Official Metaknight Discussion

[Kewkky]

It's like going to a club and seeing a sign that says "No Drinking".

Then you go into the club, pull a beer out of your pocket, and drink it. And this is totally acceptable.

Hmm...

Well, that scenario would be up to the club owner's discretion. If when he says "No Drinking" he means "We don't tolerate or allow the use of alcoholic beverages excluding ones brought by the customers", then there's no way around that and people are allowed to bring alcohol inside. But if by "No Drinking" he means "We don't tolerate or allow the use of alcoholic beverages including ones brought by the customers", guess that's it for alcohol in that place.

Are you suggesting that we should be more specific with the "No Items" rule? The details pretty much go without saying, as we can see all players understand the rule and we all have an universally-agreed definition of the rule.

 

[iRJi]

I still think Omni is trolling. Lol.

Either that or is he setting up something.

 

[JRob]

It stops Dedede from throwing random items, which is why you never see a capsule. He even has an ability to throw a Smash Ball from what I heard.

I didn't know he could throw smashballs. O_o

That would explain a lot. O;

 

[Omni]

I guess... well, in regards to DDD. His capsules will randomly spawn. And those capsules will randomly be explosions. Is this is a problem? Luigi will randomly overb and kill someone at 40 or 50. Peach can randomly pull a turnip and it turns out to be a bomb. Like... why is DDD the exception to this rule? There's gotta' be a reason.

Also, there's a clear cut difference between projectiles and items. Nearly all items share the attribute of "decaying" where they will eventually blink out of existence when untouched. This doesn't apply to Snake's greandes or Link's bombs so I'm more reluctant to deem these specifics as projectiles.

 

[rathy Aro]

That's only if you don't set it to none..... why don't ppl know this by now? XD

If you set items to off and none DDD WILL NOT THROW A SINGLE ITEM EVER!

peach still may.

 

[BSP]

I still think Omni is trolling. Lol.

Either that or is he setting up something.

I think he's setting something up.

 

[HeroMystic]

Tedit: @heromystic: I'm sure many casuals and the maker of the game would disagree with you. They might even say that it isn't brawl without items.

No one cares about them. This has been brought up hundreds of times.

Its completely arbitrary. We should make the decision of whether or not to ban on items based on if they are helpful or detrimental to the game. They add an entire layer of depth and add a little bit of randomness that isn't as bad as game and watch's hammer.

I actually agree. I'm rather interested in how competitive brawl would be like with items turned on, as long as it's done correctly. But you can't really argue that it would produce an entirely new metagame.

 

[UltiMario]

Omni needs to learn simple game mechanics.

 

[iceman48]

Why are we talking about banning random things and characters with them? Luigi has his misfire, R&W his hammer, and DDD his random ******es he'll throw around on occasion. They snuck this **** into the prom, and now they get to enjoy their cold beverages in the bathroom while those other squares are out in the other room pretending they know how to dance. Hell, if you get more specific, the spacies have lasers, the sword folk have, well, swords, Samus has heat-seeking missles and a charge shot, and two chars have flamethrowers. Those are somewhat related to items in the game that are banned.

Can we get back to the MK discussion now?

 

[Kewkky]

I guess... well, in regards to DDD. His capsules will randomly spawn. And those capsules will randomly be explosions. Is this is a problem? Luigi will randomly overb and kill someone at 40 or 50. Peach can randomly pull a turnip and it turns out to be a bomb. Like... why is DDD the exception to this rule? There's gotta' be a reason.

Because that player-controlled random can be controlled to the point where we can take it completely out of the game, while not limiting anything else from DDD at all. We can't do this with Peach, since her swords/bombs/Mr Saturns still appear when items are both set to "Off" and "None".

Luigi's sideB? Well, it's a player-controlled random element. It will never happen if the player using Luigi never does a sideB. Items spawn even if players disconnect their controllers unless they're turned to "off", and DDD throws capsules unless items are set to "none". We can control everything in a match this way, making the only random situations player-controlled randomness.

 

[rathy Aro]

No one cares about them. This has been brought up hundreds of times.


I actually agree. I'm rather interested in how competitive brawl would be like with items turned on, as long as it's done correctly. But you can't really argue that it would produce an entirely new metagame.

No one likes it as it is now anyway. lol Might as well give it a change.

Why are we talking about banning random things and characters with them? Luigi has his misfire, R&W his hammer, and DDD his random ******es he'll throw around on occasion. They snuck this **** into the prom, and now they get to enjoy their cold beverages in the bathroom while those other squares are out in the other room pretending they know how to dance.

Can we get back to the MK discussion now?

Look to my above post about DDD in big letter and bold..... >.>

Secondly we should reduce randomness as much as possible, because it gives the weaker player a chance of winning, which is generally bad.

No one care about mk. We should unban items first.

 

[Omni]

It's true. I don't know simple game mechanics.

@Kewkky: "No drinking" is clear. It means not drinking. "No items" is clear. It means no items. Yet, in my metaphor, drinking is allowed REGARDLESS of how the drink entered the club. It should still be disallowed. The same applies to items. Do you agree?

I think DDD should be able to throw capsules regardless if they explode or not. Is this a problem? It is player controlled based on how many times DDD presses overb. If you press overb alot, the chances of an exploding capsule coming out increases.

 

[rathy Aro]

I already explain why your metaphor doesn't work, Omni.

 

[BSP]

Omni how does this relate to MK?

 

[Omni]

They are banning drinking not the process by which the drinks appear. That analogy doesn't work.

No, it does. Listen.

If I invite you over to my house and say, "No Drinking". Then later on you pull out a beer and start drinking it won't be allowed. Regardless of how you got the beer into my house the rules are clearly stated that there is No Drinking.

 

[Justblaze647]

Are we really talking about this?

This is why items are dumb in competitive Brawl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFcnnPtUhGw

 

[Kewkky]

@Kewkky: "No drinking" is clear. It means not drinking. "No items" is clear. It means no items. Yet, in my metaphor, drinking is allowed REGARDLESS of how the drink entered the club. It should still be disallowed. The same applies to items. Do you agree?

All right, then I guess we must change the ruling of items from "No items" to "Items are set to 'off' and 'none'". That fixes the problem in its entirety, just like how the club owners can change "No Drinking" to "No alcoholic beverages are allowed inside the establishment at all times".

I think DDD should be able to throw capsules regardless if they explode or not. Is this a problem? It is player controlled based on how many times DDD presses overb. If you press overb alot, the chances of an exploding capsule coming out increases.

Well as the old saying goes... "We banned items because, quite frankly, we just don't like them" (ugh I can't find the last MK Ban poll [4th one], so I can't quote it). DDD's is a special case because it's the only player-controlled random that we can disable.

Edit: Found it!

Items. I’m not talking about bombs, and crazy things. we mean FOOD ON VERY LOW. Why is this banned? To be honest it’s because, bluntly, WE JUST DON”T LIKE IT.

 

[rathy Aro]

No, it does. Listen.

If I invite you over to my house and say, "No Drinking". Then later on you pull out a beer and start drinking it won't be allowed. Regardless of how you got the beer into my house the rules are clearly stated that there is No Drinking.

What I'm saying is that we don't have a ban on items as someone already pointed out. We have items set to none of off. So the presence of items isn't wrong, but the way they appear randomly (according to some ppl) is wrong.

We would have smashball off along with some of the other broken items in there.
PS: ken sucks.
PPS: A lot of ppl like that vid.

 

[Omni]

DDD's is a special case because it's the only player-controlled random that we can disable.

But if it's player-controlled why are we banning it?

What I'm saying is that we don't have a ban on items as someone already pointed out. We have items set to none of off. So the presence of items isn't wrong, but the way they appear randomly (according to some ppl) is wrong.

I'm not arguing that items should be on. Also, having items set to "none" and "off" = banning items that spawn randomly outside of player controlled region. I'm interested in why DDD is the exception to this "rule".

 

[rathy Aro]

DDD is not an exception to the rule

That's only if you don't set it to none..... why don't ppl know this by now? XD

If you set items to off and none DDD WILL NOT THROW A SINGLE ITEM EVER!

peach still may.

 

[Kewkky]

But if it's player-controlled why are we banning it?

Because a super-majority wanted it gone. Isn't that what people told pro-ban when the 1-4 "Ban MK" poll happened? If there is to be a change in whatever scenario or event, before anything else is done a super-majority must want that change. I remember those words repeated over and over again, explaining why the small advantage pro-ban had over anti-ban at the previous threads was meaningless, and the same for when we asked how the poll withing the SBR-B went.


Because DDD's player-controlled random can actually be controlled to the point where it never happens. Peach's, Luigi's, G&W's and every other case can't be controlled to the point where they never happen, only DDD's can.

 

[UltiMario]

Don't items from DDD spawn when you have items set to "On" and "None"?

 

[BSP]

If you have the items "on", D3 will be able to throw stuff even if their appearance rate is at none.

 

[JRob]

Omni, ITEMS ARE NOT BANNED.
If they were your bar analogy would be more accurate.

They are set to "off" and "none" though. There is a difference.

Don't items from DDD spawn when you have items set to "On" and "None"?

"None" being the frequency, and "On" being the items themselves, yes. You are correct.

 

[Justblaze647]

PS: ken sucks.

Actually upon my re watching of that vid, Ken was (two years ago) around where the current marth metagame is now... if not ahead of it...

so there

 

[HeroMystic]

Are we really talking about this?

This is why items are dumb in competitive Brawl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFcnnPtUhGw

Evo is such an insanely poor example. All items were allowed and were set to medium rate. Even Smash Balls were there, and they're clearly overpowered to anyone's eyes.

FYI: Melee used to have items on competitively. The real reason why they got banned was due to exploding items upon hit, which caused too many "unfortunate accidents".

 

[rathy Aro]

Actually upon my re watching of that vid, Ken was (two years ago) around where the current marth metagame is now... if not ahead of it...

so there

would you like to add some proof to that?

 

[SwastikaPyle]

O.o Hey Overswarm. Recruiting more Pro bans I see.

guess you guys should
learn to play.

 

[RDK]

cool beans.

random question. just want to see what people think:

why is it okay for Diddy to spawn bananas?

Diddy is technically producing an ITEM in a game that bans items.
Peach can randomly produce Swords and Bombs.
DDD was able to produce capsules but this tactic was not allowed.

so in a game where items are banned, why is it okay for characters to produce them?

We can argue that tripping isn't total randomness if you simply choose to not to dash.

We can also argue that item spawning (and players receiving items) can be controlled based on how players position themselves on the map since items will never spawn around the edges of the screen or anywhere off-stage.

A player has no control on when Frigate Orpheon will begin transforming or what stage it will produce. Nor do they have control of when the lava will rise in Brinstar.

So I'm a bit confused with that reasoning.

Come on, Omni; don't play stupid.

Diddy's Bananas don't randomly reward players based on where they happen to be on the map at the time of a spawn.

OS has gotten to your head.

 

[RDK]

I guess... well, in regards to DDD. His capsules will randomly spawn. And those capsules will randomly be explosions. Is this is a problem? Luigi will randomly overb and kill someone at 40 or 50. Peach can randomly pull a turnip and it turns out to be a bomb. Like... why is DDD the exception to this rule? There's gotta' be a reason.

Also, there's a clear cut difference between projectiles and items. Nearly all items share the attribute of "decaying" where they will eventually blink out of existence when untouched. This doesn't apply to Snake's greandes or Link's bombs so I'm more reluctant to deem these specifics as projectiles.

Items spawned via character are not "items" per se; they're not the same thing as game-spawned items. This entire argument is bogus.

Also, anyone notice that as soon as Omni became pro-ban his prose changed from lowercase Omni words to prim and proper Overswarm style?

 

[iRJi]

Items spawned via character are not "items" per se; they're not the same thing as game-spawned items. This entire argument is bogus.

Also, anyone notice that as soon as Omni became pro-ban his prose changed from lowercase Omni words to prim and proper Overswarm style?

I still think he's trolling or something.

Better yet, He is definitely up to something.

 

[.AC.]

http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2010/feb/13/top-50-sfiv-players-japan-character-stats/

hmm seems like sagat is more dominant in japan and they dont seem to have a problem with it.

 

[Kewkky]

http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2010/feb/13/top-50-sfiv-players-japan-character-stats/

hmm seems like sagat is more dominant in japan and they dont seem to have a problem with it.

Who cares? Stop bringing up SF4 if you tell pro-ban to stop bringing SF4!

Brawl and SF4 are very different, so a dominant character in one of the games has a different "bannable" limiter than on the other game. Stop bringing this up over and over again, please!

 

[iRJi]

http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2010/feb/13/top-50-sfiv-players-japan-character-stats/

hmm seems like sagat is more dominant in japan and they dont seem to have a problem with it.

...ok? Is this suppose to me something?

It's been said before, and here it is again. The relation to SF isn't relevant. If you don't know why, read back about 30 pages and on.

 

[TLMSheikant]

I really dont believe Omni is proban. Someone's opinion doesnt change so easily just because...

 

[Kewkky]

I really dont believe Omni is proban. Someone's opinion doesnt change so easily just because...

Who knows what might be happening on AIM, the SBR-B forum, chats, or in-person?

I'm also real iffy about his sudden and random position change... I SAY WE BAN IT CUZ ITS RANDOM

 

[.AC.]

just because its a different game, the concept of a dominant character doesnt change.

 

[TLMSheikant]

Oh, I c wut u did thur kewk .

 

[iRJi]

just because its a different game, the concept of a dominant character doesnt change.

You still didn't read the past pages, so this is all you are really going to get. Lol.

 

[Kewkky]

just because its a different game, the concept of a dominant character doesnt change.

The concept doesn't change.

The point where a character becomes banworthy does.