Official Metaknight Discussion

[MarKO X]

@MarKO: You contradict yourself. You say that planking is both beatable and unbeatable in the same post. Also, Lets the MK planks the last 60 seconds of the match, it means that he has *NOT* been planking the entire 7 minutes. If he's winning at that point, how is it different from an IC player getting a grab with 60 seconds left, and CGing the character up to 250% for that last minute?

Furthermore, planking isn't excessive stalling. Planking past the LGL is excessive stalling, were there a LGL, just like CGing isn't stalling, but CGing past the 300% mark is.

Planking is beatable against characters that aren't MK... that's a contradiction? Ok.
However, I will agree that there is no difference in that particular situation.

What I still don't agree on is the overall comparison of planking to CGing. When you are getting CG'd, there is nothing you can do about it except hope that the opponent will mess up. If you are getting planked, you can do something about it depending on your character... use a projectile, drop an item, go down there and get an attack off, etc.

Why should there be a rule against something that can already be dealt with?

 

[St. Viers]

Wait, so you're saying that despite the planking frame data the pro-ban side attaches some much importance to, that planking can be dealt with? According to DMG, all that the options you gave would do is force the MK to either take the hit while invincible, or downB regrab while completely invincible. In that case, you are keeping him on the edge, but unable to do anything else, which is akin to mashing buttons during a chain-grab, trying to force a release unless they continue chaingrabbing. Also, depending on your character, you can do something about CGs. Hold a bomb or grenade, or even have a nana or turnip and hope it falls out of your hand while being grabbed...

Also, my point is that things like planking, whether beatable or not, are a form of stalling, and if we can find a number of LGs that define excess ledge-stalling, we can limit it.

 

[Kitamerby]

BOr ban Ice Climbers because every time you hit their shield they perfectly SDI it and get a grab and take a stock.

100-0 matchups against the entire cast.

LOL

Shield SDI in Brawl has been proven to be almost COMPLETELY useless in almost all circumstances and is DEFINTELY not a deciding factor in any matchup EVER for Ice Climbers lmao.

 

[St. Viers]

^^Only because people are too lazy to practice doing it, because it's "too hard" to do it while in hitstun, without rolling instead...that's not a good argument. It's like saying learning the timing for teching multihit attacks in 3rd Strike is too hard.

 

[theunabletable]

@Kitamerby: mmm when was this proven? The recent thread about it gave no proof that it was useless, at all.

 

[MarKO X]

Wait, so you're saying that despite the planking frame data the pro-ban side attaches some much importance to, that planking can be dealt with? According to DMG, all that the options you gave would do is force the MK to either take the hit while invincible, or downB regrab while completely invincible. In that case, you are keeping him on the edge, but unable to do anything else, which is akin to mashing buttons during a chain-grab, trying to force a release unless they continue chaingrabbing. Also, depending on your character, you can do something about CGs. Hold a bomb or grenade, or even have a nana or turnip and hope it falls out of your hand while being grabbed...

No, I'm saying that if I'm G&W or Pit, I have holes in my planking that can be exploited, and should be exploited. If you can't beat my beatable planking, who's problem is that?
If you're getting grabbed up to 300%, chances are you don't have anything in your hand.

Also, my point is that things like planking, whether beatable or not, are a form of stalling, and if we can find a number of LGs that define excess ledge-stalling, we can limit it.

from http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=230481

Stalling: The act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable. Running away from an opponent to reach a better position is not stalling, while doing an infinite grab endlessly against a wall is. Any infinite chain grabs must end quickly after 300% has been reached so as to prevent excessive stalling.

G&W and Pit planking makes the game unplayable?
If G&W and Pit planking is beatable, instead of dealing with it, you prefer the easy way out via a rule?
This is why the LGLs are considered scrubby by pro-ban. You're basically taking a tactic and saying, "Wow, we can't deal with this. Rule plz?" as opposed to figuring out how to deal with it.

or maybe I'm wrong. Please attempt to show me where I'm wrong here.

 

[theunabletable]

G&W and Pit planking makes the game unplayable?
If G&W and Pit planking is beatable, instead of dealing with it, you prefer the easy way out via a rule?
This is why the LGLs are considered scrubby by pro-ban. You're basically taking a tactic and saying, "Wow, we can't deal with this. Rule plz?" as opposed to figuring out how to deal with it.

or maybe I'm wrong. Please attempt to show me where I'm wrong here.

And the rule can't apply solely to MK... why?

 

[Kitamerby]

@Kitamerby: mmm when was this proven? The recent thread about it gave no proof that it was useless, at all.

Look at the actual distance it gives you, then take into effect the distance you're still forced to slide. If you want to, you can also take into effect how completely unreliable it is to attempt it in the first place. :\

It's never going to be enough to allow the Ice Climbers to shieldgrab anything they couldn't shieldgrab before. It's really not that difficult to Shield SDI without rolling. If anything, the only hard part is actually doing it, which is very, very tricky and completely unreliable.

 

[theunabletable]

Look at the actual distance it gives you, then take into effect the distance you're still forced to slide. If you want to, you can also take into effect how completely unreliable it is to attempt it in the first place. :\

I'm talking about perfect shield SDI.

Next time I get the chance I'll use the code that you use to slow down the game my Wii and see exactly how much distance I can get out of perfect shield SDI.

 

[MarKO X]

And the rule can't apply solely to MK... why?

Because it's not a move-specific tactic or a character specific tactic you're banning solely for one character, it's a tactic that is available to everybody.

If there is a tactic that is available to 39 characters, and with 38 of the characters the tactic isn't broken, is that tactic broken?

Sorta unrelated: Do you agree to the rule that MK can only counterpick neutral stages?

 

[J4pu]

And the rule can't apply solely to MK... why?

why would we make a rule with the sole purpose of merely unbreaking MK?
If we're making rule for specific characters because they are too good why not extend this rule to the gay MK CP stage rule so that he's not only not broken but also gains bad match-ups?
why should we be catering to only unbreak MK because an integral part of the game makes him broken? if he was invincible and broken on stage would we make a rule that says he can't stand on stage for x amount of time per match? if every time he moved he gained SA and was broken because of that would we make a rule that says he has to stand still for x amount of time every 30 seconds once he's in KO range? No, we would ban him, what part of this are you not understanding, this is the same thing.

 

[theunabletable]

Because it's not a move-specific tactic or a character specific tactic you're banning solely for one character, it's a tactic that is available to everybody.

Except it is stalling using the SBR definition as when done right it makes the game unplayable.

If there is a tactic that is available to 39 characters, and with 38 of the characters the tactic isn't broken, is that tactic broken?

Well does that tactic break the rules we already have when done by that one character? If-so something needs to be done to enforce that rule.

Sorta unrelated: Do you agree to the rule that MK can only counterpick neutral stages?

Do I like the idea of the rule, or do I think that it should be in the SBR ruleset?

I think MK would be 100% unbannable (I don't think he's bannable with a ledge grab rule anyway...) and have counters if that + a ledge grab rule were in effect, and I think that this would be a far better game with a rule like that, but, no, I don't think it should be an official rule.

why would we make a rule with the sole purpose of merely unbreaking MK?

Except looking at DMGs data we ALREADY HAVE A RULE that says that MKs planking is stalling (and therefore banned), except the only way to enforce that rule seems to be a ledge grab limit.

Why did we make rules in Melee (I know that the current ruleset does not say this anymore, but it DOES say that a rule against stalling is necessary and all the previous SBR rulesets had a specific rule against it) to stop Jiggs from stalling with rising pound instead of just banning Jiggs?

If we're making rule for specific characters because they are too good why not extend this rule to the gay MK CP stage rule so that he's not only not broken but also gains bad match-ups?

Except we'd be making a ledge grab limit to STOP MK from doing something that is ALREADY against the rules we already have. It's just a simple way to enforce it.

why should we be catering to only unbreak MK because an integral part of the game makes him broken?

We aren't. We're enforcing rules we already have (as DMGs data has shown that MKs planking makes the game unplayable, which seems to fit the SBR definition of stalling).

what part of this are you not understanding, this is the same thing.

No it isn't the same thing. We already have a rule that shows that the hardcore, unbeatable, broken, planking that makes the game unplayable IS illegal, however there is no real way to enforce such a rule without either having an MK specific ledge grab limit, or banning MK.

And the latter is 100% unnecesary if the only basis to do so is a tactic that is ALREADY illegal and can be easily enforced.

 

[J4pu]

Define "unplayable"
MK is technically vulnerable for something like 6 frames, your character (every character) just isn't good enough to hit him during that time.

I still don't understand how my other examples aren't the same thing, MK is invulnerable, MK is putting himself in his most advantaged position possible, you can approach and attempt to do anything you want, it's not impossible to reach him. Do you think MK having unending SA frames while moving is stalling if he keeps moving?

 

[theunabletable]

^You can Diminsional Cape and have absolutely no vulnerable frames.

Jiggs in Melee could rising pound stall out of reach and have no invincibility frames, but because she's completely out of reach (as MK is, since no character can actually touch him when he's doing it right) no character could realistically he her. MKs positioning is at a spot where he's either completely invincible, or in a spot where you can't touch him.

He's as untouchable as Jiggs in Melee stalling, atleast looking at DMGs data.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

actually, there are people that legit think that MK isn't that big of a deal. they have nothing to gain from it, being cash, good tourney placings, friendships, etc... they just genuinely don't think that MK should be banned.

that don't make it right though. but seriously, what's anti-ban's argument again?

"We're the status quo".

Im biased?
No, you're the biased one.
Also, I don't reply because your posts are a bunch of whines about how planking is invincible and that whenever MK gets a lead he auto wins. Maybe if you actually said something intelligent I might respond.

"Flame flame ignore argument flame troll ignore ignore ignore"

Here is the problem with your guys' take on LGL.

It is easy to enforce the limit, and in all actuality, hard to exceed without having planked, or been forced onto the ledge by your opponent a ton (as per the DDD argument earlier this thread)*. But people bring up the fact that a LGL still allows the MK to stall by planking towards the end of the match, using up the remaining ledgegrabs in his limit.

I agree that the ledge grab limit actually does work, more or less, to stop MK from stalling the match out with planking. It's still no more legit than any other rule to keep MK in the game.

However, I see nothing wrong with this. By defining the number of ledgegrabs, the rules would be defining the point of excessive stalling. That means that the stalling that 30/40/whatver the LGL is number of times is *acceptable,* just as CGing to 300% is. Once it goes beyond that number, however, it is considered excessive stalling and subjects the player to a DQ, just as CGing someone past 300% does.

In addition, the nature of planking is that once you start, it is hard to stop without getting hit. Lets say that by IDCing to get the complete invincibility, you avoid a snake nikita-dropping the edge. He is thereby forcing you to keep planking, or get hit, which brings you closer to the number. So if you force the MK to the edge early in the match, it is possible that by forcing him to either plank or lose the percent lead, you can cause to plank past the point where he is excessively stalling, if he had any plans on stalling the last 2 minutes by planking.

*as too the DDD example, which is one of the only cases I could see happening: If the DDD was good enough to predict the snakes every move to keep him offstage/force him to grab the ledge, without the snake either recovering to the stage or getting from ledge to stage successfully, there is *no* reason that the DDD shouldn't be given the win. Again, if you treat the LGL as a means to prevent excessive stalling, it would be agreed that the snake recovering to the ledge over and over (or the game and watch planking, or the character using tether recoveries 3 times after grabbing the ledge), once going past the LGL, was excessively stalling one way or the other (either by being outplayed and forced to the ledge, planking, or simply tether-planking the ledge too often).

This way the restriction does not affect only the MK matchup, but serves to define exactly how much grabbing of the ledge during a match for any character is too much, and punishing all characters that abuse the ledge to any degree for over abusing it.

...
As to scrooging, again, this is not a MK only ability, and a rule that affects MK is not necessarily only affecting him, but fixing a problem with the game the same way limiting stages or chain-grab durations does. By saying that one may only scrooge x times without grabbing a ledge, you prevent all characters that can scrooge (gliding characters, jigglypuff, sonic, lucas, and anyone else that can circle-camp) from stalling by going under the stage. In addition, along with a LGL, you make people trying to stall with circle-camping have to worry about being DQed for excessive ledge-stalling, as defined by the LGL.

In summary, the problem you guys have with the LGL/scrooging is that you seem to be looking at it in 2 fallacious ways.

1. Assuming that it should only affect MK, rather than limiting the ability to abuse ledgegrabs/circle-camping to stall by any character (just because MK stalls better doesn't mean other chars should be allowed to excessively stall.)

Actually a really smart, well-informed post; not many big objections until here. We aren't stopping other chars from stalling with planking because it's a beatable strategy. If anything, an MK-only LGL... but that's still no better than the MK Gay stage rule.

2. Acting as if said limitations are any different in rational than any other rules in the set. (for example, limiting stages, limiting chain-grab duration, limiting time, limiting items). Just because it's new and not an easily understood carry-over from *another game's rules* does not mean it is any less legitimate a limitation. The problem now is inertia--if brawl had come with a mode built in that ended the game after a certain player grabbed the edge a certain number of times, and it was decided (without melee or 64 having existed) that to limit edge abuse, using that mode to monitor the behavior, no one would have had a problem with the rule (except maybe MK mains who understood the unfair advantage of edge-play). However, because we have a firm mindset in the matter, (albeit a mindset that is ruining the game according to both sides) such a fundamental change, even if it would make the game better (as limiting stages, limiting time, limiting items) does, people are unwilling to accept it.

i dont really see the problem with lgls. all youve done is call them scrubby because they limit mk from planking. wich is apparently scrubby because limiting things, wich we do all the time btw is scrubby.
LETS BAN A BROKEN CHARACTER THAT DOESNT WIN TOURNAMENTS NOOB!

the worst you can say is mk can plank for like 60 seconds at the end of the match. OH NO.

It's scrubby because we're purposely limiting a certain character's use of a global game mechanic to keep him in the game. Additionally, this character has already been widely shown to be extremely overdominant and overcentralizing.

if planking is broken then i dont see why mugs arent winning with it LOL

Because they aren't using it. Oh wait... IT'S BANNED. >.< And they STILL win with it! Look at Ally vs. M2K at Pound 4.

going by budget's logic perfect shielding is proven unbeatable because if you perfect shield everything you'll never get hit. ban shields ok!

Yeah. It's totally realistic that a normal person (not Tool-Assisted) can powershield every move in the game. It doesn't require a quicker amount of button presses than a human can do. It isn't made easier by a buffer of 10 frames. STRAW MAN.

Ban Ice Climbers. They have proven to be completely broken because with one grab they can stall out the timer. I don't care if it hasn't been done in tournament, where it's banned by a stupid arbitrary rule (why 300%? Why not 299%? Why not 301%?). ADHD is anti-ban IIRC. Or ban Ice Climbers because every time you hit their shield they perfectly SDI it and get a grab and take a stock.

100-0 matchups against the entire cast.

This is probably the legitimate argument for LGLs. However, it still doesn't stop me from saying "The MK gay stage rule is better". Also, planking is not a character-specific tool; it's something that pretty much the entire cast can abuse. Things like ICGs or IDC are character-specific, can be attributed to glitches, etc, and therefore banworthy without touching the character.

And the rule can't apply solely to MK... why?

Because you're admitting that the character is broken and therefore should be banned... that said, your post above still has a point... but...

why would we make a rule with the sole purpose of merely unbreaking MK?
If we're making rule for specific characters because they are too good why not extend this rule to the gay MK CP stage rule so that he's not only not broken but also gains bad match-ups?
why should we be catering to only unbreak MK because an integral part of the game makes him broken? if he was invincible and broken on stage would we make a rule that says he can't stand on stage for x amount of time per match? if every time he moved he gained SA and was broken because of that would we make a rule that says he has to stand still for x amount of time every 30 seconds once he's in KO range? No, we would ban him, what part of this are you not understanding, this is the same thing.

Good point. This.

 

[theunabletable]

Because you're admitting that the character is broken and therefore should be banned... that said, your post above still has a point... but...

Then Ice Climbers are broken and deserve a ban along with MK.

The no stalling example in the rule that talks about CGs ONLY REALLY effects the metagame as ICs as they can do it to EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER. It has an arbitrary limit (LGLs have this, but if the no stalling rule has it, why can't LGLs have an arbitrary amount of ledge grabs?) and is only important to one character (as no other character has a standing infinite on the entire cast that can be used to stall).

It's the same **** concept. Ban ICs and MK because of their ability to stall (because using arbitrary rules made for the sole purpose of limiting characters is 100% inherently WRONG), or use a god **** ledge grab limit.

Because they aren't using it. Oh wait... IT'S BANNED. >.< And they STILL win with it! Look at Ally vs. M2K at Pound 4.

The only reason ICs aren't winning every tournament is because their stalling ability was subjectively limited by a rule (and that rules only purpose was to limit stalling ability).

Ban Ice Climbers.

It's scrubby because we're purposely limiting a certain character's use of a global game mechanic to keep him in the game.

Melee rulesets in the past purposefully limited characters stalling abilities (hell with even more subjective rules and undefinable rules than ledge grab limits) and there is NOTHING WRONG with that metagame.

And our CURRENT ruleset purposefully limits characters (even characters that DON'T need limiting and wouldn't be broken without those rules anyway).

Why can't we do the same for ledge grab limits?

If anything, an MK-only LGL... but that's still no better than the MK Gay stage rule.

1) it IS better than the MK-can-only-CP-neutrals rule as it's just a means for enforcing a rule that makes MKs planking ALREADY illegal! 2) And they're both fairly equal to the arbitrary and "scrubby" stalling rule we have already which specifically targets ICs (and D3 who doesn't need limiting in the slightest). Hell an MK-only LGL WOULD be better than parts of the stalling rule we already have in place as it wouldn't limit characters who don't need limitations (D3 with the current no-stalling rule).

 

[TLMSheikant]

Unable table- the problem is ledge grab limit doesnt work well, at all. And if LGLs are unreliable, how would you go about banning planking? You cant. There's really no way to enforce such an arbitrary rule. Therefore we ban mk which is like 100% easier.

 

[St. Viers]

@TLMSheikant, how is a LGL unreliable?

@MarKO: (from a previous post)" Difficulty of a procedure is not relevant, which is why DDD's chaingrab and IC's CG must end at the same percent, even though:
1. DDD's standing/wall CG are much easier than IC chaingrab, and
2. IC can kill out of their CG at a much lower percent than 300% without risk."

This is why it is not unprecedented for there to be a single LGL that affects how some characters play slightly differently from others. W/ a universal LGL, MK can not plank all match, and other characters can not abuse the edge, even if they don't abuse as much as MK does. My point is that yes, it limits MK, but in addition, it limits an aspect of the game many people dislike more than MK (people who dislike the super defensive nature of the game, in part because of how good an option running onto the ledge to avoid fighting is).

To Be continued at a later time...

 

[kackamee]

Then Ice Climbers are broken and deserve a ban along with MK.

The no stalling example in the rule that talks about CGs ONLY REALLY effects the metagame as ICs as they can do it to EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER. It has an arbitrary limit (LGLs have this, but if the no stalling rule has it, why can't LGLs have an arbitrary amount of ledge grabs?) and is only important to one character (as no other character has a standing infinite on the entire cast that can be used to stall).

It's the same **** concept. Ban ICs and MK because of their ability to stall (because using arbitrary rules made for the sole purpose of limiting characters is 100% inherently WRONG), or use a god **** ledge grab limit. The only reason ICs aren't winning every tournament is because their stalling ability was subjectively limited by a rule (and that rules only purpose was to limit stalling ability).

Ban Ice Climbers. Melee rulesets in the past purposefully limited characters stalling abilities (hell with even more subjective rules and undefinable rules than ledge grab limits) and there is NOTHING WRONG with that metagame.

And our CURRENT ruleset purposefully limits characters (even characters that DON'T need limiting and wouldn't be broken without those rules anyway).

Why can't we do the same for ledge grab limits? 1) it IS better than the MK-can-only-CP-neutrals rule as it's just a means for enforcing a rule that makes MKs planking ALREADY illegal! 2) And they're both fairly equal to the arbitrary and "scrubby" stalling rule we have already which specifically targets ICs (and D3 who doesn't need limiting in the slightest). Hell an MK-only LGL WOULD be better than parts of the stalling rule we already have in place as it wouldn't limit characters who don't need limitations (D3 with the current no-stalling rule).

X.x; Errr. No. Reason why IC's aren't winning tournamets is because of MK and Snake. Stalling has nothing to do with the IC metagame. If your trying to stall with the IC's the way your talking about, your going to lose. That is why it doesn't matter if IC's cg limits are there. If the IC's grab you, it's your fault. #1 Their grab range is horrible #2 You SHOULD be able to mash out in time if they try to stall their grabs. #3, Their grabs would never last near long enough to stall out 8 minuites.

EDIT: I don't know if this is just me, but I see banning a character as a last ditch effort. If I made the rules and something wasn't fair, I'd try to tone it down as much as possible before banning it. That is wy the LGL was made and that's why even more rules need to be enforced.

 

[LuLLo]

Why are people suddenly talking about banning IC' and why do they think no other char has a standing infinite, Marth has one on Ness (grab, pummel, regrab, easiest in the game), ZSS has one on ROB, Captain Falcon has one on ROB, Wario get's gayed by Bowser and Ike (and more I believe), Ike's F-throw infinite against a wall on everyone etc etc etc. I understand all of your points with IC's, but there are alot more gay things in this game you people don't mention, and most of those gay things take way less skill than chaingrabbing with IC's, which players spend months on to perfect. Plus, there are things that screw it up, like nades and nanerz, tripping and Nana being a *****. They are not bannable and easily avoided, it's just a matchup people need to learn, and when that happens, IC's will go down on the tier list.

 

[The_Altrox]

wait, did they ban infinites? or am I thinking of something else?

 

[UltiMario]

They're limited to like 200 or 300% or something like that.

 

[Masmasher@]

Why are people suddenly talking about banning IC' and why do they think no other char has a standing infinite, Marth has one on Ness (grab, pummel, regrab, easiest in the game), ZSS has one on ROB, Captain Falcon has one on ROB, Wario get's gayed by Bowser and Ike (and more I believe), Ike's F-throw infinite against a wall on everyone etc etc etc. I understand all of your points with IC's, but there are alot more gay things in this game you people don't mention, and most of those gay things take way less skill than chaingrabbing with IC's, which players spend months on to perfect. Plus, there are things that screw it up, like nades and nanerz, tripping and Nana being a *****. They are not bannable and easily avoided, it's just a matchup people need to learn, and when that happens, IC's will go down on the tier list.

are half those characters you mentioned even viable?
also ease of use doesnt matter when talking about a ban which should usually be accounted for the higher levels of play.
also wow at pro ban. crows list was legit but negilible but the planking is not helping anti bans case at all.
loooking from on the fence this discussion is getting good

 

[The_Altrox]

They're limited to like 200 or 300% or something like that.

You'd think they'd limit it further. It completely destroys some match-ups that would be more normal otherwise

 

[Chuee]

Every character can now outcamp Fox, using Budget logic you can PS each laser and force him to approach.

 

[etecoon]

You'd think they'd limit it further. It completely destroys some match-ups that would be more normal otherwise

this isn't why we ban things. this is why this discussion is a joke(aside from how inconsequential it is), people see something that screws over some characters and assume that they are entitled to neuter or ban it, you aren't entitled to ****. there's a reason most of the complaining comes from people that main bad characters, snake/diddy/falco/IC players have no reason to treat the MK matchup like it's the end of the world

OS is the only pro ban that can make coherent arguments lmao, this topic is hilarious since he stopped posting in it

 

[LuLLo]

are half those characters you mentioned even viable?
also ease of use doesnt matter when talking about a ban which should usually be accounted for the higher levels of play.
also wow at pro ban. crows list was legit but negilible but the planking is not helping anti bans case at all.
loooking from on the fence this discussion is getting good

If Jigglypuff had an infinite which was very hard to do on every character, would we ban it too?

 

[Masmasher@]

If Jigglypuff had an infinite which was very hard to do on every character, would we ban it too?

Depends... are you thinking in a marvel mentalty

 

[fkacyan]

I'd love to see people define "overdominant" objectively.

How much dominance is too much? This can't be your opinion, by the way.

 

[GreenFox]

At the highest level play is MK even doing that good? I hate MK and hope he gets banned but I think people are overexagerating his dominance a little.

 

[MarKO X]

@TLMSheikant, how is a LGL unreliable?

@MarKO: (from a previous post)" Difficulty of a procedure is not relevant, which is why DDD's chaingrab and IC's CG must end at the same percent, even though:
1. DDD's standing/wall CG are much easier than IC chaingrab, and
2. IC can kill out of their CG at a much lower percent than 300% without risk."

That is understood... I'm not sure how that related to my post... closest thing about is that part about not having anything in your hand while getting CG'd, altho I was referring to the character in the game... not sure how that related, but whatever.

This is why it is not unprecedented for there to be a single LGL that affects how some characters play slightly differently from others. W/ a universal LGL, MK can not plank all match, and other characters can not abuse the edge, even if they don't abuse as much as MK does. My point is that yes, it limits MK, but in addition, it limits an aspect of the game many people dislike more than MK (people who dislike the super defensive nature of the game, in part because of how good an option running onto the ledge to avoid fighting is).

To Be continued at a later time...

TADA! It limits an aspect of the game many people dislike. It's not an unbeatable tactic, it doesn't make the game unplayable, it's just something that many people dislike. People didn't try to figure out how to beat it. Hell, we're just recently getting the frame data on planking. Now tell me, does limiting an aspect of the game that people dislike without attempting to figure out how to best deal with it sound like scrub talk?

^^Only because people are too lazy to practice doing it, because it's "too hard" to do it while in hitstun, without rolling instead...that's not a good argument. It's like saying learning the timing for teching multihit attacks in 3rd Strike is too hard.

Could I not apply this logic about something being "too hard" to planking?

 

[Asdioh]

this isn't why we ban things. this is why this discussion is a joke(aside from how inconsequential it is), people see something that screws over some characters and assume that they are entitled to neuter or ban it, you aren't entitled to ****. there's a reason most of the complaining comes from people that main bad characters, snake/diddy/falco/IC players have no reason to treat the MK matchup like it's the end of the world

OS is the only pro ban that can make coherent arguments lmao, this topic is hilarious since he stopped posting in it

Your posts with that color are obnoxious to quote, just so you know.

Anyway, it's because we have to deal with idiotic statements like this:

Every character can now outcamp Fox, using Budget logic you can PS each laser and force him to approach.

Budget logic? Have you people read DMG's planking info thread? Obviously not.

going by budget's logic perfect shielding is proven unbeatable because if you perfect shield everything you'll never get hit. ban shields ok!

Yeah, it's not like grabs exist or anything.


By the way, banning Ice Climbers? Why, because they're winning/placing top at so many tournaments? Because the concept of "don't get grabbed" is so hard and frustrating to "lower level" players that they quit the game and never come back, as opposed to the concept of "don't get hit" by a character as blatantly overpowered as Metaknight?



We're still discussing LGLs? STILL? The reason Metaknight's planking is broken and instantly makes the character banworthy BY ITSELF is because he can switch between the "totally unbeatable no matter how you try to stop it" planking or the "somewhat beatable but extremely difficult to stop regardless, and puts you at a huge risk with almost none to him" or the "daring you to come close and stop him planking because he's using all his jumps without grabbing the ledge so you have a chance to gimp him" planking, etc. He can switch in between any of these at will, and the fact that one of them is literally unbeatable, combined with the fact that it's literally impossible to call him out on it, is what makes him bannable. Now, tell me what a "reasonable" amount of ledgegrabs per minute would be, for MK or any character, and then tell me why we should put more and more weights on MK just to keep him in the game when it's been shown over and over that he is the best character in the game by far even with these weights on him, and why at least a temporary ban wouldn't be for the best.

argh

hgra




Also: Rising Pound, since you like to keep bringing it up.

Jigglypuff repeatedly using Rising Pound under the stage or wherever the hell she does it: She is forced to use exactly the same pattern over and over and over or die. This is an OBVIOUS form of stalling, there is no other way to do it.

Metaknight planking the edge: He can switch it up in any number of ways, how can you tell when he's doing the "stalling" version compared to the "beatable, though very very difficult to beat" version? Who are you to say that he isn't allowed to grab the edge x number of times, even if it's to edgehog or get in a good position to gimp the opponent?

Very different scenarios, people.

 

[theunabletable]

the problem is ledge grab limit doesnt work well, at all. And if LGLs are unreliable, how would you go about banning planking? You cant. There's really no way to enforce such an arbitrary rule. Therefore we ban mk which is like 100% easier.

What? How does it not work? In what way is it unreliable? How can we not enforce it?

If it goes to time out, check ledge grabs. If the MK has gone over the ledge grab limit, then he loses. Incredibly easy to enforce.

X.x; Errr. No. Reason why IC's aren't winning tournamets is because of MK and Snake.

It was an exageration (spelling lol?). And if they aren't winning tournaments for a different reason, WHY THE HELL ARE WE REMOVING THEIR STALLING ABILITY?

Stalling has nothing to do with the IC metagame.

I'd say it has nothing to do with the IC metagame because it's already banned.

We're already limiting characters' stalling abilities who don't need limitations with subjective and arbitrary rules, why can't we do the same for MKs unbeatable stalling, especially since according to DMGs data it's ALREADY illegal?

#1 Their grab range is horrible #2 You SHOULD be able to mash out in time if they try to stall their grabs. #3, Their grabs would never last near long enough to stall out 8 minuites.

1) So? 2) How? If they're CGing you to ridiculous percentages just to stall you out, you won't be able to mash out fast. 3) How so? I honestly don't understand how an INFINITE doesn't last 8 minutes?

It's not an unbeatable tactic, it doesn't make the game unplayable

According to DMGs data, it DOES.

And we've already done worse for characters who DON'T need limitation (D3, ICs).

Now tell me, does limiting an aspect of the game that people dislike without attempting to figure out how to best deal with it sound like scrub talk?

Looking at DMGs data, it IS unbeatable and makes the game unplayable.

And we've already done worse with our CURRENT ruleset (limiting characters who don't need limitations). Why can't we do the same this time for something that's already illegal?

combined with the fact that it's literally impossible to call him out on it

It's incredibly easy to call him out on it, actually.

Match goes to time out, check the ledge grabs, if he went over the limit he loses.

Easy to do, and completely solves the problem.

 

[Asdioh]

Oh yeah, another argument to refute since you guys brought it up.

Comparing "no infinites past 300%" to "no ledgegrabs past X for Metaknight"

The answer to this one is simple, and obvious. Sure, 300% is an arbitrary number, but it seems mostly reasonable since pretty much any move can KO at that range, and more importantly, BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THE PERCENT IN GAME.

"Oh look, the in-game damage meter is showing my opponent at 300%, I should finish them off now hehe"

vs.

"Oh look, the in-game ledgegrab counter is showing my ledgegrabs at- wait, there is no ledgegrab counter, how many ledgegrabs do I have? Do people really expect me to count them during my match? fdskjfasdjflwe!!"

 

[theunabletable]

Sure, 300% is an arbitrary number, but it seems mostly reasonable since pretty much any move can KO at that range, and more importantly, BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THE PERCENT IN GAME.

What if I want to kill them with like back throw or uthrow or something?

"Oh look, the in-game ledgegrab counter is showing my ledgegrabs at- wait, there is no ledgegrab counter, how many ledgegrabs do I have? Do people really expect me to count them during my match? fdskjfasdjflwe!!"

You are NEVER going to go over 30 ledge grabs as MK without planking.

It just won't happen. You can play out a normal match without any fear of anything; because you're never going to go over 30 ledge grabs.

Hell even 20 or 25 is incredibly rare to happen.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Every character can now outcamp Fox, using Budget logic you can PS each laser and force him to approach.

All right, since you're accusing me of playing super theory bros, you powershield all of fox's lazers that you reasonably could (on ground, not in lag, etc.) in a tournament match against a competent fox and then I'll start thinking that you have any kind of point.

Cut the bull****, it's not helping you.

I'd love to see people define "overdominant" objectively.

How much dominance is too much? This can't be your opinion, by the way.

LOL. This is about impossible...

 

[MarKO X]

Looking at DMGs data, it IS unbeatable and makes the game unplayable.

Unable table, can you please explain to me how planking with G&W, Pit, Marth, or anyone that is not MK unbeatable?

Please stop ignoring the fact that MK isn't the only character that can plank and justify the use of LGLs on the entire cast. Anti-ban has claimed time and time again that they shouldn't ban anything that is beatable, and yet you're all for LGLs, which limit a tactic that is beatable... I don't understand.

 

[fkacyan]

LOL. This is about impossible...

And thus, pro-ban's argument lacks substance to initiate an actual ban without planking being allowed.

 

[Spelt]

And thus, pro-ban's argument lacks substance to initiate an actual ban without planking being allowed.

AKA, pro-bans argument is flawed because in order to enact a ban they'd need anti-ban to also agree to on one universal set of requirements for a ban.
So our argument is no good because we don't agree with the other side of the debate.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

I'd love to see people define "overdominant" objectively.

How much dominance is too much? This can't be your opinion, by the way.

Just a neutral passing through.

How can too much dominace NOT be defined by opinion? It is all opinion and invariably becoms subjective.

If I am missing something, please explain it to me with an example of how too much dominance is defined without opinion.

BPC makes a very good point about the LGL. It can't be a global thing since this would unjustly gimp G&W and Olimar( you poor tether recovering thing you). I really don't think it would stop MK the clock from running since MK has scrooging to fall back on.