, Pikachu, Kirby
Nerfed- Yoshi, Luigi
Stayed about the same- Donkey Kong, Link
Buffed- Mario, Samus, Jigglypuff, Captain Falcon
Overhauled- Fox

Melee to Brawl-

Nerfed hard-Jigglypuff, Samus, Shiek, Fox, Captain Falcon
Nerfed- Falco, Marth, Mario, Yoshi, Ganondorf, Peach
Stayed about the same- Link, Bowser
Buffed- Luigi, Donkey Kong, Zelda, Ice Climbers, Ness
Overhauled- Kirby, Toon (Young) Link, Pikachu, Mr. Game and Watch

AW competition bans FAR less. And in DoR, Caulder is competitively banned. Meta Knight is being debated, yet people are acting like Meta Knight is as broken as Caulder if not moreso.

It is you who doesn't get it. I was making my point that the SSB community's mindset is being stupid.

AW competition is almost an oxymoron simply because of how few people even play it competitively like people play Smash. Are you sure you're not talking about wifi battles? Under that logic, Mario Kart Wii is competitive too...

 

[SnowballBob33]

That's a terrible idea.

Just because you would have to pick MK from the start, doesn't make him not broken lol. He would still have his recovery, safer options, matchup ratios, and everything else that everyone is ****ting bricks about.

I'm on your side, I think he's broken too. But I don't see this poll getting past 56% and SBR changing anything.

You cannot compromise, either something is broken and should be banned or it isnt.

I actually voted anti ban by accident, i wanted to see polls results : (

But everyone knows he's gay and everyone knows he has no unfavorable matchups. So I don't see the problem with the idea. If you're a MK main, you can still use your main no problem. This is just to eliminate the situation of people CPing MK when they lose (or win).

Pro-ban side needs to stop being so dam picky and get what we can get.

 

[Nicole]

I wish to put an argument forth about the two thirds vote bull **** we have going on over here.

I personally feel that a required two thirds (or anything other than above 50%) to be unfair. I'll explain why. I can't make this as lengthy as I would usually, due to an injury on my right hand, making this all very hard to write.

While I can understand the SBR's thought process behind a two thirds vote; it isn't, in any way, fair. Let's take for example (without all the bull**** and such) the USA's presidential election procedure. Even when, let's say, the past however many presidents run the country under one way (let's say republican). When an apposing view point holding candidate steps up the plate, he does not need over 2/3's vote to rule the same game in a completely new way. You get what I'm sayin' dawg?

We as a community, are practically divided. Forget he and she's a scrub, who's pro, who doesn't go to tourneys and who doesn't care. In a vote, a fair vote; it is most best decided by who has the most votes. This isn't a court procedure. MK ***** but we're treating him as a legitimate convicted rapist(lul).

In my opinion, the standard of 2/3's shows me that the SBR is mostly stubborn. They know better than the most of us, that the community itself is almost 50/50. It puts the pro-banner's in an unfair position. Why should their side be an uphill battle when it very well COULD be the way it should be? If most of the people in this dedicated community wish to play the game one way, shouldn't it be played that way? (don't bring up items or stages and scrubs who enjoy them, this is different).

That's all I can write right now. Responses would be nice, though.

I really really really like this post.

Does the anti-ban side have any comments on it? Or maybe the SBR could enlighten the community as to why the pro ban side needs a 2/3 majority vote?

 

[ShadowLink84]

AW competition bans FAR less. And in DoR, Caulder is competitively banned. Meta Knight is being debated, yet people are acting like Meta Knight is as broken as Caulder if not moreso.

Except Caulder is banned by the game during wifi and wireless games because of how broken he is, he was intended to be that broken.


Hell the programmers and developers knew this when making him.

 

[swordgard]

lol @ can't compromise.

Either he is broken or he isnt. If he is, he deserves to be banned. If he isnt, then he shouldnt.

If he is, why only ban him from being cped? Wouldnt work since you can pick him from the start then >.>


And if you try to handicap him ,where is the line for actually being too good or just good enough.

 

[swordgard]

I wish to put an argument forth about the two thirds vote bull **** we have going on over here.

I personally feel that a required two thirds (or anything other than above 50%) to be unfair. I'll explain why. I can't make this as lengthy as I would usually, due to an injury on my right hand, making this all very hard to write.

While I can understand the SBR's thought process behind a two thirds vote; it isn't, in any way, fair. Let's take for example (without all the bull**** and such) the USA's presidential election procedure. Even when, let's say, the past however many presidents run the country under one way (let's say republican). When an apposing view point holding candidate steps up the plate, he does not need over 2/3's vote to rule the same game in a completely new way. You get what I'm sayin' dawg?

We as a community, are practically divided. Forget he and she's a scrub, who's pro, who doesn't go to tourneys and who doesn't care. In a vote, a fair vote; it is most best decided by who has the most votes. This isn't a court procedure. MK ***** but we're treating him as a legitimate convicted rapist(lul).

In my opinion, the standard of 2/3's shows me that the SBR is mostly stubborn. They know better than the most of us, that the community itself is almost 50/50. It puts the pro-banner's in an unfair position. Why should their side be an uphill battle when it very well COULD be the way it should be? If most of the people in this dedicated community wish to play the game one way, shouldn't it be played that way? (don't bring up items or stages and scrubs who enjoy them, this is different).

That's all I can write right now. Responses would be nice, though.

False, im pretty sure huge votes for laws requires 66%, at least its what they do in quebec here.


Banning is something we cant go back on, so we really need it to be more than just a split community decision and make sure we want to do this.

If the vote is close, we can reevaluate next time something big happens. If we let pro ban win at 50%+1 vote win, then we may ban something half the people thought was broken, then the other half didnt, and it may turn out to be wrong and we will not be able to go back.


EDIT: My bad for double post, i figured someone would post in between >.<

 

[MarKO X]

i lol'd @ compromise because....

we already comprised.

 

[infomon]

2/3 majority makes sense for this IMO. A character ban is severe, and is put into place when a character is absolutely dominant and degenerate. If 49% of the community does not think this is the case, then it seems pretty freaking dramatic to try and convince TOs to ban him. That would be madness.

 

[deepseadiva]

That's all I can write right now. Responses would be nice, though.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/21/4chan-takes-over-the-time-100/

The fact their putting any weight on this internet poll is idiotic. Maybe if the poll accurately reflected the votes of informed, thoughtful, and experienced players, your position would be interesting - but it's taking into account pretty much the opposite. As a wild guess, I'd go and say about 30-50% of the votes were attached with the words "OMGROFL" or similar.

With that margin of error, wanting the deciding side to be at a minimal 51% is utterly reckless.

 

[swordgard]

i lol'd @ compromise because....

we already comprised.

We banned specific techniques which were bannable. These bans were discrete, enforceable and warranted. We do not ban a character unless we have to do so. If the problem is a specific technique, then ban it. If it is the character, then ban the character.

 

[POKE40]

I really really really like this post.

Does the anti-ban side have any comments on it? Or maybe the SBR could enlighten the community as to why the pro ban side needs a 2/3 majority vote?

Hylian stated and I'm paraphrasing:

2/3 has been the ratio for votes for everything to be banned or not.

Remember that was paraphrasing ^_^'


The percentage for "yes ban him!" must stick out like a sore thumb for MK to be banned. Pro-Ban obviously has the lower-hand.

It is like this because pros are breaking what right now is the norm "mk is not banned"

If MK was banned and we are trying to get MK out of ban. It would be a lower hand for the anti-ban


i know. It is obvious

 

[Boxob.]

Banning is something we cant go back on, so we really need it to be more than just a split community decision and make sure we want to do this.

You realize that NOT banning is something, according to the OP, that we can't go back on as well.

If the vote is close, we can reevaluate next time something big happens. If we let pro ban win at 50%+1 vote win, then we may ban something half the people thought was broken, then the other half didnt, and it may turn out to be wrong and we will not be able to go back.

And if pro ban loses and we keep MK and he maintains his dominance through the exploitation of the pseudo-rules set against his theoretically flawless techniques, would that be ok?

 

[swordgard]

You realize that NOT banning is something, according to the OP, that we can't go back on as well.


And if pro ban loses and we keep MK and he maintains his dominance through the exploitation of the pseudo-rules set against his theoretically flawless techniques, would that be ok?

Even though its supposed to be final, im sure the SBR is composed of intelligent member. AKA they WILL do another vote if something drastic happens(MK starts getting 6 out of top 8 at national tourneys).

Also, sorry to tell you so, but MKs dominance is actually slipping according to ankoku's list. However it is highly statistical and has a few flaws in it as well, but so far its the best we got.

 

[Clai]

Double edit: To all the people saying MKs lightness is his only weakness you are wrong. Not only on it being his only weakness, but on that actually being a weakness. Being light means you are immune to D3s chaingrab, while dying a bit faster on bigger stages it is more often the falling speed which will determine how fast you will die. MK is light enough not to get chaingrabbed by D3, fast faller enough to allow him to live long enough, but not too light to die at super low % or too fast faller to get comboed by infinites of the like that fox suffers from. It is all in all one of his greatest strenghts, being immune to D3's cg is a huge asset.

Metaknight gets chaingrabbed hard by Falco and he still dies to Snake's u-tilt at around 100%. He still gets sent to the blast zones a lot easier than most of the other characters.

 

[DanGR]

huh? MK's momentum-cancelling options are pretty trash. His jumps barely help recover any horizontal momentum, his only real options are U-air > glide-attack which doesn't help much, or side-B which pretty much guarantees he dies anyway. MK is very light, everyone can DI, and I'd reckon at least half the cast can momentum-cancel better than he.

Optimum momentum canceling is obtained by fast falling during a short duration aerial while in hitstun, and then jumping towards a corner of the blast zone (If you're launched horizontally) to redirect the rest of your momentum along as long a path as you can. If you've got a momentum stopper like G&W, you can use that after the fast falled aerial instead of jumping.

Because Meta Knight not only has the shortest duration aerial in the game (upair) to get him out of hitstun as quickly as is possible, but also has multiple jumps (something few characters have) to help redirect his momentum even further upwards than if he had only one jump, Meta Knight has the best momentum canceling in the game (when you exclude special attack momentum cancels such as bucket braking and DK's Upb).

For this reason, Meta Knight's survivability is on par with characters a fairly good amount heavier than himself. To get a small idea of what difference that is... I personally, when I use MK against a character with about average kill power, I usually live to around an average of about (guesstimating, obviously) 160% every stock (I've got great DI), as opposed to about 180-190% with Snake, and 130-140% with Olimar. (That's assuming I miss a whistle or something and rely on momentum canceling to help me out. I'll live much longer with good whistle use, obviously.)

 

[Boxob.]

stuff.

Well, the SBR is smart(sometimes), but from all that I've seen of their work. What they say is what they say. And what they said, is that this is the final vote.

And, fact is, when people learn to play MK better, he will rise, sharply. His potential isn't tapped. When people play him in tourney as well as we can describe what he can do on paper, he will without a doubt be MUCH better than the rest of the cast. Give it a couple of years and get back to me, I promise. lol

 

[swordgard]

Metaknight gets chaingrabbed hard by Falco and he still dies to Snake's u-tilt at around 100%. He still gets sent to the blast zones a lot easier than most of the other characters.

He gets chaingrabbed to 50%, but its much better than getting cged by D3. He also does get sent fast to the blastzones, but he still is fast faller enough to make him survive long enough on bigger levels. Yes, he doesnt have the ideal weight/falling speed, but hes fairly close to be honest.


Im just stating that it isnt so much of a weakness to be light if it makes you immune to the greatest chaingrab threat in the game(ics are debatable, but these have requirements, unlike D3s).

 

[MarKO X]

And if pro ban loses and we keep MK and he maintains his dominance through the exploitation of the pseudo-rules set against his theoretically flawless techniques, would that be ok?

of course it would be ok. because he's the best character in the game.

 

[swordgard]

Well, the SBR is smart(sometimes), but from all that I've seen of their work. What they say is what they say. And what they said, is that this is the final vote.

And, fact is, when people learn to play MK better, he will rise, sharply. His potential isn't tapped. When people play him in tourney as well as we can describe what he can do on paper, he will without a doubt be MUCH better than the rest of the cast. Give it a couple of years and get back to me, I promise. lol

You do realize the moment we break the SDI technical barrier your theory falls appart? I can assume we get there myselft and tell you MK will dramatically fall on the tier list.


See what i did there?

I took theory and made it sound like fact. Thats what you do, without any argument behind your reasonning. Theory=/=practice.