Meta Knight Officially Banned!

[Black Mantis]

I'm anti-ban.

I just haven't really had the time to lay out my most pressing points and questions. I'm open to have my sentiments quashed if the data aligns. Still, I am not entirely comfortable with the methodology employed, and I would love if other members of the BBR (or even other high-level players) could add their insight.

Really, all I've been doing is damage control. It's aggravating to see some of the anti-banners just run off at the mouth without anything substantial to provide.

Smooth Criminal

Well I do have a question for you then (and I'm not trying to come off in an abrasive manner)
How do you respond to these?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHQZBcLb5Z8

 

[popsofctown]

Money =/= homogenity. It equals money. If a Marth player goes to a tournament, he's going to win less money. Banning Meta Knight to take money away from Meta Knight players and give it to Marth players doesn't benefit the community as a whole, it just moves the benefit away from one group onto another group.

 

[Black Mantis]

Money =/= homogenity. It equals money. If a Marth player goes to a tournament, he's going to win less money. Banning Meta Knight to take money away from Meta Knight players and give it to Marth players doesn't benefit the community as a whole, it just moves the benefit away from one group onto another group.

But marth (unlike mk) has bad and even matchups. He won't win it all.

 

[NinjaFoxX]

nah, cuz plenty of matchups marth is gonna lose to, so it distributes to more than marth, but probably high tier as a whole, with some other tiers....

 

[Black Mantis]

-1:
0:
1:





-3:
-2:
-1:
0:
1:
2:
3:
4:

 

[Eddie G]

But marth (unlike mk) has bad and even matchups. He won't win it all.

Not to mention Marth can be gimped offstage by the likes of characters such as Peach, or...anyone else who doesn't already suck off stage for that matter.

*gasp*

 

[Hive]

I think people are still misinterpreting the URC decision. I don't think the URC needs to be a majority of all TOs worldwide to make this sort of decision, its a group of TOs that has joined together to try to create a more unified and coherent brawl ruleset scene by cooperating on ruleset decisions and implementation for their own tournaments, and tournaments that choose to use this as a standard. These are just the sort of decisions TOs have been doing since the start of the game. The misinterpretation I think is that people are viewing this decision as being a forced globalized ruleset change by the URC (even if it is really the community who pushed for this not the URC imo), when it really can only apply to the tournaments who choose to fall under it for the sake of a more unified ruleset. TOs have always been given the right to influence their own tournament rules for the sake of attendance, especially moreso since the BBR avoided any influence. The decision only seems as widereaching as it does because it is the only larger group attempting to make a cooperative standard.

 

[Spelt]

I'm anti-ban.

I just haven't really had the time to lay out my most pressing points and questions. I'm open to have my sentiments quashed if the data aligns. Still, I am not entirely comfortable with the methodology employed, and I would love if other members of the BBR (or even other high-level players) could add their insight.

Really, all I've been doing is damage control. It's aggravating to see some of the anti-banners just run off at the mouth without anything substantial to provide.

Smooth Criminal

Smooth is awesome.

I wish more people shared this mindset.


I have a more complex opinion about this scenario then just "yay, meta knight was banned!" Personally I would've greatly preferred a temp ban, among other things, but in the end it doesn't really matter. i'm just gonna wait and see where this takes us instead of sticking my foot in places it doesn't belong.


People need to realize that if it ends up that mk wasn't as dominating as we originally thought then the community will reflect this issue and work to undue the mistake. And it wouldn't be as big a catastrophe as most people think. Mistakes happen, we're trying to make this game the best it can be. You're never going to get anything done if you're too afraid to make the hard decisions.

 

[BSP]

How about we get a post that compiles the BRC's major reasons for the ban and go from their?

 

[KenniSpam!]

I host smashfests in my basement and now apartment due to lack of venues because its... well, ****ing WI Not that there is a local scene to support anymore. Everyone has bailed, including Kennispam, the last notable person in the area. Unless you count Red Ryu. /shrug

I travelled at least 2 hours for the last 3 years, for a few months every single weekend, and enter a tournament I don't expect to win but want to support. It's ***** like you and the URC that I don't support. I'm just grateful we run MK banned but not Unity ruleset, because that gets two things off my back.

I'm a notable person.

 

[JPOBS]

Complaining that the discussion currently is off-topic is also, (durrr) off-topic.


There's a bunch of people in here trying to grasp at straws and cause commotion because obviously they know much better than the 75% of the community who voted for the ban.

It's pretty pointless.

No, what actually is "pretty pointless" is banning anything based on a percentage majority of a community at large.

When you have a system where scrub players 1-1500 have more sway than pro/educated players 1-50 on any given topic, deciding with the majority is just stupid.

 

[Kuro~]

No, what actually is "pretty pointless" is banning anything based on a percentage majority of a community at large.

When you have a system where scrub players 1-1500 have more sway than pro/educated players 1-50 on any given topic, deciding with the majority is just stupid.

This has already been squashed by DeLux like...umpteen times now...i swear to god.

 

[JPOBS]

or you could link me then

i dont think i should be blamed for not reaidng a thread with over 2500 posts.

 

[Hive]

There is no shortage of things you can do to circumvent or deal with a ruleset change:

1) TOs decide to accept a unified standard for the best interest of the community and join the URC where they can influence the rulesets in a way that they think will promote attendance. If a majority of TOs truly feel like having metaknight in is the best decision they can easily revoke the ban before the Apex cutoff date which is a significant while away.
2) The community can influence the existing URC member's decisions for their own tournaments by communicating their feelings with them. If enough of the community feels anti ban over the part of the community who doesn't (which so far has been not true, even in higher level polls) then the TOs will probably change the rule to reflect community wishes.
3) If they don't change the rule, you can simply make your own tournament. If the community likes your ruleset better than you can probably gain more attendance from it. If it is successful enough it will ultimately become the new standard tournament in your local scene or force the other tournament to change their own ruleset to prevent attendance loss. (all three of the above decisions have everything to do with the community agreeing with you, if they don't your problem has nothing to do with the URC but that people legitimately don't want to keep in the overall advantage that mk brings to gameplay. The URC can say all they want about it being a North American standard, etc.. but the only REAL power they have to change rules is if the community supports them on it).
4) You still love the game, so you can chin up, pick a new character and play. Afterall many many more players have been forced to switch characters due to your character or have severely been hindered because of him. While learning a new one may take some time if the unskill advantage from your character is not the only thing leveraging you after enough practice you can regain your dominance through skilled play and gameplay analysis. Doing so would show a lot to the people around you.
5) You can move on. If mk is the only thing that's in it for you there is nothing wrong with looking for a game that holds better enjoyment for yourself. Maybe still play with friends, who knows, nothing is forcing you to be a part of something you don't find fun.

 

[JPOBS]

If people host tournaments for both games (like, say Genesis/Apex) after the metaknight ban comes into effect, but the brawl ruleset will not support the unity ruleset, and instead chooses to have MK playable, will that tournament thread not be stickied?

 

[-ShadowPhoenix-]

idk if this has already been posted

http://wii.ign.com/articles/119/1197901p1.html

lol @ all the scrubs who commented the article

 

[Ussi]

If people host tournaments for both games (like, say Genesis/Apex) after the metaknight ban comes into effect, but the brawl ruleset will not support the unity ruleset, and instead chooses to have MK playable, will that tournament thread not be stickied?

after 6+ months or so i see it being an experimental ruleset option to test how the metagame has grown without MK and if people really want him back (consider it like a temp ban period at least)

 

[Mithost]

Hive sparked a good point there in #4. Many players had to quit a devoted main because of MK, and MK players didn't complain. Now MK players need to find a new main and they are complaining like it's some new cruel torture. We know what it's like to have to drop our mid tier main to get someone closer to MK, now you know how it feels. :/

 

[Vinylic.]

Some though. Tommy's arguement has the greatest example.
Others still intend to oppose to the ban because they like using MK for whatever reason.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Either way it's a "monopoly on something that's meant for fun". So much is necessary to establish a proper environment for competitive play. We reached that conclusion a long time ago, I have no idea why you keep pretending what I'm saying is any different. The argument really goes both ways, a lot of people who dislike banning a character and the poor rules to lessen planking are going to refuse to play it on those principles alone.

And yet you're still pushing something. I hope you're not suggesting what you're doing is any better as is. If you're not, fair enough.

This is where you have to realize it all comes down to a difference of opinion. There are significant drawbacks to both solutions. One option makes the game marginally less accessible, when the other requires serious compromises and wacky rules. Either way people are going to have reasons to pack up their bags and quit, that fear should not drive the decision making. It has to come down to what is best for the long term growth of the game and community which may not necessarily be the current solution if this trend of game compromises continues further in the future. It is already sketchy enough as is.

And the best in term growth is to improve the game without cheating, simply put. Tell me, would you cheat in a professional football game because you don't like the rules that were set up? Because this is exactly what you're suggesting here.

Let's also keep in mind that the fear of MK has caused people to quit as well. So it's not like it's him being banned that only possibly causes fear. People left because he was the most dominant winner. People are coming back because he was banned. You can't win over everyone, and the majority agree with the ban. So we can also note that the majority of the community wants the ban. Which means we're catering to the majority of the playerbase. Is that wrong to do now?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Hive sparked a good point there in #4. Many players had to quit a devoted main because of MK, and MK players didn't complain. Now MK players need to find a new main and they are complaining like it's some new cruel torture. We know what it's like to have to drop our mid tier main to get someone closer to MK, now you know how it feels. :/

That is one of the most asinine things to base any kind of sentiment off of. Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to quit their character. Regardless of whether it was because of MK or not, they made that choice.

There's no poetic justice or great tragedy inherent in the ban, objectively-speaking.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Alien Vision]

Ugh..

Pro-Ban still lacks a highly prioritised reason for the ban, besides bias corrupted reasons, and data that cannot be fully determined to be what it appears to be.

Anti-Ban may not be cohesive reasoners as much as we would like, but they do hold some valuable points just as much we do..

Sigh..

I JUST LOVE BEING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

 

[JPOBS]

Hive sparked a good point there in #4. Many players had to quit a devoted main because of MK, and MK players didn't complain. Now MK players need to find a new main and they are complaining like it's some new cruel torture. We know what it's like to have to drop our mid tier main to get someone closer to MK, now you know how it feels. :/

This is a terrible point.

Switching mains volutarily because of a hard matchup is in no way comparable to switching mains involuntarily due to a ban.

Can't believe anyone would even make this point. Makes the pro ban side look stupid imo.

 

[Flayl]

Please point out where a URC member used that as reasoning for the ban. Or stop making generalizations, that works too.

 

[JPOBS]

Please point out where a URC member used that as reasoning for the ban. Or stop making generalizations, that works too.

I would, if only the URC gave any logical reason at all other than "because we can"

But no, specifically, I was refering to a recent discussion between a few posters..

 

[Shwaffles]

lmao @ banning metaknight. Stay classy guys... What's next? You going to ban snake too?

 

[Flayl]

I would, if only the URC gave any logical reason at all other than "because we can"

But no, specifically, I was refering to a recent discussion between a few posters. stfu gtfo.

URC members have posted their reasons throughout the first pages of the thread. Don't blame pro-ban for your lack of reading skills (only one poster has used that argument among the few in the recent pages).

The reasons are as follows, (note that they don't actually agree with all points, it varies from TO to TO):
- Meta Knight's worst matchup is himself
- Meta Knight players are winning over 50% of the money in a game where there are 9 to 11 characters that are considered high tier
- Over two thirds of the community wants him gone
- There are rules in place specifically targetting Meta Knight so he could remain legal.
- After 3 years of competition, all of the above got worse even though he's the character that people study the most

 

[Alien Vision]

^ Pro-Ban's want him banned just because.

Anti ban's want him legalised just because.

I see no factual foundations worthy enough to support either side yet.

All of those mountains of text throughout this thread, and other threads regarding this entire argument hadn't given enough reason for either side to determine either action.

The only way we will ever get any answers is not by the people arguing, but the changes that we see while MK is banned.

BLAH.

 

[Mithost]

I'm still not a fan of the smashboards community turning everything I say into an argument against me. Some players could not beat good MKs because of the character they chose. When they picked characters with good MK matchups, they could maybe strike even. If that person wanted to play competitively against metaknights without making a gigantic breakthrough in their character (which still doesnt work for them), they would have switch mains. It's not threatening their life per-say, but it is threatening their ability to play the character they chose.

 

[Omni]

Nobody wanna address this?

insight on the ban, as in what some anti-banners are complaining about? like them being underqualified and the timing and such?

or am I misunderstanding?

If you really want to know what my inisght is this was my concern. I planned on posting the same concern here since the topic is still the same.

I, also, gather a group of TO's from across the continent (or perhaps the world) and we come to a conclusion/agreement/whatever that Metaknight should not be banned among other things. Now we have another ruleset from another group of TO's with opposing views. And this group has been established under the same grounds as the URC.

Easy, am'i'rite?

The main objective of the URC should be a global, uniformed ruleset. Period. If this is not your objective then I don't think the URC serves any purpose; not to mention the group name would be completely contradictory. However, the only thing you've succeeded to do is grab a few TO's with the similar mindset and a good amount of influence, and then prematurely came up with a grand decision that now based on 20-30% of upcoming tournaments will become the SWF/URC standard.

Your procedures are completely out of whack. If I, can in fact, copy your exact actions and create a ruleset with a different committee then something is wrong.

The step processes should have been this:
1.) Establish a form of government within the URC.
2.) Seek out ALL TO's from across the WORLD.
3.) Once an overwhelming majority of TO's have been placed in begin discussion.
4.) Methodically come to a census about on what a universal ruleset may look like.
5.) Release said ruleset to the public.

Instead, your step process was:
1.) Get TO's to join from some parts of US and Canada.
2.) Methodically come to a census about on what a universal ruleset may look like.
3.) Release said ruleset to the public.

The only reason why URC has any kind of pull is because JV has given you power. However, the power of the URC should be completely reflective of itself by itself.

You already know what I think of the result.

In my opinion, if you were truly seeking a uniformed global rule set you would reverse the Unity ruleset and go back to my Step 1.

I'm anti-ban for some part, but I honestly don't care. I've read enough from both arguments to see that both sides have very legitimate points. It falls down to a matter of opinion on how one wishes the metagame to be presented. And it also comes down to people's definitions of tidbits such as "healthy", "overcentralization", and "dominance".

My biggest issue is that people are turning a blind-eye to the actual procedure of the ban as opposed to the outcome. The fact that not a single person in the URC voted for Metaknight to remain unban speaks mountains yet, unfortunately, most people are simply content with the end result and thus ignore or even attempt to justify such a bias push.

That's just the half of it.

 

[Ripple]

I see no factual foundations worthy enough to support either side yet.

I have already stated that he breaks our current CP system. a fact that NO ONE can argue with

 

[Alien Vision]

I have already stated that he breaks our current CP system. a fact that NO ONE can argue with

Yes, but that doesn't neccessarily mean it's viable for a BAN of a character.

Especially if you've dealt with him for years already.

Inb4yearsisenoughtimetobanMKforalwayswinningbecausewehaveevidencethatisn'tverytangible

 

[Shwaffles]

URC members have posted their reasons throughout the first pages of the thread. Don't blame pro-ban for your lack of reading skills (only one poster has used that argument among the few in the recent pages).

The reasons are as follows, (note that they don't actually agree with all points, it varies from TO to TO):
- Meta Knight's worst matchup is himself
- Meta Knight players are winning over 50% of the money in a game where there are 9 to 11 characters that are considered high tier
- Over two thirds of the community wants him gone
- There are rules in place specifically targetting Meta Knight so he could remain legal.
- After 3 years of competition, all of the above got worse even though he's the character that people study the most

Those are some of the most idiotic reasons I've ever heard.
The 4 gods of MvC2 had 9-1 and 10-0 matchups vs at least 50% of the cast and I'm being extremely generous here. Now you go wrap your little brain around that. NOT 6-4 OR 7-3 OR 8-2, BUT 9-1 AND 10-0. They still were NOT banned for all 10 years that the game was played at major tournies. When you start banning things, because people consider it "boring" then you go down a very slippery slope.

 

[Flayl]

Those are some of the most idiotic reasons I've ever heard.
The 4 gods of MvC2 had 9-1 and 10-0 matchups vs at least 50% of the cast and I'm being extremely generous here. Now you go wrap your little brain around that. NOT 6-4 OR 7-3 OR 8-2, BUT 9-1 AND 10-0. They still were NOT banned for all 10 years that the game was played at major tournies. When you start banning things, because people consider it "boring" then you go down a very slippery slope.

Nobody used either of those two reasons. Read again.

 

[MechaWave]

lmao @ banning metaknight. Stay classy guys... What's next? You going to ban snake too?

 

[Shwaffles]

Nobody used either of those two reasons. Read again.

I basically summed up what it is. You guys are just sick of watching metaknight win tournies. A game without him isn't much better than a game with him.

 

[Alien Vision]

I basically summed up what it is. You guys are just sick of watching metaknight win tournies. A game without him isn't much better than a game with him.

Stop strawmanning..

 

[JPOBS]

URC members have posted their reasons throughout the first pages of the thread. Don't blame pro-ban for your lack of reading skills (only one poster has used that argument among the few in the recent pages).

The reasons are as follows, (note that they don't actually agree with all points, it varies from TO to TO):
- Meta Knight's worst matchup is himself
- Meta Knight players are winning over 50% of the money in a game where there are 9 to 11 characters that are considered high tier
- Over two thirds of the community wants him gone
- There are rules in place specifically targetting Meta Knight so he could remain legal.
- After 3 years of competition, all of the above got worse even though he's the character that people study the most

I want to be clear, someone made a comment about how "X is a good point to bring up" and I basically pointed out how no, its actually a terrible point, and the pro ban side in general should not support it because its stupid. I never claimed the URC listed it as a reaosn, I was responding to a particular individual.

Second, I'm well aware that there are reasons and arguments held by the pro-ban side, some of which are quite valid. However, there are also arguments presented by the anti-ban side which are valid. Thats why the issue is so hot, there is no real definitive or perfect argument which puts the other side to rest.
However, what I have an issue with, is that a group of people suddenly got together and decided to just make a decision on the topic arbitrarily. The arguments from the anti-ban side havent been disprove thoroughly, neither has there been a significant recent event to highly shift the decision into "ban metaknight", because there is still a great deal of reason for not banning MK. But what happened is that they just suddenly decided to go ahead and make a definitive decision, without having definitive reasoning.

Thats what we have a problem with. Proban arguments and Anti-ban arguments both have their merits, the difference is, a small band of pro-ban people happened to get together and say "we've had enough , he's banned" without any real authority to do so.

 

[Shwaffles]

Stop strawmanning..

It doesn't help when the creator of the game purposely tried to make it stupid at a high level.

 

[Flayl]

I want to be clear, someone made a comment about how "X is a good point to bring up" and I basically pointed out how no, its actually a terrible point, and the pro ban side in general should not support it because its stupid. I never claimed the URC listed it as a reaosn, I was responding to a particular individual.

Second, I'm well aware that there are reasons and arguments held by the pro-ban side, some of which are quite valid. However, there are also arguments presented by the anti-ban side which are valid. Thats why the issue is so hot, there is no real definitive or perfect argument which puts the other side to rest.
However, what I have an issue with, is that a group of people suddenly got together and decided to just make a decision on the topic arbitrarily. The arguments from the anti-ban side havent been disprove thoroughly, neither has there been a significant recent event to highly shift the decision into "ban metaknight", because there is still a great deal of reason for not banning MK. But what happened is that they just suddenly decided to go ahead and make a definitive decision, without having definitive reasoning.

Thats what we have a problem with. Proban arguments and Anti-ban arguments both have their merits, the difference is, a small band of pro-ban people happened to get together and say "we've had enough , he's banned" without any real authority to do so.

I can agree with this somewhat. TOs always have authority at their own tournaments though