Official Metaknight Discussion

[Mew2King]

MK is ****ing gay

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

MK is ****ing gay

Ban ZSS

10bans

 

[napZzz]

MK is ****ing gay

HOLLLA

m2k seeing tha light in this *****.

 

[Kewkky]

Ban ZSS

10bans

I agree, the ***** has GOT to GO.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

MK is ****ing gay

The King has spoken.

Everytime you limit the guy something else comes up.

 

[TLMSheikant]

I bet that aint M2k. Just someone in his account lol.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That 2/3 of Smashboards is scrubby. If 2/3 of the community quit the game if MK isn't banned, good riddance! Anti-ban ftw!

Wanting the best for the game ≠ Scrubby

wait, omni is pro ban? GET OUT! there is NO way hes pro-ban now.

He isn't... He's trolling.

My new stance:

Don't ban MK. Instead, the BBR should release a statement against scrooging and planking rules. These scrubby rules prevent MK players from playing to win.

A year after these rules are admonished, OS should release new data for the past year.

This. Scrooging ban was enacted with no testing whatsoever, and no real reason to do so. Planking is not a clean ban, as according to sirlin, whose balls we all enjoy sucking so hard. Either ban MK or unban scrooging and planking. Anyone wanting one, but not the other banned/unbanned is a terrible scrub and hypocrite.

 

[BSP]

Wait, Planking is banned?

Yay, my 1337 post asking a question.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Wait, Planking is banned?

Yay, my 1337 post asking a question.

Most TOs have a ledge grab limit in play; if you go over this limit and time runs out, you lose.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'LL DO IT!!!!!!!!!

List so Far
------------

Alex Strife (Anti-ban)
Inui (Even though he doesn't host much anymore lol)
Wes (MAYBE)
Bum (Most likely)

I would ask that people asking TOs for that list can change their byline from "never ban MK" to "never ban MK without a rigid criteria developed by community consensus that MK is proven to violate".


There is a real concern that if the community becomes too divided, it might disintegrate as a whole, therefore simply making debate useless is a bad idea because it will cause this tension to increase.



Instead, it's well past time to force this debate into a stage where it can actually conclude, and by this I mean we as a community must develop a firm rigid criteria. It cannot be based on information we already have because that will bias the two sides in the debate, furthermore we should be able to apply it (with as little editing as possible) to stages and tactics in order to moderate both sides in the debate. I would suggest forming a committee to deal with this.


When we have that, we develop the data that we need to figure out whether he is truly banworthy.



Enough of this BS whining after each tournament, enough of this divide, let's get this to a stage where one side can be proven right or wrong, and not by some outside fighter's criteria, but OUR criteria.


I'll be developing a list of TOs who agree with me on this and will never ban MK until this demand is met, alongside the list that anti's developing, and hopefully others will be willing to join me on this. This will be, not just for pro-ban or anti-ban, but for everyone who thinks that this debate deserves a conclusion that actually decides the issue.


Who's with me?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I support Adumbrodeus's old criteria: invalidates 2/3rds of the otherwise viable cast or something like that...
http://www.smashboards.com/news/blo...o-list-to-show-that-metaknight-warrants-a-ban

This is a good criteria. Or at least passable. However, it would have the added condition me and SFP keep on campaigning for: no LGL, no anti-scrooging. Both are rules to limit MK

 

[<π]

MK is not that bad.

I'm serious.

 

[Kewkky]

There is a real concern that if the community becomes too divided, it might disintegrate as a whole, therefore simply making debate useless is a bad idea because it will cause this tension to increase.

I agree. Debating is nice and all, but if any half the community (pro- or anti-) finds enjoyment in smothering their opponents with any info they get and saying it's conclusive, we'll just end up collapsing cuz of the elitism.

Instead, it's well past time to force this debate into a stage where it can actually conclude, and by this I mean we as a community must develop a firm rigid criteria. It cannot be based on information we already have because that will bias the two sides in the debate, furthermore we should be able to apply it (with as little editing as possible) to stages and tactics in order to moderate both sides in the debate. I would suggest forming a committee to deal with this.

When we have that, we develop the data that we need to figure out whether he is truly banworthy.

Enough of this BS whining after each tournament, enough of this divide, let's get this to a stage where one side can be proven right or wrong, and not by some outside fighter's criteria, but OUR criteria.

But the things with making criteria is that 1) we're all human, and biased in some way or the other already since the situation has been here for over a year now, and 2) if a criteria is made miraculously, people might tend to stretch or exaggerate a situation to make it banworthy if it's decided to remain as a "borderline" event and thus not able to be banned legitimately.

Still, starting off with a committee is better than leaving it up to the general population and having them try to manipulate the end result. How will this 'committee' be chosen? I originally (and still do) believe that as the community's authority, the SBR should handle this. But if they agree that we can come up with a criteria, then I'd like to join in and try helping out. I'm open to any suggestions and could help by adding ideas of my own if need be, but that's only if the situation is presented and we are asked for a specific group of players to come up with it.

I'll be developing a list of TOs who agree with me on this and will never ban MK until this demand is met, alongside the list that anti's developing, and hopefully others will be willing to join me on this. This will be, not just for pro-ban or anti-ban, but for everyone who thinks that this debate deserves a conclusion that actually decides the issue.

Who's with me?

I can't, sadly. No johns, just know that I can't.

 

[Remzi]

I support Adumbrodeus's old criteria: invalidates 2/3rds of the otherwise viable cast or something like that...
http://www.smashboards.com/news/blo...o-list-to-show-that-metaknight-warrants-a-ban

This is a good criteria. Or at least passable. However, it would have the added condition me and SFP keep on campaigning for: no LGL, no anti-scrooging. Both are rules to limit MK

The problem with this is that we already KNOW all hell will break loose if those rules are taken away. Most TO's aren't willing to intentionally run a tourney that will piss it's attendants off just for the sake of gathering data.

I personally would love for that to happen, though.

 

[UltiMario]

Randomly thought of something.

Why not have LGLs, then have a rule that says "a scrooge is worth X LGs"? Since scrooging is used to bypass these limits, instead have scrooging ADD to ledge grabs.

Don't give me BS on how these are hard to enforce; if these will only be enforced on matches that time out.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The problem with this is that we already KNOW all hell will break loose if those rules are taken away. Most TO's aren't willing to intentionally run a tourney that will piss it's attendants off just for the sake of gathering data.

I personally would love for that to happen, though.

Wait a minute. We KNOW that all hell would break loose without the LGL... because... (fill me in here? Whose fault would it be?)

Randomly thought of something.

Why not have LGLs, then have a rule that says "a scrooge is worth X LGs"? Since scrooging is used to bypass these limits, instead have scrooging ADD to ledge grabs.

Don't give me BS on how these are hard to enforce; if these will only be enforced on matches that time out.

It's not that it's hard to enforce; it's that it's a bad, uneven rule. The best strategy is no longer camp the ledge forever, it's camp the ledge 49 times.

 

[HeroMystic]

Don't give me BS on how these are hard to enforce; if these will only be enforced on matches that time out.

Not hard to enforce, but pretty darn scrubby.

 

[UltiMario]

You're still forced to eventually approach, which means you can still lose the match if you're planking to beat a person with more skill than you.

 

[<π]

Mk is not unbeatable he has tons of openings and weaknesses any character can exploit. He does have lag he can be out ranged and out prioritiezed and he dies very very early complared to the rest of the cast and doesn't kill very early if you have good DI.

If people put as much effort into actually learning the match up as they do trying to find reason why they can't win against him there wouldn't even be need for discussions like these. MK is a perfectly legit character. his stall tactics are a little meh, I'll agree. but those aren't just unique to him and hardly a reason to ban MK as a whole.

MK doesn't make any of the cast unviable that already isn't.

 

[Kewkky]

Randomly thought of something.

Why not have LGLs, then have a rule that says "a scrooge is worth X LGs"? Since scrooging is used to bypass these limits, instead have scrooging ADD to ledge grabs.

Don't give me BS on how these are hard to enforce; if these will only be enforced on matches that time out.

Fine. How do you like the thought of both players arguiong that the opponent scrooged 11 times, when the opponent says he scrooged 10 times? If there's no proof and it ended up being X times above the anointed LGL ruling in actuality, what happens now?

MK is a perfectly legit character. his stall tactics are a little meh, I'll agree.

I feel satisfied.

 

[UltiMario]

@<3 You're discussing a topic that has no relivance to the MK ban.

They're not banning MK on brokeness, because pro-banners know they cant. They're banning him on usage/domination of the Metagame.

@Kewkky- I was actually thinking that a scrooge could count as like 5 ledge-grabs or something, so in my mind that doesn't matter, but I see where you're going with this.

This is why at tournies they need Unlimited replay on, so you can just watch the replay and figure it out that way.

 

[ANTi_]

I would ask that people asking TOs for that list can change their byline from "never ban MK" to "never ban MK without a rigid criteria developed by community consensus that MK is proven to violate".


There is a real concern that if the community becomes too divided, it might disintegrate as a whole, therefore simply making debate useless is a bad idea because it will cause this tension to increase.



Instead, it's well past time to force this debate into a stage where it can actually conclude, and by this I mean we as a community must develop a firm rigid criteria. It cannot be based on information we already have because that will bias the two sides in the debate, furthermore we should be able to apply it (with as little editing as possible) to stages and tactics in order to moderate both sides in the debate. I would suggest forming a committee to deal with this.


When we have that, we develop the data that we need to figure out whether he is truly banworthy.



Enough of this BS whining after each tournament, enough of this divide, let's get this to a stage where one side can be proven right or wrong, and not by some outside fighter's criteria, but OUR criteria.


I'll be developing a list of TOs who agree with me on this and will never ban MK until this demand is met, alongside the list that anti's developing, and hopefully others will be willing to join me on this. This will be, not just for pro-ban or anti-ban, but for everyone who thinks that this debate deserves a conclusion that actually decides the issue.


Who's with me?

I agree.

10words.

 

[UltiMario]

I second the above.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I agree. Debating is nice and all, but if any half the community (pro- or anti-) finds enjoyment in smothering their opponents with any info they get and saying it's conclusive, we'll just end up collapsing cuz of the elitism.

Honestly, it doesn't matter if it's either side or simply neither side, there's so much tension here that if neither side wins it's just as bad as if one side wins in a manner that's seen as "unfair".



Sorry to be all doom and gloom, but I can see that as a likely possible result.

But the things with making criteria is that 1) we're all human, and biased in some way or the other already since the situation has been here for over a year now, and 2) if a criteria is made miraculously, people might tend to stretch or exaggerate a situation to make it banworthy if it's decided to remain as a "borderline" event and thus not able to be banned legitimately.

Still, starting off with a committee is better than leaving it up to the general population and having them try to manipulate the end result. How will this 'committee' be chosen? I originally (and still do) believe that as the community's authority, the SBR should handle this. But if they agree that we can come up with a criteria, then I'd like to join in and try helping out. I'm open to any suggestions and could help by adding ideas of my own if need be, but that's only if the situation is presented and we are asked for a specific group of players to come up with it.

I agree, which is why I suggested that it be as based on data we do not already have, and make it affect other things (interestingly, the most strongly anti-ban regions tend to be more liberal with stage and tactic bans, and the reverse is true for the most strongly pro-ban regions).


This will minimize the effects of biases as much as is humanly possible.


As far as the committee, I was leaving that up for future decisions, but one of my ideas that the committee was elected by general smashers to represent them as anti-ban or pro-ban representatives.

I can't, sadly. No johns, just know that I can't.

Can I at least have your support for the idea and your help with spreading the word?


You admitted that you can how easily this could destroy the community.

The problem with this is that we already KNOW all hell will break loose if those rules are taken away. Most TO's aren't willing to intentionally run a tourney that will piss it's attendants off just for the sake of gathering data.

I personally would love for that to happen, though.

Planking yes, but scrooging is independently banworthy (the japanese ban criteria seems workable), it is stalling after all, and keep in mind that it isn't just MK that's a problem here, he's just the best at it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@Kewkky- I was actually thinking that a scrooge could count as like 5 ledge-grabs or something, so in my mind that doesn't matter, but I see where you're going with this.

This is why at tournies they need Unlimited replay on, so you can just watch the replay and figure it out that way.

ZOMFG HACKING WILL NEVER BECOME STANDARD

/obligatory from person who runs a moderately large hack project

Still doesn't solve the problems with it as designated here.

 

[UltiMario]

Its certainly enforcable, certainly warrented, its not quite discrete, though.

The problem with an MK ban is that its enforcable, discrete, but since he isn't broken in himself, not warranted.

So no matter how you look at it, you have to ban 1 or the other on 2/3

 

[<π]

@<3 You're discussing a topic that has no relivance to the MK ban.

They're not banning MK on brokeness, because pro-banners know they cant. They're banning him on usage/domination of the Metagame.

Oh... well thats a dumb reason.

I don't think I fully understand because that makes no sense to me. The pro-ban wants to ban him not because he is broken; they understand he isn't; but because he is popular?

AT SCROOGING
Japan has a pretty legit anti-scrooging rule.
"You can only go under the stage once per time you land on stage."
Pretty simple to enforce huh? Lets do that.

EDIT:
It defeats the blur between going under to recover, which is a completely reasonable idea. I've had to go under the stage as sheik many a time to actually be able to recover. And it instantly kills the idea of going back and forth from one side to the other with the sole intent of stalling.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Since I seem to be getting some support, I'd appreciate it if you guys would talk to TOs about what I said and get their support as well.


If we can get a nice long list together, then people will have to listen.

I agree.

10words.

So you're on board Anti?


F*** yea!

 

[BSP]

Go under, land, then resume running away. It seems easy to get around.

 

[Kewkky]

Honestly, it doesn't matter if it's either side or simply neither side, there's so much tension here that if neither side wins it's just as bad as if one side wins in a manner that's seen as "unfair".

Sorry to be all doom and gloom, but I can see that as a likely possible result.

I'd much rather be all "doom and gloom" than "happy and oblivious".

I agree, which is why I suggested that it be as based on data we do not already have, and make it affect other things (interestingly, the most strongly anti-ban regions tend to be more liberal with stage and tactic bans, and the reverse is true for the most strongly pro-ban regions).

This will minimize the effects of biases as much as is humanly possible.

As far as the committee, I was leaving that up for future decisions, but one of my ideas that the committee was elected by general smashers to represent them as anti-ban or pro-ban representatives.

Awright, I can see it happening and have no problem with your ideas.

Can I at least have your support for the idea and your help with spreading the word?

Man, of course you have my support! Any info brought to the table is a step forward to this whole thing, and that's a good thing no matter how people try to look at it.

And by spreading the word, you mean telling people that "adumbrodeus is asking for help with asking TOs if they would ban MK if a criteria is made and MK is found to fit it afterwards"? Or do you mean to ask me if I would ban MK if that were to happen?

I would ban MK if there would be a criteria, and MK would be found to fit in it. On the other hand, even if there's no criteria and the SBR recommends the rule, I'd ban him... BUT! If he's not officially banned by te SBR, I wouldn't ban him because it would affect the players around my area.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Its certainly enforcable, certainly warrented, its not quite discrete, though.

The problem with an MK ban is that its enforcable, discrete, but since he isn't broken in himself, not warranted.

So no matter how you look at it, you have to ban 1 or the other on 2/3

The idea that he isn't broken in himself comes from a situation where an indiscreet rule is enforced. Remove said rule, and it will be warranted, I guarantee it.

No anti-planking rule is both warranted and discreet. No anti-scrooging rule is realistically enforceable.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Go under, land, then resume running away. It seems easy to get around.

The thing is, that slows it down considerably, to the point where even slow characters have a chance to take a pot-shot, making it not an infinite stall.

 

[UltiMario]

So, BPC, pretty much, there would be no MK ban discussion in an aternate universe where MK couldn't go under stages.

Is this what you mean? Is scrooging alone the ONLY reason MK is banworthy?

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'd much rather be all "doom and gloom" than "happy and oblivious".

Same here.

Man, of course you have my support! Any info brought to the table is a step forward to this whole thing, and that's a good thing no matter how people try to look at it.

And by spreading the word, you mean telling people that "adumbrodeus is asking for help with asking TOs if they would ban MK if a criteria is made and MK is found to fit it afterwards"? Or do you mean to ask me if I would ban MK if that were to happen?

I would ban MK if there would be a criteria, and MK would be found to fit in it. On the other hand, even if there's no criteria and the SBR recommends the rule, I'd ban him... BUT! If he's not officially banned by te SBR, I wouldn't ban him because it would affect the players around my area.

Again, trying to force the issue.



I'll add you to my list of TOs who support my process.



I'm getting a seperate list going of TOs who will never ban MK unless this process is followed (and by implication, would be willing to ban MK if this process is followed, but I think that anti-ban thinks that any criteria that pro-ban and anti-ban can agree on will not consider MK banworthy, and at the same time, pro-ban believe the opposite, the process is to find out who's right).


If you can get me people for either list, I would be thrilled.



Cause the more support, the more likely this will work.



Heck, getting names of respected players who agree with the process would also be incredibly helpful.

 

[Kewkky]

Go under, land, then resume running away. It seems easy to get around.

Since he landed, opponents can now shoot projectiles at him and actually have a chance at hitting him. In SV, this means that they can stand on the platform, and MK can't use it to land after a scrooge if he wants to continue scrooging, unless he wants to run the risk of confronting an opponent and losing his advantage.

Landing once is great for everyone who can't hit MK while he flies under the stages.

 

[UltiMario]

Now I'm waiting for the Samus vs MK Match where Samus snipes MK with B while he tries to land on the stage.

 

[Kewkky]

Now I'm waiting for the Samus vs MK Match where Samus snipes MK with B while he tries to land on the stage.

Samus isn't even viable. Why do you demean my statement like this? You know perfectly well what I meant to say.

I'm thinking more along the lines of "Snake, Diddy, Falco, Fox, Pit, DDD, ZSS (etc)"... You know, the characters that actually matter (some albeit remotely)?

 

[<π]

even samus has options like Zair to apply some sort of pressure while said glider is standing up from the edge.

The point is you can now apply some sort of pressure where as before you realistically couldn't do anything with a significant portion of the cast.

 

[Megavitamins]

I'LL DO IT!!!!!!!!!

List so Far
------------

Alex Strife (Anti-ban)
Inui (Even though he doesn't host much anymore lol)
Wes (MAYBE)
Bum (Most likely)

Pretty sure Wes is pro-ban.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Alex is anti-ban?