Official Metaknight Discussion

[UltiMario]

Tommy. You're not helping anymore, you're just making the anti-ban arguement look even worse.

 

[Raziek]

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 and the fact you could wavedash.

"get Better" is not an argument that holds water, this point has been addressed THOUSANDS of times.

And just because they said the last vote was the final one, doesn't mean things could change. People frequently go back on their word when demand is high enough. It's human nature.

Also, if you claim SSB64 moved past competitive when melee came out, why didn't melee when Brawl came out?

GET AT ME.

 

[BSP]

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

The one slightly accurate thing in that post, and that's mostly because there isn't an agreed upon number that is considered overcentralizing. I agree that we need to take some action on this matter instead of sitting and throwing ideas back and forth.

You're not helping anymore. You admitted that you can't get any current tourney info, so your 64 clause is moot.

 

[UltiMario]

Also, if you claim SSB64 moved past competitive when melee came out, why didn't melee when Brawl came out?

Because Melee was faster paced, and people wanted a fast-paced fighting game, not a defensive, campy one.

 

[Tommy_G]

"get Better" is not an argument that holds water, this point has been addressed THOUSANDS of times.

And just because they said the last vote was the final one, doesn't mean things could change. People frequently go back on their word when demand is high enough. It's human nature.

Also, if you claim SSB64 moved past competitive when melee came out, why didn't melee when Brawl came out?

GET AT ME.

Butthurt at metaknight and because they weren't good at it. They expected Melee top level play the first week it came out. When that didn't happen, they gave up.

Besides, trolling...i mean posting in this thread has been a great way of getting my post count up.
*I was serious until pokemon and other irrelevant games started getting involved.*

It's just a video game.

 

[Kewkky]

"Taken care of?" How vague.

I'm not really completely for a ban, I just despise how MK has the ability to stall, and how he can bypass stalling rules and create even more ways of stalling. Planking led to ledge-grab rules, which in turn led to scrooging. His great defensive and offensive game help him pull these off far better than any other stalling character, and also helps him regain leads he may lose... Any answer to this that we get that fixes this problem is OK with me, but so far the only plausible paths that people keep bringing up are ban-related, so I guess I'm pro-ban, even though I'm not entirely for the ban.

Heh, I've tried to keep myself 'vague' with all my posts by not committing to any answer the problem might have, instead maintaining my position with the best available answer until an even better answer to the problem is found.

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 would probably regret banning MK if there was a different name in the top 3 everytime a National happened. But the skill gap in Brawl has been proven to be visible, and some top players have been playing their worst MUs and winning due to this.

I personally believe that with the whole MK dilemma taken care of, the results for tourneys will be easier to reach for other characters. MK is such a strong obstacle for all other tourney-viable characters capable of winning nationals... Even when you think you've outplayed the MK mainer, they pull out one last stunt to assure the victory: pseudo-stalling and an abuse of "cheap" tactics (planking/scrooging/dair camping/tornado spamming/whatever). Even top players suffer because of this, Ally being a clear example back at Pound4. Having outclassed M2K, he got timed out in the last match, otherwise M2K would've lost... These things bother me.

 

[Zankoku]

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?

Should I have instead said "a different set of players among the top 3 each time"? I'm fine with a few people competing for that very top spot, but if the upper level of the nation's players consists of a shuffle every month, then there is a problem.

 

[Raziek]

Butthurt at metaknight and because they weren't good at it. They expected Melee top level play the first week it came out. When that didn't happen, they gave up.

Besides, trolling...i mean posting in this thread has been a great way of getting my post count up.

It's just a video game.

(Feel free to listen to this while reading my post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew1Nr5rHQn0)

It was SNAKE, NOT META-KNIGHT who dominated at the games launch! Nobody expected a top-level Meta-game immediately, this is a baseless claim!

The real reason SSB64 died while Melee did not is because SSB64 is NOT AS GOOD A GAME.

You clearly don't care about these issues, and you're basically giving up.

CASE CLOSED.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

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?

Yeah and as its been said a bunch of times in this thread alone, other communities will always make fun of you guys for it. In melee there were a few years where items were played in tournament before they were removed because of exploding containers.

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.

Actually the proper way to go about it is to make a sub-community for your new ruleset.

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.

did you even read my post? Please, go back and do it. I'll wait.

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.

i was never a part of the stage banning part of brawl and i have absolutely no knowledge of it.

If you want to talk about melee a bit, i can explain to you why each banned stage is broken in one way or another. For example, hyrule and termina are banned because of infinite circular running. Other stages are banned because of similar unbeatable camping strategies.

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.

When did i say it was for the games health? I thought this whole thread was about metaknight deserving a ban. "For the good of the game's health" is just something OS or someone on his side of the argument tacked on to make their side seem more legitimate.

I believe i said before, if the game is dying let it die. It happens to every game sooner or later. Depending on how good of a game it is, it will always carry a dedicated community. Look at melee. Its basically been dead since 07, and started dying at the end of 06. Recently its been gaining more popularity due to brawl's overall failure to convert the fan base of melee and many people new to the franchise converting from brawl to melee, but the game is still in its "dead" phase (and i'll maintain that position until there is another national circuit with corporate sponsors, which there are actually a few in the works....). . False resurrections like this are just a fast way to tarnish the game permanently.

@ 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?

Thats pretty much the whole reason I'm here. I don't have any stake in it, but i do care about what is logically right. While normally I let the brawl community do what ever it wants with little regard, this whole concept just baffles me. I understand the metagame fairly well as i played a little when the game first came out, and more recently have been studying the metagame out of personal interest in metagames in general.

This might hurt some of your feelings, but from what i've seen the brawl community is kinda childish. From match-ups that are considered 100-0 to this argument, the scene is obviously effected by the high number of kids that began their competitive venture on this game. I just feel like i need to be the big brother and tell you guys you're wrong and hopefully explain why.




Summery: Something should only be banned if it is determined to be broken. If you can explain in any way how MK is broken i'll give the argument a look over. So far no argument has been valid, and MK won't be banend until then (or at least shouldn't be...)

/thread

 

[Raziek]

Should I have instead said "a different set of players among the top 3 each time"? I'm fine with a few people competing for that very top spot, but if the upper level of the nation's players consists of a shuffle every month, then there is a problem.

Yes, that would have been more appropriate. I agree that if it was three completely different people every time, there would be a problem.

Glad to see we have an understanding.

 

[Kaffei]

It seems to me like the same ideas are just being thrown back and forth at a non stop cycle.

 

[UltiMario]

I say that instead of arguing weather MK is bannable right now (he isn't), what point does MK have to be at before he is somewhat justified, and then complete justified as bannable, due to his usage/dominance?

There are obviously GOOD arguements out there that prove MK isn't banworthy, as well as many GOOD arguements on why they are, but so far, its just a stalemate.


It justs works out better in the long run, because a point where MK IS justified as bannable can be agreed on by Pro and Anti-banners seeing as Anti-Banners would agree that "Meta Knight would never become THAT much of a problem" whilst Pro Banners would agree that "Meta Knight will soon reach this state of dominance".

So, as a good start-off, I'll give my general numbers and a short explanation to go with it.

Since I'm a Pokenerd, I find "Garchomp's Number" to be a reasonable number for reasonable justification at 42%, whilst complete justification would be at 51%, where controlling over half the Metagame, would be just too much, and warrent a defininate ban.

A broken Pokemon was banned at 42%, so a borderline character could have reasonable justification at the same percent. And as I said, controlling over half the Metagame would be too much, so 51%, IMO, would warrent a definate ban.


I just find we'll get more done in this thread trying to find a point of agreement than throwing useless facts and insults at eachother that will never mean anything to the opposing side.

 

[Tommy_G]

It was SNAKE, NOT META-KNIGHT who dominated at the games launch! Nobody expected a top-level Meta-game immediately, this is a baseless claim!
Metaknight dominated the beginning, then Snake surpassed him, then MK came back and retook the top spot. Everyone who played Brawl from Melee got bored of it quickly because it was not Melee.
The real reason SSB64 died while Melee did not is because SSB64 is NOT AS GOOD A GAME.
Completely subjective and biased. I think Melee is one of the worst games out there.
You clearly don't care about these issues, and you're basically giving up.
Giving up because I don't like arguing with someone who base their arguments off of assumed facts and opinions.
CASE CLOSED.

Comments in bold.

 

[SmashChu]

I said a good indication not definitive proof. If Falcon's results are that amazingly good its a sign that something is up with the character. There *could* just be ten really amazing Falcon players but that is far less likely than the character being extremely good.

It is not good evidence. There is still too little information to make a claim on it. It could be because the players were so **** good. It could be the area has a lot of strong falcon players. It could be that some rule allowed Falcon to do better then other characters.

I don't think any other character would be as good as MK is. All of the others have bad matchups and or stages.

Statistically, Sagat is much better then Meta-Knight. SF3 probably has a character or two that preforms better then Meta-Knight. And let's not get started on Marvel vs Capcom 2.

I was trying to simplify it so I used the term norm instead of mean.

You'd be using the word average then.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

Yeah and as its been said a bunch of times in this thread alone, other communities will always make fun of you guys for it. In melee there were a few years where items were played in tournament before they were removed because of exploding containers.

So the only thing you've said that isn't an opinion is what will cause other communities to laugh at us till Armageddon?


In brawl you can turn off containers so whats the problem now? and why didn't you answer my question about stages??

 

[Kewkky]

Yeah and as its been said a bunch of times in this thread alone, other communities will always make fun of you guys for it. In melee there were a few years where items were played in tournament before they were removed because of exploding containers.

Why should we care? THis isn't their game, and we're not playing it to become friends with the SF players (or whatever other community), we play this because we get something we like from it. Money, entertainment, whatever. I care NOTHING of what other people talk about us as long as we ourselves transform our game slowly into what we'll universally agree is the best thing that could come out of Brawl's release.

Actually the proper way to go about it is to make a sub-community for your new ruleset.

Uh, no, the proper way to go into banning/changing things is to first see if there's a super-majority that wants a change. If not, THEN you can bring up a proposition. The sub-community could be created once your proposition is created and presented, but not before.

It seems to me like the same ideas are just being thrown back and forth at a non stop cycle.

And the same "this thread is redundant" message is being brought back by members who want to spam in order to increase their post count. Stay out of the discussion if you have NOTHING to add, please (for the millionth time!).

 

[Raziek]

When did i say it was for the games health? I thought this whole thread was about metaknight deserving a ban. "For the good of the game's health" is just something OS or someone on his side of the argument tacked on to make their side seem more legitimate.

I believe i said before, if the game is dying let it die. It happens to every game sooner or later. Depending on how good of a game it is, it will always carry a dedicated community. Look at melee. Its basically been dead since 07, and started dying at the end of 06. Recently its been gaining more popularity due to brawl's overall failure to convert the fan base of melee and many people new to the franchise converting from brawl to melee, but the game is still in its "dead" phase (and i'll maintain that position until there is another national circuit with corporate sponsors, which there are actually a few in the works....). . False resurrections like this are just a fast way to tarnish the game permanently.

Thats pretty much the whole reason I'm here. I don't have any stake in it, but i do care about what is logically right. While normally I let the brawl community do what ever it wants with little regard, this whole concept just baffles me. I understand the metagame fairly well as i played a little when the game first came out, and more recently have been studying the metagame out of personal interest in metagames in general.

This might hurt some of your feelings, but from what i've seen the brawl community is kinda childish. From match-ups that are considered 100-0 to this argument, the scene is obviously effected by the high number of kids that began their competitive venture on this game. I just feel like i need to be the big brother and tell you guys you're wrong and hopefully explain why.

Summery: Something should only be banned if it is determined to be broken. If you can explain in any way how MK is broken i'll give the argument a look over. So far no argument has been valid, and MK won't be banend until then (or at least shouldn't be...)

/thread

The reason the games health was brought up because of your horrendous attitude about this debate.

I'll make a comparison here. A baby is born with only one function lung, and it is quite likely it will die within a few years of birth if left as is.

We have the option of saving this baby by transplanting a new lung, but you think we should let it die?

Also, the fact that you think melee is dead is DOWNRIGHT LAUGHABLE.

Things don't have to be broken to be banned. Things that are broken usually get banned, but it's not a requirement.

We don't believe MK is broken. We believe he is dominant to the point of damaging the game's health overall, and thus should be removed.

 

[Tommy_G]

This whole thread is pretty much:

Point A: Counter with point B: Counter with Point C: Counter with point D: Counter with point E: Counter with point A

There are tons of other characters in other games that are more broken than MK but are not banned. Dominance is a part of fighting games. It's going to happen even if MK gets banned.

 

[Raziek]

Metaknight dominated the beginning, then Snake surpassed him, then MK came back and retook the top spot. Everyone who played Brawl from Melee got bored of it quickly because it was not Melee.

Completely subjective and biased. I think Melee is one of the worst games out there.

Giving up because I don't like arguing with someone who base their arguments off of assumed facts and opinions.

Meta-Knight did not dominate in the beginning. He was at the top of the first tier list, but he was not dominating nearly like he is now, nor was he considered to be top within the first few months of launch. You simply can't stand behind this, 'People gave up too quick" business.

And if you think melee is one of the worst games out there, why is it still popular? The health of the games now mean FAR MORE than the opinion of you or I.

I'd also like to point out that you are also using plenty of assumed facts and opinions, like your entire case on SSB64.

 

[BSP]

Yeah and as its been said a bunch of times in this thread alone, other communities will always make fun of you guys for it. In melee there were a few years where items were played in tournament before they were removed because of exploding containers.

Who cares about the other communities? IMO, brawl is our game, and if it's agreed/decided that it needs fixing, we fix. We shouldn't care about what the other communities do, escpecially if it will help our game in the long run.

When did i say it was for the games health? I thought this whole thread was about metaknight deserving a ban. "For the good of the game's health" is just something OS or someone on his side of the argument tacked on to make their side seem more legitimate..

"For the good of the game's health" sounds like a legit arguement to me. You'be said that we should let the game die if it is, so it probably doesn't matter to you.

I believe i said before, if the game is dying let it die. It happens to every game sooner or later. Depending on how good of a game it is, it will always carry a dedicated community. Look at melee. Its basically been dead since 07, and started dying at the end of 06. Recently its been gaining more popularity due to brawl's overall failure to convert the fan base of melee and many people new to the franchise converting from brawl to melee, but the game is still in its "dead" phase (and i'll maintain that position until there is another national circuit with corporate sponsors, which there are actually a few in the works....). . False resurrections like this are just a fast way to tarnish the game permanently. ..

Well, you disagree with people here. We want to keep brawl alive, hence why we are having this discussion, even if it's not doing much.

Summery: Something should only be banned if it is determined to be broken. If you can explain in any way how MK is broken i'll give the argument a look over. So far no argument has been valid, and MK won't be banend until then (or at least shouldn't be...)

/thread

I don't get this logic. It's like saying that if one character clearly dominates every other, but is still beatable in battle, they're ok. MK is not broken, we know this. It is still up for debate whether he is a serious enough problem to warrant a ban.

 

[UltiMario]

We don't believe MK is broken. We believe he is dominant to the point of damaging the game's health overall, and thus should be removed.

This is why I'm thinking that ths thread would be more useful as an AGREEMENT thread, not a DISAGREEMENT thread.

Right now, MK isn't bannable from his dominance. He isn't QUITE there yet, and there is enough to prove that. He's VERY close, but not quite there.

Thats why I'm suggesting this thread to become a discussion of How dominant is too dominant? Once that is settled, then MK's banning becomes justified the second that definate dominance is reached.


Does anyone here have a problem with that?


Its going to get us a hell of a lot better answer than the 4000 other posts in this thread. "What is too much dominance" will be much easier to agree on than "Ban or no Ban"

 

[SmashChu]

"get Better" is not an argument that holds water, this point has been addressed THOUSANDS of times.

Oh really?

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

Tada. The character is not broken, and thus, does not break the risk/reward system. So, get better. There is no need to discuss it further after this point because very other claim is to make it "better," but better is subjective. Brawl may be better with Meta-Knight. The argument can go either way. There have been far worse characters in numerous other fighting games. If he is beatable, then you get better. This is scrub talk.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

So the only thing you've said that isn't an opinion is what will cause other communities to laugh at us till Armageddon?


In brawl you can turn off containers so whats the problem now? and why didn't you answer my question about stages??

Exactly, what is the problem now? Brawl community didn't even give it a test. I remember evo wanted to do a major brawl tournament shortly after the release, but basically everyone in the community rejected the idea because they already jumped to the ruleset they wanted to use without actually exploring the game as it was intended to be played.

In melee, there was first timed ffa tournaments. There were very stupid strategies that evolved like fox/falco laser stealing kills to get the win. A better method was found in the form of stocks, and the number varied between coasts. Items remained on until they were later deemed unfair due to the randomness of the exploding containers.

Brawl community explored none of that at all. None. Zero. Zilch. From day one everyone used 3-4 stocks with items off and within a few weeks everyone had neutral stages and banned stages picked out.

For all we know timed ffas could be more balanced for the game removing the camping and stalling element. Before you guys start, i'm not actually suggesting a ruleset like this, i'm merely stating that the brawl community skipped all the proper steps for the actions it took.

 

[Raziek]

Oh really?

Tada. The character is not broken, and thus, does not break the risk/reward system. So, get better. There is no need to discuss it further after this point because very other claim is to make it "better," but better is subjective. Brawl may be better with Meta-Knight. The argument can go either way. There have been far worse characters in numerous other fighting games. If he is beatable, then you get better. This is scrub talk.

Get Better has been disproven, not by proving he's broken, but by proving there's no need to get better, because you can just play meta-Knight. Doesn't hold water.

 

[PK-ow!]

Maybe the tension is caused because of a False Dilemma we're working with.


There are three possibilities:


MK is broken and should be banned.
MK is not broken.
MK is broken and Brawl sucks because it is broken.


We should remember that that third scenario is on the table. It's not one you like to have, but Sirlin leaves room for that: Maybe there is an option that dominates... but the game without that option isn't ten times better than the one with it.

When that happens, you should abandon the game, because it's not a good competition. It's an arms race of minutiae regarding the dominant option.

(EDIT: Wow, forgot my sentence. <_< )



I really don't want to believe it's the case, so I keep trying to get better, learn to read and pressure, and beat MK's options, but, it just occurred to me that the stress and the 'divisiveness' people feel, yet without believing that it's simply a disagreement, could be put up to this.

If we're in that scenario, then we're all wrong, and we're all screwed. Melee haters were right (though for the wrong reasons): Brawl can't be played.


Maybe we can get somewhere if we throw out this assumption people have been making. (I think it's been assumed). That this third possibility doesn't exist.


EDIT2: No one is ever going to see this post. :'(

 

[Raziek]

Exactly, what is the problem now? Brawl community didn't even give it a test. I remember evo wanted to do a major brawl tournament shortly after the release, but basically everyone in the community rejected the idea because they already jumped to the ruleset they wanted to use without actually exploring the game as it was intended to be played.

In melee, there was first timed ffa tournaments. There were very stupid strategies that evolved like fox/falco laser stealing kills to get the win. A better method was found in the form of stocks, and the number varied between coasts. Items remained on until they were later deemed unfair due to the randomness of the exploding containers.

Brawl community explored none of that at all. None. Zero. Zilch. From day one everyone used 3-4 stocks with items off and within a few weeks everyone had neutral stages and banned stages picked out.

For all we know timed ffas could be more balanced for the game removing the camping and stalling element. Before you guys start, i'm not actually suggesting a ruleset like this, i'm merely stating that the brawl community skipped all the proper steps for the actions it took.

Why would we bother wasting time when Brawl and Melee are similar enough to these conclusions could be drawn? People wanted to get things in order quickly, so why would we bother with the same time wasters of trying timed matches?

 

[TLMSheikant]

I believe brawl would be 100x better if metaknight was removed. Having a character with no bad matchups and stages will ultimately lead to almost everyone using him because he himself is your best bet against mk and in case they pick another character, you still have the overall advantage. Diddy Kong and Snake would not be nearly as dominant as mk if he was removed, because they have BAD matchups or at least even matchups and bad stages. *goes back to lurking*

 

[Kewkky]

Tada. The character is not broken, and thus, does not break the risk/reward system.

Guy A: "This new medication kills slightly more people than other similar medications (risk), and its effect is slightly less visible (reward)"

Guy B: "Tada. The medication isn't killing enough people to be considered a danger, and thus, should not be taken off the market."

After all, this hypothetical medication still rakes in the money, it's quite cheap, easy to access, and it still gets the job done, am I right?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Why would we bother wasting time when Brawl and Melee are similar enough to these conclusions could be drawn? People wanted to get things in order quickly, so why would we bother with the same time wasters of trying timed matches?

Who was it that said just a few minutes ago that ssb64 and brawl are too different to be compared in any way?

The fact that the exploding containers were the reason items were off in melee and that specific problem was fixed in brawl is reason enough to try items. As for the stages, 1-2 weeks is absolutely not enough time to accurately determine whether the stages were ban worthy or not.

 

[Justblaze647]

I don't have any stake in it, but i do care about what is logically right.

You don't have a stake in it, therefore your opinion is null and void.

It doesnt concern you, therefore your opinion is null and void.

We don't care what you think is logically right, therefore your opinion is null and void.

We already have a group of people playing big brother, and they're called the SBR-B.

I say all that to say, no one cares that you think Brawl is bad, or that we're childish, or that MK shouldn't be banned. Go back to trolling the melee boards.

tl;dr: gtfo

 

[Zankoku]

Guy A: "This new medication kills slightly more people than other similar medications (risk), and its effect is slightly less visible (reward)"

Guy B: "Tada. The medication isn't killing enough people to be considered a danger, and thus, should not be taken off the market."

After all, this hypothetical medication still rakes in the money, it's quite cheap, easy to access, and it still gets the job done, am I right?

This is incorrect. If you're talking about a new medication, the discussion is whether or not it should be introduced into the market, not taken out. In which case, is it cheap enough to sell over others, yet expensive enough to still get a significant profit? Significant enough for the additional risk of lives?

 

[Raziek]

Who was it that said just a few minutes ago that ssb64 and brawl are too different to be compared in any way?

The fact that the exploding containers were the reason items were off in melee and that specific problem was fixed in brawl is reason enough to try items. As for the stages, 1-2 weeks is absolutely not enough time to accurately determine whether the stages were ban worthy or not.

I'm not comparing SSB64, I'm comparing melee and Brawl. Melee is similar enough to Brawl that we didn't have to debate the basic ruleset. As for stages, I agree that some of those decisions were probably somewhat premature. I also don't agree completely with the current stagelist, but anyone can see these things have slowly adjusted over time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see Summit should be banned.

 

[Tommy_G]

I'm not comparing SSB64, I'm comparing melee and Brawl. Melee is similar enough to Brawl that we didn't have to debate the basic ruleset. As for stages, I agree that some of those decisions were probably somewhat premature. I also don't agree completely with the current stagelist, but anyone can see these things have slowly adjusted over time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see Summit should be banned.

what........

Melee=Brawl?

no

 

[Raziek]

what........

Melee=Brawl?

no

I didn't say melee was identical to Brawl. I said it was SIMILAR ENOUGH to draw a reasonable conclusion based on the parallels in their game mechanics.

 

[Kewkky]

This is incorrect. If you're talking about a new medication, the discussion is whether or not it should be introduced into the market, not taken out. In which case, is it cheap enough to sell over others, yet expensive enough to still get a significant profit? Significant enough for the additional risk of lives?

As sad as it may be, this happens every now and then to medications which have been introduced to the market. It leads to lots of lawsuits, and the medication has to be taken off the market. There could be a couple of reasons (as always) as to why the medication did what it did: either they didn't fully research it (or research it well), mass-production is affected by an unforeseeable factor (it could react in a bad way if exposed to oxygen for enough time, or if not used before the expiration day is met), and who knows what else there might be.

Point is, we've tested MK for ~2 years. What we expected MK to remain as (a normal "best character" like other fighting games') never happened, and what did happen is that MK's options kept broadening, and his "special options (aka gay strategies)" just kept increasing and being perfected. How much longer do we need to wait before anti-ban decides to pull the plug on this "medication"? Brawl's competitive 'market' will dwindle to nothing if no answers are to be found, which is what anti-ban wants: for everything to remain exactly the same as it is right now.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

^ do you normally expect players to stay at the same level as their experience in a character increases? You have M2K playing that character. He was the guy that single-handedly took marth from high tier to tied for first in melee. If you want someone to find insane number of option traps with a character, its him. He boosted puff's metagame without even playing her and while despising her.

 

[Raziek]

^ do you normally expect players to stay at the same level as their experience in a character increases? You have M2K playing that character. He was the guy that single-handedly took marth from high tier to tied for first in melee. If you want someone to find insane number of option traps with a character, its him. He boosted puff's metagame without even playing her and while despising her.

If by MK, you mean M2K, it wasn't just him that boosted Marth. (I see that you edited this in, so I am correct. >_>) Ken was kind of important there as well y'know. Obviously players can have large impacts on their characters meta-game, this is why we see less developed meta-games for characters like Pit, because there are very few people in America who play him. More people play Pit in Japan, he has a higher metagame there.

This is part of the problem that perpetuates the MK cycle. He's the best character, so everyone plays him, which means his metagame develops faster than everyone else. This is part of what causes the cyclical unhealthy metagame problem.

 

[Kewkky]

^ do you normally expect players to stay at the same level as their experience in a character increases?

And that's what so many people just don't see. All of these "anti-MK developments" that were supposed to have been found by other people only led to MK becoming even better and better, alienating himself from the rest of the cast even more. If MK can't win head-on, he stalls for time with any lead he may get. What other character can stall as well as he can? No one else has all of his traits together: best offense, top defense, top recovery, top speed.. Why can't you see that MK is in a league of his own?

You have M2K playing that character. He was the guy that single-handedly took marth from high tier to tied for first in melee.

Just a minor correction... Ken was the guy who made Marth top tier, M2K just took over after Ken left.

If you want someone to find insane number of option traps with a character, its him. He boosted puff's metagame without even playing her and while despising her.

So you're saying we all made MK even better than before, by trying to get better and beat him, but instead he got better against our newer strategies and increased his dominance?

Huh, well whaddaya know.

 

[Raziek]

And that's what so many people just don't see. All of these "anti-MK developments" that were supposed to have been found by other people only led to MK becoming even better and better, alienating himself from the rest of the cast even more. If MK can't win head-on, he stalls for time with any lead he may get. What other character can stall as well as he can? No one else has all of his traits together: best offense, top defense, top recovery, top speed.. Why can't you see that MK is in a league of his own?


Just a minor correction... Ken was the guy who made Marth top tier, M2K just took over after Ken left.


So you're saying we all made MK even better than before, by trying to get better and beat him, but instead he got better against our newer strategies and increased his dominance?

Huh, well whaddaya know.

Well put, Kewkky. Pretty much goes along with what I said regarding the cyclical nature of improvement.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

If by MK, you mean M2K, it wasn't just him that boosted Marth. (I see that you edited this in, so I am correct. >_>) Ken was kind of important there as well y'know. Obviously players can have large impacts on their characters meta-game, this is why we see less developed meta-games for characters like Pit, because there are very few people in America who play him. More people play Pit in Japan, he has a higher metagame there.

This is part of the problem that perpetuates the MK cycle. He's the best character, so everyone plays him, which means his metagame develops faster than everyone else. This is part of what causes the cyclical unhealthy metagame problem.

You realize that every game has that problem and you taking him out of the game solves nothing, right?

also, it was m2k that got him to where he is currently. When ken played him, he used a lot smooth aggression, overall precise play and straight up smarter playing to get his wins. M2K proved how good marth is by displaying simple mathematical option traps such as the jab and counter edge guard.

And that's what so many people just don't see. All of these "anti-MK developments" that were supposed to have been found by other people only led to MK becoming even better and better, alienating himself from the rest of the cast even more. If MK can't win head-on, he stalls for time with any lead he may get. What other character can stall as well as he can? No one else has all of his traits together: best offense, top defense, top recovery, top speed.. Why can't you see that MK is in a league of his own?


Just a minor correction... Ken was the guy who made Marth top tier, M2K just took over after Ken left.


So you're saying we all made MK even better than before, by trying to get better and beat him, but instead he got better against our newer strategies and increased his dominance?

Huh, well whaddaya know.

no, im saying you have one of the smartest smashers in the history of the gaming SERIES doing everything he can to find a high class winning methodology to his character. Yeah he will be good, and once other players of the same character catch on it will seem like its the character's fault not the people who are doing the work with him.