Official Metaknight Discussion

[GeneralWoodman]

he said retreating nado being punished with a projectile, so he changed the subject, not me.

 

[Chuee]

Projectiles and Phantasm can.

 

[GeneralWoodman]

good job, but why are you retreating nado in range of teh lazorZ?

 

[Chuee]

because thats when the nado ends.

 

[GeneralWoodman]

you choose where it ends and where it begins unless forced, but that is your own bad decision to retreat nado vs someone who can punish with such ease

 

[Chuee]

The thing is a lot of characters can punish it easily, which is why the MK doesn't use it against a grounded opponent.

 

[PottyJokes]

too many bad players in this discussion wow

 

[GeneralWoodman]

having the ability to punish it doesn't limit it in any way. you act as if you can suddenly punish a nado out of your shield as your getting poked. good luck with that and :D @ doing it twice. Say you get by nado with ally's method at 0:20 in that vid whats stopping a second nado immediately after, now that your shield is that small, your in a hit and run situation at that point. Nado is far too versatile to be considered "easily punished"

too many bad players in this discussion wow

your one of them :D

 

[PottyJokes]

nope. im actually good.

 

[ElDominio]

your one of them :D

Don't feed the troll. He is just %100 trolling bringing about a %0 contribution to this thread.

I'll just reply to this:

too many bad players in this discussion wow

With this: :bigthumbu

 

[TP]

Actually, the correct answer is to not reply at all, and just report him like I just did.

Even though I'm pro ban, I respect anti ban too much too let this guy ruin their good name.

 

[ElDominio]

Actually, the correct answer is to not reply at all, and just report him like I just did.

Even though I'm pro ban, I respect anti ban too much too let this guy ruin their good name.

QFT.... I had forgotten of how handy forum systems were!!!

 

[OfTheEarth]

Yeah this thread is no where and is probably staying there. But BCP, I commend your efforts.
I'm going to be at Brawl MLG, and me and my 2 brothers are going to start a group,
that if you plank me in a match
I'm gonna punch you in the face

there are others that are going to do it tambien
just wait and see

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

A question to pro-ban.

If you want MK banned that badly, why are you targeting something that can be changed? You can always use LGLs and Scrooging limits/bans to rid MK of his bannability. Why don't you go back to before this whole silly ledge thing? There is only one uncontrollable, unmodifiable player-made way to ban a character. Dominace. I'm anti-ban, but really, I hate to see people waste tons of time on a useless subject. Pro-ban should just allow MK to be limited by LGLs and Scrooging bans/limits, and just wait for that dominace meter to increase, and the anti-bans waiting the same for a decrease. If you want to ban MK so badly, why are you choosing a factor that CAN be controlled, rather one that can't. "Because its scrubby/stupid" doesn't count anymore. Nobody cares about Sirlin's opinion or your opinion.

Now, you're probably asking, why would an Anti-ban be helping the pro-ban by suggesting this.
If you're asking that, GTFO. You're a true pro or anti-ban if you know dominance is the only 100% legit, unarguable, uncircumventable way to prove or disprove a ban, well, once a max dominance percentage is set out, anyways.



like 400 pages ago I said this, and now I still say this. A discussion and a finalization of "How much dominance is too much" must be started ASAP.

...

I agree with this. We'll never convince anti-bans with frame data that proves a character is untouchable, as long as they can put a rule against it in. I still don't see why the MK Gay Stage Rule is worse than LGLs.

 

[1048576]

We still need a temp ban to see if, say, Luigi, becomes viable. We can't theory out of that.

 

[theunabletable]

@BPC: Well DMGs hardcore planking is already illegal (as it makes the game unplayable, and it's sole purpose is to run out the time).

We should have something to enforce this.

If it's already illegal, then a rule made to enforce the rule that makes it illegal is far better than the MK gay stage rule (is that the name we're using for it now lol?)

And it's even more justified and necessary than some things in our CURRENT stalling rule (like how it limits characters who DO NOT need limitations...).

Something MUST be done about MKs planking. Not as a limitation, but because it BREAKS THE RULES we already have. As DMG had pointed out to me in his thread, you can't really define unbeatable planking during a match. A ledge grab limit (one that applies only to MK, of course; because no one else has planking that makes you as untouchable as Melee Jiggs stalling (which was banned)) seems to be the only way to enforce the rule we already have.

He is frame-wise untouchable, as you have mentioned. That makes the game unplayable JUST AS MUCH as Jiggs' Rising Pound stall did.

An LGL is waaaaaay more justified than the MK gay stage rule (even though I think this game would be awesome with that rule, as he'd have counters, still be legal, and it'd be incredibly easy to enforce (but, still, that's not reason for using that rule, however awesome the game would be with it)).

We still need a temp ban to see if, say, Luigi, becomes viable. We can't theory out of that.

Isn't Marth like his second worst matchup, who'd become way more popular and viable with MK gone? He'd become more viable for sure, but so would any character with their worst matchup removed.

I mean from what I know (I know a little bit about Luigi (best friend mains him and I read their boards pretty often), Marth is still reaaaally bad for Luigi...

 

[adumbrodeus]

Yeah this thread is no where and is probably staying there. But BCP, I commend your efforts.
I'm going to be at Brawl MLG, and me and my 2 brothers are going to start a group,
that if you plank me in a match
I'm gonna punch you in the face

there are others that are going to do it tambien
just wait and see

If you do that to me:

1. I'll obliterate you (tons of MMA experience, streetfighting experience, and martial arts experience in more styles then most people know exist).

2. You'll get kicked out of MLG.

3. I'll call the police and have you arrested.

4. I'll sue you.



Somehow, I don't think it's worth it, certain people may only be willing or able to take certain steps here, but at the very least, number 2 will happen no matter what happens. So yeah, don't be a douche.


I know it's a joke, but even jokingly, you should not be attempting to stop people from playing to win via chilling effect, because that stagnates the metagame, either by making sure counters aren't found or lack of illustration of what is bannable.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

*Yawn* Mornin' kiddies.

Some ppl's reputation in here cannot get any worse. Maybe if you guys got your rest you wouldn't act so dumb.

 

[BSP]

A question to pro-ban.

If you want MK banned that badly, why are you targeting something that can be changed? You can always use LGLs and Scrooging limits/bans to rid MK of his bannability. Why don't you go back to before this whole silly ledge thing? There is only one uncontrollable, unmodifiable player-made way to ban a character. Dominace. I'm anti-ban, but really, I hate to see people waste tons of time on a useless subject. Pro-ban should just allow MK to be limited by LGLs and Scrooging bans/limits, and just wait for that dominace meter to increase, and the anti-bans waiting the same for a decrease. If you want to ban MK so badly, why are you choosing a factor that CAN be controlled, rather one that can't. "Because its scrubby/stupid" doesn't count anymore. Nobody cares about Sirlin's opinion or your opinion.

Now, you're probably asking, why would an Anti-ban be helping the pro-ban by suggesting this.
If you're asking that, GTFO. You're a true pro or anti-ban if you know dominance is the only 100% legit, unarguable, uncircumventable way to prove or disprove a ban, well, once a max dominance percentage is set out, anyways.



like 400 pages ago I said this, and now I still say this. A discussion and a finalization of "How much dominance is too much" must be started ASAP.

We really should do this. This debate is just going to go in circles.

 

[fkacyan]

. I'll obliterate you (tons of MMA experience, streetfighting experience, and martial arts experience in more styles then most people know exist).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So how about we DO make a criteria for "too dominant"? Should we base it off of tournament results, ranking points, matchups... what are our bases to work off of?

 

[Exceladon City]

Thiocyanide, you have won the thread for the day.

 

[fkacyan]

So how about we DO make a criteria for "too dominant"? Should we base it off of tournament results, ranking points, matchups... what are our bases to work off of?

There are four logical outcomes in this situations, as illustrated by this simple flow chart:

Planking -> Ban MK -> Done
v
Ban planking
v
What now? -> Temp ban -> Ban MK -> Done
v ------------------- v
Nothing -------- Do not ban MK
v -------------------- v
Done ---------------- Done

The hyphens are simply being used as spacers so that the characters don't autocollapse on the spaces between.

Honestly, if you expect to establish dominance criteria (I seem to recall Adumbrodeus and myself, if not more people, asking for this hundreds of pages ago), you should know that at that time the factors that will define the criteria will likely be based on MK's ban, because the only way we'll ever establish any sort of objective marker is when this debate is over.

 

[Orion*]

Thiocyanide, you have won the thread for the day.

cyanide never wins. he just trolls a little harder each time

oh yeah and, why are people talking about punishing nado OFF OF SHIELD.

dont shield that ****. use a move that hits them out of it

 

[ph00tbag]

We really should do this. This debate is just going to go in circles.

A debate over criteria for how much dominance is too much wouldn't even go far enough to go in circles. Both sides would be stuck at being unable to prove their respective, arbitrarily chosen criteria for "too dominant." Pretty much it comes down to what your preference is for dominance.

Personally, though, I was on the fence about banning MK until I read Kewkky's story of Tekken 4 and Jin Kazama. I think that situation almost perfectly describes the situation with Metaknight. If you don't remember Kewkky's story, here it is.

Jin Kazama is the best character in Tekken 4. Not just the best, he is far and away the most dominant character in the game. But it's not like he's just really good. His Needle Shrine Scraper (aka JFLS) is a blockstring and a combo, and both of them end in an unblockable launcher, leading into a highly damaging juggle. The entire thing had advantage on block until the launcher, and the full combo did 80% off the damage bar. From there, it was predict and frame trap with the JFLS again.

The Tekken 4 community went through the same exact crap we're going through right here, where many players didn't want to ban Jin because he wasn't broken enough. And he wasn't. He was beatable. There were characters that had decent match-ups against him. Nevertheless, he dominated tournament placings, and let's be honest, he was easy as hell to play. Do the arguments for both sides sound familiar? Here's where I got convinced.

Jin Kazama did not get banned. And eventually, everyone quit. Tekken 4 died. Tekken Tag was resurrected until Tekken 5 came out. Banning Jin would have probably been better for the community but this whole fear of being "ban-happy" killed the game's community, nonetheless. I feel like we should be learning from the mistakes of others. I say Jin Kazama is a good cutoff for over-dominant. If a character is so dominant as to promote this much vitriol and ill-will in the community, and is causing people to quit (and believe you me, people are quitting), then maybe he's too dominant. The only argument I can give you is the story of Tekken 4.

 

[Orion*]

smash community =/= tekken community

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

There are four logical outcomes in this situations, as illustrated by this simple flow chart:

Planking -> Ban MK -> Done
v
Ban planking
v
What now? -> Temp ban -> Ban MK -> Done
v ------------------- v
Nothing -------- Do not ban MK
v -------------------- v
Done ---------------- Done

The hyphens are simply being used as spacers so that the characters don't autocollapse on the spaces between.

Honestly, if you expect to establish dominance criteria (I seem to recall Adumbrodeus and myself, if not more people, asking for this hundreds of pages ago), you should know that at that time the factors that will define the criteria will likely be based on MK's ban, because the only way we'll ever establish any sort of objective marker is when this debate is over.

Interesting chart. TBH pretty accurate. However, I think that if we can all agree on something, we can go with it. How about this-we take separate sides of an issue. I work down, saying where it would be reasonable for him to be unbanned, you work down saying where it would be reasonable for him to be banned.

Matchups:
MK has a 99-1 against the entire cast, no bad stages. Think Ivan ooze. Obviously NOT reasonable for him to remain legal; this is just ********. He is, for all intents an purposes unbeatable and makes the game completely uncompetitive.
MK has a 70-30 or better (only slightly better against good characters) against the entire cast, no bad stages. Think SF2T akuma. HORRIBLY unbalanced, ***** the whole cast. 70-30 in Brawl is virtually unwinnable. NOT reasonable for him to be legal; he will overcentralize terribly.
MK has a 60-40 or better against the entire cast, no bad stages. Now around here is where it gets fuzzy. He's definitely bannable, but it's arguably possible to keep him legal and still have a decent metagame. He's close to this, TBH. Relatively close.
MK has a 60-40 or better against the entire cast but can gain disadvantages by counterpicking stages in a smart way. He has a counter, doesn't necessarily pick the entire rest of the cast apart,
MK has a 55-45 or better against the entire cast and no bad stages. See 6-4, no bad stages. Even fuzzier. Seeing as there is still no disadvantage to picking him, he's still definitely bannable, but it's debatable. This is where MK is now, and part of why we have so many problems with banning him.
MK has a 55-45 or better against the entire cast but can be counterpicked with stages to have disadvantages. See 6-4, bad stages. If MK was here, I would likely not really bother that much with this discussion. It isn't obvious that he's broken. He merely fulfills the function of "best in the game". Like there should be in every game. And he has matchups that are bad on counterpicks.
MK has a 50-50 or better against the entire cast, no bad stages. See 55-45.
MK has a 50-50 or better against the entire cast, bad stages. This is where I stop arguing to ban him. He has even matchups, the opponent can gain an actual advantage on his counterpick...
Anything below that is kind of ridiculous on this scale-no reason to ban him. This is assuming that his worst matchup is the ratio mentioned, and that most of them (at least among chars that are decent against the character) are close to that level.

Does this scale seem reasonable? Anti-ban should make one starting from the other direction and working in a similar function.

I think we would do this for the following things:
-Overall Matchup Ratios
-Characters invalidated (as in, only invalidated by this char)
-Tournament dominance (top-8 places in large (national) tournaments, ignoring outliers ADHD, Ally, M2K, DEHF)
-Tournament dominance (top-8 places in large (national) tournaments, including outliers)
-Tournament dominance (Ankoku's list, excluding outliers)
-Tournament Dominance (Ankoku's list, including outliers)

Sound reasonable? Like, a way to finally get a criteria out of all of this?

EDIT: @Orion: how is it so different to ours? How is that situation different to ours with metaknight? There are clear differences between our situation with MK and situations with chars like Akuma (HDR Remix and Turbo). But this one with Jin Kazama? Same ****ing deal.

Also, TTT is ****ing awesome.

 

[ph00tbag]

smash community =/= tekken community

Fair enough, the tekken community is much smaller. But are you honestly going to sit there and tell me, "oh we can deal with people hating Brawl because of Metaknight because we're bigger and have a crapload of scrubs to fuel our winnings"? Can you say hubris?

 

[ElDominio]

smash community =/= tekken community

Coming from the guy that uses Akuma and blah blah blah to support his posts.
:bigthumbu

I say go to Thio's idea of a temp ban.

The big problem here is that we are going around in literal circles. Everything brought up here has been discussed before.

Temp ban, MK-Gay stage rule. Anything. Let's just do SOMETHING about it because we have been beating the dead cow silly. We need to reach a conclusion. Pronto.

And, since I want to create my own rules against MK, I propose giving guns to TO's, and shooting anyone that dares choose MK. Discuss that since we need another point to beat around so we can keep going nowhere.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

A temp ban at this point is honestly the most ideal situation (it provides us with necessary data that we can't get otherwise), and I'm actually quite sure it would have happened... If MLG hadn't shown up. TBH? This is a fair tradeoff. I wouldn't wish MLG to leave us so we could have our temp ban. But their timing... ouch.

 

[ph00tbag]

And, since I want to create my own rules against MK, I propose giving guns to TO's, and shooting anyone that dares choose MK. Discuss that since we need another point to beat around so we can keep going nowhere.

He's not banned! He's just... strongly discouraged.

 

[The_Altrox]

I say go to Thio's idea of a temp ban.

The big problem here is that we are going around in literal circles. Everything brought up here has been discussed before.

Temp ban, MK-Gay stage rule. Anything. Let's just do SOMETHING about it because we have been beating the dead cow silly. We need to reach a conclusion. Pronto.

This. I don't see how a temp ban would be a terrible thing. so a few MK users don't show. Big deal! and for data wise, you could say any statistics sent in during the temp ban ae null and void to keep people from holding seious tourneys with MK.

 

[Orion*]

Coming from the guy that uses Akuma and blah blah blah to support his posts.

quote a post of mine where i even do that.

diddy kong and snake have a 50-50 or better against the entire cast, with no bad stages.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Hmm... Snake... What could possibly have a good matchup against snake... Oh, I know, King DDD and Olimar, both of which MK kicks the crap out of.

Hmm... Diddy... What could possibly have a good matchup against Diddy... Oh, I know, Peach, Luigi, and Marth, all of which MK *****. And Jiggs. But she's not really viable.

Both snake AND Diddy have at least one, if not multiple bad matchups without MK.
Get out.

EDIT:

This feels SO GOOD, let me tell you. Incredible improvement on the quality of this thread.

 

[Conviction]

Just to get on your nerves.

Diddy Kong has some 55-45 disadv.

Like Jiggly and Falco.

Hmm... Diddy... What could possibly have a good matchup against snake... Oh, I know, Peach, Luigi, and Marth, all of which MK *****

Look.

 

[Chuee]

Snake:
D3's say its 50-50
Olimar's say its 50-50
MK 55-45's snake though.

Diddy:
Don't know about those

but anyways 55-45 is considered even.

Also 60-40 isn't ****.

EDIT: Jiggly does not beat Diddy.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

60-40 is pretty bad in Brawl. But they are not at the point where they have no bad matchups-not where I would rate them as ban fodder. Plus, isn't Diddy bad for snake?

 

[Orion*]

Hmm... Snake... What could possibly have a good matchup against snake... Oh, I know, King DDD and Olimar, both of which MK kicks the crap out of.

Hmm... Diddy... What could possibly have a good matchup against Diddy... Oh, I know, Peach, Luigi, and Marth, all of which MK *****. And Jiggs. But she's not really viable.

D3 goes even with snake. its hard for me to say olimar wins when he dies when snake grabs you. both of those matchup #s are very easily subjective to snakes favor. In fact MATCHUPS ARE SUBJECTIVE wich is why you using those numbers for arguments is what makes you and all of your posts pathetic.

all youve done is say mk has no even matchups under YOUR opinion. and if youre going by char. boards thats even more sad. gtfo and learn to play bro

Just to get on your nerves.

Diddy Kong has some 55-45 disadv.

Like Jiggly.

i admit you trolled me LOL

 

[fkacyan]

60-40 is pretty bad in Brawl. But they are not at the point where they have no bad matchups-not where I would rate them as ban fodder. Plus, isn't Diddy bad for snake?

How does Diddy kill Snake?

 

[Orion*]

60-40 is pretty bad in Brawl. But they are not at the point where they have no bad matchups-not where I would rate them as ban fodder. Plus, isn't Diddy bad for snake?

how is 60/40 in brawl worse than 60/40 in tekken. wtf is wrong with you its the same matchup number ratio you idiot.

How does Diddy kill Snake?

how does snake kill diddy? WHY WOULD DIDDY KILL SNAKE. time that ***** out