Official Metaknight Discussion

[etecoon]

Ban Ice Climbers.

this would actually be pretty awesome. it can't be justified by data and can't happen, but the community would inarguably be better off for it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

@adumbrodeus:

Do you agree that a character which makes mechanics which are otherwise perfectly balanced and acceptable broken or whom causes said mechanics to change the scope of the game entirely when not kept in check is broken in that way?

Depends on the situation, I was mostly talking about character specific tactics there, should've clarified.

I honestly don't know if planking is broken, but I'm pretty sure scrooging is banworthy in general.



But the point of my post is that it's all situational, as I remember Pit is what caused Japan to put the ledge-grab rule into place.

 

[UltiMario]

These rules limit Meta Knight's capacity to play to win, and are scrubby rules.

What determines that they are scrubby?


My point is that you can't prove that they're more scrubby, you just think that, believing a blatent lie. Even if people pound those ideas into your head, it doesn't make it true.

 

[CRASHiC]

HAHAHAHA Ivan Ooze references make you amazing.

I get what you're saying CRASHiC (and agree with you) but I'm just trying to point out that MK doesn't have to be the best to be bannable.

Actually I was being completely serious. Think about it, Ivan Ooze's main wonderment is that one single attack, as well as that thunder bull ****, Eddie has ways around it all. He can fly as well, and outspace Ivan Ooze. He can use his second person to attack mid combo to prevent Ivan from using his shield thing attack, and can hide under the thunder thing. He shuts down everything Ivan ooze can do, not to mention use the force break version of the drill to hit him while spacing thunderbolts. Then there's his counter as well, making any approach from Ivan (which are fairly obvious) easy to stop.

Guilty Gear for best game.

this would actually be pretty awesome. it can't be justified by data and can't happen, but the community would inarguably be better off for it.

No. No they wouldn't. Why? Why the hell would they?

 

[adumbrodeus]

What determines that they are scrubby?


My point is that you can't prove that they're more scrubby, you just think that, believing a blatent lie. Even if people pound those ideas into your head, it doesn't make it true.

Sirlin does, it's his term. Not saying he's right, but you wanna fight a "scrub-fest"?


SIRLIN TIME!!!

 

[UltiMario]

This is a terrible comparison. lol

Howso?

You switch a few words around, and you get the exact same arguement for scrooging and planking.


Edit:

Sirlin does, it's his term. Not saying he's right, but you wanna fight a "scrub-fest"?


SIRLIN TIME!!!

Something well-accepted doesn't mean its right.


The statement I just made is something that has happened millions of times in history, so this isn't any different.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Ultimario, do you know what "scrubby" means?

 

[UltiMario]

Yes, I do.

Why do you ask?

 

[Kaffei]

Scrub = Someone who puts artificial rules on himself in game play
colloquially, a bad player

 

[Kewkky]

well this happens to be basically overswarms entire argument, and by extension pro-bans argument because he's the only one making consistently good arguments in this topic on either side, lmao

Hey, I've tried dumbing down my arguments for people like you to understand them perfectly. If making them too simple for people like you to understand changes the message slightly, would you be happier if I just pointed out stuff with one-liners and non-walls of text?

 

[etecoon]

I've tried dumbing down my arguments

well at least we know it was intentional

 

[Kewkky]

well at least we know it was intentional

Tisk tisk tisk, you troll, you

When MK is eventually banned, I'll be the one who's ahead of the game by 2 years.

 

[UltiMario]

Scrub = Someone who puts artificial rules on himself in game play
colloquially, a bad player

Yes, but scrubs point out something as "Thats cheating" most commonly and refuse to do it or let anyone else do it, so, why would an MK main be scrubby for supporting a planking/scrooging limitation when it would only hinder him, and help everyone else?


Then again, I'm wanting these tactics limited because they're stalling tactics that several characters can use, not because they're MK tactics.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I can absolutely prove they are scrubby.

"Scrub" is a word popularized by Sirlin. We use his definitions in competitive gaming.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html

The derogatory term “scrub” means several different things. One definition is someone (especially a game player) who is not good at something (especially a game). By this definition, we all start out as scrubs, and there is certainly no shame in that. I mean the term differently, though. A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win.

Rules that force this kind of gameplay are scrubby. How to know if something is bannable:

Criteria of a Ban

A ban must be enforceable, discrete, and warranted.

Enforceable

Sometimes, a tactic can be hard to detect. If you can’t reliably detect something, you certainly can’t enforce penalties on it. In a fighting game, a trick might make a move invulnerable that shouldn’t be, but actually detecting every time the trick is used might be nearly impossible. Or consider a real-time strategy game, where a trick might give your units a few more hit points than normal, but again, detecting this might be nearly impossible in a real game. If something is to be banned from tournament play, it must be reasonably easy to identify when it happens or to prevent it from ever happening at all.

Also in a fighting game, a move might be “unfairly” unblockable, but only when that move is executed in a certain situation with precise 1/60th of a second timing. Did the player execute it during that “unfair” time window? Or 1/60th of a second late? Perhaps he accidentally executed the move at the unfair time through sheer luck. Is he to be penalized? Imagine trying to enforce a rule that states “You may usually use move X, but there’s 1/60th of a second where you may not use move X.”

Discrete

The thing to be banned must be able to be “completely defined.” Imagine that in a fighting game, repeating a certain sequence of five moves over and over is the best tactic in the game. Further suppose that doing so is “taboo” and that players want to ban it. There is no concrete definition of exactly what must be banned. Can players do three repetitions of the five moves? What about two reps? What about one? What about repeating the first four moves and omitting the fifth? Is that okay? The game becomes a test of who is willing to play as closely as possible to the “taboo tactic” without breaking the (arbitrary) letter of the law defining the tactic.

Or in a first-person shooter game, consider the notion of banning “camping” (sitting in one place for too long). No friendly agreement between the players is necessary for the ban, which at least means it’s enforceable. The server can monitor the positions of players, and it knows exactly who breaks the rule and can hand out penalties accordingly. The ban is enforceable, but the problem is being able to completely define camping. If camping is defined as staying within one zone for 3 minutes, and if it really is the best tactic, then sitting in that zone for 2 minutes 59 seconds becomes the best tactic. It’s a slippery slope because there will always exist camping tactics arbitrarily close to the specific kind of camping that is banned.

Here’s an example of a completely defined game element. In the card game Magic: The Gathering, if a particular card is deemed to be too good, then it is possible to ban it. One can define completely that “that card cannot be used.” There is no fear of players still “sort of” using it, in the same way they could still “sort of” repeat the moves from the fighting game, or “sort of” camp for 2 minutes 59 seconds above. The card is a discrete entity that can feasibly be banned.

Warranted

Here is the whole issue, of course. If it isn’t warranted to ban something, we don’t need to even consider whether it’s enforceable or discrete. The great lesson of competitive games is that hardly anything warrants a ban.

A bug that gives players a small advantage does not warrant a ban. In fact, it’s common. Many players don’t even realize they are using bugs, but instead view them as “advanced tactics.” Even bugs that have a huge effect on gameplay are usually not warranted to be banned. The game may change with the new tactic, but games are resilient and there tend to be countermeasures (sometimes other bugs) to almost everything.

A LGL is not warranted (Because it is scrubby), and it is not easily enforcable, not discrete. A Meta Knight ban is all of the above.

Then again, I'm wanting these tactics limited because they're stalling tactics that several characters can use, not because they're MK tactics.

If MK was removed from competitive Brawl entirely, the need for an LGL would be virtually eliminated.

 

[MarKO X]

Actually, the LGL is enforcable and discrete (50 grabs on a time out and you lose. simple)
But whether it's warranted hasn't been proven.

Scrooging wouldn't be discrete or enforcable. Apparently, the use of IDC isn't discrete and enforcable either.

Interestingly enough, a warranted ban on MK hasn't been proven.

Of course, that could be because of the LGL.

I have to look at Omni's posts to see if he's actually pro-ban or actually trolling. Or both.

 

[etecoon]

Tisk tisk tisk, you troll, you

When MK is eventually banned, I'll be the one who's ahead of the game by 2 years.

meanwhile MK mains can simply stop playing this awful game and go back to melee, content with the enormous amounts of cash we've "earned" off of it : )

 

[adumbrodeus]

Something well-accepted doesn't mean its right.


The statement I just made is something that has happened millions of times in history, so this isn't any different.

You misunderstand.


Sirlin coined the modern definition of the word "scrub", which amounts to not following his philosophy about winning and banning.


As I said in the constructionalist vs. originalist thread, you can't say that a person who created a term is defining it wrong, you can say the term is useless as it stands, but you a person who created a term cannot define it wrong in the document that created it by definition.



So, if you think he's wrong about you being a scrub, then pull Sirlin quotes. If you think being a scrub is not a bad thing then pull Sirlin quotes to show that it's not bad to fit the concept.

Or, you can just say, "if your definition is correct, it's not a bad thing" and base it solely on how he defines it.


Though, I think he's using it wrong, so we might have a Sirlin quote fight.



TL;DR: When a term is created, it cannot be defined wrong, and Sirlin created the modern definition in PtW. That said, you can argue that it's not a bad thing.

 

[UltiMario]

Apparently, the use of IDC isn't discrete and enforcable either.

Then why is it banned?

It looks like the "scrubbiness" of a ban has nothing to do with the banning of tactics, and means absolutely NOTHING to the SBR, if what I'm reading is true.

End of the line, SFP.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Actually, the LGL is enforcable and discrete (50 grabs on a time out and you lose. simple)
But whether it's warranted hasn't been proven.

Did you even read Sirlin's criteria? LGL isn't discrete or enforcable; it isn't black and whtie enough. Someone can go to 49 LGs instead of 50 and they still win. That isn't a good ban.

Scrooging wouldn't be discrete or enforcable. Apparently, the use of IDC isn't discrete and enforcable either.

IDC is easily visibly shown, and is a good ban.

Interestingly enough, a warranted ban on MK hasn't been proven.

I have shown that a ban on MK is a better idea than a LGL unless you're just boneheaded and don't listen to reason.

 

[etecoon]

also I'd think the fact that I frequently argue from both sides, vehemently, would be a bigger tip off that I'm trolling than a snarky one liner, people that aren't being facetious have posted much more rude things than that

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Then why is it banned?

It looks like the "scrubbiness" of a ban has nothing to do with the banning of tactics, and means absolutely NOTHING to the SBR, if what I'm reading is true.

End of the line, SFP.

What the **** are you talking about?

You have consistently avoided the point throughout this entire thread. Every post you make is a headache. Can you make your position clear or stop posting please? There are a lot of intelligent anti-ban posts being made by people like deus and you are diluting their arguments.

IDC fits every single ban criteria. It forces the MK to play a little differently than they would if they had access to this AT certainly but if they did it would make the game unplayable except on the MK's terms. It is easily visible, and easy to see. It is easy to enforce. It is a good ban.

 

[Kaffei]

Yes, but scrubs point out something as "Thats cheating" most commonly and refuse to do it or let anyone else do it, so, why would an MK main be scrubby for supporting a planking/scrooging limitation when it would only hinder him, and help everyone else?


Then again, I'm wanting these tactics limited because they're stalling tactics that several characters can use, not because they're MK tactics.

He's not being scrubby, he's being legitimately cheap when he scrooges.

 

[Zankoku]

Hey guys, I read back a few pages and noticed people talking about Ivan Ooze. How the **** is Ivan Ooze supposed to lose to any character that deals damage with combos? His 623 cancels hitstun into invulnerability.

 

[etecoon]

planking/scrooging really is a MK specific thing. a simple ledge grab limit at a reasonable number prevents other characters from planking, MK can bypass this method of prevention very easily(which is also the only simple, easy, and discrete way of enforcing a limitation on planking)

 

[UltiMario]

My question to you is:

If the SBR found it justified to enforce LGLs and limitations on scrooging, do think that this so-called term for scrubbiness would matter? If they could agree on how to limit these techniques, why would they care on a few people's ideas of scrubby?


Also, as just some random thing I'd like to point out:
LGLs are enforceable, and probably will researched to the point where the banning number is low enough were you WILL go over the LGL if you're stalling, and with Scrooging limitations, MK and Pit couldn't bypass these limits. These things ARE enforcable with a bit of extra research, because the numbers will simply PREVENT THE BANS FROM BEING CIRCUMVENTED.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Scrooging wouldn't be discrete or enforcable.

Actually, it really can be, the thing that people need to understand is you don't necessarily need to ban the tactic itself to ban it, banning a necessary portion of the tactic is often sufficent (for example, for DDD's infinite (which isn't warrented) ban standing grab following a downthrow unless seperated by another move). You can also ban the character in a worst case scenario.

For scrooging, ban crossing the middle of the bottom of the stage, discrete enforcable, simple.

Apparently, the use of IDC isn't discrete and enforcable either.

Ehhh, we ban IDC for stalling by banning IDC, it's possible to sneak IDC past the censors, but as long as any use of IDC is banned, then it's impossible to use it for stalling. Makes sense?

Hey guys, I read back a few pages and noticed people talking about Ivan Ooze. How the **** is Ivan Ooze supposed to lose to any character that deals damage with combos? His 623 cancels hitstun into invulnerability.

Melee Ganondorf's fair insta-kills him, obviously.


One fair, one stock.

 

[PokemonMasterIRL]

The japanese have the rule that you cannot fly under the level more than once without standing on the level again. (Not grabbing the edge, but standing on the level)

That Sirlin article was really too good.

 

[CRASHiC]

Hey guys, I read back a few pages and noticed people talking about Ivan Ooze. How the **** is Ivan Ooze supposed to lose to any character that deals damage with combos? His 623 cancels hitstun into invulnerability.

Because he attacks with a character outside of himself.

 

[Zankoku]

Melee Ganondorf's fair insta-kills him, obviously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-g4TqMFemY#t=5m48s

 

[adumbrodeus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-g4TqMFemY#t=5m48s

Not impressed, already seen it, melee Ganondorf is better.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

If the SBR found it justified to enforce LGLs and limitations on scrooging, do think that this so-called term for scrubbiness would matter? If they could agree on how to limit these techniques, why would they care on a few people'd ideas of scrubby?

If they find a way to limit scrooging and planking, techniques that use universal game mechanics to broken effect without limiting MK's ability to play to win, limiting other characters who aren't broken on the ledge, and without attaching an arbitrary numeric value then we're good.

Why is 49 ledge grabs better than 50? It isn't, really, which is why these bans aren't super-good ban criteria. I'm not saying you CAN'T ban in this manner, as people obviously do and frequently but I'm saying that using these bans means people will be constantly searching for ways to cheat the numbers.

MK isn't so worth keeping that we can't ban him to eliminate this technique, unless you're cool with planking and scrooging in which case MK's cool. Banning MK is the most discrete, most enforcable, most warranted way to eliminate planking and scrooging from competitive Brawl.

 

[MarKO X]

Then why is it banned?

It looks like the "scrubbiness" of a ban has nothing to do with the banning of tactics, and means absolutely NOTHING to the SBR, if what I'm reading is true.

End of the line, SFP.

You tap up on the Cstick like twice, and you go move a lil bit longer, or you stay invisible and invisible in the same spot for li'l bit longer.

IDC really isn't discrete.

Did you even read Sirlin's criteria? LGL isn't discrete or enforcable; it isn't black and whtie enough. Someone can go to 49 LGs instead of 50 and they still win. That isn't a good ban.

Rofl. It's perfectly enforceable and perfectly discrete.
A LGL that wouldn't be legit would be something like, "You can only grab the ledge 5 times and then you have to stand." That's where, "Okay, If I do it 4 or 3 times, then I stand, and do it again, is that cool?" That's not enforceable or discrete.

But 50 is a concrete number. You go over that, you lose. You get 50 exactly, you lose. You get 49, you win.

Still poor in theory, I agree with that, but it's very discrete.

IDC is easily visibly shown, and is a good ban.

it's really not. especially in the heat of battle.

I have shown that a ban on MK is a better idea than a LGL unless you're just boneheaded and don't listen to reason.

You didn't finish reading my post SFP. >=(


In any event, All Star events are on. I'll catch you guys later.

And Omni's not trolling, he seems to legit be pro-ban.

 

[UltiMario]

MK isn't so worth keeping that we can't ban him to eliminate this technique, unless you're cool with planking and scrooging in which case MK's cool.

"If we don't do anything to MK, or tactics that he uses, just because we don't care, then he isn't bannable" is what you pretty much say in your last sentance.


If we go with that, then lets just close this thread saying "We're not doing anything to MK".

Fair enough?

 

[CRASHiC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-g4TqMFemY#t=5m48s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW2juC5Fp54

 

[RATED]

Hey guys, I read back a few pages and noticed people talking about Ivan Ooze. How the **** is Ivan Ooze supposed to lose to any character that deals damage with combos? His 623 cancels hitstun into invulnerability.

LMAO! who said that Ivan Ooze can lose!? I am so mad really mad ( personal thing) but that made laugh so hard! and not only his 623 ... his movement and all that **** for people who believes that he's not that good and can lose... watch this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-g4TqMFemY

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

"If we don't do anything to MK, or tactics that he uses, just because we don't care, then he isn't bannable" is what you pretty much say in your last sentance.


If we go with that, then lets just close this thread saying "We're not doing anything to MK".

Fair enough?

Yeah, actually. If you are OK with planking and scrooging staying in the game, then MK is OK, IMO, because that's my only (well, biggest) problem with him. And it is a "him" problem.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You tap up on the Cstick like twice, and you go move a lil bit longer, or you stay invisible and invisible in the same spot for li'l bit longer.

IDC really isn't discrete.

As I said before, we're really banning IDC for stalling purposes, and the only line that we can draw that makes the ban discrete and enforcable is banning the technique as a whole. Sure, it might not make banning IDC itself enforcable, but it easily makes banning it for stalling purposes enforcable.

Rofl. It's perfectly enforceable and perfectly discrete.
A LGL that wouldn't be legit would be something like, "You can only grab the ledge 5 times and then you have to stand." That's where, "Okay, If I do it 4 or 3 times, then I stand, and do it again, is that cool?" That's not enforceable or discrete.

But 50 is a concrete number. You go over that, you lose. You get 50 exactly, you lose. You get 49, you win.

Still poor in theory, I agree with that, but it's very discrete.

You misunderstand what "discrete" means in the context of banning. It means that if something is the best, banning what you're banning doesn't create a next-best tactic that is simply slightly less, you're rolling discrete and enforceable together.


The best tactic is to use 49 ledgegrabs.

 

[UltiMario]

Yeah, actually. If you are OK with planking and scrooging staying in the game, then MK is OK, IMO, because that's my only (well, biggest) problem with him. And it is a "him" problem.

Well, seeing its CLEARLY POSSIBLE to get around all this via proof from ADHD, and Ally against MKs not named M2K (seriously, Ally and ADHD are called outliers, but M2K is also and outlier, because his MK is a HUGE jump above ALL OTHER MKS). And both tactics can be countered easily by 1 thing: Not letting MK get a respectable lead.



~Mkay then.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

You misunderstand what "discrete" means in the context of banning. It means that if something is the best, banning what you're banning doesn't create a next-best tactic that is simply slightly less, you're rolling discrete and enforceable together.


The best tactic is to use 49 ledgegrabs.

This, this, this.

The best bans do not leave problems in their wake. IDC may be hard to see sometimes if you aren't looking for it (I disagree, but for the sake of argument we'll say it is) but once ICD is banned, it is banned.

Well, seeing its CLEARLY POSSIBLE to get around all this via proof from ADHD, and Ally against MKs not named M2K (seriously, Ally and ADHD are called outliers, but M2K is also and outlier, because his MK is a HUGE jump above ALL OTHER MKS). And both tactics can be countered easily by 1 thing: Not letting MK get a respectable lead.



~Mkay then.

You know the tourneys Ally and ADHD win at don't have LGLs right?

 

[Kewkky]

Well, seeing its CLEARLY POSSIBLE to get around all this via proof from ADHD, and Ally against MKs not named M2K (seriously, Ally and ADHD are called outliers, but M2K is also and outlier, because his MK is a HUGE jump above ALL OTHER MKS). And both tactics can be countered easily by 1 thing: Not letting MK get a respectable lead.

if it's OH so clearly possibly, then why haven't other people besides ADHD done it? As I recall, Ally lost vs M2K at Pound4 when M2K was using this strategy, so that just leaves ADHD as the sole example. Why don't you try using a different character and proving that for me, eh? because from where I'm standing, you're just an MK mainer who says "hey, you can beat me, come on... try harder, noob!".