Official Metaknight Discussion

[Budget Player Cadet_]

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.

Know what's funny? It's EXACTLY THE SAME STORY with planking. Exactly.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the ledge grab limit shifts the Falco-MK matchup a good 20 points in falco's favor, even with the planking that is technically stalling is banned subjectively. Why? Well, with a ledge grab limit, you limit the time MK can spend at the ledge, you limit the number of times he can grab the ledge. This is a big deal against falco! Where is the MOST advantaged position for MK in the falco matchup? I'm going to guess about one MK below the stage. It would still be if he didn't get invincibility, mostly because falco has no safe options to punish him. Sure, dair spikes, but the risk on that is ridiculous, and you can usually see it coming.

Check out Plank vs. SK92, you'll see what I mean. Pretty much every option of stopping MK in such a situation involves putting him between you and the stage. Incredibly disadvantaging yourself, in other words. But it's not stalling, is it? No, it's camping in the most advantaged situation, even if you drop down, jump around a lot without invulnerability, and then go back to the ledge. If MK can camp on the ledge, even if he's not technically stalling, then the falco matchup becomes that much easier. In fact, isn't it like this with a lot of characters? Aren't we artificially inflating falco? And artificially deflating Metaknight? The Falco-metaknight matchup is not CLOSE to even without LGLs. Even if the MK isn't stalling. And this is part of why LGLs do not work.

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.

No, I think he's serious.

 

[Masmasher@]

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.

lol at that point your basically taking away a move from the characters arsenal and you be better off banning the character. paralel that into planking for seeing how ridiculous this is turning out. though i would say that taking away planking is not exactly the same as taking away his dimensional cape. planking is not intrinsically part of his moveset

 

[Justblaze647]

lol at that point your basically taking away a move from the characters arsenal and you be better off banning the character.

Well, this is sorta like the difference between neutering your dog, and putting it down...

You definitely want to take time to consider the causality...

 

[Masmasher@]

Well, this is sorta like the difference between neutering your dog, and putting it down...

You definitely want to take time to consider the causality...

aha! thats why banning a character is so sketchy. your using absolutes. ether hes broken or not, ether hes overcentralizing or hes not...
its why im on the fence about this. metaknights situation is different then any other character thats been accused of being banworthy.
the fact is that planking is difficult to enforce without sounding ridiculous at this point though its not inherently part of metaknight moveset. its situational. It is easily abused though.
at the end of the day a character that has to be neutered is no longer displaying the image of competitveness in its clearest form.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Planking is as much a part of metaknight's moveset as the infinite chaingrab is a part of the Ice Climber's. It's not just that we have to ban one move. And banning a move is not like neutering a dog. It's closer to amputating a leg in this case. And in this case? Let's see... He can't grab the ledge more than X times, he can't use his downB... where does it end? He can't press B?

 

[Luigi player]

Planking is as much a part of metaknight's moveset as the infinite chaingrab is a part of the Ice Climber's. It's not just that we have to ban one move. And banning a move is not like neutering a dog. It's closer to amputating a leg in this case. And in this case? Let's see... He can't grab the ledge more than X times, he can't use his downB... where does it end? He can't press B?

He isn't invincible during his B attack.

His downB isn't just "too good".

If time runs out the MK could start doing it if less than 30 seconds are left or something.
Also, he could use it like... 5 seconds. Then reappear, then 5 seconds again, and again, and again... it wouldn't be too different from doing it non stop since he can choose where he reappears and could thus be unattackable.

Maybe it's just me, but everytime I'm under a stage (battlefield, sv, fd) with Snake I die when I try to C4 recover, because the stage is too low for it to work. You'd have to go to the side where you're attackable and use C4 (and you could die if you have too high %s). Of course you could tech, but you can punish that.

 

[cutter]

- Banning IDC
- Setting ledge grab limits
- Setting limits on scrooging
- Keeping MK from counterpicking to actual CP stages

Now we're throwing out the idea of just banning MK's down B altogether?

Am I the only one that thinks it's ****ing ******** to just keep beating around the bush and continuously limit MK in new ways?

 

[demonictoonlink]

They weren't serious about banning DownB.

 

[theunabletable]

@BPC: Ice Climbers are limited in their ability to chain grab due to stalling potential. Why can't MK be limited in his ability to plank due to stalling potential that makes the game unplayable (which is illegal)?

The only person I've ever seen propose we ban his downB is Crow!, which is completely different from banning the IDC.

The IDC for stalling is, according to the rules (discounting, even, then entire "IDC is banned" rule) ALREADY illegal, however there is no way to ever enforce this completely (you know, with a ****** TO who can't tell that using the IDC for 8 minutes is stalling lol...) without completely banning IDC.

A ledge grab limit is the EXACT SAME THING. ALONG with the limit to the ICs CG. ICs aren't able to CG past 300%, MK isn't able to use the IDC because of stalling (still able to DC, though), and MK should be given a ledge grab rule for the EXACT SAME REASONS.

Not to limit him, but to stop 100% unbeatable stalling. We've done it in the past (Jiggs in Melee (the official ruleset suggests a stalling rule, and Jiggs Rising Pound is always stalling in every single rule I've ever seen), CGs past 300%, MKs IDC), why can't we do the same for something that's already illegal?

 

[Luigi player]

- Banning IDC
- Setting ledge grab limits
- Setting limits on scrooging this is stalling
- Keeping MK from counterpicking to actual CP stages this is stupid

Now we're throwing out the idea of just banning MK's down B altogether? no

Am I the only one that thinks it's ****ing ******** to just keep beating around the bush and continuously limit MK in new ways?

He's limited to not be able to stall.

While we're at it let's ban Sonic too, because he can homing attack stall under a stage...

 

[theunabletable]

^Don't forget that Ice Climber ban because once they get a grab they'll CG you endlessly until the time runs out.

Nah we can't add a limit to what percentage you're allowed to CG, that'd be subjective, arbitrary, and if we're admitting that they're broken, why not just ban them completely, right?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Let's move back to the whole "LGL is limiting MK's legitimate strategies" point.

 

[theunabletable]

^I can't kill with up throw as Ice Climbers at 300%.

That rule is limiting my legitimate and beatable strategies. So ban Ice Climbers.

Banning the IDC completely stops me from doing things that aren't stalling. However banning the IDC completely was the only option in enforcing our rules. The sky didn't fall and it was ****ing fine then.

So are you admitting that I'm correct in that something needs to be done about MKs planking because it's illegal, but that a complete ban is unnecesary and ridiculous?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

^I can't kill with up throw as Ice Climbers at 300%.

That rule is limiting my legitimate and beatable strategies. So ban Ice Climbers.

Banning the IDC completely stops me from doing things that aren't stalling. However banning the IDC completely was the only option in enforcing our rules. The sky didn't fall and it was ****ing fine then.

So are you admitting that I'm correct in that something needs to be done about MKs planking because it's illegal, but that a complete ban is unnecesary and ridiculous?

Not gonna argue on IDC; the rule against it is utterly necessary. It's not really easy to enforce, but if someone is abusing IDC for the whole match, it's noticeable. I don't really have an issue with this; never have (but I'll let Crow say what he has). I've always said that IDC counts as a "glitch" that should not be held against MK.

My issue is that the LGL has the annoying side effect of removing a lot of the use of MK's non-broken (as in, not OBVIOUSLY broken) ledge game. As said, with LGLs, MK vs. Falco isn't horrible for falco. Without them, even if the MK isn't abusing either form of invincible planking but just jumping around under the stage, it gets HORRIBLE for falco. I can't imagine Falco is the only one.

 

[theunabletable]

My issue is that the LGL has the annoying side effect of removing a lot of the use of MK's non-broken (as in, not OBVIOUSLY broken) ledge game.

And removing MK over an ALREADY ILLEGAL broken strategy removes quite a lot of use of MKs non-broken and even bad strategies.

Yeah it's unfortunate that enforcing our rules removes some of MKs beatable options, but it'd be much, much more unfortunate to ban MK over something thats already illegal and limiting every single aspect of him because of one already illegal aspect.

MK vs Falco isn't that bad for Falco either when MK is banned. I hear it's 100-0 Falco.

Banning MK over an illegal strategy has a much, much more annoying side effect for MK players than an LGL, I PROMISE you that.

And, once again, ban Ice Climbers. Adding a limitation to the amount that ICs can CG has a very annoying side effect in that I have no way to set up an up throw kill.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

And removing MK over an ALREADY ILLEGAL broken strategy removes quite a lot of use of MKs non-broken and even bad strategies.

Yeah it's unfortunate that enforcing our rules removes some of MKs beatable options, but it'd be much, much more unfortunate to ban MK over something thats already illegal and limiting every single aspect of him because of one already illegal aspect.

MK vs Falco isn't that bad for Falco either when MK is banned. I hear it's 100-0 Falco.

Banning MK over an illegal strategy has a much, much more annoying side effect for MK players than an LGL, I PROMISE you that.

And, once again, ban Ice Climbers. Adding a limitation to the amount that ICs can CG has a very annoying side effect in that I have no way to set up an up throw kill.

What I'm saying is that the ledge grab limit is not a good solution. And by all means, let's raise the limit to where uthrow kills.

 

[theunabletable]

^I'm going to have to check up throw kill percentages now lmao

Well what's a better solution that doesn't have any annoying side effects?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

^I'm going to have to check up throw kill percentages now lmao

Well what's a better solution that doesn't have any annoying side effects?

Have a judge review each match with MK if the opponent asks for it. See, this is the issue-there IS no good solution. It comes down to this with the IDC too-the judge has to call it, otherwise you can't ban it.

 

[theunabletable]

^A judge could accidently call the beatable planking the unbeatable planking and then get DQ'd because of an incorrect subjective opinion.

Or the reverse could happen. You could potentially have a biased judge or a judge who's so intent on not DQing the person doing the beatable planking that he ends up not DQing the person doing unbeatable planking.

Plus the actual difficulties in getting a judge over to see the match, and how much time that could potentially take.

A ledge grab limit is by no means perfect (it limits a beatable strategy which is slightly annoying to some MK players), but it is easier to enforce, and has less room for injustice and error or is all-around better than the alternatives (a subjective rule, or a rule that has the exact same problems as an LGL but WAY worse).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Okay. Now why is a ledge grab limit better than my gay stage rule?

My issue with the LGL is that we have to limit a character's use of a game-wide mechanic. We could limit it for everyone, but then we're banning 30+ legitimate, non-broken strategies instead of 1. But if we apply it to just MK, we're admitting that the character is a big fat problem not due to a glitch, combo, etc, but because of his use of game-wide mechanics.

It's like a game has a combo: move 1, move 2, move 3, move 4, move 5. Every character can do this, but one can chain the move 5 reset into a new move one, effectively restarting the combo. This combo is easy to perform, an infinite, and seeing as this is a fighting game, once it starts, it's game over. It's hard to avoid as well. So what... do we limit the number of times characters can use move 1? I mean, everyone has the combo... it's just that one character breaks it wide open. So do we limit his usage of the move? Okay... so now we have a limit on a game-wide mechanic that applies to one character. Isn't this a sign that the character is BROKEN?

EDIT: We could just make it so that as soon as MK grabs the ledge, he loses the match.

 

[theunabletable]

Okay. Now why is a ledge grab limit better than my gay stage rule?

What tactic breaks the rules and can have that broken rule enforced via the gay stage rule?

Here's a hint, there aren't any rules that get fixed by adding the gay stage rule. That's where you're making a mistake, you're saying that I'm trying to limit MK, I'm saying that we should continue to enforce our stalling rule the same way we always have (by finding some way to ban tactics that break that stalling rule, instead of banning the character itself (like Melee Jiggs, ICs, etc)).

But if we apply it to just MK, we're admitting that the character is a big fat problem not due to a glitch, combo, etc, but because of his use of game-wide mechanics.

Except the tactic is already AGAINST THE RULES.

It is ILLEGAL.

You are proposing we ban a character because he has a tactic that is illegal (many characters have tactics that are illegal and have had those illegal tactics specifcally banned (Jiggs rising pound stall, IDC, CGing past 300%, etc)) instead of enforcing the rules we have already.

So do we limit his usage of the move?

Does his usage of the rule break any rules that have always been in the game?

Isn't this a sign that the character is BROKEN?

Isn't surgically limiting Jigglypuff or ICs a sign that those characters are broken?

No. It's a sign that they have a tactic that breaks the rules and is illegal, and has that tactic banned because it's illegal.

You are missing my point. For atleast the tenth god **** time, I am not proposing in the slightest a rule just made for the sole purpose of limiting MK, stop assuming I am. I am saying that our rules MUST be enforced JUST LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST. His planking is illegal. There is no simple way to enforce a no-MK-planking rule other than an LGL (until you can provide a better alternative, anyway).

You have not addressed this point ONCE, and it has been NOTHING BUT the main point I have been attempting to make. You've been attacking straw man points and making irrelevant comparisons and examples of different rules that are completely different from what I am proposing and are there to serve a different purpose.

By your same logic, Melee Jigglypuff and Brawl ICs should be banned because of their tactics that break the rules, and making rules specifically to stop them from breaking the rules would be admitting that they're broken and need to be banned anyways.

But, no, we don't ban them, we specifically make rules to enforce the rules that they already break.

What is the problem with making a rule to enforce the rules we already have? No, I'm not talking about surgically limiting characters because they're broken (as in banning down-B, or gay stage rule, lmao), I'm talking about making rules specifically to enforce the rules we already have (like the IDC, CGing past 300%, Jiggs rising stall ban).

It's not admitting that MK is broken and needs to be banned anymore than our current rules are admitting that Jiggs or ICs are broken and need to be banned.

They had their tactics banned because their tactics were illegal, not because the characters were broken.

MKs planking is illegal, and using the logic we have ALWAYS used (and what reason do we have to change the reasoning that we use in banning tactics now?) something must be done about it.

We could just make it so that as soon as MK grabs the ledge, he loses the match.

All matches have to be played on Norfair, right (that stage has the most ledges doesn't it?)?

Hardcore Brawl.

I like it.

(and if you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic right there...)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

What tactic breaks the rules and can have that broken rule enforced via the gay stage rule?

Here's a hint, there aren't any rules that get fixed by adding the gay stage rule. That's where you're making a mistake, you're saying that I'm trying to limit MK, I'm saying that we should continue to enforce our stalling rule the same way we always have (by finding some way to ban tactics that break that stalling rule, instead of banning the character itself (like Melee Jiggs, ICs, etc)). Except the tactic is already AGAINST THE RULES.

Wrong. With my gay stage rule, MK's opponent gets to chose if MK can scrooge or plank. Or stall. Tell you what-you try to scrooge/plank on MSI and tell me how that goes for ya. It solves both rule-breaking problems.

It is ILLEGAL.

You are proposing we ban a character because he has a tactic that is illegal (many characters have tactics that are illegal and have had those illegal tactics specifcally banned (Jiggs rising pound stall, IDC, CGing past 300%, etc)) instead of enforcing the rules we have already.

No... look again. I'm proposing we ban an overcentralizing, overdominating character, in part because he takes a basic game mechanic that everyone else can use and abuses it to the point of ridiculous.

Does his usage of the rule break any rules that have always been in the game? Isn't surgically limiting Jigglypuff or ICs a sign that those characters are broken?

No. It's a sign that they have a tactic that breaks the rules and is illegal, and has that tactic banned because it's illegal.

See, here is where you and I disagree. I place IDC in the same grouping as the Rising Pound ban, the limit on infinite CGs, etc.-it's character-specific based on that specific character's moveset and actions. Planking? Hardly.

You are missing my point. For atleast the tenth god **** time, I am not proposing in the slightest a rule just made for the sole purpose of limiting MK, stop assuming I am. I am saying that our rules MUST be enforced JUST LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST.

Hmm... I have been claiming this, haven't I... all right, this one I'll give you. However, if it's strictly just enforcing anti-stalling moves, the LGL is still not ideal. See several of my other posts.

His planking is illegal. There is no simple way to enforce a no-MK-planking rule other than an LGL (until you can provide a better alternative, anyway).

A certain strain of his planking is unbeatable-not the entire thing. The "better way" doesn't exist, this is my problem. There is no way to discreetly remove it from the game. I'll admit that for now, the LGL is necessary. I still hold getting rid of metaknight to be an improved option to a surgical rule which ultimately waters down the problem instead of getting rid of it.

You have not addressed this point ONCE, and it has been NOTHING BUT the main point I have been attempting to make. You've been attacking straw man points and making irrelevant comparisons and examples of different rules that are completely different from what I am proposing and are there to serve a different purpose.

By your same logic, Melee Jigglypuff and Brawl ICs should be banned because of their tactics that break the rules, and making rules specifically to stop them from breaking the rules would be admitting that they're broken and need to be banned anyways.

IDC vs. Planking.

 

[Crow!]

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.

Except that isn't why it was banned, and it isn't at all what WAS banned.

If it was banned for stalling, the rule wouldn't need to be in the rules at all, it'd already be banned. And it would be the easiest stalling method to enforce under the already existing stalling rule ever. When your opponent uses this to stall out the last minute of the match, he vanishes from the screen for a minute.

Instead, the cape's advanced techniques were banned. I 100% agree that there is no harm done what-so-ever in, for example, vanishing for 4 seconds in an attempt to find the proper opening to score your 14% damage down-B hit. It's clearly not stalling. But we've banned that.

I'm just pointing out the stupidity of the current situation by showing that it actually makes more sense to ban MK's down-B altogether than it does to try to split hairs about which uses were okay and not. Even something that stupid would be less stupid than what we have now.



Incidentally, unable table, you're hitting the same failure of logic in the LGL debate here.

There are legitimate reasons to rise while using Jigglypuff's side-B. Jigglypuff's rising pound advanced technique is not banned: using it to stall is.

There are legitimate reasons to use infinite chain grabs. Infinite chain grabbing is not banned: using it to stall is.

There are legitimate reasons to use the dimensional cape for longer than the shortest possible time. The dimensional cape's advanced technique is not banned, using it to... oh, wait. We did ban that one.

There are legitimate reasons to grab the ledge many times during a match. Grabbing the ledge repetitively is not banned, using it to... oh, wait. Not only have most TOs banned that one, we banned it for every character, despite it only in one case being a problem for only one character.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Thank you Crow, for jumping in and showing that I'm not the right person for this debate.

 

[fkacyan]

Thankfully, there is no LGL on MK at MLG from what I understand, but rather an LGL if the match goes to time. So we're only limiting MK's ledge tactics if he uses them to stall excessively. Genius! Also, don't ask me for a link, somebody else did earlier and I'm literally making this post in a five minute break between various elements of yardwork. I know it's somewhere in the MLG thread in announcements discussion.

How that's going to be handled in MK dittos, I have no idea.

@Crow! : We've only banned E/IDC because it's easier to ban it altogether than properly monitor it for abuse. That does not make the solution better - it just comes down to the fact that we don't have the manpower or time to review every use for legitimacy.

 

[Crow!]

Thankfully, there is no LGL on MK at MLG from what I understand, but rather an LGL if the match goes to time. So we're only limiting MK's ledge tactics if he uses them to stall excessively. Genius!

Except that's not exactly how it works out. Instead, it means that if you can play in a way that makes your MK opponent grab the ledge often, it invokes the rule "if the match goes to time, MK loses." So the optimal way to beat MK becomes a two step process: 1. do things which cause MK's smartest decision to be to grab the ledge until he's reached the limit. 2. stall sufficiently well that you don't lose all three of your stocks.

That's not Smash, that's a weird event match style mini game that only exists because of the rule. But if you get good at that mini game, you can win thousands of dollars!

How that's going to be handled in MK dittos, I have no idea.

The only obvious tiebreaker I see is who grabbed the ledge more often. I guess the match would turn into a "who can grab the ledge the least often while planking while they are in the lead" contest. Or you could ignore the rule in dittos, so that MK dittos are plank-fests.

@Crow! : We've only banned E/IDC because it's easier to ban it altogether than properly monitor it for abuse. That does not make the solution better - it just comes down to the fact that we don't have the manpower or time to review every use for legitimacy.

Except that's not the way it works out at all: we're banning a particular use of the cape. With the current ruling, we, in principle, have to evaluate every use of Meta Knight's down-B for legitimacy! Were we to leave the move alone, we would only have to go back and make that call if the game went to time, and in that case, the result would be extremely obvious. We're requiring more manpower, not less.

If we actually care about how hard it is to monitor more than the legitimacy of the game, then we ban down-B altogether. If we value legitimacy more, we leave the AT alone (...or simply ban MK if the AT makes him too good).


We get away with our sloppy, undefined, unenforceable rule right now because people have been more or less brainwashed to hate the "infinite" dimensional cape "glitch" enough not to test the rule at all. How many people here have actually tried using this advanced technique aside from just seeing how long you can stay invisible? I recently tried it out and I must say, trying to make legit use of the move is actually very interesting.

Educate yourself. Try it.
And for Heaven's sake, stop calling it infinite if it's not done infinitely, and stop calling it a glitch because, frankly, it's less likely to BE a glitch than most of the other ATs in Brawl.


MLG is the major leagues; professional sports need well defined, enforceable rules. I've still not seen how they intend to handle the ban. Maybe they'll surprise me with a brilliant idea I've not seen before, I don't know.

 

[fkacyan]

Except that's not the way it works out at all: we're banning a particular use of the cape. With the current ruling, we, in principle, have to evaluate every use of Meta Knight's down-B for legitimacy! Were we to leave the move alone, we would only have to go back and make that call if the game went to time, and in that case, the result would be extremely obvious. We're requiring more manpower, not less.

This is actually an excellent point; I hadn't really thought of it that way before.

As for the rest of your post, I've never wanted the E/IDC banned. Like scrooging and many other things people ceaselessly whine about, we have a rule about excessively stalling. If you're using IDC to stall, it's fairly obvious, as you said before, because you're invisible and literally unhittable.

 

[Laem]

mk has so many issues, it makes me wonder what exactly is holding us back to ban him.. conservatism?

 

[OverLade]

mk has so many issues, it makes me wonder what exactly is holding us back to ban him.. conservatism?

Speaking of Conservatism...how about that healthcare bill?

 

[Dark 3nergy]

mk has so many issues, it makes me wonder what exactly is holding us back to ban him.. conservatism?

easy the guys run the show use him
'

lol health care bill **** that noise

 

[theunabletable]

If it was banned for stalling, the rule wouldn't need to be in the rules at all, it'd already be banned.

I don't have time to respond to much, but I'm just going to respond to this really quickly.

That stalling rule does jack **** for preventing stalling unless EXACTLY what stalling is is outlined.

Hell DMGs planking clearly fits the criteria for stalling, and that stalling rule isn't doing a god **** thing to stop it.

No, the stalling rule makes it illegal to stall with it, but it does not really have any clear way to enforce it or when something becomes stalling.

Simpler just to ban the whole AT.

 

[OverLade]

Or we could just let the game suck and watch it die off slowly

 

[Crow!]

Which is simpler, table?

Identifying that MK disappeared for the last 45 seconds of the match.
Identifying that MK disappeared for 0.30 seconds rather than 0.25 seconds (or whatever the legal cutoff chosen is).

Banning the poorly defined AT itself is, in MK's down-B's case, actually harder to enfoce than the stalling rule.

 

[AceAttacker]

I think the IDC should just remain banned altogether, no matter what it's use is, but banning MK is going too far.

 

[AvaricePanda]

People are still talking about this?
lol

Honestly though, can someone list out what new has been brought up since the last 4 discussion threads? I'm too lazy to shift through 200 pages of 40 post per page redundancy just to see a couple new and valid points.

 

[Crow!]

Some new stuff from since those times:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9422054#post9422054
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9450685#post9450685
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9585089#post9585089
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9585809&postcount=5530
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9626469#post9626469
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9709061#post9709061
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=267257
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9706252&postcount=7549

And for entertainment value, here's a presentation I made for some of the statistics stuff that happened with Omni:
http://www.msu.edu/~worhatch/brawlpics/BrawlStatistics.ppt

Overall course of the thread:
Significant anti-ban arguments are destroyed one by one each time someone comes out with data related to that argument (Flayl's case is particularly enlightening, since Flayl's research disproved his own anti-ban hypothesis). The end result is that support of a temporary (~6 month) MK ban was becoming overwhelming at about the time MLG entered the picture. MLG, however, has made the situation more complicated.

I've not kept up with this thread as thoroughly since I was admitted to the BBR, though, so I'm unsure if there has been any especially significant developments out here since then.

 

[Uzima (Uzi)]

thank you for the links, i've now got pretty much everything i'll ever need to prove to my friends metaknight is broken. lol

 

[vVv Rapture]

I just find it odd how some people have no problem with MK, yet he is the only character people have been arguing about over whether it should be banned or not for over 650+ pages in one topic.

Just a tad odd.

 

[OverLade]

Wow Crow *****...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

For clarification, small TL;DRs on each of these posts.

Some new stuff from since those times:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9422054#post9422054

Shows that MK is significantly above the rest of the cast in results and that without MK, the results are more or less balanced among the top chars.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9450685#post9450685

Shows that top MKs are better than top other players; causality unsure, but still an unlikely coincidence.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9585089#post9585089

Shows that MK is considerably better than the respective other top characters at EVERY level of tournament play.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9585809&postcount=5530

Basically goes through and debunks every anti-ban argument ever with the data gathered. Anti-ban can cry "subjective", but at this point it's horse ****.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9626469#post9626469

Shows that, statistically, the "null hypothesis" that MK mains are just better than Snake/Diddy/etc mains at every level, has a probability of less than half of a procent and therefore easily rejected. Also shows that MK should technically be doing far better than he is; his results are deflated due to stigmata.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9709061#post9709061

Shows that MK's rankings spike during national time... Actually, I don't understand this one too well, help? :V

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=267257

Shows that MK, by abusing tools available to everyone, wins as soon as he gets the lead and gets to a ledge. Also shows that G&W's planking is very much beatable, so planking isn't the issue here-it's MK.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9706252&postcount=7549

The leading anti-ban debater gives up. Apparently, his *** is sore from having too many violent ***** in it.

Overall course of the thread:
Significant anti-ban arguments are destroyed one by one each time someone comes out with data related to that argument (Flayl's case is particularly enlightening, since Flayl's research disproved his own anti-ban hypothesis). The end result is that support of a temporary (~6 month) MK ban was becoming overwhelming at about the time MLG entered the picture. MLG, however, has made the situation more complicated.

I've not kept up with this thread as thoroughly since I was admitted to the BBR, though, so I'm unsure if there has been any especially significant developments out here since then.

Thank you, BTW. This post is getting bookmarked.



Anti-ban, what is your platform? Why should Metaknight NOT be banned? Imagine that the status quo is "Metaknight is banned"; you don't have this absolutely ludicrous advantage in the debate by being the status quo. How would you argue to get him unbanned? What arguments would you use to show that MK is a fair, normal character?

At this point, status quo barely matters. We've shown that he is ridiculously overdominant. We've shown that his domination is on the rise. We've shown that either MK mains are around 2-3x better than Snake/Diddy/Marth/Falco mains on EVERY LEVEL or MK is just that much better. We've shown without a doubt that you can't say "lololo ally can beat M2K no ban needed" or "he hasn't won a national recently no ban" because Ally and ADHD are hardly trends. We've shown that even the most influential anti-ban debater, Omni, got sick of getting his *** handed to him by Overswarm and co. We've shown that MK is able to break the game in half with tools given to the entire cast. So how about this-YOU GUYS make a ban criteria. When would you ban MK?

At this point, the anti-ban argument comes down to "LALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING BECAUSE I MAIN METAKNIGHT", "Lolstatistics; the causation and results are subjective I main Metaknight" and "I main metaknight don't ban plox." Prove me wrong!

EDIT: Just watched the slide show. I recommend it to everyone; it's pretty good. Well done, Crow!

UPDATING THIS POST BECAUSE SOMEONE SHOULD KEEP TRACK OF ALL OF CROW'S AWESOME POSTS

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10156409&postcount=10904
Crow shows that if we remove the three "outliers", then the gap in winnings between MK, Diddy, and Snake widens brutally. It remains wide even if you keep Ally/ADHD, and just throw M2K out.