Official Metaknight Discussion

[OverLade]

Then your ideology hasn't switched, just your standards for proof?

Basically. If MK was gonna be banned I wouldn't oppose it, but I'm not going to support a ban at this point.

There are plenty of other reasons not to travel. Obligations (School, work, family, etc), not having the money (inb4you'dhavethemoneyifyouwereMK), distance, etc.

You'd have the money if you were MK.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Thank god the person who made the data actually knows that it isn't objectively conclusive! Maybe your parrots will stop thinking it is now.

To us, it's subjectively obvious to the point that it's no longer subjective. :V

 

[fkacyan]

To us, it's subjectively obvious to the point that it's no longer subjective. :V

To us

subjectively

That's how it rolls.

Seriously, the conclusion isn't any more obvious, objectively, than it was before. There would be no debate if there was! That's why I support a temp-ban to see if Crow!'s findings actually do mean we'd have a better metagame without the character.

You'd have the money if you were MK.

Well, I was in before it.

 

[OverLade]

Well, I was in before it.

No johns

10char

 

[fkacyan]

No johns

10char

All I do is john! That's like saying I can't play the game.

If anybody makes a serious response to my previous post, I won't see it for a while because SCIIBETA

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That's how it rolls.

Seriously, the conclusion isn't any more obvious, objectively, than it was before. There would be no debate if there was! That's why I support a temp-ban to see if Crow!'s findings actually do mean we'd have a better metagame without the character.



Well, I was in before it.

Sarcasm displays itself poorly on the internet. :V

 

[Flayl]

It looks like MLG acknowledges MK is too good on the ledge.

I don't think I need to say anything else.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It looks like MLG acknowledges MK is too good on the ledge.

I don't think I need to say anything else.

Link? Where's this coming from?

 

[Flayl]

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9861779&postcount=41

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9861779&postcount=41

LGLs still seem scrubby to me (USE MY RULE DAMMIT)...

So a little question here. Quite a few people have claimed that banning MK would "ruin brawl". Would it still ruin brawl if we had to ban not MK, but rather, say, Yoshi or Jiggs because of some game-wide glitch that makes them basically completely **** (like, DDD vs DK ****) almost the entire cast?

 

[MarKO X]

it would depend on what kind of glitch it is.

if you're talking about something as easy as a grab or even an attack that's fairly easy to pull off and does tons more damage than it normally should due to performing the glitch, I'd see those characters getting banned.

if you're talking about something like IDC which requires a set amount of inputs that really can't be done on purpose, then they'd simply ban the glitch.

 

[Crow!]

Thank god the person who made the data actually knows that it isn't objectively conclusive! Maybe your parrots will stop thinking it is now.

Well, yes and no. The data is objectively conclusive at showing what is true, i.e. how much better than all other characters we can currently say MK is. What it doesn't do is say what we want in a game.

I mean, someone could conceivably be content with Mystery Science Theater: The Fighting Game, even if the character Zap Rowsdower instantly and automatically wins against anyone who chooses any other character. Competitive play would simply consist of 100% Rowsdower. If Rowsdower dittos, on their own, made for an awesome game, this might not be that bad.

Thing is, most people (myself included) seem to think that character diversity is a good thing, essential for maintaining long term interest in the game. Rowsdower had better be the most fun and strategically complex fighting character ever if MST:TFG is going to survive at all.

And even then, MST:TFG minus Rowsdower might still be the better game! I'd go so far to say that as long as the #2 spot isn't incredibly clear, it almost assuredly would be better. Any responsible analysis of the Rowsdower domination would clearly show that possiblity is worth looking into.


With what we know, we can predict what the MK-banned game would look like. I'd go so far as to say that it is a better game than MK-plagued Brawl in virtually every category which competitive communities consider important. But so far those conclusions are predictions; we would need to do an organized temporary-ban to make it go to official fact. To the best of my knowledge, pro-ban's been right with all its predictions so far, btw.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

it would depend on what kind of glitch it is.

if you're talking about something as easy as a grab or even an attack that's fairly easy to pull off and does tons more damage than it normally should due to performing the glitch, I'd see those characters getting banned.

if you're talking about something like IDC which requires a set amount of inputs that really can't be done on purpose, then they'd simply ban the glitch.

Doesn't matter what kind of glitch. Hell, could just be that they suddenly discover a metagame-changing something or other and that is incredibly busted. The main point is, they HAVE to be banned. Would it ruin brawl?

 

[Crow!]

it would depend on what kind of glitch it is.
...
if you're talking about something like IDC which requires a set amount of inputs that really can't be done on purpose, then they'd simply ban the glitch.

GRAHH! This topic is my current pet peeve.

We have absolutely no way of knowing that Meta Knight's dimensional cape advanced technique is a glitch. Is boost smashing a glitch? How about glide tossing? Dragonic Reverse? Is wave dashing a glitch?

And furthermore, whether or not any of these things are glitches is completely irrelevant. We know, for example, that Ganon's FAir is supposed to autocancel; its failure to do so is a glitch. But we don't go around trying to fix all the things we think are glitches, nor should we! We play each character and each stage as it is given. If a stage or a character is unacceptable as it is given, responsible competitive games remove the stage or the character, rather than artificially changing what people can and can't choose to do in-game by banning the intelligent, competitive use of a particular part of the stage or of the character.


By the way, did you know that the dimensional cape can actually remain invisible for less time after having intentionally used the advanced technique than by "naturally" landing on the ground with Meta Knight's down-B?

If your opponent started Meta Knight's down-B just inches above the ground and went sideways but stayed invisible for an abnormally long time, well... maybe he went horizontally and then down, or maybe he went down and then horizontally and moved up and down once along the way (say, with the C-stick, but control stick could be used too). The first of those options is legal. The next is either the "Infinite" dimensional cape "glitch" or the Extended Dimensional Cape (which absurdly gives a second title for the exact same action depending on how you choose to input it) and is illegal and, if your opponent did it, you supposedly deserve an automatic win. But MK was invisible the whole time, and he appears at the same ending location at the same time! Now, who can identify which use of the same effect is an acceptable "mistake" and which is an evil, intentional use of the mechanics Brawl provides to try to win?

 

[iRJi]

I think the MLG results are going to be extremely heavily MK-biased

Top 3 MKs on EC are going, top 4 on south are going, top 2 on midwest are, and top 3 on west coast are. The top 12 MKs will all be present at MLG Orlando. As far as I know, Anther's Pikachu will not be present, SK92 (2nd best falco) will not be present. Fow (best Ness who beat Tyrant/DSF in tourney) will not be present. I don't think (but don't know for sure) if Lain/Meep are going, but Swordgard isn't (best 3 ICs), and the best Fox TKD (who beat Havok and beat Tyrant in 4 sets yes 4 sets) will not be there, but the top 12 MKs will all be there as far as I know. It's impossible for him not to dominate MLG because of this.

You know whats funny? People are expecting the first MLg event to be seeded, which by no means it will be. For all you people know, M2k can get ADHD first round. Don't speculate results, this isn't a normal smash regional where seeds are put into place. You can simply get matched up with anyone as of right now for the event.

@Crow: I agree.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Man Crow!, you are amazing. IDC is totally un-enforceable.

@iRJi: Seeding is done by online qualifiers lol.

 

[adumbrodeus]

If your opponent started Meta Knight's down-B just inches above the ground and went sideways but stayed invisible for an abnormally long time, well... maybe he went horizontally and then down, or maybe he went down and then horizontally and moved up and down once along the way (say, with the C-stick, but control stick could be used too). The first of those options is legal. The next is either the "Infinite" dimensional cape "glitch" or the Extended Dimensional Cape (which absurdly gives a second title for the exact same action depending on how you choose to input it) and is illegal and, if your opponent did it, you supposedly deserve an automatic win. But MK was invisible the whole time, and he appears at the same ending location at the same time! Now, who can identify which use of the same effect is an acceptable "mistake" and which is an evil, intentional use of the mechanics Brawl provides to try to win?

There are no "acceptable mistakes", if you do anything that can be proven to be impossible without extending the IDC, then you violated the rules. You are responsible for your character, as always.



Personally, I think automatic set loss is the appropriate punishment so games are held up to a minimum (footage can be evaluated while later games are played).

 

[Judo777]

There are no "acceptable mistakes", if you do anything that can be proven to be impossible without extending the IDC, then you violated the rules. You are responsible for your character, as always.



Personally, I think automatic set loss is the appropriate punishment so games are held up to a minimum (footage can be evaluated while later games are played).

So then at tournaments after every match with an MK we are gonna have to review the matches and have some expert analyze the exact distance MK dimensional caped? As if brawl tournaments arent already notorious for taking forever. Chances are this wont happen. More importantly most people wont care enough to want to take the time to check the replay which would make enforcing it even more impossible.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So wait... seeding would be for example putting Ally in one bracket, ADHD in another, M2K in another... basically ensuring that the big top players don't face off too early... Why? For hype?

 

[adumbrodeus]

So then at tournaments after every match with an MK we are gonna have to review the matches and have some expert analyze the exact distance MK dimensional caped? As if brawl tournaments arent already notorious for taking forever. Chances are this wont happen. More importantly most people wont care enough to want to take the time to check the replay which would make enforcing it even more impossible.

If the opponent challenges it, then it will be reviewed, done properly, it can take a minimal amount of time (I'm sure somebody can just get the total frames from the un-extended cape to the ground, and then just count the frames).

In smash, it's always been a matter of whether or not the opponent challenges it, and when it comes right down to it, IDC got banned because of stalling (there are other ways that it could be broken, but this was the obvious one), so setting the standard as "noticeable". Deals with the issue without drawing any other messy distinctions.

So wait... seeding would be for example putting Ally in one bracket, ADHD in another, M2K in another... basically ensuring that the big top players don't face off too early... Why? For hype?

Seeding is so the best player takes first, the second best takes second, etc.


Yes, you are expected to lose first match if you're new, but to obtain relevant results you need to at the very least, be able to beat the 50% mark (relevant, as in, in the money) which means that since you've got losers, even if you're seeded the worst and go against the best player, you still have a chance.

If you win, you improve your seeding.

 

[Crow!]

@Adum:

The statement there is probably confusing to those who haven't heard our earlier conversation on the matter (which would be... just about everyone). (EDIT: before I was done typing this post, it would appear that people confused have already started responding!) Adumbrodeus is talking about MLG specifically here; the implied solution is to first determine the longest time a "natural" use of the cape could reasonably last, and then disqualify any use of the dimensional cape which, upon review of the recorded video, leaves MK invisible for longer than that time.

This to me seems a bit silly; it would permit you to use the dimensional cape advanced technique with like 1 or 2 C-Stick flicks without being punished. Only, you could wind up being punished if you accidentally flicked the stick too late. Too bad. Lrn2IDClegallynewb. It's also a bit impractical; it would in principle require that judges go through video replays in slow motion with a stop watch in hand each time a Meta Knight used his down-B.

But it is a way to make the rule enforceable, however strange the effect of the enforcement is.

So wait... seeding would be for example putting Ally in one bracket, ADHD in another, M2K in another... basically ensuring that the big top players don't face off too early... Why? For hype?

Yeah.. among other reasons. It's also the way things are traditionally done. Look at any March Madness bracket, for instance. Round one: #1 seed plays #16 seed in each region.

This system makes more sense when something else (say, pools matches in Brawl or regular season games in traditional sports) determine your seeding. This gives the top teams reasons to care about winning those games: they get easier games in the brackets in the big tourney if they win more in the regular season!

 

[Judo777]

If the opponent challenges it, then it will be reviewed, done properly, it can take a minimal amount of time (I'm sure somebody can just get the total frames from the un-extended cape to the ground, and then just count the frames).

In smash, it's always been a matter of whether or not the opponent challenges it, and when it comes right down to it, IDC got banned because of stalling (there are other ways that it could be broken, but this was the obvious one), so setting the standard as "noticeable". Deals with the issue without drawing any other messy distinctions.



Seeding is so the best player takes first, the second best takes second, etc.


Yes, you are expected to lose first match if you're new, but to obtain relevant results you need to at the very least, be able to beat the 50% mark (relevant, as in, in the money) which means that since you've got losers, even if you're seeded the worst and go against the best player, you still have a chance.

If you win, you improve your seeding.

Ok i see what ur saying however i still see a problem with that attempting to enforce that. If i was at a tourney and i lost to an MK who used dimensional quite a few times then it would be fair for me to say "i think he used IDC while we were playing." The reffs then have to replay the match and count check the time of each dimentional cape. Not only would this take a while but as the loser to the MK i could just ask each time i lost and pray that 1 time u bumped the c stick. Why not? i have nothing to lose?

 

[Tarmogoyf]

@Adum:

The statement there is probably confusing to those who haven't heard our earlier conversation on the matter (which would be... just about everyone). (EDIT: before I was done typing this post, it would appear that people confused have already started responding!) Adumbrodeus is talking about MLG specifically here; the implied solution is to first determine the longest time a "natural" use of the cape could reasonably last, and then disqualify any use of the dimensional cape which, upon review of the recorded video, leaves MK invisible for longer than that time.

This to me seems a bit silly; it would permit you to use the dimensional cape advanced technique with like 1 or 2 C-Stick flicks without being punished. Only, you could wind up being punished if you accidentally flicked the stick too late. Too bad. Lrn2IDClegallynewb. It's also a bit impractical; it would in principle require that judges go through video replays in slow motion with a stop watch in hand each time a Meta Knight used his down-B.

But it is a way to make the rule enforceable, however strange the effect of the enforcement is.

Butt how can it be recorded without forcing all MKs to play on hacked wiis? Unless the issue comes up before the 3 minute mark is reached so the set can be recorded. You have to be able to re-create the scenario somehow in order to prove anything. And if the MK didn't IDC, what should happen? You cannot realistically recreate the exact scenario that both players were in (I mean as in resetting the game state to the way it was before the IDC issue came up), so should the person claiming their opponent IDCed be punished, and if so, who?

I would really like to know this, as it makes no sense to me.

 

[Juushichi]

Kudos for appropriate NCAA Basketball tournament reference, Crow! (Hopefully there's an all-Ohio Sweet 16, too.) But yeah, naturally the best players in the tournament are not going to face each other early (nor do I believe they should). Part of it is hype, sure, since apparently you want your bests to play each other at the end of the day. Still, you're not one-and-done here and it gives more incentive to solidifying a higher seed. That's where "who you beat and where you beat them" comes in to play (Just like in March Madness). It also makes upsets all the more memorable.

Say for arguments sake that Ally (1-2 seed) got knocked off by some unknown player (15-16 seed) that person's notoriety jumps almost overnight on a national stage. It's a win-win, to be honest.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ok i see what ur saying however i still see a problem with that attempting to enforce that. If i was at a tourney and i lost to an MK who used dimensional quite a few times then it would be fair for me to say "i think he used IDC while we were playing." The reffs then have to replay the match and count check the time of each dimentional cape. Not only would this take a while but as the loser to the MK i could just ask each time i lost and pray that 1 time u bumped the c stick. Why not? i have nothing to lose?

Fair enough, this is mostly in reference to MLG, but it would be required to do before the start of the next match.

And yes, it is totally fair.

Butt how can it be recorded without forcing all MKs to play on hacked wiis? Unless the issue comes up before the 3 minute mark is reached so the set can be recorded. You have to be able to re-create the scenario somehow in order to prove anything. And if the MK didn't IDC, what should happen? You cannot realistically recreate the exact scenario that both players were in (I mean as in resetting the game state to the way it was before the IDC issue came up), so should the person claiming their opponent IDCed be punished, and if so, who?

I would really like to know this, as it makes no sense to me.

MLG records all it's matches.


For other tournament play, just call the TO over, the reason the rule works is that in order to use it for stalling you gotta use it for long enough that it's visually impossible to be anything else, so visual confirmation will be fine.

 

[etecoon]

The mistake you're making is using an ad hominem to try to defeat his point -- his personal skill at Brawl is irrelevant to the actual conversation, if you can't explain why the points he's supporting are wrong (Or inconclusive) then he's won.

it's not his skill level that is a problem it's the fact that he has NO experience with competitive brawl. I don't think only top placers should have an opinion on this but I think everyone should be familiar with the issue, if all you have is charts to go on and haven't actually been to tournaments, played good MK's, played other good characters...I don't see how you could have a reasonably complete opinion. that's not to say anything he says is automatically wrong, but he's missing a lot of the knowledge that the rest of us would have and perhaps with it he might not even feel the way he does. it's not trying to defeat his point when I say that, as I've said, whoever wins or loses this argument doesn't really impact whether or not MK gets banned IMO

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ah. So that's seeding. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

MLG records all it's matches.


For other tournament play, just call the TO over, the reason the rule works is that in order to use it for stalling you gotta use it for long enough that it's visually impossible to be anything else, so visual confirmation will be fine.

This makes sense, but it still didn't address my other issue: if the MK was accused of IDCing and did not IDC as proven by a judge, what happens?

 

[adumbrodeus]

This makes sense, but it still didn't address my other issue: if the MK was accused of IDCing and didn't as proven by a judge, what happens?

Nothing, why would anything? I see you're trying to prevent frivolous accusations, but that's honestly not a good idea. It doesn't take long to review if done properly regardless.

 

[dainbramage]

Nothing, why would anything? I see you're trying to prevent frivolous accusations, but that's honestly not a good idea. It doesn't take long to review if done properly regardless.

In sports like tennis, players can challenge (in grand slams, at least) a linesman's call (each point is recorded by multiple cameras - this is fed into software which determines the ball's location and where it bounces). If the player challenges and is wrong twice, then they can no longer challenge for that set.

Something similar could be used at MLG.

 

[vVv Rapture]

In sports like tennis, players can challenge (in grand slams, at least) a linesman's call (each point is recorded by multiple cameras - this is fed into software which determines the ball's location and where it bounces). If the player challenges and is wrong twice, then they can no longer challenge for that set.

Something similar could be used at MLG.

Yeah, but if someone challenges twice and loses the ability to challenge, then wouldn't his opponent be able to freely abuse IDC without any consequences? That sort of defeats the purpose because a lot of players, especially on such a stage, will want to make sure they aren't getting cheated and, thus, may challenge a good amount if given the option.

 

[MarKO X]

Yeah, but if someone challenges twice and loses the ability to challenge, then wouldn't his opponent be able to freely abuse IDC without any consequences? That sort of defeats the purpose because a lot of players, especially on such a stage, will want to make sure they aren't getting cheated and, thus, may challenge a good amount if given the option.

lolol
that would be... amazing. Lost all your challenges? Get *****.

 

[Kewkky]

If the opponent IDCs, you accuse them of IDCing, and the judge says he didn't, then you best suck it up. it's not like it's hard timing a downB on the ground. Pretty much, if you know the MK MU (or main MK), you know how long he's in his invisible state, it's like second nature... So saying they might not know how to differentiate between IDC/EDC/normalDC is putting them down from what they have learned.

And the tennis 'challenge' thing sounds like a bad idea. It works on tennis because there's a judge watching the game at all times, unlike Brawl where we have to go by witnesses and may be manipulated into believing the wrong side of the story.

 

[dainbramage]

Yeah, but if someone challenges twice and loses the ability to challenge, then wouldn't his opponent be able to freely abuse IDC without any consequences? That sort of defeats the purpose because a lot of players, especially on such a stage, will want to make sure they aren't getting cheated and, thus, may challenge a good amount if given the option.

Hence you challenge when it's obvious, and not when he accidentally bumped the c-stick once.


EDIT: This is simply to stop people from just frivolously calling his opponent on IDC. If every match containing MK had to be reviewed tourneys would take forever. Redhalberd posted before the ambiguity of 'short-distance' IDCs. Having limited challenges actually negates it pretty well.


Also, it's only relevant if people start frivolously challenging. People haven't yet so there's no need to put it in.

 

[Kewkky]

Hence you challenge when it's obvious, and not when he accidentally bumped the c-stick once.

People should still be encouraged to NOT flick the c-stick at all. Try and avoid any controversial topics during a match, we already have planking and scrooging as it is.

*is really very curious of what the BBR has discussed about it*

 

[Crow!]

That, braindamage, puts us right back in the same problem we had before we hypothetically established a hard time limit.


Anyway, there is a much easier way to enforce a ban on the Dimensional Cape's advanced techniques which doesn't have all the practicality vs effectiveness problems other methods have. Notice that the reason it's so hard is that, as far as what happens in the game is concerned, there isn't always any difference between an instance of the advanced technique and a normal use of Meta Knight's down-B. How do we ban the advanced technique if we can't truly identify whether it was used or not? Ban something which CAN be unequivocably identified which enables the AT to be used.


Ban Meta Knight's down-B.


Annoyed that this bans "legitimate" uses of the cape? Guess what? So does banning the extension of the dimensional cape in the first place! There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the dimensional cape to zip across the stage, wait two extra seconds until you feel your opponent is about to drop his shield, and then attack. Doing that is not stalling. That action is not unbeatable. It's just good.

But you're not allowed to do that. Why? Because you can use the "infinite" sense of the dimensional cape to stall, too? No... that explanation doesn't hold water. You can do other things to stall in Brawl too. In certain matchups, you can perpetually C-4 tech under the stage, for instance. But we don't ban C-4 teching, we ban stalling. And of course; C-4 teching can save your stock and let you win games normally... it's just good. Why would we forbid someone from using a good feature of his character to try to win normally?

...Why do we stop Meta Knight players from using a good feature to win normally? I see no answer to that question other than "to stop MK from being too good." But if that IS what we want to do, we can at least do it cleanly by just banning all uses.

Of course, as long as we're banning down-B because it makes MK too good, why stop there? We could ban neutral-B too. That would make MK have to work a lot harder in several matchups. Or up-B? Or both? We'd be just as justified doing that as we are banning the cape as we have.

 

[iRJi]

Man Crow!, you are amazing. IDC is totally un-enforceable.

@iRJi: Seeding is done by online qualifiers lol.

No read carefully. No seeds are done for the first event. They start from Columbus.

 

[UltiMario]

I think Crow is trying to make some sort of a point about something by trying to be Ironic but I don't see it.

 

[hotgarbage]

 

[theunabletable]

Notice that the reason it's so hard is that, as far as what happens in the game is concerned, there isn't always any difference between an instance of the advanced technique and a normal use of Meta Knight's down-B. How do we ban the advanced technique if we can't truly identify whether it was used or not?

Because it was only really banned for stalling. If you can't even tell if someone IDC'd or not, what the **** difference does it make? He didn't stall with it, so if you can't even tell if it was used or not, there was absolutely no harm done what-so-ever.