Official Metaknight Discussion

[Orion*]

people dont want mk to have an LGL so that hes bannable. without an LGL he doesnt fit any real ban criteria other than subjective ones, rofl.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Allow me to give another example of a subjective ban criteria: I think murder is wrong and should be banned. Other people (murderers) don't think so, but it's completely subjective.

Plus, the LGLs are not discreet and therefore not a "good" ban.

 

[theunabletable]

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.

Ironically, I'd like MK to be banned, I just don't think, logically, that we SHOULD ban him lol.

Imo, this game would be far better with MK gone, but we can't really base the game off of what would make the game better all around; because, imo, adding things like subjective and unjustified scrooging limitations to MK would be better (but this does NOT mean I support scrooging limitations currently for an official ruleset, I just think the game would be better with a scrooging rule and maybe a "MK can't CP neutrals" rule, but I don't IN THE SLIGHTEST believe that either of those rules currently have any logical basis).

What are you guys still doing here?

Trying to convince people that LGLs for MK are necessary and have logical base (unlike the "MK can't CP neutrals" rule or a scrooging rule).

Plus, the LGLs are not discreet and therefore not a "good" ban.

I could care less if it's discreet or not, it GETS THE JOB DONE. It stops unbeatable planking, and is far better and more justified than an all-out ban (well I REALLY shouldn't word it that way, or else pro-ban people are going to jump down my throat about tourney statistics. By "more justified than an all-out ban" I mean that if the reason for banning MK is his unbeatable planking, it's more logical and better for the community to have an LGL instead.)

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

I disagree. It's unfortunate that his legitimate and legal tactics get effected by a hardcore planking ban, but, tbh, banning MK totally bans way more legitimate and legal tactics than the necessary hardcore planking ban (which should be an LGL, imo).

We HAVE to enforce the LGL if we have one. Even if you weren't doing the unbeatable planking and you go over the limit, you would have to lose, sadly.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

My gay stage rule is not that he can't cp neutrals. It's that the other character dictates where MK goes on every round, including banned stages. If we want to be nice, we can give MK 3 stage bans. :V

It gets the job done, sure, but it stops all planking period. If it's not a good ban, it's hardly a justified way to prevent him from breaking the rules.

 

[theunabletable]

^Honestly, there isn't anything wrong with it, except that it exaggerates the issues that an LGL already has.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

^Honestly, there isn't anything wrong with it, except that it exaggerates the issues that an LGL already has.

Yes, but it also fixes the whole "MK has no bad matchups" problem. It has similar issues to a normal LGL.

 

[theunabletable]

^Then the gay stage rule is NOT comparable to an LGL, as apparently it serves a different purpose (limiting things that aren't necessarily illegal).

I don't see how MK having no bad matchups with the rule is ANY SORT OF PLUS to having that rule. I'd say it's more unfortunate that the rule unnecesarily nerfs MK, instead of being there to make sure that people don't perform illegal actions (while an LGL may limit his ability to do beatable planking, the gay stage rule limits him way more, INCLUDING possibly limiting his beatable planking.)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's that he's no longer a problem with the rule; how's the snake Matchup when MK not only can't gimp snake, but can't kill off the side? :V

But yeah, the argument is ridiculous. The main issue is that as far as rules go, the LGL is bad because:
-It makes it "plank for the last X minutes" instead of "plank as soon as you get the lead"
-It artificially nerfs MK's offstage game in matchups like MK vs. Falco where the Falco really wants MK to stay onstage
-It is limiting a character's use of a global game mechanic, pointing to the character being broken.

If the rule is bad, it should not be implemented. If the alternate to the rule is banning the character and that alternative is simple, warranted, etc., then it is still a better rule.

I mean, sure, we could make Akuma fine by banning his air fireball, or we could make a DDD variant who infinites everyone with his dthrow and who is ridiculously good without it anyways fine by banning the CG, but would we want to, or would we just say that the character is too good and ban them?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

-It makes it "plank for the last X minutes" instead of "plank as soon as you get the lead"
-It artificially nerfs MK's offstage game in matchups like MK vs. Falco where the Falco really wants MK to stay onstage
-It is limiting a character's use of a global game mechanic, pointing to the character being broken.

These and especially the last part, are my concerns. We have to limit MK's access to a global game mechanic which hurts the game in ways it shouldn't. "It's better than banning him?" I'm still not sure why, as characters are not sacred.

 

[theunabletable]

-It makes it "plank for the last X minutes" instead of "plank as soon as you get the lead"

The amount of time you can hardcore, unbeatable plank with 20 ledge grabs is miniscule.

-It artificially nerfs MK's offstage game in matchups like MK vs. Falco where the Falco really wants MK to stay onstage

That's unfortunate. Although you know what nerfs MKs matchup with Falco worse? Being unable to, you know, actually play MK lol.

-It is limiting a character's use of a global game mechanic, pointing to the character being broken.

The character would then be broken because of an ILLEGAL tactic. If the tactic is illegal, then it's the tactic that should be dealt with, not the character.

I mean, sure, we could make Akuma fine by banning his air fireball

Akuma's usage of the fireball didn't break the rules set in place since day 1, however.

And, honestly, I don't think we should compare SF to smash, they're insanely different games, and if SF was competetive right out of the box. If we were to try and play smash right out of the box competetively, we'd be playing 2 minute timer matches with all items on medium...

or we could make a DDD variant who infinites everyone with his dthrow and who is ridiculously good without it anyways fine by banning the CG, but would we want to, or would we just say that the character is too good and ban them?

That infinite wouldn't be illegal (unless done over 300%), so I'd say a ban on the character itself would be more justified. Now if the tactic was inherently illegal (like MKs hardcore planking), then I'd say ban the infinite (but infinites are never illegal until over 300%, anyways...).

 

[Masmasher@]

define "actually being able to play MK"

 

[theunabletable]

^If MK were banned, you wouldn't be allowed to play him...

 

[Judo777]

So now im curious when did we ever decide that planking is illegal? Its definitely not illegal i see people do it all the time.

 

[theunabletable]

^DMGs planking renders the game unplayable, and its only purpose is to stall.
I'd say DMGs version of planking fits the SBR criteria for stalling.

 

[MarKO X]

what about the other, non gamebreaking planking?
if i perform 50 LGs of a beatable tactic with MK, why should I lose?

 

[St. Viers]

If I get someone past 300% with a chaingrab that includes pummeling (giving the opponent a chance to break out), should I lose?

 

[Judo777]

^DMGs planking renders the game unplayable, and its only purpose is to stall.
I'd say DMGs version of planking fits the SBR criteria for stalling.

ur forgetting one thing yea sure we proved that if done right MKs planking is 100 percent unbeatable meaning if u sat there and studied it for like 6 days straight and watched his patterns and learned the players blinking patterns u still cant beat it. (obvious exaggeration but still basicly right). However inspite of MK being unhittable ur forgetting that the other reason this is gay is cause even if MK messes up (aka beatable planking) its still a retardedly 1 sided situation that requires u to risk a stock just to hit MK and its rather easy for MK to adapt to any attempt u have at punishing him for the mistake and kill u for it. The reason planking is so dumb is because even when it is beatable Mk has so much room for error and still coming out on top its broken.

 

[AvaricePanda]

-It makes it "plank for the last X minutes" instead of "plank as soon as you get the lead"

This is an improvement.

-It artificially nerfs MK's offstage game in matchups like MK vs. Falco where the Falco really wants MK to stay onstage

Hardly. Show me a match where the MK isn't planking, but the game times out and he has over 30 ledgegrabs. There's a slim probability of this on paper, but realistically this should never happen. Also, rule enforcement is all under the TO discretion. If the TO, player, or opponent see that the MK times out the match and exceeds the LGL without planking, he doesn't have to be disqualified.

-It is limiting a character's use of a global game mechanic, pointing to the character being broken.

My question: why is this necessarily bad?

Option 1: You implement a LGL. Even if this isn't the best rule possible, it's an improvement from no LGL. All definitions, theorycraft, and arguments aside, this helps take away an overcentralizing strategy.

Option 2: You ban the character. There's no clear-cut way of knowing what happens next, but you know for a fact that you're taking a large chunk of the competitive playerbase and forcing them to either change mains or quit — all over a simple rule that could have been implemented, but wasn't because it wasn't "discrete" enough.

At least, this is how I see it.

 

[theunabletable]

^It's unfortunate that his beatable planking gets limited severely.

As unfortunate as the current stalling rule stops Ice Climbers from killing with up throw.

As unfortunate as it is that a beatable tactic gets banned by enforcing our current ruleset, remember that many more beatable tactics get banned by banning MK completely.

Honestly why the **** does it really matter that enforcing our rules limits a few beatable tactics? If the only reason for not having an LGL is because it limits a few of his beatable tactics, then a full on ban is clearly FAR worse than an LGL; because it limits many more beatable tactics.

Why does limitation of beatable tactics for the purpose of making sure that our ruleset can be enforced mean anything if it's the only option (other than alternatives which unnecesarily limit him far more)?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

all over a simple rule that could have been implemented, but wasn't because it wasn't "discrete" enough.

Let's hang on to this point for a second.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9870164&postcount=9756

"All over a simple rule"?

 

[MarKO X]

If I get someone past 300% with a chaingrab that includes pummeling (giving the opponent a chance to break out), should I lose?

you won't.
it states that CGs should end quickly after 300%
you won't get DQ'd for ending a CG @ 310%
you might catch a complaint for ending a CG @ 320%
you'll probably get DQ'd @ 330% and beyond.

now answer my question.

edit: why does it matter than LGLs ban a beatable tactic? because that's what it did in the first place. no one was doing the invincible forever downB planking.

 

[AvaricePanda]

I didn't mean that's the only reason MK is being banned (obviously). I meant that you're pretty much saying, "Well the rule is bad, why don't we ban MK?" AKA, the option of implementing the rule (or coming up with an alternative which seems like the more intelligent thing to do if you think the rule is bad) or banning MK.

Let me phrase this better: you're saying we shouldn't have to put limitations on a character to make them playable, otherwise they're clearly broken. I'm asking, why does this have to be the case — why is implementing the rule actually bad instead of a vague reason?

 

[theunabletable]

edit: why does it matter than LGLs ban a beatable tactic? because that's what it did in the first place. no one was doing the invincible forever downB planking.

I like how you don't mention the whole argument I made. I actually said: "Why does limitation of beatable tactics for the purpose of making sure that our ruleset can be enforced mean anything if it's the only option (other than alternatives which unnecesarily limit him far more)?"

The limitation of beatable tactics for the purpose of making sure the ruleset can be enforced is bad, yes, but what I asked was why does it matter that some of his beatable tactics get limited for the purpose of making sure the ruleset can be enforced if it's the only option (other than alternatives which unnecesarily limit him far more).

That is a very big difference. All of the alternatives to an LGL limit MKs beatable strategies much more than an LGL does. If the only reason to shoot down an LGL is because they limit MKs beatable strategies, then by that same logic wouldn't an MK ban over planking be an awful decision because it limits his beatable strategies (FAAAAAAAAAR more than an LGL does, mind you)?

It just doesn't make sense to shoot down LGLs on the basis that it limits some of MKs beatable options when ALL of the alternatives, especially the one you are suggesting, have the EXACT same problem, just much more severe and exaggerated.

Oh and sorry that my posts are coming a little late. My internet is acting ********, and I'm distracted by watching the X Files :3

 

[Kewkky]

If I get someone past 300% with a chaingrab that includes pummeling (giving the opponent a chance to break out), should I lose?

It depends on how flexible the TO is. If he's strict, then too bad for you but you just got DQ'd. If he's forgiving, he'll know that there's no difference between 330% and 300% in terms of killing your opponent and time wasted.

Seriously, no one can give you a GOOD answer to that question. Only the TO of your current tourney can.

 

[demonictoonlink]

It's that he's no longer a problem with the rule; how's the snake Matchup when MK not only can't gimp snake, but can't kill off the side? :V

Just have to address this. No character can "gimp" Snake. (see duelist lol)

Snake can be spiked, stage spiked, footstooled...I mean any of those can happen, but they aren't gimps. If a Snake doesn't make it back to the stage without being sent past a blast-line, it's the Snake's fault.

If a Snake is coming off of cypher to the ledge and is ledgehogged, the Snake got greedy. He didn't want to have to take the C4 damage so he risked it. It's avoidable.

 

[theunabletable]

Just have to address this. No character can "gimp" Snake. (see duelist lol)

Snake can be spiked, stage spiked, footstooled...I mean any of those can happen, but they aren't gimps. If a Snake doesn't make it back to the stage without being sent past a blast-line, it's the Snake's fault.

If a Snake is coming off of cypher to the ledge and is ledgehogged, the Snake got greedy. He didn't want to have to take the C4 damage so he risked it. It's avoidable.

Just to be a disagreeable ******* here (), but.. couldn't MK knock Snake far away from the stage, then when Snake cypher's back and is about to C4, MK stays right next to him off stage so that the C4 sticks to MK, then when Snake tries to detonate it, MK is too far away from Snake causing him to fall to his death and be, technically, a gimp?

 

[demonictoonlink]

Nah, that's a legit question.

That's actually done a lot. I've seen a lot of vids have that happen. BBUUTT....
The Snake should be aware of this tactic. If someone is coming up in front of him, he should just b-reverse the C-4.

 

[ShadowLink84]

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?

IDC?
Thats another broken part of him.

What about the act that any LGL is arbitrary?
And that such a surgical change is bad?
Its like admitting "Yes he is broken but we don't want to ban him because we DONT WANT to."

The whole MK ban debate ceased being "Is MK worthy of a ban?"
and became more of a "How do we limit MK to keep him legal?"

Which is frankly a bothersome thing.
It is why I am on the fence. I supported anti-ban, but because of the fact that we continuously limit the character, and he continues to improve, or to find ways around the limitations placed upon him. It starts to look...iffy.


You can't honestly tell me it isn't at all perturbing that the argument no longer is "MK isn't banworthy." but is now "How do we limit MK to keep him legal?".

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The planking shown in DMGs thread is stalling. 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.)[/uote]
LGL's are arbitrary.
Determine what is good enough.

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). 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. Ban Melee Jigglypuff. She has the potential to do illegal things, so instead of just enforcing the rules lets just ban the whole character. 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. 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. And that makes it a good number... WHY? Why not 999%, it's the highest percent you can go to.

Actually no.
While Melee jigglypuff had her rising pound.
Guess what, it was actually under the criteria of staling
Which was a globa issue NOT a surgical one.

Mk's has a small window of vulnerability of 6 frames.
Under that logic, because of the fact that he is vulnerable, it isn't stalling.
O course if we want to consider it stalling.
you then fall down to "what is a proper limit for MK?"
20?
30?
10?

What if the MK is just an aggressive edge guarder?
m2k goes above 20 because of his aggressive edge guard gameplay.

Should they be DQ'ed for going on the OFFENSIVE?

Just as much reasoning in making it 999% as it is making it 300%. Why the highest handicap? Why not the highest total amount? Fair enough. Peach's is only an infinite stall on Fourside... apparently.

Actually 999% was tried before.
Ensue M2k's post about it.

300% was then chosen not only because it was smaller, but because that was something that was also a natural par tof the game.
The handicap.
So it wasn't an issue of 998 vs 997.

And I don't know much about Ganon's, can you link to a thread or something? This is all completely irrelevant, as those forms of "stalling" are not unbeatable and don't fit the SBRs criteria for stalling.[/quote

Actually they did fall under the criteria of stalling.
Stalling in itself means that your opponent cannot harm you.

Sheik's lets her go from edge to edge without fear.
Simply because she remains unhurt even if you manage to grab the ledge BEFORE she ninpo's.
She'll ninpo onto the stage and run to the other side.

At which point you have a that awesome ravager issue where its a "Do this against this strategy or lose."

Same for the Ganon stall.
It was banned as well.
They are both placed under the generic stalling ruling.
It is why they are NOT done in tournament.

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.

Correct, only because he grabbed the ledge needlessly.
And again, 2hy 20?

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.

The fact you are IGNORING his other methods in regards to stalling is foolish.


Slap a LGL problem solved.
Um no.
What about his scrooging?
Unless you are falcon or Sonic, you are NOT out racing him to the other ledge.
Even if you do, neither of those characters can deal with MK being below them.
Sonic drops a spring? MK laughs in his face and shuttle loops to the ledge.
GG

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)?

To fit the amount of time it took to finish a tournament.
simple as that.

SSb64: 5 stocks
SSBM: 4 stock
SSBB: 3 stock.
in each case to accomodate the increased time it took to finish a tournament.

30% i mentioned earlier so why ask?

10 minutes simply because, again, time constraints in regards to tournaments.

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

Unless you edgeguard aggressvely, like you should against Snake, IC's, Diddy and several other characters.

Congrats, you just limited the MK player even more simply because of the great evil that lurks int h e background.

Ban diddy's bananas because he can infinite you with them to the edge of the stage?
What about jab locks?
Laser lock?

Why is it unlikely by the way?
Just because the majority dont edgeguard in the same manner and dont grab the ledge as often?
Why is that okay?

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.

*zones you*


you can be passive aggressive.
Aggressive doesnt mean bum rushing the opponent's shield like a fool.
Aggressive means you focus on your offense to a great degree
This can include the zoning of your opponent in an aggressive fashion.
FOrcing Olimar to the ledge, hell it can be done safely yet aggressively.

2) Ban Ice Climbers, they have 100-0 matchups with everyone via perfect shield SDI.

Actually they don't.
Perfect shield SDI=they cant grab MK or Snake or Sonic or marth anyway because you dont move close enough after a single hit.
Let alone we presume what is humanely possible.
So no stupid extrenes,

3) Can you show me a match that goes to timer, without any planking, and the MK goes over 20 ledge grabs? How about you read my posts? You should understand if you actually do.

I am sorry but this strikes me as INANE.
Why?
M2k, as he said himself, can hit over 20 from edge guarding aggressively.
And it takes a long time to kill Snake.

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).

Yes because I should spend several hours searching for your posts.
no really, let us forget there are HUNDREDS of other posts and sometimes, I am...*gasp* not online at the same time to catch your response.

Save me the whining. If you want me to respond, PM me your argument and I can get to it that much more easily.

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. JESUS ****ING CHRIST

you don't do it intentionally.
Which is my point.

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?

Never said you did it for the sake of limiting him.
I am trying to get you to understand that it DOES limit him.

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

Really?
Okay, name a character with options for when the opponent is below them that cand ealw ith scrooging.
Or what to do when MK *gasps* stops gliding and Uairs, or side B's, or multiumps.

Or everything else.

Claiming an LGL will completely solve the issue is flat out ignorant and arbitrary in itself.
To completely disregard anything else MK can perform when planking is foolish.
Look at m2k vs meep.

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

Wrong.
They are completely relevant because they are methods by which he can use to deal with an LG.
TO say otherwise is, again, completely ignorant.

If I cant grab the stage, fine, i'll scrooge under it.
You tell me who will jump off stage to come and stop me and actually SUCCEED, and I will give you a cookie.

Cause hell outside of Falcon and Sonic, no one else outspeeds him when he scrooges.

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.

no you are right, it doesn't.
Which is something you yourself do not realiz.
It does NOT deal with the scrooging, the air camping, the ability to lengthen his ledge grabs.

This is getting ridiculously redundant. 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.

hi is why everyone is soooo successful in stopping it back BEFORE anyone actually knew his planking was unbeatable.
back before anyone was performing what DMG said they could.

Again, m2k vs meep.
No perfect planking but he timed him out while remaining under ledge grab restraints.

*thumbs up*
Congrats

[/q
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). [ /quote]

*points to your foot then your mouth.*
When you speak in such a manner it shows your lack of foresight.

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.

Discern between the two.
now, let us look at the "beatable" planking (easiest to term it that).
Whichis the match i mentioned before.

Which is important since it shows, MK circumvents it.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Just to be a disagreeable ******* here (), but.. couldn't MK knock Snake far away from the stage, then when Snake cypher's back and is about to C4, MK stays right next to him off stage so that the C4 sticks to MK, then when Snake tries to detonate it, MK is too far away from Snake causing him to fall to his death and be, technically, a gimp?

Snake can just do a reverse C4, to not stick the MK.

 

[ShadowLink84]

IMO.
Going over 300=auto DQ.

No mercy shown to the merciless.

 

[theunabletable]

I was starting to reply to your post, ShadowLink, but then realized it would just be a waste of time after realizing that you are STILL attacking straw man points.

It's really funny how I've mentioned in so many posts (including the one you quoted (in which I made it incredbily clear)) that MKs ability to do any form of timing out/"stalling" (for future reference, if I put stalling in quote marks, it means I'm referring to the very beatable stalling. Just to make it simpler and so I don't have to clarify myself every god **** time I mention "stalling" and don't want you to confuse it with the SBR definition of stalling.) is completely irrelevant.

And I've made it clear, many times. Here, I'll quote a few times for you:

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

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.

Of course you're still going to act as if I give a **** about his ability to scrooge or air camp, when I don't (in this case, anyway). I don't care if he can bypass an LGL with air camping and scrooging because I don't think an LGL should be made to have any effect over that. Those right now seem to be legal strategies (atleast, until, someone pulls a DMG and posts frame data that shows it's unbeatable or something lol...), and thus I'm not attempting to make rules that accomodate for them.

It's really kinda funny how you point to things like M2K vs Meep, which are completely and utterly irrelevant and are ONLY attacking a straw man.

I'm not going to waste my time making a reply to every single one of your points when you are just going to attack arguments I've never made, and have STATED MANY TIMES that I have never made.

I am not presenting an LGL for the purpose of limiting anything other than what is CURRENTLY illegal. It unfortunately limits some of his legal tactics, which is sad, but it's been done in the past, and I don't see the problem with doing it now when the alternatives limit faaaaar more legal tactics than an LGL (honestly I don't care if enforcing our rules causes a few legal tactics to be stopped, it's been done before, and it limits less than the alternatives).

Whatever, I'm done with this thread and posting walls of text just to have people take my arguments out of context.

 

[napZzz]

you know a character is too good when he has his own thread with almost 10,000 posts in it.

 

[etecoon]

I think it needs at least 20,000 posts, I mean cmon he's only taking up like 30% of tournament results tactical boards and he can't even win nationals get stickied

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think it needs at least 20,000 posts, I mean cmon he's only taking up like 30% of tournament results tactical boards and he can't even win nationals get stickied

So when is anti-ban going to stop touting this completely stupid argument?

 

[AvaricePanda]

ONE PERSON SAYS SOMETHING CATEGORIZE IT AS ALL ANTI-BAN HURR

In other news, I have a serious question:

What are we trying to accomplish by banning MK?

When I come back from school I'm going to have a longer post from my anti-ban perspective that expands on some of the points Thio and I believe adumbrodeus have said (and I think it's perfectly legitimate and hasn't been brought up too many times). I just want to know the responses to that question as well.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I was starting to reply to your post, ShadowLink, but then realized it would just be a waste of time after realizing that you are STILL attacking straw man points.

I must say this is the first time someone says they were strawmanning.
I guess that means the entire argument with you as irrelevant.

Frankly I have already made my argument, and the fact that you have continuously ignored my points and not actually addressed them, only shows that either you are simply unwilling to actually acknowledge the rest of what Mk can do in regards to stalling, or you're just too stubborn to even think about the argument outside of your own.

Have a good day.

 

[St. Viers]

@MarKo: You are dodging around the technicalities of my comparison to ignore my point. That is a terrible way to try and convince the other side that you are in the right. Fine, a better, more obvious comparison. We've banned IDC shenanigans, even though they limit non-stalling options the character has. If there was *ANY* character (even if it weren't MK) who was able to do something similar, regardless of tier position, it would still be banned, even if it had some non-stalling uses. Why? Because to have an enforceable no stalling rule, we had to limit otherwise acceptable and beatable tactics by that character.

[aside]For the record, I still actually favor a MK temp ban. I just hate how very few people on both sides can construct points and defend them well. I'm doing it from this side, because pro-ban asked for articulate and non-inane anti-ban posters, and there are quite few of those (no offense to those of you who are, it's obvious who those are).[/aside]

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

ONE PERSON SAYS SOMETHING CATEGORIZE IT AS ALL ANTI-BAN HURR

Not just him, otherwise I'd be saying "etecoon".

In other news, I have a serious question:

What are we trying to accomplish by banning MK?

A more fun and balanced game without one clearly dominant character, a more wide-spread metagame, and less overcentralization. Oh, and less planking/scrooging/other incredibly gay play Well, at least that's how I see it.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

My goal is to eliminate planking and scrooging with as few surgical rules as possible.

Also I've mentioned this before but nationals aren't more significant than other large tournaments.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

What are we trying to accomplish by banning MK?

Depends on who you are asking, which is the fundamental problem with this debate.

I for example believe that the community will be more healthy if MK is banned.