New Rule To Help With MetaKnight

[CT Chia]

The topic of banning MK is still going on. I don't want to discuss that per say, but instead offer a new rule that might help deal with Meta Knight.

This was originally thought of by Vex Kasrani.

MK essentially has no bad matchups. There are some rare chances that he might have a even matchup with a character depending on the stage like FD against a GaW or Diddy. But oh well, MK bans that stage and has the advantage everywhere else.

So the suggested rule is, you have a choice when entering a tourney set. Ban a stage like normal, or be granted the use to play MK.

Making it so MK players can not ban a stage, they are unable to take out the single stage that makes their matchups almost fair compared to other stages.

Thoughts?

 

[Rocann]

I don't see any huge problems with it, but it raises issues in like when you want to switch to MK or all that. I'd pass, not that it really matters considering most MKs I play ban FD which is like the last place I would take them to.

 

[illinialex24]

Thats a great idea. This could Jigglypuff a 45-55 matchup on this. Amazing idea.

 

[Fizzi]

I still don't feel that anything is necessary. There is no need to disadvantage MK players. Not everyone agrees that MK has very little even matchups. Some people think that MK has a small handful of even matchups. M2k wins because he is the best player, not because he picks MK. Same goes with other MK players. If the MK player is a good player, he will beat worse players. If the MK player is worse than his opponent, and his opponent knows the matchup, the MK player will lose. (This is assuming the opponent chooses a character that goes near-even with MK)

 

[Saltix]

What if you don't play MK normally, and you choose MK as a counterpick?
Would you have to go back on your banned stage?

 

[illinialex24]

I still don't feel that anything is necessary. There is no need to disadvantage MK players. Not everyone agrees that MK has very little even matchups. Some people think that MK has a small handful of even matchups. M2k wins because he is the best player, not because he picks MK. Same goes with other MK players. If the MK player is a good player, he will beat worse players. If the MK player is worse than his opponent, and his opponent knows the matchup, the MK player will lose. (This is assuming the opponent chooses a character that goes near-even with MK)

No he has almost no even matchups if he can ban stages. Like none. Besides MK.

 

[brinboy789]

argh i thought MK topics were dissapearing.

i dont mind not being able to ban a stage, it doesnt bother me that much, but i dont think it wil make much of a difference.

 

[DanGR]

You can't just ban certain aspects of the character until he's not "too good" anymore. What if some new universal AT comes out and Metaknight's ______ is really good and boosts all of his matchups clearly into his favor? Are you just going to ban that technique? Where do you draw the line? Why not have the choice between using MK or having counterpicking rights altogether?

 

[Fizzi]

No he has almost no even matchups if he can ban stages. Like none. Besides MK.

This is an opinion. In fact, pretty much every time someone posts a match up, it is their opinion.

 

[illinialex24]

This is an opinion. In fact, pretty much every time someone posts a match up, it is their opinion.

Sure its an opinion but then again, so are the tier lists. Its a fairly well founded opinion that Metaknight does not have any bad matchups if he can ban FD or a stage in any case.

 

[Fizzi]

Sure its an opinion but then again, so are the tier lists. Its a fairly well founded opinion that Metaknight does not have any bad matchups if he can ban FD or a stage in any case.

Yes, the tier list is an opinion, but I would argue it is a more well founded opinion than the statement "MK has no near-even matchups"

 

[Niko_K]

That is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard. So just because someone plays MK they lose the option to stage ban? Just so two characters can have an EVEN match-up against MK? Just learn how to deal with the match-up. End of story. It's not impossible. You just need to play characters that don't suck major rectum.

I respect you as a player Chibo, but there really does not need to be any limitation put against MK players. I'm amazingly surprised you posted something so stupid, being a SBR member and all. Even if it was originally thought of by Vex, by posting this you imply that you agree with this rule.

I hope dmbrandon sees this thread soon. And remembers what we talked about while he was scraping ice of his car xD

 

[MattDotZeb]

I 100% agree with Niko's post.
That's a ridiculous idea.

 

[Vayseth]

Most MK mains don't even ban stages anyway. You shouldn't punish those who do want to in certain match ups.

 

[Tianxiazhai]

I kind of like it. I really doubt this will become official though, because debates will occur on what meta knight stages give him an advantage and etc.

 

[Napilopez]

Well it's not as if Chibo said he was endorsing the idea specifically, and he did specify the idea was originally Vex Kasrani's. I'm pretty sure he just wanted to see the community consensus on it.

Either way, my opinion is that either you ban MK or you don't. I'm not for limiting an individual character's options, although I do see how this could help deal with the MK issue. I really don't see MK as being a huge problem though.

 

[Xzax Kasrani]

That is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard. So just because someone plays MK they lose the option to stage ban? Just so two characters can have an EVEN match-up against MK? Just learn how to deal with the match-up. End of story. It's not impossible. You just need to play characters that don't suck major rectum.

I respect you as a player Chibo, but there really does not need to be any limitation put against MK players. I'm amazingly surprised you posted something so stupid, being a SBR member and all. Even if it was originally thought of by Vex, by posting this you imply that you agree with this rule.

I hope dmbrandon sees this thread soon. And remembers what we talked about while he was scraping ice of his car xD

hooo my god DAYUM
niko_k is angry, and i dont care about this rule, but chibo making a thread about this isnt a good idea

 

[CT Chia]

That is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard. So just because someone plays MK they lose the option to stage ban? Just so two characters can have an EVEN match-up against MK? Just learn how to deal with the match-up. End of story. It's not impossible. You just need to play characters that don't suck major rectum.

I respect you as a player Chibo, but there really does not need to be any limitation put against MK players. I'm amazingly surprised you posted something so stupid, being a SBR member and all. Even if it was originally thought of by Vex, by posting this you imply that you agree with this rule.

I hope dmbrandon sees this thread soon. And remembers what we talked about while he was scraping ice of his car xD

i did not say whether I agreed with it or not, but more getting input from other players, even if it is negative. its an interesting topic, and clearly some people think it might work. go ahead and tell dm lol, and see if he brings up me beating him in tourney 2 days ago lol. it personally doesn't effect me at all, most stages I can CP on a MK don't change the matchup. There is obviously some logic behind this rule.

 

[Niko_K]

May you please justify why there is obviously some logic behind this rule instead of just shoving that opinion down my throat? Whats the point of taking away the equal right to stage ban, a right that EVERY player has and is engraved in the SBR Ruleset, in order to give two characters a NEUTRAL match up.

Doesn't that seem like you are catering to players who happen to main these characters that go on par with MK? It just gives those players a more slight chance of winning, by putting another player at a HANDICAP.

Also by you saying that there is OBVIOUSLY some logic behind this rule, you CLEARLY agree with it.

 

[CT Chia]

why do you seem so sensitive about the subject? the rule isnt in effect anywhere, im not currently using it, i simply posted someones idea, and wanted to hear other's thoughts about it. i clearly see your thought on it, so that's it. lets leave it at that.

 

[Niko_K]

i did not say whether I agreed with it or not

There is obviously some logic behind this rule.

May you please justify why there is obviously some logic behind this rule instead of just shoving that opinion down my throat?

why do you seem so sensitive about the subject

The internet makes it quite hard for one to distinguish tone, I'm being perfectly neutral. I'm a bit concerned however because with you being an SBR member, the rest of the board is going to look up to you and your thoughts on this idea. Where as if it was a regular user posting this rule in agreement with it, it wouldn't hold as much weight. If the overall consensus happened to agree with you, since you are an SBR member, this rule would end up being considered, and that's just ludicrous.

i clearly see your thought on it, so that's it. lets leave it at that.

It's obvious you clearly see my thoughts on the subject, because I justified my opinion and gave you points to debate. I wouldn't have bothered wasting my time typing if I wasn't looking for your reasoning as to why there is OBVIOUSLY some logic behind this rule. By you failing to even explain to me, the lower powered user as to why you, a valued SBR member believes a rule such as this should be considered in tournament play, I'm not even convinced you have a valid argument as to why this OBVIOUSLY is a logical rule that could be used in tournaments.

Don't take it personally.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I'm with Niko_K on this. It was a bad idea to post this, regardless of whether you personally agree with it or not.

The reasons for why this is a terrible idea have been stated and should be fairly obvious at this point, but in case they aren't: It is the responsibility of the player to accept the weaknesses and strengths of his character and find ways to be victorious. It is not the responsibility of the community to enforce rules that make matchups "fair" (which is a dangerous term).

 

[YagamiLight]

I have to say I'm with Niko K on this one.

There is just no reason to punish people for playing a character they like and/or are good with, in this scenario Meta Knight.

Especially since it's just being done to give a handful of characters a neutral match with Meta Knight. It just does not make any sense to give characters arbitrary disadvantages with the stage picks.

Why, let's make it so that Captain Falcon gets 3 stage bans instead of one! Or how about you can't ban a stage against Link?

Arbitrary decisions at their finest.

 

[salaboB]

The reasons for why this is a terrible idea have been stated and should be fairly obvious at this point, but in case they aren't: It is the responsibility of the player to accept the weaknesses and strengths of his character and find ways to be victorious. It is not the responsibility of the community to enforce rules that make matchups "fair" (which is a dangerous term).

That's horrible justification.

Why don't we just unban the IDC, because it's up to the player to figure out how to not let the opponent MK win if they choose to use it?

Oh, right. Because it's up to the community to figure out what rules are needed to make the competitive scene better (And then TOs pick it up if the community heavily supports it. That's how things work).

 

[cj.Shark]

i have an idea
If someone is playing a set if they pick metaknight they have to go all Metaknight the entire set. if someone is playing another char they are not allowed to CP metaknight
The result?
less People will secondary metaknight <- this is good because less people will seconadary metaknight and get better at their respective chars. As they do this they realize that going pure Mk would be a much worse option than sticking with they characters they play the most.
Also it forces people to go Pure Mk which will help the lots of people to advance in matchup experience

 

[Niko_K]

That's horrible justification.

Why don't we just unban the IDC, because it's up to the player to figure out how to not let the opponent MK win if they choose to use it?

Oh, right. Because it's up to the community to figure out what rules are needed to make the competitive scene better (And then TOs pick it up if the community heavily supports it. That's how things work).

So because another user has agreed with what I've stated and posts that as players we have to accept our characters strengths and weaknesses in order to be victorious, instead of modifying the rule set of a game to be in favor of everyone who doesn't use MK (which is the complete opposite of accepting a characters traits) it is poor justification?

And on top of that, your counter point states that we should unban IDC as an acceptance of our characters traits? Did you read the thread? IDC makes you invisible and invincible for as long as one desires. It is completely irrelevant to whether or not MK players should lose their right to stage ban because their character is considered the best character in the game.

 

[Falconv1.0]

This is a stupid idea. It's not my fault my opponent is too big of an idiot to use a character who isn't ***** by MK in cp'ing and now suddenly the MK player has to pay the price.


You people really ****ing overrate MK, we might as well do this for ****ing DDD since he ***** **** harder when you get a good cp.

I'm not even going to stay around to debate this, the sheer stupidity of it is just beyond me. Basically anything Niko K says is 100% right with me, I dont care if he says I'm a big flaming gay because right now he is completely right.

 

[Alzi]

The idea is decent but it won't work out so well. It will lead into other debates and Questions.

 

[salaboB]

So because another user has agreed with what I've stated and posts that as players we have to accept our characters strengths and weaknesses in order to be victorious, instead of modifying the rule set of a game to be in favor of everyone who doesn't use MK (which is the complete opposite of accepting a characters traits) it is poor justification?

And on top of that, your counter point states that we should unban IDC as an acceptance of our characters traits? Did you read the thread? IDC makes you invisible and invincible for as long as one desires. It is completely irrelevant to whether or not MK players should lose their right to stage ban because their character is considered the best character in the game.

The IDC is a strength of MK that the community decided to ban.

If the community should never intercede against characters, the IDC should not be banned.

Period.

 

[Vlade]

I'm on the fence with this.

But there's a bit of a problem with the counterpicking system if this rule that ChiboSempai is suggesting is in place. Assuming that the loser of the previous match first chooses a stage, winner picks character then loser picks character (according to SBR ruleset):

Say you were diddy and your opponent played MK. You lose the first match so you announce your counterpick, which is FD. The MK player cannot ban it if this rule ChiboSempai is suggesting is in place. So the MK player says, 'I want to switch to falco'. Is he still restricted from banning a stage? Or do we go through the whole process again? If we go through the whole process, he can switch back to MK.

Can anyone else see where I'm coming from? It's not a major issue but something that may be of concern to players that strongly believe in the counterpicking system.

 

[Jam Stunna]

That's horrible justification.

Why don't we just unban the IDC, because it's up to the player to figure out how to not let the opponent MK win if they choose to use it?

Oh, right. Because it's up to the community to figure out what rules are needed to make the competitive scene better (And then TOs pick it up if the community heavily supports it. That's how things work).

You're totally missing the point.

IDC is banned because it makes a match unplayable, not because it makes Metaknight better. It's a stalling tactic, and all stalling tactics are banned.

 

[Niko_K]

So you're trying to say that, because IDC, a glitch that makes MK untouchable and invisible, should be legal because it is a strength he possesses?

You're logic is wrong and twisted. There is a point where you have to rationalize. I think that point is when your character can't be seen or touched by any other character in the game, not even another IDC'ing MK.

 

[Alex Strife]

Pretty interesting idea Chibo.

To be honest while its a concept that would be great to try I just feel that it really hurts the competitive play of this game. The main attraction to this game is that most people can be good with a vareity of characters...much like 3rd strike...So the lower level players see people like OBM, Adress, Boss and get inspired to become the next "it" guy. That is what I see this game ask.

In terms of the ban though it would sadly not work. We are talking about using a system where it is WRONG to pick MK. Tiers are apart of every game and some tiers are more one sided than smash ( i.e GNT4 or capcom fighting jam ) where it destroys gameplay/competitive natures. This game does not have a bad competitive nature. Reason I use 3rd strike as a reference is because in the end when a play wants to win he picks.... YUN cause he is broken as **** and wins matches. Its all about who you use and how you play him. M2k won tournaments with DDD does that mean DDD is broken?...Nopes.

Thats just my 2 cents

 

[salaboB]

So you're trying to say that, because IDC, a glitch that makes MK untouchable and invisible, should be legal because it is a strength he possesses?

I'm saying that claiming you can just "Learn MK's strengths and weaknesses and fight him" is poor justification for saying this is a bad idea.

Shoot down the idea if it's bad, but don't justify calling it a bad idea by saying "lern 2 play". That's meaningless and unconstructive, and is basically an ad hominem directed at the idea (You can't shoot it down logically so you just call it stupid).

Edit: The reason I was referencing the IDC was part of the argument was "We shouldn't restrict a character just for being strong." The IDC is part of MK that we have restricted, but that argument was what was saying it shouldn't be banned.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Once again, IDC is banned because it makes a match unplayable, similar to the ICs freeze glitch in Melee. It is not banned because it makes Metaknight better.

And yes, "Learn to play" is a valid response to an idea like this. The community is not supposed to make your matchup easier; the community's job is to facilitate competitive play. If you want to make a rule like this, then pretty soon you'll have requests to take away the stage-strike advantage for Falco vs. Snake, or D3 vs. DK, or any top tier vs. any low tier. YOU have to win the match, the rules can't do it for you.

 

[TheWildcard]

all this arguing is silly.

We all know Mk is really good. we all know mk is hard to punish. we all know Mk is NOT impossible to beat.
mk shouldn't lose his ban because if he gets ***** 1st round he's basically guaranteed to lose the set (seeing how you should win on your CP) and IMO thats not fair.

 

[salaboB]

And yes, "Learn to play" is a valid response to an idea like this.

It's never a valid response -- there has to be more backing it up if you want to be useful in a conversation. Otherwise you're just stating unsupported opinion. For instance, why getting better at the game makes the problem go away (That hasn't been justified in this case)

The community is not supposed to make your matchup easier; the community's job is to facilitate competitive play. If you want to make a rule like this, then pretty soon you'll have requests to take away the stage-strike advantage for Falco vs. Snake, or D3 vs. DK, or any top tier vs. any low tier. YOU have to win the match, the rules can't do it for you.

Now this is almost enough to shoot the idea down, but you still don't justify how blocking a stage ban from a character that's accepted to have no bad stages (Other people have good stages against him, but MK doesn't have any stages he performs noticably poorly on) is going to lead into your slippery slope.

 

[Deoxys]

No he has almost no even matchups if he can ban stages. Like none. Besides MK.

No. But here's the point: your side isn't supported unanimously, even among good players.

This was originally thought of by Vex Kasrani.

Well, I proposed this like 4 months ago or something, so IDK if that's correct.

 

[Vyse]

I don't support the idea either.

Any rule that affects a single character simply because he's overpowered is not feasible. There is no singular strategy to MK that needs to be regulated other than the IDC (lol).

He's the best character in the game. Deal with it.

 

[Vulcan55]

I think instead of increasing my skill versus one certain character, we should severely limit that other character, so no extra work has to be done on my part to stand a chance.