Meta Knight Officially Banned!

[Coney]

that is because it is apparently a really bad idea

 

[Gnes]

It's also impossible to airdodge a c4 while sharking

Lmao i love u ^_^

Jebus you have no idea what your talking about. Have YOU even played the matchup at a high lvl before?

 

[Rockenos]

I thoroughly dislike the idea of a committee that Smash players have little choice in can decide the rules that they have to use
And, yeah, they don't HAVE to use it, but it's really difficult for smaller tournies to get noticed without that sticky.

How I dealt with the idea of rules committees: I stopped playing Brawl

Here's to hoping that nothing like this (Or the temporary banning of M2k, that was hilarious) has to happen in the next smash game.
I wonder who will ruin SSB4 first, Nintendo or 15 power-hungry TOs?

Sic semper tyrannis.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Lmao i love u ^_^

Jebus you have no idea what your talking about. Have YOU even played the matchup at a high lvl before?

I haven't played that match up at high level, but I have seen videos of top players

 

[AlphaZealot]

And, yeah, they don't HAVE to use it, but it's really difficult for smaller tournies to get noticed without that sticky.

Umm...smaller tournaments have almost never been stuck. I mean like maybe handful of 20 person events in the last 2-3 years have ever been stuck (heck, go back 7 years, it is the same story).

 

[Sliq]

To be fair Iblis, Falco mains deserve each and every bit of it.
Their character has to be one of the lamest characters in the game besides Meta Knight.

See: 90% of the cast

 

[El Duderino]

You can't compare it to Gamecube Controllers as Brawl was programmed to accept them.

Again, that wasn't the argument at all, it was the smash community has a tough skin is and is too dedicated to sweat the small stuff, pack their bags and quit every time they do not 100% approve. If that was the case, Brawl's scene would have been dead a long time ago.

And one could completely argue that none of those "benefit" the game. Saying they're good for you isn't good for everyone. Some people like the original stages, and would rather not change what they are. Also, Tripping has been proven to not be completely bad, as it has invincibility frames. So even that doesn't need removing. You have to remember that what you call "beneficial" some people would shenanigans as is.

Lets hear it then, I want to know what about the changes in Balanced Brawl do not benefit the game on a competitive level. If you are going to make that argument, support it. Tripping is just one small part that can always be turned back on if people agree it is worth keeping around, just like everything else.

Yes, yours is an interesting choice, but that's it. It's not the "only good choice", since that's completely subjective. I do not think banning was the "only good choice" either, but as pointed out, it was the only choice that does not cause tons of turmoil from people asking for more and more hacks.

Turmoil is going to happen either way, that much is a given. But like Shadic pointed out:

I'd rather have balance debates than constant rule debates, tripping, irrelevant 50% of the roster, and a removed character.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

See: 90% of the cast

Nah, otherwise random wouldn't be so much fun for me.

 

[Sliq]

Nah, otherwise random wouldn't be so much fun for me.

Well, Ted Bundy thought it fun to cut people up into tiny chunks. Maybe you're just a sociopath?

 

[Mikhas]

I can't believe some people are saying random tripping isn't a horrible thing that was blatantly added to decrease the competitiveness of the game. Really guys? It's beneficial to trip? So if you tripped 50x more often, would that be beneficial?

 

[-LzR-]

We are not saying it makes our game better. We just mean having a 1% chance to trip when initiating a dash doesn't make this game as competitive as Mario Party.

 

[Mikhas]

We are not saying it makes our game better. We just mean having a 1% chance to trip when initiating a dash doesn't make this game as competitive as Mario Party.

I was more referring to the people saying tripping puts the player in an advantageous position due to the invincibility frames he gets. I agree that tripping doesn't make it unplayable, but I believe it shows an intent in the developers to make the game less palatable to competitive players.

 

[popsofctown]

I was more referring to the people saying tripping puts the player in an advantageous position due to the invincibility frames he gets. I agree that tripping doesn't make it unplayable, but I believe it shows an intent in the developers to make the game less palatable to competitive players.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Project M failed to remove tripping completely from Brawl. They could remove the main variable, but there are still some rare edge cases where tripping can occur. I find it pretty conceivable that the Brawl developers intended to create a setting that turns tripping off, but when it came to release they realized there was a tripping variable hiding somewhere in the code that they couldn't toggle. Having a tripping toggle that doesn't work correctly comes off as less professional than providing none at all, so that may be why tripping is a forced component of the game.

Other aspects of the game suggest that brawl developers are looking out for the interests of the more competitive players. For instance, turning items all the way off stops D3 from throwing smash balls and random items and stops Smashville and YI from spawning food. But turning items all the way off still allows Judgement to have a chance of spawning food, and still allows Peach to pull Beam Swords and Bomb-ombs. It seems doubtful flipping just one variable turned off D3's item throws without affecting Peach, it appears the developers deliberately modified some item behaviors that are highly randomizing and left in item behaviors that are less problematic.

 

[Mikhas]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Project M failed to remove tripping completely from Brawl. They could remove the main variable, but there are still some rare edge cases where tripping can occur. I find it pretty conceivable that the Brawl developers intended to create a setting that turns tripping off, but when it came to release they realized there was a tripping variable hiding somewhere in the code that they couldn't toggle. Having a tripping toggle that doesn't work correctly comes off as less professional than providing none at all, so that may be why tripping is a forced component of the game.

Other aspects of the game suggest that brawl developers are looking out for the interests of the more competitive players. For instance, turning items all the way off stops D3 from throwing smash balls and random items and stops Smashville and YI from spawning food. But turning items all the way off still allows Judgement to have a chance of spawning food, and still allows Peach to pull Beam Swords and Bomb-ombs. It seems doubtful flipping just one variable turned off D3's item throws without affecting Peach, it appears the developers deliberately modified some item behaviors that are highly randomizing and left in item behaviors that are less problematic.

It seems to me that a developer like Nintendo, for a game as big as Brawl, with as much time as they had after all those release delays, would be able to find where the code for tripping is and create a toggle for it. This is all speculation and is beside the greater point anyway. Nintendo has never supported the competitive scene, while companies like Capcom have fully embraced it. Why is this the case? I realize that they may not want to alienate the many casual fans of the Smash Bros. series, but is it not possible to have appeal to both the casual and the competitive players?

EDIT: I haven't played much of Project M, but I did play some Brawl+ a few years ago and I don't recall any random tripping, but I'm no expert.

 

[♡ⓛⓞⓥⓔ♡]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Project M failed to remove tripping completely from Brawl. They could remove the main variable, but there are still some rare edge cases where tripping can occur.

You are wrong and I correct you.

This has been fixed, you cannot trip in P:M anymore no matter what.

 

[popsofctown]

Was it tricky to remove?

 

[Claire Diviner]

I guess people got fed up with Meta Knight winning tourneys to-and-fro. Personally, it makes no lick of difference to me. Whether banned or legal, people will still complain.

 

[Exceladon City]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=289329

 

[Overswarm]

Ain't no party
like an MK banned party
cuz an MK banned party is mandatory

 

[Shadic]

Was it tricky to remove?

Removing tripping from dash was extremely simple and iirc the first code ever made for Brawl. Removing tripping from moves with the Sakurai Angle was more complex.

Either way, it was clear that the tripping was intentionally programmed into the game. Just like the inability to DI moves that don't send the character into tumble.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

Why so much salt ITT?

Let it go and let there be a MK-free metagame for a while and if it doesn't benefit the game, let him return. This should be a temp thing so that we can have more data than isolated areas and theorycraft to decide whether this stays or not.

 

[Black Mantis]

Ain't no party
like an MK banned party
cuz an MK banned party is mandatory

Those are legit parties !

 

[Hippieslayer]

I guess people got fed up with Meta Knight winning tourneys to-and-fro. Personally, it makes no lick of difference to me. Whether banned or legal, people will still complain.

Care to elaborate? Do you think it makes a difference for other people?

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

Whether banned or legal, people will still complain.

That's to be expected in gaming communities where bases will ALWAYS find something to complain/debate about, especially a base where the average age span is younger than most communities.

This is inevitable regardless for every fan base and not exclusive to the Smash base.

 

[Black Mantis]

This is inevitable regardless for every fan base and not exclusive to the Smash base.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Battousai780]

This whole argument that MK wins most of the money is bs and arbitrary. First, even if MK wins most of the money it doesn't inherently mean he's broken. In some cases these things can seem to go hand in hand but there are more factors to think about. In essence it's a form of theorycrafting. Also, at what dollar ammount should a character be conceived of as broken?

Also, since power is an intangible thing and is only perceived and recognized by conscious minds, I will present you with a "timeline" of sorts:

A bunch of TO's (probably salty just from results or whatever), all extremely pro-ban, make their little private elder club.
These self made elite board members got popular approval from the majority of scrubby newbs who probably don't even play this game.
Because they attained this approval, this power, they easily ban MK and the decision is final.

Why are they telling me how I can play the game? What power do they have that their opinion obviously means more than mine and should triumph? Don't even play the majority card because it has two fundamental flaws. The majority of players are scrubs, and the majority opinion isn't always right. As such, governments usually have some protection for the minority, but this is not the case for Brawl.

 

[DMG]

You could say the same about what margin of dominance should a character possess to be banned.

Banning a character is inherently subjective.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Why are they telling me how I can play the game? What power do they have that their opinion obviously means more than mine and should triumph? Don't even play the majority card because it has two fundamental flaws. The majority of players are scrubs, and the majority opinion isn't always right. As such, governments usually have some protection for the minority, but for Brawl.

You go to a TO's tournament and you either play and pay by their rules or else become anarchist and lead a revolt.

 

[Juushichi]

Ain't no party
like an MK banned party
cuz an MK banned party is mandatory

Goddamn, why did I lose to this?

 

[Mikhas]

Why are they telling me how I can play the game? What power do they have that their opinion obviously means more than mine and should triumph? Don't even play the majority card because it has two fundamental flaws. The majority of players are scrubs, and the majority opinion isn't always right. As such, governments usually have some protection for the minority, but this is not the case for Brawl.

They're not telling you how you can play. You can play with whatever rules you want and nobody is going to stop you, but if you want to play in their tournaments then you have to play by their rules. If you don't like the rules, don't go to their tournaments.

Also, the reason MK should be banned isn't because he is a powerful character. The reason is that to keep him in the game, either bad rules need to be made (like the LGL), or a degenerative metagame must be accepted.

 

[xDD-Master]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=289329

made my day

Now I'm Pro Ban

 

[John12346]

http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=125393

Wouldn't mind some proofreading/feedback.

 

[popsofctown]

http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=125393

Wouldn't mind some proofreading/feedback.

Rule modification is the only reason, not a secondary reason...

The sentence fragments are disorienting, it'd probably flow better with complete sentences.

 

[John12346]

Rule modification is a very strong reason; likely the strongest reason, yes, but you can deny that MK's successes in and out of game, as well as public opinion doesn't play some kind of role in helping to prove his brokenness, y'know?

Some people won't be satisfied with just rule modification as the explanation. Different people require different explanations, imho...

Also I thought my sentence fragment formatting was cool.

 

[Mike2]

Spoiler

*looks at title*

http://youtu.be/76RrdwElnTU

 

[infiniteV115]

Why so much salt ITT?

Let it go and let there be a MK-free metagame for a while and if it doesn't benefit the game, let him return. This should be a temp thing so that we can have more data than isolated areas and theorycraft to decide whether this stays or not.

Nobody said this was permanent. The URC is likely to hold another poll a few months after Apex asking if MK should be legalized. If it is generally agreed upon by a large majority of brawlers that he should be legalized, he'll probably be legalized. If not, he'll probably remain banned.

It'd be pretty stupid to hold multiple polls asking whether or not to ban him, and then cease to hold further polls once a large majority says yes. That would just imply that the entire URC is completely biased against MK without good reason and just needed to wait for the majority to agree in order to enforce the ban while still maintaining credibility (and I assure you this is not the case)

 

[Battousai780]

Nobody said this was permanent. The URC is likely to hold another poll a few months after Apex asking if MK should be legalized. If it is generally agreed upon by a large majority of brawlers that he should be legalized, he'll probably be legalized. If not, he'll probably remain banned.

It'd be pretty stupid to hold multiple polls asking whether or not to ban him, and then cease to hold further polls once a large majority says yes. That would just imply that the entire URC is completely biased against MK without good reason and just needed to wait for the majority to agree in order to enforce the ban while still maintaining credibility (and I assure you this is not the case)

I'd really hope this is the case but I am not completely sure. All that I know is that if everyone switches to Diddy, I will quit the game. Even winning wouldn't be fun if I had to fight Diddy every match.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

Nobody said this was permanent. The URC is likely to hold another poll a few months after Apex asking if MK should be legalized. If it is generally agreed upon by a large majority of brawlers that he should be legalized, he'll probably be legalized. If not, he'll probably remain banned.

It'd be pretty stupid to hold multiple polls asking whether or not to ban him, and then cease to hold further polls once a large majority says yes. That would just imply that the entire URC is completely biased against MK without good reason and just needed to wait for the majority to agree in order to enforce the ban while still maintaining credibility (and I assure you this is not the case)

Na MK is banned somebody shot him.

 

[deepseadiva]

Rule modification is a very strong reason; likely the strongest reason, yes, but you can deny that MK's successes in and out of game, as well as public opinion doesn't play some kind of role in helping to prove his brokenness, y'know?

Some people won't be satisfied with just rule modification as the explanation. Different people require different explanations, imho...

I can't believe we're still presenting the ban as a compilation of reasons. As if that's logical or something.

It's rule modification. It's only rule modification, and if that was not present, MK should still be legal. It makes us look so immature and unsure if we're still staying things like "His recovery is perfect, and that's one of the many reasons."

This communityyyyyysuuuughhhhhhhghhhghghghg

 

[M@v]

Man, looking through the thread, I wish nintendo supported smash like Blizzard does Starcraft. Things would be quite amazing.