Official Metaknight Discussion

[Overswarm]

 

[BSP]

didn't he get 7th at 2 tournaments?

And these tournaments are....... where? How many attend? What kind of numbers are we looking at here?

Good question right here. I was just about to ask it.

@Burrito

ok, I was just wondering.

 

[Kewkky]

MK can't carry a berry that saves his stock (as the Yache berry did to save Garchomp)

:O

I would stop playing Brawl.

But, Garchomp doesn't HAVE to stall things out, because he can just go headfirst into EVERYTHING and wins with few to no issues. Well... not everything, but 99% of things.

That's what makes Garchomp broken, and it was widely accepted that Garchomp was broken. MK isn't broken, he's borderline. Garchomp can win almost every face-off by going headfirst into stuff, just as MK can win almost every match by maintaining a lead with his great defensive game.

 

[Raziek]

I'm part of the Smash 64 community and it is a completely viable tournament game. It and Melee are the closest things to Brawl that we can get.

Match-up percentages are still match-up percentages. Whether it's a one hit = you're dead(you're an idiot for thinking that's how it always is in high level play in Smash 64, but moving on) vs whatever you assume brawl is. 60-40 still means one character has a 60% win rate vs another with a 40% win rate between those 2 characters

This still does not address the fact that because of their playstyles they are fundamentally different. EVEN if, as claimed, Smash 64 is also defensive, it is far easier in Brawl to reset to the neutral situation, due to lack of combos.

They are similar, but the high-level play is too different.

 

[Tommy_G]

And these tournaments are....... where? How many attend? What kind of numbers are we looking at here?

I play online at a 4-5 frame delay. It's been proven that Pikachu has much more options and setups into combos than all other characters. It doesn't need to be in a tournament to see it.

 

[Eddie G]

but he isn't gone. Were talking about now lmao

I was mentioning a possibility if he were absent, genius.

Lain, m2k, arty ect

LolLain. M2K has said before that he enjoys Brawl for more than money, otherwise he wouldn't have even bothered to pop in here and defend his character the way he did instead of just saying "Don't ban him, I like to make money!". Doesn't Arty main Falco? I can see why he'd only play for money...you can't have fun playing as Falco in this game.

The ONLY time a character deserves a ban is when it is broken. End of story. Thank you very much.

But the definition of "broken" depends on one's own perception of the word. I thought you'd know better, but have I given too much credit?

The community doesn't "fix" a game. A community "plays" a game. The game exists as it is.

...lol. Tell that to the numerous amounts of changes we've already made to the original structure of the game (timer on, items on, etc.) for the sake of promoting competition. Your logic fails. Hard.


Well...time for some lunch. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about so I won't bother wasting any further time with you. It was a nice try, but you just can't cut it with your reasoning, sorry.

 

[Justblaze647]

Wait a minute, are you guys seriously comparing Pokemon to Brawl?
It's hard enough to compare Brawl to Street Fighter without issues...

Seriously this. We're talking about apples and oranges here people.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Credibility = lost. You refuse to fix the game for the good of the metagame; it's the same kind of upholding your principles that has creationism taught in schools.

WOAH. You need to not say that again. Saying that creationism being taught in schools is a negative thing is completely unwarranted, and not even a good comparison. I could counter and say that it's ignorant for scientists, who claim to search for truth by testing every theory, to completely ban a theory without looking at it (without assumptions based on circular reasoning or things that can't be proven to be completely true).

Saying that teaching creationism hurts our community is just a bad comparison, because there's no data to back that up. It's just your opinion, and the opinion (not conclusion due to statistical research) of scientists looking for easy money.

 

[Zankoku]

So if a game was bad ONLY because the timer was always set to "1 second" and unable to be changed, bu there was an easily-accessible and harmless hack that allowed us to change the timer, you would be against it because we should play the game as it is and not try to fix it as a community?

Actually, I would be against playing the game at all because if the timer was always set to "1 second" I would never have a chance to see if it was actually good beyond that one second, and there are plenty of good games that take far less effort to get quality out of than hacking a game to increase its timer just so I can see if it was worth it. As I remember, we don't look at bad games and go "you know, it'd be good if we did..." but rather, it's usually seeing good games and "this game is fun and all, but it'd probably be better if we did..."

By the same token, if you find Brawl bad because of Meta Knight, you're asking for a ban for the wrong reason - improving a bad game will typically only make it better, not good. If you find Brawl good but likely to be better without Meta Knight, then you might be on to something, but keep in mind that improvement through removal means that the improvement must be significant relative to what was taken out - many people found Smash much more fun without items, for example; and in minor cases, people tended to prefer Brawl without tripping - it's only slightly better, but the removal itself is minor as well.

You're talking about banning a character. Will Brawl be better by a full character's worth?

 

[Raziek]

I play online at a 4-5 frame rate delay. It's been proven that Pikachu has much more options and setups into combos that all others. It doesn't need to be in a tournament to see it.

This isn't about Pikachu, this was about you claiming that SSB64 has a viable tournament scene. If you're going to try to tell me that wifi is a valid tournament scene, I have only this to say:

 

[BSP]

If we've established that MK isn't broken, why are we trying to compare him to 64 pika? The only way I could see that producing evidence for anti ban is if Pikachu was dominating at a level near MK's, and was still legal. The two games still shouldn't be compared IMO just because how different the actual high level play is.

Anyway, the 64 comparison people need to pull out some tourney results or something that shows Pika's level of domination.

@Ankoku

I don't think that question can be answered until we do something, but I'm pretty sure brawl wouldn't get any worse.

 

[Sosuke]

Ignore this. x_x

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

So if a game was bad ONLY because the timer was always set to "1 second" and unable to be changed, bu there was an easily-accessible and harmless hack that allowed us to change the timer, you would be against it because we should play the game as it is and not try to fix it as a community?

You misunderstand and are strawmanning my statement. A game community defines a ruleset that it deems as the most fair to determine the most skilled player. In the brawl community that is 3 stocks 8 minutes best of 3 w/ DSR. The only things to be removed from the game are things that are broken or are unbeatable. In brawl its ICG, Planking, infinite stalls, ect. A community doesn't alter a metagame just because it "feels like it".

Credibility = lost. You refuse to fix the game for the good of the metagame; it's the same kind of upholding your principles that has creationism taught in schools.

What a bad analogy. For the good of the metagame, huh? You're the one trying to play god and change something you're only meant to observe. If you want to play that sort of game i suggest you get into brawl hacks such as brawl+ where they frequently alter the characters to change the metagame to keep things fresh. Plus its a little more fun overall than vBrawl...

 

[Kewkky]

Actually, I would be against playing the game at all because if the timer was always set to "1 second" I would never have a chance to see if it was actually good beyond that one second, and there are plenty of good games that take far less effort to get quality out of than hacking a game to increase its timer just so I can see if it was worth it. As I remember, we don't look at bad games and go "you know, it'd be good if we did..." but rather, it's usually seeing good games and "this game is fun and all, but it'd probably be better if we did..."

By the same token, if you find Brawl bad because of Meta Knight, you're asking for a ban for the wrong reason - improving a bad game will typically only make it better, not good. If you find Brawl good but likely to be better without Meta Knight, then you might be on to something, but keep in mind that improvement through removal means that the improvement must be significant relative to what was taken out - many people found Smash much more fun without items, for example; and in minor cases, people tended to prefer Brawl without tripping - it's only slightly better, but the removal itself is minor as well.

You're talking about banning a character. Will Brawl be better by a full character's worth?

Umm, the only thing I meant to do with my hypothetical example was make the guy realize why his reply was wrong, nothing else. :/

I don't think the only thing wrong with Brawl is MK, but I DO believe that the game can get even better than it is right now with the MK situation taken care of.

 

[Tommy_G]

This isn't about Pikachu, this was about you claiming that SSB64 has a viable tournament scene. If you're going to try to tell me that wifi is a valid tournament scene, I have only this to say:

I'd love for you to go into the Smash 64 boards and post how their game doesn't matter while you play Brawl. They'd treat you the same way you're treating them.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

You misunderstand and are strawmanning my statement. A game community defines a ruleset that it deems as the most fair to determine the most skilled player. In the brawl community that is 3 stocks 8 minutes best of 3 w/ DSR. The only things to be removed from the game are things that are broken or are unbeatable. In brawl its ICG, Planking, infinite stalls, ect. A community doesn't alter a metagame just because it "feels like it".



What a bad analogy. For the good of the metagame, huh? You're the one trying to play god and change something you're only meant to observe. If you want to play that sort of game i suggest you get into brawl hacks such as brawl+ where they frequently alter the characters to change the metagame to keep things fresh. Plus its a little more fun overall than vBrawl...

Have you said something that isn't an opinion yet?

And what about stages and items weren't those banned just because people felt like it?

 

[Kewkky]

You misunderstand and are strawmanning my statement. A game community defines a ruleset that it deems as the most fair to determine the most skilled player. In the brawl community that is 3 stocks 8 minutes best of 3 w/ DSR. The only things to be removed from the game are things that are broken or are unbeatable. In brawl its ICG, Planking, infinite stalls, ect. A community doesn't alter a metagame just because it "feels like it".

My intention wasn't to "strawman", it was to make you broaden your view a bit more so that it wasn't wrong. I literally understood what I saw, which was "we shouldn't change anything in a game. The community just plays, it shouldn't fix".

A community can alter the metagame if it DOES feel like it. We just need a super-majority to do so, that's an obvious requirement you left out. If it isn't broken or unbeatable but we dislike it, we can still remove it if a vast majority of players want it gone. WE define the competitive scene as the competitive community that plays it. We can change whatever rule we gave it if it means our players will be satisfied with the change.

 

[Raziek]

You misunderstand and are strawmanning my statement. A game community defines a ruleset that it deems as the most fair to determine the most skilled player. In the brawl community that is 3 stocks 8 minutes best of 3 w/ DSR. The only things to be removed from the game are things that are broken or are unbeatable. In brawl its ICG, Planking, infinite stalls, ect. A community doesn't alter a metagame just because it "feels like it".

You're claiming the game should be played as it is, yet the default settings for Brawl are two-minute matches with all items on. Should we change that? Of course we should! Yet you're completely against setting rules.

On top of that, you say only broken and unbeatable things are removed. What then, is the stage list? There are plenty of things banned that are neither broken or unbeatable. Some major hypocrisy in your "Observe, do not tamper." mentality.

And you've still yet to address why it's ok to carry an attitude that cares nothing for the game's, health, and debate about whether or not things should be changed, wait for it........

FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME'S HEALTH.

Major conflict of interest.

 

[Justblaze647]

@ Sveet: Why are you in here? Aren't you a melee player and NOT a brawl player? Why are you in here arguing about something that doesn't, and never will, concern you, and will not affect you in the slightest, positively or negatively?

No really, I wanna know. Why are you here? Are the melee boards not entertaining enough for you?

 

[BSP]

I'd love for you to go into the Smash 64 boards and post how their game doesn't matter while you play Brawl.

I'm asking how the 64 MK: pikachu comparison is relevent when MK is not broken like Pika is claimed to be, and when they are two different games with two completely different types of gameplay.

The lack of any tournament results or the like makes us doubt the credibility of this comparison.

It would help if you re-affirmed what you are trying to say with the comparison.

 

[UltiMario]

That's what makes Garchomp broken, and it was widely accepted that Garchomp was broken. MK isn't broken, he's borderline. Garchomp can win almost every face-off by going headfirst into stuff, just as MK can win almost every match by maintaining a lead with his great defensive game.

MK isn't broken, we've established that.

The thing is though, Garchomp wasn't only broken, he was DOMINANT.

So, if 42% of a broken Pokemon dominating was required to hit a ban, then 36.9% of a Borderline character is nothing.



This is the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Raziek]

I'd love for you to go into the Smash 64 boards and post how their game doesn't matter while you play Brawl. They'd treat you the same way you're treating them.

Careface.

Point is, wifi is not a viable tournament scene, and there are no major tournaments for Smash 64 that you will show me, so valid conclusions and comparison cannot be drawn at the highest level of TOURNAMENT play.

 

[Raziek]

MK isn't broken, we've established that.

The thing is though, Garchomp wasn't only broken, he was DOMINANT.

So, if 42% of a broken Pokemon dominating was required to hit a ban, then 36.9% of a Borderline character is nothing.



This is the point I'm trying to make.

This comparison is still largely invalid because the games are completely different.

please, let the Garchomp issue go, the games are not similar enough to draw parallels in banning criteria.

 

[Tommy_G]

The game has 10 years of player experience.............

I'm sure that makes up for more than enough of not having many tournaments 10 years after its release.

Btw I love how the only people wanting MK to be banned are people that have him as a really bad matchup or isn't smart enough to learn how to beat him.

I'll go pick up some Preparation H for all of this butthurt. Looks like I'll have to get a lot of it.

 

[Kewkky]

MK isn't broken, we've established that.

The thing is though, Garchomp wasn't only broken, he was DOMINANT.

So, if 42% of a broken Pokemon dominating was required to hit a ban, then 36.9% of a Borderline character is nothing.

I actually see the correlation between percentages and status. "Broken" characters have more dominance than "borderline", "unbalanced" and "balanced" characters. The thing with broken characters is that they're banned as soon as they're deemed broken. Borderline though, is that they're always looked at when talked about fair play and the like, which is the case with MK. To ban or not to ban? That's what these debates are for.

The difference in domination is because of their status, they're still both contenders for being banned or not.

 

[Spelt]

Btw I love how the only people wanting MK to be banned are people that have him as a really bad matchup or isn't smart enough to learn how to beat him.

btw i love how you assume people just don't know how to beat him. did their avatars tell you this or something...?




pokemon and smash aren't even in the same game GENRE.
WHYYYYYYYYYYY are we comparing them?
they banned the giver from school. i guess meta knight should be banned from brawl.

 

[UltiMario]

This comparison is still largely invalid because the games are completely different.

please, let the Garchomp issue go, the games are not similar enough to draw parallels in banning criteria.

They went though the exact same thing as a scene to ban Garchomp as some people here are banning Meta Knight.

The point I'm saying is that there is no justification as compared to other scenes of gaming of Meta Knight's ban until he hits the Magic number: 42%. And I personally think that MK has SOME reason to not be banned until 51%, where at the point NOBODY could ever deny that he is banworthy.


The question at hand was how dominant is too dominant? Garchomp represents how far MK has to go to even be deemed "too dominant"

 

[Raziek]

The game has 10 years of player experience.............

I'm sure that makes up for more than enough of not having many tournaments 10 years after its release.

Btw I love how the only people wanting MK to be banned are people that have him as a really bad matchup or isn't smart enough to learn how to beat him.

I'll go pick up some Preparation H for all of this butthurt. Looks like I'll have to get a lot of it.

Not exactly. I could play my little brother at Brawl for 60 years, surely that makes up for lack of tournaments, RIGHT?!

Not to mention, on top of the fact that there aren't tournament now, I'm fairly certain there weren't very many then! And melee is NINE years old and still has a healthy scene, as much, or MORESO than Brawl!

Also, better watch your blanket statements. There are plenty of people who know the matchups, and even MK mains who want him gone. Dangerous blanket statements will explode in your face.

 

[Sosuke]

Btw I love how the only people wanting MK to be banned are people that have him as a really bad matchup or isn't smart enough to learn how to beat him.

That makes as much sense as someone saying "Btw I love how the only people not wanting MK banned are the people who main him."

 

[Zankoku]

I don't think the only thing wrong with Brawl is MK, but I DO believe that the game can get even better than it is right now with the MK situation taken care of.

"Taken care of?" How vague.

Anyway, the point I am making is that the more you remove something, the bigger of an improvement to what's left it better be. I can make the (likely very valid) claim that if only mid-tiers were allowed, diversity would be clearly better overall in tournaments. I don't see the removal of 10+ characters justifying the amount of diversity that will result, though.

If an entire character is removed and the improvement is some other character dominates, just not as hard, I can't support banning Meta Knight as the improvement doesn't really seem to justify his banning. If, however, the improvement is several different characters start taking up the top spots and diversity is improved among all (or most) areas of the tournament environment, then sure. If, however, the "improvement" is there's a different person taking first/second/third every time then I'd be against Brawl as a competitive game.

 

[Ganonsburg]

They went though the exact same thing as a scene to ban Garchomp as some people here are banning Meta Knight.

The point I'm saying is that there is no justification as compared to other scenes of gaming of Meta Knight's ban until he hits the Magic number: 42%. And I personally think that MK has SOME reason to not be banned until 51%, where at the point NOBODY could ever deny that he is banworthy.


The question at hand was how dominant is too dominant? Garchomp represents how far MK has to go to even be deemed "too dominant"

Why 42%? Just because one scene sets that as their mark doesn't mean that that's it. They aren't some sort of god that looks down and says, "42 must be thy percent." We don't have to follow their lead.

I doubt they themselves looked at it and said, "Oh, 42%! Time to ban him now." They probably just noticed that he dominated, and then banned him. 42% probably just showed up in the process, but I doubt it was the reason they banned him (the specific number, not the dominance it represented).

For Brawl, we should choose our own number, not the number of a completely different community for a completely different game.

 

[Raziek]

Garchomp represents how far MK has to go to even be deemed "too dominant"

Says who?! You? The number it took to ban a character in a game of a completely different genre, as has been said many times before, Is NOT Comparable.

 

[Spelt]

If an entire character is removed and the improvement is some other character dominates, just not as hard, I can't support banning Meta Knight as the improvement doesn't really seem to justify his banning. If, however, the improvement is several different characters start taking up the top spots and diversity is improved among all (or most) areas of the tournament environment, then sure. If, however, the "improvement" is there's a different person taking first/second/third every time then I'd be against Brawl as a competitive game.

this is why we at least need a temp ban.

 

[BSP]

That makes as much sense as someone saying "Btw I love how the only people not wanting MK banned are the people who main him."

Not exactly. I could play my little brother at Brawl for 60 years, surely that makes up for lack of tournaments, RIGHT?!

Not to mention, on top of the fact that there aren't tournament now, I'm fairly certain there weren't very many then! And melee is NINE years old and still has a healthy scene, as much, or MORESO than Brawl!

Also, better watch your blanket statements. There are plenty of people who know the matchups, and even MK mains who want him gone. Dangerous blanket statements will explode in your face.

Basically what i wantd to say worded better.

 

[UltiMario]

The point is if you're looking for a good banning number, 42 is an amazing place to start seeing as something BROKEN was banned at 42%, so a borderline character getting banned starts becoming justified at such a percent, and as I said, IMHO, would be completely justified at 51%.

I'm like 60/40 anti/pro ban. I don't want to see MK banned, but once those statistics hit those sort of points, then I find his ban perfectly justified.

Says who?! You? The number it took to ban a character in a game of a completely different genre, as has been said many times before, Is NOT Comparable.

By this logic MK can't be banned, because theres no way to justify how much dominance is too much, since there are no games that are like Smash out there, even fighting games aren't comparable.

 

[iRJi]

this is why we at least need a temp ban.

This.

I said it before, too many times to count. Playing "Lets assume whats going to happen" isn't going to get anything done. This is why I did the whole huge write up on the temp ban and how we should approach this. If you want to if MK should be banned or not, temp ban him. As of right now it is the only way of pulling actual concrete results.

 

[BSP]

This.

I said it before, too many times to count. Playing "Lets assume whats going to happen" isn't going to get anything done. This is why I did the whole huge write up on the temp ban and how we should approach this. If you want to if MK should be banned or not, temp ban him. As of right now it is the only way of pulling actual concrete results.

Second'd. Sitting here debating back and forth won't get anything done.

 

[Nanaki]

Pikachu dominated a good +50% of Smash 64, a game with 12 characters; however Isai and SuperBoomfan are arguably at the top of the metagame by playing whoever the hell he wants and Captain Falcon respectively.

Prove that he dominates a good 50% or more.

Trying to make a game competitive by eliminating as many random elements while keeping the game diverse is not the same as banning a character and thus should not have the same criteria for warranting a ban. Peach's bombs, D3's gordo's, and Luigi's misfires are random, but they're not broken enough to warrant a ban when they do happen and their power is somewhat relative to their occurance level.

There is no way to prove that other than Snake was winning tournaments when Brawl came out because nothing like that happened. No one other than M2K that was good in Melee came over and taught everyone Brawl.

Comparatively, Sheik (Snake in brawl) was the dominating most Melee tournaments if I remember correctly(if not, then replace sheik with fox) until Ken came in and everyone learned Marth. Marth became a huge contender after this happened and that's what it looks like with ADHD and Diddy.

ADHD, Ally, and M2K aren't better than everyone else to the point where they're Wolverine vs a Karate black belt. The skill difference between Wolverine and a black belt vs. ADHD, Ally, M2K and random "top player" is insane.

Ban G&W's Judgement?

-Not Entirely Random
-Overpoweringly good if 'randomness' smiles upon you

UNCOMPETITIVE! BAN!!!

I'm part of the Smash 64 community and it is a completely viable tournament game. It and Melee are the closest things to Brawl that we can get.

Match-up percentages are still match-up percentages. Whether it's a one hit = you're dead(you're an idiot for thinking that's how it always is in high level play in Smash 64, but moving on) vs whatever you assume brawl is. 60-40 still means one character has a 60% win rate vs another with a 40% win rate between those 2 characters

Win % =/= matchup ratio in Smash, I thought that was pretty universally agreed upon by now.

Maybe Smash 64 and Brawl boards are making their ratios differently?

And these tournaments are....... where? How many attend? What kind of numbers are we looking at here?

Dun dun DUUUUUN!

I play online at a 4-5 frame delay. It's been proven that Pikachu has much more options and setups into combos than all other characters. It doesn't need to be in a tournament to see it.

"I don't have any real evidence to back my claims BUT I'M RIGHT SO THERE!!"

Also, it's been proven that MK has much more options and setups into combos than all the other characters. It doesn't need to be in a tournament to see it.

...but it has been seen in tournament.

The game has 10 years of player experience.............

I'm sure that makes up for more than enough of not having many tournaments 10 years after its release.

Btw I love how the only people wanting MK to be banned are people that have him as a really bad matchup or isn't smart enough to learn how to beat him.

I'll go pick up some Preparation H for all of this butthurt. Looks like I'll have to get a lot of it.

10 years of player experience with a miniscule testing audience and playerbase.

Edit:

they banned the giver from school. i guess meta knight should be banned from brawl.

Really? They had it in my school.

 

[Raziek]

"Taken care of?" How vague.

Anyway, the point I am making is that the more you remove something, the bigger of an improvement to what's left it better be. I can make the (likely very valid) claim that if only mid-tiers were allowed, diversity would be clearly better overall in tournaments. I don't see the removal of 10+ characters justifying the amount of diversity that will result, though.

If an entire character is removed and the improvement is some other character dominates, just not as hard, I can't support banning Meta Knight as the improvement doesn't really seem to justify his banning. If, however, the improvement is several different characters start taking up the top spots and diversity is improved among all (or most) areas of the tournament environment, then sure. If, however, the "improvement" is there's a different person taking first/second/third every time then I'd be against Brawl as a competitive game.

I agree with this post.

One that note, one of the reasons Overswarm and the pro-ban have provided is that we speculate (obviously we can't prove it concretely), being, heavily estimate, that the meta-game of several characters would allow them to become more viable. Among them, Marth, Olimar, Kirby, ROB, and a few others that Overswarm mentioned.

I feel that removing one character for the benefit of many other is an action that should be taken.

However, I don't agree with you saying that a different person taking 1st/2nd/3rd each time makes it non-competitive.

This ignores a lot of outside variables, among them:

The Bracket structure
Whether someone has valid sick/injury/absence johns
Luck
The decisions someone makes on the fly during a match.

Right now, there is no consistent winner for all the major tournaments. Ally, ADHD, and M2K usually occupy the top 3, but the winner is not always the same. If you feel this is a problem, then you must feel Brawl as it is now, is a non-competitive game. So why, then, would we not take steps to attempt to make it one?

 

[Tommy_G]

This whole argument is stupid. The last vote was the fourth and final vote.

All of this complaining isn't going to get him banned.

"He dominates the tournament scene."
You let him dominate it by not being better.

"I can't beat him even though he's beatable."
Get better.

8 years and a few months where as Smash 64 has been out for 11 years and a few months, excuse me.

Smash 64 moved past the competitive scene because when Melee came out everyone jizzed over the graphics, more characters, and the fact you could wavedash. There are plenty of Smash 64 tournaments I don't attend online as well as ladder matches on AIB. The only reason Pikachu isn't dominant is because the people playing those games got better and smarter...unlike this community. 4 to 5 frames isn't comparable to wifi. Brawl's buffer is 10 frames. 4-5 frames is about half of that.