Official Metaknight Discussion

[Judo777]

Seeing as all cars have to be inspected to be legally allowed to be on the road, no, enforcing an engine type wouldn't be difficult. In addition, can you prove that there will be no metagame loss for banning MK?



Really? So if every single car in town decided to speed, there would be a cop to pull over each and every one of them? This is the compliment to the argument that we don't have the manpower to watch each match for planking, btw.

Dang, my analogy is actually better than I had planned it to be.

actually if they really wanted to they could but why bother when one car gets pulled over everyone near it slows down because police officers love to wait for people to speed up once they get past someone pulled over.

 

[fkacyan]

actually if they really wanted to they could but why bother when one car gets pulled over everyone near it slows down because police officers love to wait for people to speed up once they get past someone pulled over.

You totally are missing the point of the hypothetical.

 

[Judo777]

stopping someone for going 1mph over the limit is a waste of time for both parties..why would you argue this lol...

waste of time? im pretty sure some judge gets about 200 dollars everytime this happens id waste 10 minutes for that.

 

[Delvro]

Metaknight's still not banned yet? Does this mean someone actually has an answer to Crow's data AND has a non-ban solution to planking?

Wow, surprising.

 

[Chuee]

Metaknight's still not banned yet? Does this mean someone actually has an answer to Crow's data AND has a non-ban solution to planking?

Nobody cares because no matter how much data you can throw out he still won't get banned.

 

[fkacyan]

Metaknight's still not banned yet? Does this mean someone actually has an answer to Crow's data AND has a non-ban solution to planking?

Wow, surprising.

inb4somebodyelsethinkscrow!'sdataisconclusive

Oh, darn. Too late.

 

[UltiMario]

Metaknight's still not banned yet? Does this mean someone actually has an answer to Crow's data AND has a non-ban solution to planking?

Wow, surprising.

You forgot that MLG happened as well.

Nothings going to happen to MK until MLG stops happening.


(So thread should be closed until this whole MLG thing is over)

 

[vVv Rapture]

I'd give it about a year or two since so many people will be pissed over something that MLG does and makes them want to not have it in another season.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

waste of time? im pretty sure some judge gets about 200 dollars everytime this happens id waste 10 minutes for that.

first off yes it is a waste of time. I was taken to Traffic court over some stupid **** when a bus driver reported me for a very minor violation. I had 2 options; 1 pay 250$ and get 2 pts on my license or challenge it in court. I challenged it because i knew they wouldnt get away with pulling this crap on me.

Come court day, i had a attorney with me and by the time i was suppose to go on trial the person that supposedly reported me never showed up even when summoned to court. I had a case against them, they didnt have ****. So after all that i ended up paying a 66$ fine for wasting my time and the court.

I saved around 180$ dollars, 2 pts, and was able to get that driver fired from their job through their boss.


tl;dr: if you challenge someone over something ******** and dont have the BALLS to back it up, you'd better prepare yourself for hell

I dont know about you kiddo, but i fight for my rights. Get @ this.

 

[BSP]

You forgot that MLG happened as well.

Nothings going to happen to MK until MLG stops happening.


(So thread should be closed until this whole MLG thing is over)

Good Idea, because this thread is going nowhere otherwise.

Has there been any update on MK and MLG??

 

[vVv Rapture]

Yeah. MK isn't banned in MLG for Orlando.

 

[BSP]

I was leaning more towards plans on stopping scrooging, unbeatable planking, etc.

Whoever said nothing will really happen until MLG is probably right, but personally, I think a temp ban should be attempted.

 

[theunabletable]

A LGL doesn't discriminate between stopping MK from using the ledge for legit reasons, like recovery, and stopping MK from planking. It just makes him do less of both.

I cannot think of a time when I've seen an MK grab the ledge 20 times in 8 minutes SOLELY for recovery. Or anywhere near that.

 

[fkacyan]

first off yes it is a waste of time. I was taken to Traffic court over some stupid **** when a bus driver reported me for a very minor violation. I had 2 options; 1 pay 250$ and get 2 pts on my license or challenge it in court. I challenged it because i knew they wouldnt get away with pulling this crap on me.

Come court day, i had a attorney with me and by the time i was suppose to go on trial the person that supposedly reported me never showed up even when summoned to court. I had a case against them, they didnt have ****. So after all that i ended up paying a 66$ fine for wasting my time and the court.

I saved around 180$ dollars, 2 pts, and was able to get that driver fired from their job through their boss.


tl;dr: if you challenge someone over something ******** and dont have the BALLS to back it up, you'd better prepare yourself for hell

I dont know about you kiddo, but i fight for my rights. Get @ this.

I'll admit, the first thing I wanted to do when I read this was post a UMAD? picture.

 

[salaboB]

I cannot think of a time when I've seen an MK grab the ledge 20 times in 8 minutes SOLELY for recovery. Or anywhere near that.

How about anyone else?

Or are you really going to suggest an LGL just for MK?

 

[fkacyan]

How about anyone else?

Or are you really going to suggest an LGL just for MK?

What's wrong with an LGL just for MK?

 

[ShadowLink84]

What's wrong with an LGL just for MK?

Tell Akuma to stop using his aerial fireballs in SF2.

Its like admitting that Mk is a problematic character, but doing everything you can to keep him legal.

Why didn't we do this with Akuma in SF2?
After all, telling him not to use air fireball and red fireball, to allow the opponent to come out of their dizzy is surely enforceable.

Exaggeration yes, but you understand my point.

Since its pretty much saying "MK is too good but we want him legal so lets just restrict him further."

hence the akuma argument.
Just restrict Akuma.


Mind you I am neutral.

 

[theunabletable]

Since its pretty much saying "MK is too good but we want him legal so lets just restrict him further."

Uhm, no it isn't.

It's making sure our stalling rule, which MK breaks, is enforceable.

The same way we stopped Jiggs from Rising Pound stalling, and the way that the CG past 300% ban targets ICs more than anyone else.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Hey, who thinks we should all stop caring about MK and just get on with playing Brawl Let the TOs worry about MK.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Uhm, no it isn't.

It's making sure our stalling rule, which MK breaks, is enforceable.

Uh yeah it is.
Why?
Plankingin itself is not considered stalling, because of the fact that it can be defeated in a vaiety of ways.

Metaknight's planking is stalling.
You are placing a rule on ONLY Metaknight because his planking is TOO good.
his attributes are what let him plank so very well.
You placing this rule admits his planking is too good and would thus result in the defeat of anyone outside another MK.
You are admitting that this makes MK too good.

You are LIMITING Mk by placing this rule ONLY upon MK.

Why are you dancing about such a fact?

The same way we stopped Jiggs from Rising Pound stalling, and the way that the CG past 300% ban targets ICs more than anyone else.

Except planking in itself is not stalling and what MK is doing, is planking.
You do understand this yes?

The 300% rule is the number you get from the highest handicap.
The 300% rule is a GLOBAL change that affects all characters.
Ike's Fthrow against a wall.
DDD's Dthrow infinite against a wall/on DK.
Global, it goes for ALL characters capable of performing an infinite.

Jiggs was also not the only stall that was banned, but there was also Peach's, and Ganny's.
Their stalling is also much more easily monitored.

Why do I say this?
MK can glide.
MK has multijumps.
MK has his dimensional cape.

Why wouldn't MK just, go to the other ledge and lengthen them?
Or air camp?
In fact, in the old video of plank, he hit over 20 ledge grabs only because he grabbed the ledge unnecessarily.

Now you also fall down to the issue on a LG itself is rather..poor.
After all, why the number you picked?
Also, what if it was just really aggressive edge guarding against another MK and unfortunately, both players were really safe and thus the game timed out?

What is the different between a high LG due to planking, and a high LG just due to the game being rather defensively based?

The fact of the matter is, you are continuously limiting a character who also has methods of getting AROUND that limitation.

Perhaps that is what made jiggly and Peach's stall so much more clear cut.
It was clearly stalling.
Meanwhile, I might just be trying to get back on stage because of Snake's mortar, C4, Mine and nades.

 

[MarKO X]

stopping someone for going 1mph over the limit is a waste of time for both parties..why would you argue this lol...

hmmm..
should a player be DQ'd for going 1 LG over an LGL?
especially without an onscreen gauge?

edit: olo @ that random facepalm.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think I've misunderstood exactly what the gay stage rule is.

The gay stage rule (at least, my version of it) works like this:
In a match where one player is using MK and the other player is using a different character, the non-MK player gets to choose the stage on each set. The stage can be chosen from a list of all available stages; this includes banned stages. Just counterpick MK to MSI or GHZ and he not only can't plank or scrooge, but he can't kill you off the side if you stay near the center, and he can't gimp you.

Metaknight's still not banned yet? Does this mean someone actually has an answer to Crow's data AND has a non-ban solution to planking?

Wow, surprising.

Nobody cares because no matter how much data you can throw out he still won't get banned.

This is the argument, Delvro. "Nobody Cares" and "So what". This is why I pose the challenge to anti-ban: act as if MK being banned was the status quo and argue for his unbanning. Because basically all they have at this point is that MK being unbanned is the status quo.

 

[rvkevin]

I cannot think of a time when I've seen an MK grab the ledge 20 times in 8 minutes SOLELY for recovery. Or anywhere near that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p7LFscYIJU

26 ledge grabs, mostly for the sole purpose of edge guarding.

 

[1048576]

From what I gather, stalling takes time so you can call a TO or w/e, but IDC is broken and banworthy even if you only use it for 4 seconds to sit and wait for the opponent to drop his shield.

Planking is also hard to enforce subjectively without not letting MK grab the ledge at all, because the MK can claim "I was just waiting for a better position" like when all the other characters retreat to the ledge, when time runs out. A Peach (for example) can't make that claim when wallbombing in SSBM, and a Sheik shino stalling isn't effective, as previously pointed out. A LGL doesn't discriminate between stopping MK from using the ledge for legit reasons, like recovery, and stopping MK from planking. It just makes him do less of both.

Although, I'm in favor of watering MK down via arbitrary bans and limits, like the MK gay stage rule, until he is in line with the rest of the cast. It seems like a bad solution, but its better then letting him dominate the game or banning him altogether. I think it would be perfectly appropriate to ban fireballs in the air for Akuma, assuming that would make him balanced.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even so, putting a LGL of 20 just for MK means that he can recover 5 times and then plank for 1:15. Or he can recover 21 times and not plank at all and get owned for it.

As for the speeding analogy; speeding is only difficult to enforce because there are too many cars and they are too spread out. It's totally irrelevant for a comparison to a tournament venue. Either way, there are some fora in which it is appropriate to assign rules that cannot always be enforced. A competitive tournament is not one of these fora, since you are introducing randomness and perhaps a personal element into what should be a test of skill.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

I'll admit, the first thing I wanted to do when I read this was post a UMAD? picture.

son dont get mad

get even

 

[fkacyan]

Tell Akuma to stop using his aerial fireballs in SF2.

Its like admitting that Mk is a problematic character, but doing everything you can to keep him legal.

Why didn't we do this with Akuma in SF2?
After all, telling him not to use air fireball and red fireball, to allow the opponent to come out of their dizzy is surely enforceable.

Exaggeration yes, but you understand my point.

Since its pretty much saying "MK is too good but we want him legal so lets just restrict him further."

hence the akuma argument.
Just restrict Akuma.


Mind you I am neutral.

I wasn't one of the people who decided to ban Akuma. Maybe I would have said to restrict his moveset instead! Sadly, I can't make that argument, so the comparison in this case is useless.

Right now, we are talking about MK. What's wrong with acknowledging one aspect of the character is broken and the rest isn't, and just limiting the part that is?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

It's really hard to enforce speeding laws, so let's ban any engine that can go over 25 mph.

Ridiculous comparison is as ridiculous as the original argument.

We already do that. Engines can't go over X MPH (not exactly sure what the number is though).

 

[Humpy Thrashabout]

We already do that. Engines can't go over X MPH (not exactly sure what the number is though).

Governing an engine is only to keep the engine from over revving and damaging itself. Fords/Mercurys govern at 105-115 MPH. It's a lot different from using it to enforce speed laws.

Don't make the comparison. It doesn't work.

 

[1048576]

So are we all in agreement? LGL is just as bad as the MK gay stage rule, and having a TO decide when planking occurs is unenforcable (because MK can just say he was waiting for a better position, blah blah blah, so it's not like Peach wallbombong.)

 

[ElDominio]

Governing an engine is only to keep the engine from over revving and damaging itself. Fords/Mercurys govern at 105-115 MPH. It's a lot different from using it to enforce speed laws.

Don't make the comparison. It doesn't work.

JIC, no, it's not to protect the engine, it's more to protect the user from just going stupidly fast, for some reason.

Rev limiters are made to protect engines.

We already do that. Engines can't go over X MPH (not exactly sure what the number is though).

In any case, it's the car that can't go over X MPH, the engine goes at the speed the car is going (basic physics). If you were to push a car over X MPH through an external force (a pulley?), the engine won't respond until you reach X MPH.

 

[Masmasher@]

I wasn't one of the people who decided to ban Akuma. Maybe I would have said to restrict his moveset instead! Sadly, I can't make that argument, so the comparison in this case is useless.

Right now, we are talking about MK. What's wrong with acknowledging one aspect of the character is broken and the rest isn't, and just limiting the part that is?

Its because its not the character anymore.
restricting him just to play as him is silly . it would be the equivilant of you playing smash with your friend and him saying "you can only jump 3 times this match." handicapping him just to keep him in play is weak. plus banning is a absolute. ether ban him or dont.
the only arguement i can think of is that planking isnt intrinsically part of metaknights moveset unlike akumas air fireball. Also akuma had other stuff broken

 

[St. Viers]

@1048576: No, we aren't. LGL are a way of enforcing an already existing ban on stalling. The purpose of the number is to say that, at the end of a match, if you:

1. Timed the other player out
2. Exceeded the LGL

that you must have been *excessively* stalling. If you are spending 8 minutes of "waiting for a better position", by means of making the game unplayable for however many times you grabbed the ledge, especially when you are aware of the ledge grab limit for timing out a game, than you deserve the loss, as it was against rules you agreed to by signing up to the tourney.

Also, this removes the need for a subjective ruling by a TO, as it is based on 2 discrete and observable factors: the length of the match, and the number of ledgegrabs.

 

[fkacyan]

Its because its not the character anymore.
restricting him just to play as him is silly . it would be the equivilant of you playing smash with your friend and him saying "you can only jump 3 times this match." handicapping him just to keep him in play is weak. plus banning is a absolute. ether ban him or dont.
the only arguement i can think of is that planking isnt intrinsically part of metaknights moveset unlike akumas air fireball. Also akuma had other stuff broken

"just silly" = I don't have an explanation but it's not the norm so I will argue against it.

"keeping him limited in play is weak" = opinion

If the character functions just fine with an LGL (Which I can guarantee he will), I fail to see the issue.

By the way, there really isn't a good precedent for the planking situation. There isn't really another game with mechanics close enough to Smash's that has had this kind situation take place.

 

[Masmasher@]

"just silly" = I don't have an explanation but it's not the norm so I will argue against it.

"keeping him limited in play is weak" = opinion

If the character functions just fine with an LGL (Which I can guarantee he will), I fail to see the issue.

By the way, there really isn't a good precedent for the planking situation. There isn't really another game with mechanics close enough to Smash's that has had this kind situation take place.

Thats why i said that planking is different because its not intrinsically part of his moveset. certain requirements have to be met before you can do it
You said it yourself. some characters are just better then others. So taking out a move to balance him is limiting his competitive capablity. hes not metaknight anymore. to what standard, what ratio are we limiting him to.

 

[fkacyan]

Thats why i said that planking is different because its not intrinsically part of his moveset. certain requirements have to be met before you can do it
You said it yourself. some characters are just better then others. So taking out a move to balance him is limiting his competitive capablity. hes not metaknight anymore. to what standard, what ratio are we limiting him to.

MK has been winning without planking already. We have plenty of data to show he'll be perfectly fine without it.

Aside from that, what is so wrong with limiting a character? I think there's some predispositional bias to this that actually has no basis in logic.

 

[vVv Rapture]

MK has been winning without planking already. We have plenty of data to show he'll be perfectly fine without it.

Aside from that, what is so wrong with limiting a character? I think there's some predispositional bias to this that actually has no basis in logic.

Because then its not the character the developers created, but rather some modification we created to allow us to use him regardless.

I think it really comes down to not what the changes are, but if we are willing to accept limitations to play as him or that we should just go straight to a ban instead of limiting the character. The thing is, what is the better option? Because from what I've seen, I have not seen either side really show what the better option is.

One side brings up an arguement and the other either:

1)Ignore it
2)Denies it/calls it inconclusive
3)"So what?"

Are you guys just in love with your own sentences or do you really want to get to a result any time within this decade?

 

[Masmasher@]

MK has been winning without planking already. We have plenty of data to show he'll be perfectly fine without it.

Aside from that, what is so wrong with limiting a character? I think there's some predispositional bias to this that actually has no basis in logic.

well what would you define as winning? especially at the highest level of play.

the problem with limiting a character is that you are making arbitary rules to make him fit in. that character is a shell of itself why should a character have to be reconfigured to fit in with a invisible norm of balance that you have created. Rules in gaming are made to accomodate competition with the characters natural ablities intact.
Limiting a character is by extention limiting the person. Also in most cases people do have a disposition because in no game where a character has been limited has the character actually been "balanced" its not worked out very well.
so in the end the community has just decided to ban the character altogether

 

[MysteryTigerTeen]

Meta knight's options for everything make him bannable.

 

[salaboB]

Aside from that, what is so wrong with limiting a character? I think there's some predispositional bias to this that actually has no basis in logic.

Too much anti-ban "MK isn't as dominant as Akuma so you can't ban him" to easily let go of the comparison since it's turned against them with planking.

It's kinda amusing how things turned around now, for three threads (And a large part of this one) anti-ban has been linking MK to Akuma for unbannability and proban has been saying Brawl isn't like SF, and suddenly it's reversed who's supporting each side of that (Though I recognize people that want to ban MK have the entire remainder of their argument still supporting the ban, now the current anti-ban supporters are busy trying to undo the comparison arguments that were made so heavily in the past by people who didn't want MK banned).

 

[adumbrodeus]

Because then its not the character the developers created, but rather some modification we created to allow us to use him regardless.

I think it really comes down to not what the changes are, but if we are willing to accept limitations to play as him or that we should just go straight to a ban instead of limiting the character. The thing is, what is the better option? Because from what I've seen, I have not seen either side really show what the better option is.

One side brings up an arguement and the other either:

1)Ignore it
2)Denies it/calls it inconclusive
3)"So what?"

Are you guys just in love with your own sentences or do you really want to get to a result any time within this decade?

Welcome to subjectivity!


Without a clear rigid criteria, people are completely within their rights to say "not enough". MK hasn't been proven to fit my personal criteria, and as long as we're on subjectivity, that's my position.


And for your information, nobody with a statistics background is gonna call the data conclusive regardless, it's correlation, not causation.