Official Metaknight Discussion

[Delvro]

I like how the 3 anti-ban guys immediately jumped down my throat for random lol comment.

=P

 

[MarKO X]

I'm still confused as to how you enforce rules with rules.

If a TO cannot make a discrete, objective (in terms of the initial rule itself, not how subjective the given rule may be), enforceable call on MK's planking, then maybe there is a problem.

I have a question that I know is theoretical and probably would actually be a problem because of the whole "social factors" that come with playing MK, but lets just say that more than a few MK players came along was consistently able to get between 40-45 LGs to time people out with the help of scrooging, air camping, etc. Will the rule be adjusted?

 

[AvaricePanda]

Didn't we go over this LGL stuff in the last ban MK thread?

Like, 100 pages of it?

Also, thanks Crow for replying to me with that information. Still, my opinion pretty much falls with everything adumbrodeus has said, and this post:

uh.... No, his being banned is not the status quo.

Why is the best character being the best a problem? As many people, including the smart people in pro-ban, have realized, it's not conclusive. Prior to MLG, the consensus was a temporary ban to test the assertion that the metagame would be 'better' (Again, this is subjective, though we can define criteria beforehand that everybody can agree on so we don't have another thread like this one).

Crow uses 5% as his null-reject number, one that is extremely generous. In a case like this you usually use .5% as your cutoff for rejection. That said, I'm just being picky; either way it's still rejected, but not by a factor as large as stated.

Anti-ban does not deny any statistical evidence you have shown us. We have questioned it to ascertain the accuracy, and then, we pose this question:

So what?

You can't prove that banning MK would make for a 'better' game any more than I can claim banning him will make it 'worse.' Hence, temp ban.

And, once again, I still don't understand why this thread is still open.

To be completely honest, I don't care what happens with MK. It's not going to really affect me much. However, from the tournaments I've been to, nobody's johned about MK like at all. Granted I haven't been to many tournaments, but it doesn't seem like people are complaining about the character in person — at least not the ones placing well.

I just think it's hilarious that on SWF, it's okay to make thousands of pages of cyclic, repeating, redundant, (insert synonym here) arguments, yet in person it doesn't seem to be a problem.

 

[Kitamerby]

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

The developers wanted us to play 2 minute 4 player FFAs with items on medium.

Difference?

 

[iLink]

I'm just wondering... is anyone actually against a temp ban?

And if not, why haven't we done so yet?

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm just wondering... is anyone actually against a temp ban?

And if not, why haven't we done so yet?

You have no idea...


A lot of people for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that we have no expected value that the temp ban is supposed to prove mk is ban worthy if it obtains.

 

[fkacyan]

I'm still confused as to how you enforce rules with rules.

If a TO cannot make a discrete, objective (in terms of the initial rule itself, not how subjective the given rule may be), enforceable call on MK's planking, then maybe there is a problem.

I have a question that I know is theoretical and probably would actually be a problem because of the whole "social factors" that come with playing MK, but lets just say that more than a few MK players came along was consistently able to get between 40-45 LGs to time people out with the help of scrooging, air camping, etc. Will the rule be adjusted?

Rarely is anything in life actually discrete and measurable. We have judges and juries, referees, etc to make calls based on rulesets. The 'everything must be objectively measurable!' thing is silly, and if pro-ban insists on this particular heuristic, they have no ground to stand on because nothing they have is objectively conclusive.

EDIT: @Rapture: Sakurai put tripping in Brawl. I couldn't care less what his 'intention' is as far as a character is concerned.

 

[Judo777]

The developers wanted us to play 2 minute 4 player FFAs with items on medium.

Difference?

Bad arguement if its what the developers intended they wouldnt have put the off switch on items in the first place nor the other game types.

 

[Chuee]

Bad arguement if its what the developers intended they wouldnt have put the off switch on items in the first place nor the other game types.

Doesn't change the fact that they never intended for the game to be competitive.

 

[UltiMario]

It also doesn't change the fact that some characters have literal flaws in their coding as well making the game even more unbalanced and less competitive.

See: Ganon's fair for the bad side of things, MK's IDC for the broken side.

 

[Judo777]

Doesn't change the fact that they never intended for the game to be competitive.

yea thats cool but the game designers arent in charge of the game we the community are.

 

[Masmasher@]

Ill end this
Develops intent doesnt matter when it comes to competitiviveness

 

[Tien2500]

Bad arguement if its what the developers intended they wouldnt have put the off switch on items in the first place nor the other game types.

The developers gave us the ability to turn off items and time. They also gave us the ability to turn off MK. By not picking him.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Last 6 posts = how to go off on an irrelevant tangent.

 

[Masmasher@]

you act like this topic has alot of relevance

 

[Demp]

Yeah, let's play this game competitively the way the developers intended. That's right, we now have to use the Tourney option under the Group tab! I mean, that's what they also intended, right? Let's also allow stalling again, because if they intended to not have stalling in the game they would have done something. This game was also intended to be a party game. So winners of tournaments should be dictated by who has had the most fun!

Doesn't change the fact that they never intended for the game to be competitive.

Many games that are very competitive weren't designed to be competitive, so communities had to take it in their own hands to make it more suitable for them. Like CoD4; they had to create a mod to make it more suitable for competition for the PC.

Besides, not many games are really made to put the competitive community ahead of the casual community. So why not put things into our own hands?

 

[St. Viers]

@Marko: we have an anti-stalling rule, correct? Under that rule, Metaknight planking is stalling. Now, to enforce that rule, we need to find a discrete and unbiased (read, no judgement calls) means of enforcing the rule, which involves drafting up a criteria. Much like the stalling rule has criteria for discretely and w/o bias determining when using an infinite grab is considered excessive stalling, a criteria for determining when MK using the edge is considered excessive stalling. I ask you, why you have a problem of coming up w/ a criteria for preventing MK from planking, when you don't have a problem with the chain-grab percent limit.

I don't want to hear "you can't compare the two" because I am not making a tenuous of fallacious comparison, as the speed limit thing was. I am saying that there is nothing wrong with coming up with additional criteriae to enforce an existing rule.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Doesn't change the fact that they never intended for the game to be competitive.

CMON CHUEE!

Antiban can't do anything right...

 

[adumbrodeus]

Doesn't change the fact that they never intended for the game to be competitive.

Nobody cares.

you act like this topic has alot of relevance

Actually, it does relatively, this particular topic has a relatively large chance of affecting actual outcomes due to the fact that it's watched heavily and it's an important issue for the community.

 

[Masmasher@]

Nobody cares.



Actually, it does relatively, this particular topic has a relatively large chance of affecting actual outcomes due to the fact that it's watched heavily and it's an important issue for the community.

I meant to say the thread.

 

[Chuee]

CMON CHUEE!

Antiban can't do anything right...

Maybe you should stop calling everything anti-ban says stupid.
Just a thought.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm just wondering... is anyone actually against a temp ban?

And if not, why haven't we done so yet?

Anyone who isn't completely and utterly biased (read: M2K, Omni, other top MKs) or completely ignoring every pro-ban argument (lol ADHD) supports it, AFAIK. The problem is that MLG joined the crowd, and starting a metagame test right as a powerful sponsor (probably THE most powerful one in video gaming) shows up and starts supporting you. The timing couldn't have been worse.

@Marko: we have an anti-stalling rule, correct? Under that rule, Metaknight planking is stalling. Now, to enforce that rule, we need to find a discrete and unbiased (read, no judgement calls) means of enforcing the rule, which involves drafting up a criteria. Much like the stalling rule has criteria for discretely and w/o bias determining when using an infinite grab is considered excessive stalling, a criteria for determining when MK using the edge is considered excessive stalling. I ask you, why you have a problem of coming up w/ a criteria for preventing MK from planking, when you don't have a problem with the chain-grab percent limit.

I don't want to hear "you can't compare the two" because I am not making a tenuous of fallacious comparison, as the speed limit thing was. I am saying that there is nothing wrong with coming up with additional criteriae to enforce an existing rule.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned.html

Check that out, you'll see one very interesting problem with the LGL as far as that goes. It's enforceable, it's warranted, but it sure as HELL isn't discreet. Not only does planking for the last X minutes become the best strategy; you are, at the same time, banning another non-broken but very useful strategy for metaknight; AKA nuking his ledge game. And G&W/Pit/etc.'s.

Also, http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/cheating.html has an interesting insight about banning a character for the metagame's sake. :V

 

[Chuee]

Anyone who isn't completely and utterly biased (read: M2K, Omni, other top MKs) or completely ignoring every pro-ban argument (lol ADHD) supports it, AFAIK. The problem is that MLG joined the crowd, and starting a metagame test right as a powerful sponsor (probably THE most powerful one in video gaming) shows up and starts supporting you. The timing couldn't have been worse.

Oh, so they're biased and you're not?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Oh, so they're biased and you're not?

Oh, I'm biased. Never denied it. But I can get away with it due to my bias being extremely-well-backed-up. Someone could come in here with similar/the same opinions as me and not be biased.

 

[etecoon]

I can get away with it due to my bias being extremely-well-backed-up..

hahah wow...

 

[theunabletable]

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

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The planking shown in DMGs thread is stalling.

You are placing a rule on ONLY Metaknight because his planking is TOO good.

No, because it is ILLEGAL without any way to really enforce it other than an LGL (there are a few alternatives, but none of them seem any good.)

We specifically limit Jiggs in Melee. Ban Jiggs (I know that the current MBR ruleset does not have a set in stone stalling rule, but it suggests one, and every single stalling rule I've ever seen mentions Jiggs rising pound. So it's generally agreed to be too good and banned).

You placing this rule admits his planking is too good and would thus result in the defeat of anyone outside another MK.

No, it admits that what his form of planking (the kind DMG presented) is ILLEGAL, and that the rule is put in place to prevent him from doing illegal things.

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

Ban Melee Jigglypuff. She has the potential to do illegal things, so instead of just enforcing the rules lets just ban the whole character.

Why are you dancing about such a fact?

Well it is limiting MK, but not any more so than what we've done in the past (with the IDC and Melee Jiggs) to enforce the stalling rule.

Except planking in itself is not stalling and what MK is doing, is planking.

Depends on what form of planking. Some if it wouldn't be considered stalling, but the kind DMG presented, I'd say, should be considered stalling.

The 300% rule is the number you get from the highest handicap.

And that makes it a good number... WHY? Why not 999%, it's the highest percent you can go to.

Just as much reasoning in making it 999% as it is making it 300%. Why the highest handicap? Why not the highest total amount?

The 300% rule is a GLOBAL change that affects all characters.

Fair enough.

Jiggs was also not the only stall that was banned, but there was also Peach's, and Ganny's.

Peach's is only an infinite stall on Fourside... apparently.

And I don't know much about Ganon's, can you link to a thread or something?

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.

This is all completely irrelevant, as those forms of "stalling" are not unbeatable and don't fit the SBRs criteria for stalling.

I'm not attempting to limit anything other than the ILLEGAL stalling. Plank did not do the form of stalling that DMG presented with under 20 ledge grabs.

If you actually read my posts and stopped assuming I'm attempting to limit his other forms of planking that do not fit the SBRs criteria for stalling, you'd know this.

After all, why the number you picked?

Why do we play with 3 stocks? Why not 2? Why don't we play with 10 minutes on the clock? Why do we play stock instead of just time? Why 300% damage cap on CGs instead of 999% (honestly I don't give a **** if 300% is the highest you can get on handicap, it being the highest number you can get via handicap seems rather irrelevant to me in the case of stalling)?

Because it'd be a number that would be INCREDIBLY unlikely to hit in a match without planking.

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?

1) How in hell is an AGGRESSIVE META KNIGHT taking 8 minutes to kill/be killed? Both players would have to be ******** to time out if the MK is playing aggressively. 2) Ban Ice Climbers, they have 100-0 matchups with everyone via perfect shield SDI. 3) Can you show me a match that goes to timer, without any planking, and the MK goes over 20 ledge grabs?

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

How about you read my posts? You should understand if you actually do.

W/e might as well respond to this since I doubt you'll actually go back and read my other posts (like maybe the one you quoted).

It's for different reasons. One is there to prevent something illegal, one is there for... I have no idea because I've never presented an LGL for such a reason.

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

JESUS ****ING CHRIST

Are you ACTUALLY going to read my posts? Or are you going to keep spouting nonsense assuming I'm attempting to limit him for the sake of limiting him?

He can get around that limitation with COMPLETELY LEGAL strategies. The LGL would be to prevent ILLEGAL things from happening.

His ability to air-camp, use beatable planking, and glide under the stage are 100% IRRELEVANT.

And if ANY OF YOU (because I've had atleast 4 people act the exact same way, and could practically just quote myself in posts I made previously to other people and they would fit perfectly) would actually READ THE POSTS YOU QUOTE and stop assuming things that I HAVE NOT SAID (and I've clarified this atleast twice now in this thread, I could quote them for you if you'd like), then maybe you'd understand this.

Once again, the LGLs purpose has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with MKs ability to air camp, use his beatable planking, or his ability to glide under the stage.

Its ONLY purpose is to enforce our current ruleset.

This is getting ridiculously redundant.

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.

Yeah they are clear cut, MKs isn't as clear cut as he has both a version that is beatable, and a version that is unbeatable and is stalling.

If Snake is able to keep you on the ledge for 20 ledge grabs, I'm sorry, but you suck even worse than I do (and that's saying something).

If a TO cannot make a discrete, objective (in terms of the initial rule itself, not how subjective the given rule may be), enforceable call on MK's planking, then maybe there is a problem.

The only problem is that there is both a beatable planking that doesn't count as stalling, and an unbeatable planking that would count as stalling. It'd be way too difficult and time consuming to try and dictate at that exact time whether or not he's doing the version that counts as stalling, and the one that doesn't count as stalling.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Maybe you should stop calling everything anti-ban says stupid.
Just a thought.

Adum is a good man so excluding him.

Common sense would tell that you're wrong half the time, ESPECIALLY w/ saying how Nintendo designs their games.

@unable: You most certainly could have gotten your point across w/o taking up half the page...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

hahah wow...

Dunno what you think is wrong with this.

Person A is biased, believes with his full heart that democracy is the only functional system.
Person B is biased, believes with his full heart that USSR-style Communism is the only functional system.

Which one of these will get away with it? Person B will quickly be reminded that in every case where it's been tried, USSR-style communism has failed horribly. Person A will point to the modern free world and be able to say reliably that he is not biased, even though he is.


EDIT: Yeah, yeah, I'm anti-ban, but really? Table is making a ****load of sense at this point. Just deal with the discreet part and we're good IMO.

 

[MarKO X]

@Marko: we have an anti-stalling rule, correct? Under that rule, Metaknight planking is stalling. Now, to enforce that rule, we need to find a discrete and unbiased (read, no judgement calls) means of enforcing the rule, which involves drafting up a criteria. Much like the stalling rule has criteria for discretely and w/o bias determining when using an infinite grab is considered excessive stalling, a criteria for determining when MK using the edge is considered excessive stalling. I ask you, why you have a problem of coming up w/ a criteria for preventing MK from planking, when you don't have a problem with the chain-grab percent limit.

I don't want to hear "you can't compare the two" because I am not making a tenuous of fallacious comparison, as the speed limit thing was. I am saying that there is nothing wrong with coming up with additional criteriae to enforce an existing rule.

Here's the thing about the infinite CG rule:
1) with the infinite CGs, you have an onscreen counter of the damage. You don't have to count the damage, and you don't have to wonder in your head, "oh, maybe I'm doing it too much."
2) with the infinite CGs, if the damage goes over 300%, I don't get DQ'd, even tho I can actually see what the damage is. ending my CG @ 310% won't get me DQ'd.
3) if I do an infinite CG and get the opponent to 300% and kill them, I can do it again, with a onscreen counter, and still not get penalized. So it doesn't take away from the fact that I can do a legit infinite CG.

With LGLs:
1) There is no onscreen counter on your LGs.
2) If I go over 50 (or whatever the number is) at the end of the match, I lose, and I didn't even have a counter to tell me if I was getting near the number or not.
3) The LGL does prevent me from performing legit planking techniques.

also, (theory ahead) if a number of MK player consistently gets around 40-49 LGs and times out legit players via a combo of planking, scrooging, etc., what happens? I acknowledge that this is a theoretical question, so simply provide a logical, theoretical answer.

edit: another thing, if the MK goes over the LGL using beatable planking the entire time, should he lose?

 

[fkacyan]

I didn't even have a counter to tell me if I was getting near the number or not.

I didn't have a number to tell what my BAC was, so me getting my license taken away for a DUI when I was .01% higher than the minimum required amount to be considered drunk isn't cool.

Ridiculous strawman aside, counting isn't hard.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

edit: another thing, if the MK goes over the LGL using beatable planking the entire time, should he lose?

IMO no. Otherwise we're banning a legitimate, legal tactic.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I meant to say the thread.

Accidentally said topic, meant "thread".

Adum is a good man so excluding him.

Awesome, everybody likes me obviously.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Awesome, everybody likes me obviously.

Duh. You are, AFAIK, the most principled, smart, and unbiased debater. You said you were dying for a reason to go pro-ban, but held to your principles that you can't just switch sides without a criteria, and you've been consistently lobbying for it. No wonder people like you-you make sense.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

I didn't have a number to tell what my BAC was, so me getting my license taken away for a DUI when I was .01% higher than the minimum required amount to be considered drunk isn't cool.

Ridiculous strawman aside, counting isn't hard.

I find that a difficult comparison to grasp because drunk driving has no benefits compared to stalling a match.

@MarKO, no he shouldn't. Unless he was frame perfect but that's supa EZ and common amirite?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I find that a difficult comparison to grasp because drinking has no benefits compared to stalling a match.

fix'd
10easyfixes

 

[Kewkky]

I have a serious question... It's not a joke, so please answer for real:

What are you guys still doing here? Upping post count? I mean, I don't think there's been anything to say about MK since early march... At least wait for MLG Orlando to continue debating, we gotta see some new national results.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I have a serious question... It's not a joke, so please answer for real:

What are you guys still doing here? Upping post count? I mean, I don't think there's been anything to say about MK since early march... At least wait for MLG Orlando to continue debating, we gotta see some new national results.

When's MLG Orlando?

I generally like this argument. It's fun.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

I come in, call out the idiots, then leave.

I do this everyday 'til the thread is closed.

 

[Kewkky]

When's MLG Orlando?

April 16th-18th.


Well, as long as you guys aren't arguing expecting an instantaneous major change when every opposing side has accepted your views, I'm good...

*checks back every once in a while anyway*

 

[fkacyan]

I have a serious question... It's not a joke, so please answer for real:

What are you guys still doing here? Upping post count? I mean, I don't think there's been anything to say about MK since early march... At least wait for MLG Orlando to continue debating, we gotta see some new national results.

I've asked for thread closure three times now, I think.