Nerfing Metaknight: How to do it right (STOP BREAKING THE SYSTEM)

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Okay seriously, I'm sick of hearing this:

"Oh, 9-starter is too much of a buff to MK!"
"Oh no we can't have all those stages legal, that makes MK too strong!"
"not having a global air time limit? Are you crazy? That makes MK too strong!"


...Guys, what the ****?

Look, I know there's still this whole "we shouldn't nerf" thing going around. He's either broken or he's not. But yet, let me add a little connotation to those statements above:
"Oh, 9-starter is too much of a buff to MK! We have to nerf MK by making the whole system stupid!"
"Oh no we can't have all those stages legal, that makes MK too strong! We have to nerf MK by banning legitimate stages!"
"not having a global air time limit? Are you crazy? That makes MK too strong! We have to nerf MK by implementing a ridiculously bad rule that influences EVERY matchup"


This is like seeing that you have a pimple and getting a full-body scrub in hydrochloric acid because of it. No, what we need to be doing is fixing this at the source. Instead, we are breaking the entire system to accommodate one character. Let me show you how those rules up there are done right:
"Oh, 9-starter is too much of a buff to MK! No, instead, we'll make it 9-starter for everyone else, and if you strike against MK, he has to give you half his strikes."
"Oh no we can't have all those stages legal, that makes MK too strong! Instead, we'll make it so that against MK, you get double the stage bans, or maybe he can't counterpick at all!"
"not having a global air time limit? Are you crazy? That makes MK too strong! No, instead, let's just have an air time limit on MK, or better yet, just ensure that if the time runs out, MK loses!"

See what I mean? Those rules are just as much nerfs to MK as the rules above. It's all about nerfing that bat. But what they have as advantages over the others is that they don't ruin the rest of the game. They nerf MK, but they don't do it by taking a crowbar to the rules, they do it by targeting the problem at the source.


So the next time you want to complain, "this stagelist favors MK too much" or "too many stage bans makes MK uncpable", just remember: don't break the system, cram the parameter into the system by making it smaller.

 

[t3h Icy]

Or we could just main MK.

 

[John12346]

Well, I'll just be the one to say it.

As much as I'd like for these rules to actually come into effect, if we SERIOUSLY need to put in these kinds of surgical nerfs to the point where people are punished for using a character, either via reduced stage selection options, nerfed time out ability, or even some rule you haven't mentioned yet, then the character really needs to be removed from the game.

At least, that's how most people see it. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but we honestly can't put this many restrictions on MK and turn a blind eye on his legality.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@John: this is not a ban MK discussion. GTFO.

But is the point I'm trying to make sensible? Banning Brinstar is just as much of a surgical nerf to MK as saying "MK can't pick brinstar"... It's just applied with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel, because suddenly Wario, G&W, and Ness don't have their best counterpick.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

It's sensible within it's own context. AKA, if you are ok with surgical rules, you should favor this, and if you are opposed to them, then you should be with the full ban group.

Spoiler

John#s is right though...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's sensible within it's own context. AKA, if you are ok with surgical rules, you should favor this, and if you are opposed to them, then you should be with the full ban group.

Spoiler

John#s is right though...

But is there any stance that justifies the wishy-washy "we should change the ruleset as far as we can to nerf MK without actually touching him" stance?

 

[EpixAura]

Well, I'll just be the one to say it.

As much as I'd like for these rules to actually come into effect, if we SERIOUSLY need to put in these kinds of surgical nerfs to the point where people are punished for using a character, either via reduced stage selection options, nerfed time out ability, or even some rule you haven't mentioned yet, then the character really needs to be removed from the game.

At least, that's how most people see it. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but we honestly can't put this many restrictions on MK and turn a blind eye on his legality.

Strongly agree. If that's considered pessimistic, then I'm much more pessimistic than I thought (which is saying something).

Anyway, I believe we need a little more knowledge of MK before we argue with too much depth. If a few tournaments were to create a rule of sorts where MK could only be used on neutrals in order to test if Diddy's infinite makes the matchup Diddy's favor in that circumstance, then I feel a rule like that would work. But, once again, that's a pretty big number of restrictions. I, and many other people, feel that the nerfs that are already in effect aren't enough. Even if we did apply them ONLY to MK, we'd still be faced with the challenge of adding more.
Still, I agree with what is being said here. At least until something comes up which will call for even more rule tweaking. Which it will.

 

[Jonas]

John's got a point though. If we are really nerfing MK like this, it means that he is so broken that he should be banned, but we don't want to outright ban him and instead exhaust every possible way we can to make him reasonably fair.

 

[Spelt]

It's sensible within it's own context. AKA, if you are ok with surgical rules, you should favor this, and if you are opposed to them, then you should be with the full ban group.

Spoiler

John#s is right though...

seconding this.

more like thirding, but eh.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

But is there any stance that justifies the wishy-washy "we should change the ruleset as far as we can to nerf MK without actually touching him" stance?

None yet, but it gets proposed several times a day on SWF in some form or another, just failing to single out MK specifically.

I mean, I'm all for nerfing MK, since I don't believe that as a community we will never ban MK. I would be willing to bet many others would go for this too.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

...This is going to be closed before I wake up tomorrow morning, isn't it.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Probably.

Incidentally, the BRC already did this very silghtly: MK specific LGL

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yeah, that's one case, but it's been specifically argued for. I'm aiming for people to wisen up and adapt that to more parts of brawl. Or just stop *****ing, either one is fine.

 

[John12346]

I wasn't trying to provoke a MK ban discussion.

The thing is people would unanimously agree to ban MK if it was agreed these rules needed to be put into effect.

We can't just say, "Oh, well, let's just heavily nerf MK's stage striking, counterpicking, and time out abilities just because we want to improve the ruleset without completely breaking MK!" If the ideal ruleset has 9 starter stages, lots of counterpick options, and no real global counter to MK's timeout abilities, then use it!

But if MK and MK alone begins to dominate the scene with the most ideal ruleset in place, then similarly to the ruleset where we nerfed him so badly so we could accommodate all of these changes to the ruleset, people are gonna ask "wtf MK?"

tl;dr
Ideal ruleset with MK nerfs will make people question MK's legality
Ideal ruleset w/o MK nerfs will likely make MK too dominant and subsequently make people question MK's legality
Ideal ruleset w/o MK nerfs and MK somehow loses dominance as a result = best possible scenario

 

[EpixAura]

This thread will be mega-closed in an instant, and MK will never be banned. Of course, these facts won't stop these attempts. Really, I feel that the only remaining option is to implement even more nerfs, which is fun for no one. Adapting the rules created in response to MK to MK specifically still won't be enough.
However, it IS a step towards the right thing, I suppose.

If it causes people to question MK's legality... then he'll be banned. If the majority votes to ban, then the ban is a good thing, for the majority believes it to be so. If they don't vote to ban, and he remains in the game, it will be more balanced to some degree. Of course, he will never be banned, so... there isn't a downside to these rules from most perspectives.

 

[Nanaki]

You could say this about more than just Meta Knight, other characters' brokenness on certain stages has a lot to do with how the "Official" ruleset has panned out. He certainly is the biggest cuplrit, though.

I think I see what you're going for here, which is that we need to evaluate rules (in your case I think you specifically want stages evaluated) in a bit of a vacuum without considering which characters may be more or less broken on some than others. I completely agree with that, if it's what you're going for. I just wouldn't limit pointing the finger at Meta Knight specifically.

tl;dr: Evaluate rules as objectively as possible by leaving specific characters out of the argument.

 

[Judo777]

You could say this about more than just Meta Knight, other characters' brokenness on certain stages has a lot to do with how the "Official" ruleset has panned out. He certainly is the biggest cuplrit, though.

I think I see what you're going for here, which is that we need to evaluate rules (in your case I think you specifically want stages evaluated) in a bit of a vacuum without considering which characters may be more or less broken on some than others. I completely agree with that, if it's what you're going for. I just wouldn't limit pointing the finger at Meta Knight specifically.

tl;dr: Evaluate rules as objectively as possible by leaving specific characters out of the argument.

Actually there is almost NO stage that is banned specifically for one character. More often than not its banned mostly for a specfic tactic.

 

[John12346]

Personally speaking, we probably should go for the more "variable" ruleset, as BPC is proposing. 9(or 7) starter list, more counterpicks, etc... with NO direct nerfs to MK.

If a character shows him(or her?)self to be dominating the scene after such a change, then we can evaluate said character, or heck, even the metagame as a whole, afterwards. But for now, it's probably for the best we go for it, even if it does seem like a very counter-intuitive move.

One(or more?) character shouldn't be bogging down the whole ruleset to the point we have to change it to work for him or her. Let's get some testing done in tourney already!

 

[Nanaki]

Actually there is almost NO stage that is banned specifically for one character. More often than not its banned mostly for a specfic tactic.

True enough, but certain characters are universally much better at exploiting those tactics than others. Circle camping isn't going to be exploited by DDD anytime soon, you probably won't see Ice Climbers planking/scrooging/air camping anytime soon, and there are good odds that Link won't be taking major advantage of walkoffs.

I see your point, though.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@John: while that's an option, it's simply not realistic.

 

[John12346]

Well, it doesn't seem realistic that we have to make three different nerfs to MK just so we can create the fairest possible ruleset either...

I'm just being frank here. If we want to go with your ruleset(which, as I said, is a good one), we're just going to have to bite the bullet and accept that MK becomes even more broken under such conditions, and that it may inevitably lead to a ban.

If we can't have an ultra awesome ruleset because of ONE character... well... you see where I'm going with this?

 

[napZzz]

theres no point in little mini nerfs, you might as well just go all the way and remove him completely instead of creating all these rules whether its mk specific or basing the entire ruleset around him, just ban him. Then again, to the anti ban people it was too early before, and out of nowhere too late and now this is where we're stuck

 

[.Chipmunk.]

Why not just learn the match up better? MK may be broken, but he isn't unbeatable. Quit complaining, seriously. I don't wanna sound rude of anything, but this same discussion is pretty tiring.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Why not just learn the match up better? MK may be broken, but he isn't unbeatable. Quit complaining, seriously. I don't wanna sound rude of anything, but this same discussion is pretty tiring.

This isn't the point of the thread. This is directed to anyone who is against a liberal stagelist because "MK is already too good, let's not buff him further".

 

[.Chipmunk.]

This isn't the point of the thread. This is directed to anyone who is against a liberal stagelist because "MK is already too good, let's not buff him further".

Ok. Guess I just misread. I don't think any brawl character is too good. It's just a matter of finding a way to win.

 

[Flutter NiTE]

I vote give MK 30% handicap. Fair enough rule

 

[Ghostbone]

Ok. Guess I just misread. I don't think any brawl character is too good. It's just a matter of finding a way to win.

That's your opinion.

Others see that there's actually a person playing MK and they are also trying to beat you and they may have an unfair advantage from the character they pick.....

 

[.Chipmunk.]

That's your opinion.

Others see that there's actually a person playing MK and they are also trying to beat you and they may have an unfair advantage from the character they pick.....

Oh right, how silly of me to think there isn't a tier list for a fighting game and that a person can have an advantage by the character they pick. It's not an unfair advantage, people just need to learn MK's weaknesses. I don't think he should be nerfed at all, and no. I do not main MK.

 

[Ripple]

more literal unfair, as in, extremely disproportional than picking the character right below him as opposed to another character picking a character below them

 

[Tarmogoyf]

I vote give MK 30% handicap. Fair enough rule

yeah, we don't want falco/pika getting a free 60% of the Chain grabs do we?

 

[.Chipmunk.]

more literal unfair, as in, extremely disproportional than picking the character right below him as opposed to another character picking a character below them

But it's not unfair. It's just a question of knowledge of character limitations and weaknesses. Even MK has them.

 

[John12346]

Chipmunk, read this.

Spoiler

Chipmunk, the main "weaknesses" that MK have are as follows:
- Special moves put him into free fall
- He is light
- He somewhat lacks kill power

MK can cancel all lag from his Shuttle Loop and Mach Tornado - the only two of his specials that matter - by ending them at a certain height, eliminating the special move to free fall problem completely.

MK can reduce a ton of momentum from knockback by inputting an Up Air and performing a midair jump afterwards. This technique is called momentum cancelling, and the faster your fastest aerial is, the easier it is to do. This allows MK, with the fastest aerial in the game - Up Air - to live to abnormally large percents, eliminating the lightness issue.

MK may lack kill power, but the main bulk of his kills come from chasing the opponent off the stage and hitting them so they can't make it back to the ledge - formerly known as gimping - by using his Down Air and Aerial Shuttle Loop, which both send the opponent in a lazy arc downwards and have enough knockback to gimp at 45%(even less!). This, plus the fact his Down Smash, Forward Smash Grounded Shuttle Loop, Glide Attack, and Neutral Air actually do kill at reasonable damages(120 or so?) more than make up for his "lack of kill power."

If there are any other weaknesses I missed, point them out.

To everybody else, let's stop derailing and discuss the legitimacy of including rules that specifically target MK.

Does anyone else agree with me that we should just use the "most ideal ruleset," regardless of how much it may buff MK, and that we might have to look into his legality if he starts to become even more dominant in the scene than he is now?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm not saying that they're legitimate, I'm saying that if we're going to nerf MK (be honest, most banned stages and shorter starter lists are because of MK), we should be honest about it and stop breaking the system to accommodate the character, and rather change the character with artificial rules.

 

[Neon!]

idk if this has been said yet since I havent read all of this thread but ONE reason for mk's dominance is nado, it takes away so many options in trying to approach him, is nearly unpunishable and has tremendous priority. Many mid and low tier characters that would otherwise do decently vs mk are nearly invalidated bc of this one move (DK and ROB)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@Neon: that's just... wrong. I mean, completely wrong.

 

[Spelt]

This thread is turning into one giant contradiction.

 

[Neon!]

edit- i meant that nado is only ONE of many reasons why he is so dominant. I suppose I'm a little biased since i play a larger character but nado takes away nearly all of our safe landing options and occasionally forces us to resort to landing on the ledge.

 

[Tesh]

idk if this has been said yet since I havent read all of this thread but one reason for mk's dominance is nado, it takes aways so many options in trying to approach him, is nearly unpunishable and has tremendoues priority. Many mid and low tier characters that would otherwise do decently vs mk are invalidated bc of this one move (DK, ROB, and bowser primarily)

Tornado limit?

This is exactly why people should stop crying about infinites. There are single moves that destroy other characters just as bad or worse.

It would be nice if this kind of thing were in effect though. MK clearly won't be banned, but its coming to the point where all the rules are being molded around him anyway. Its just horrible because they wind up nerfing other characters in the process.

 

[Ripple]

MK may be banned because of how much money he is racking in.

and bowser doesn't get ***** by tornado btw, almost all of bowsers moves beat it oddly. plus up-b OOS beats it

 

[Neon!]

if there were a nado limit or if nado was banned in general i think that the mk matchups would change A LOT for most characters. Other characters could be more offensive against him bc they wouldnt have to constantly be watching for nado.