Official Metaknight Discussion

[AvaricePanda]

You have to realize that when it's for a couple hundred dollars, nobody minds planking for 10+ minutes.

Sudden death being played out is just inane.

 

[ph00tbag]

Except MK is never vulnerable with Cape planking. He is invulnerable from dropping off the edge until he becomes invulnerable from the cape, and then invulnerable from the auto-sweetspot. Maybe the other player can try edgehogging Mk through the bombs lol.

Sure, if they can do that, more power to them. But this still doesn't solve the problem of now four people telling me Sudden Death should now be banned because of MK. Doesn't it bring that to three rules that are in place solely because of him?

I mean, if you can think of any other character that can be infinitely invincible, and can realistically stall for 8 minutes, be my guest.

either i'm really really slow for still not getting it the following statement or [your statement] should be fixed.

My statement is that if MK were banned, then you'd have no argument. I'm saying I support a ban, so there's no real contradiction in my opinions.

Planking > Sudden Death bombs.

I am perfectly willing to plank you for a week while waitng for you to go onto the stage and get killed by the bombs.

Again, show me a character other than MK who can do that realistically, and I'll concede the point.

You have to realize that when it's for a couple hundred dollars, nobody minds planking for 10+ minutes.

Sudden death being played out is just inane.

And only one character can realistically be expected to be able to do that.

Face it, either you force an outside win condition on the game (two at this point) in order to avoid banning a character, or you just ban the character and nip the problem in the character select screen.

Before MK, would there even have been a legit argument against me? Because the only argument I'm hearing is "MK can circumvent this."

 

[Delta-cod]

Wait wait, are we seriously believing that only MK can plank-out sudden death bombs? EVERYONE can. All you need to do is keep grabbing the ledge, since as far as I know, bombs will not hit you if you're below the stage and you keep ledge dropping and grabbing the ledge.

This is why Sudden Death is stupid, it ends up with both parties camping their ledges waiting for one to get bored and attack the other.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Again, show me a character other than MK who can do that realistically, and I'll concede the point.

Honestly the entire cast, but the easiest counter-example is characters who can plank with invincibility frames the entire time, ex. marth and bowser.



But they only hit onstage, and the hitbox doesn't actually go under the ledge, so anybody can do it.

 

[C~Dog]

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a minute here, but what about banning grabbing the edge during sudden death?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Goose-stepping and powershielding contest.


Still certainly doable on reaction, and we might even see weeks, but I think it would encourage people to be even more adamant because they believe their opponent will miss the powershield first.

 

[ph00tbag]

But they only hit onstage, and the hitbox doesn't actually go under the ledge, so anybody can do it.

I wasn't aware of this. Never mind then.

 

[1048576]

I've been thinking: I'm glad MK wasn't banned under this ruleset. It would've set up the most annoying strawman (proban wants Marth to stop grabbing Ness) for every single argument about this issue until Brawl dies.

 

[Cold Fusion]

Forcing players to play sudden death in the event of a time-out will encourage even campier game play for the fact that victory can be achieved by simply planking.

 

[MKOwnage]

there are a number of tourneys that have set up the LGL such that if you exceed the LGL, you lose, whether the time ran out or not.

so in those particular tourneys that explicitly say that if you exceed the LGL with or without the game going to time, you lose, you could force an opponent to grab the ledge too many times, SD, and then call for the ledges.

like i said, silly and improbable, but i would so do it if the opp came up.

At our tourneys the LGL only applies to stalling. And there are always little narks hanging over our shoulders. So if someone forced it and tried to LGL they would rat the snitch out.

 

[Tommy_G]

Look at it this way: Sudden Death comes up only if both players have the same number of stocks. This means that either the match was played very campy, or someone stalled when they only had a percent lead. Then, when you're in sudden death, the game waits several seconds before dropping bombs. Until then, you have a wealth of opportunities to find holes in your opponent's defense, and capitalize on them. The threat is thus: If you stall, or play too defensively against an opponent with whom you are evenly matched, your result will be determined randomly. No one wants that, so that should be incentive to be more aggressive.

Essentially, it counteracts campy play between opponents who are evenly matched. If you're not the type of player who actively seeks openings, then you **** well better get good at dodging bob-bombs.

Now, it doesn't solve stalling when there's a stock lead, but except for MK, no character that I'm aware of actually has a broken stalling method.

Only if the match times out:
Take planker's ledge grab count-other player's ledge grab count
Every time it hits 40 more ledge grabs, subtract 1 stock and subtract 40 ledgegrabs for the count.
Then double the remaining ledge grabs and add it to the planker's percentage.
Winner has more stocks or less percentage if stocks are equal after accounting for this.

I think 40's a good number because a person would never have 40 more ledgegrabs than their opponent(not total) unless they're trying to plank.

Example:

MK has 51 ledge grabs, Snake has 5.
Match ends with MK 2 stocks 140%, Snake 1 stock 10% time out.
Take the difference of 51-5=46
40 grabs is one stock=Bringing MK to 1 stock; Now it's MK 1 stock 0%, Snake 1 stock 10%
46-40(for the stock)=6*2=12%
MK=12%, Snake=10% both last stock
Snake wins.

This technically would work for Pit, Game and Watch, and all other plankers.

Rule for scrooging=Player can't go under the stage more than 3 times during the whole match. 4th and 5th time result in a loss of current stock. People can keep a count for this.

For those who say it's unfair because MK has to go under the stage to avoid ledge guards, Marth can't ever go under the stage and still manages. You'll be ok. I promise.

Thoughts?

 

[MarKO X]

Example:

MK has 51 ledge grabs, Snake has 7.
Match ends with MK 2 stocks 140%, Snake 1 stock 10% time out.
Take the difference of 51-7=44
40 grabs is one stock=Bringing MK to 1 stock; Now it's MK 1 stock 0%, Snake 1 stock 10%
44-40(for the stock)=4*2=8%
MK=8%, Snake=10% both last stock
MK wins.

lol?

as for your scrooging rule... you know, *insert classic arbitrary number argument here*.

 

[theunabletable]

as for your scrooging rule... you know, *insert classic arbitrary number argument here*.

Our ruleset is full of arbitrary numbers...

just btw

 

[MarKO X]

i could argue that some numbers are more arbitrary than others.

3 stock is kinda arbitrary, but it's down from 4 from Melee
8 minutes is kinda arbitrary, but derived from Melee.
2 out of 3 and 3 out of 5 is arbitrary, but it's practically fighting game tradition.
300% for the infinites is arbitrary, but it's the highest handicap or something like that
50, i mean 40, i mean 35, i mean 45 ledge grabs... well... lol.
scrooging 3 times... I can always ask why 3 and not 4, and I'm not sure if you could even vaguely justify it.

 

[Orion*]

Forcing players to play sudden death in the event of a time-out will encourage even campier game play for the fact that victory can be achieved by simply planking.

bUTiT'ShOWtEHgAMEwUSmADElOL. wEsHOULDfOLLOWtHEgAMEdESIGNaNDtRYaNDrEDUCEsCRUBBISHrULEsETSlIKElGL'S.
tHAT'SwHYisWITCHEDtOpRObAN

 

[gamesuxcard]

And the winner would be randomly decided based on who got hit first when they weren't in ledge invincibility. Who wants that? Certainly not the MK, maybe not the other player, unless they suck, but then I doubt their opponent would have let it go to Sudden Death anyway. Unless they both suck, in which case, who cares?

Basically, either you play really stupidly campy and get really good at Sudden Death, or you just step up and learn to play safely aggressive so you don't have to go to Sudden Death. Note: it's not like being good at Sudden Death is an illegitimate skill.


The best argument you can come up with for keeping a scrubby, surgical rule in place is that Metaknight would be broken with it in place. Go figure.

(Hint: Add it to the list of things we have to have to keep MK from being broken.)

We're talking about brawl right? Agressive playstiles are pretty obsolete in this game, mk is one of the few if not the only one with any sory of playstile that could be considered to be agressive, so giving the sudden death setting to players seems like more of a reason to play mk.

and considering random death by bombs, don't bombs usually just fall on the stage? i know they do on fd but i'm not quite sure about others. planking seems pretty safe if so.

edit: was catching up on the posts between and realized most of this has already been said =P. worthless post is worthless

 

[theunabletable]

3 stock is kinda arbitrary, but it's down from 4 from Melee

Melee's 4 stocks were arbitrary as well.

8 minutes is kinda arbitrary, but derived from Melee.

That stops it from being arbitrary... why?

Why not 10 minutes, or 7? We already changed the amount of stocks, why not the amount of time? Why did we change the amount of stocks anyway?

2 out of 3 and 3 out of 5 is arbitrary, but it's practically fighting game tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Fallacious argument, right there.

Arbitrary rule, as well.

300% for the infinites is arbitrary, but it's the highest handicap or something like that

Yeah it's the highest handicap. And that makes it a good handicap for the highest perecentage to use chain grabs... why?

50, i mean 40, i mean 35, i mean 45 ledge grabs... well... lol.

I think 20-25, MK only, would be fine.

Unlikely number to hit in a normal match. It's arbitrary, sure, but it gets the job done.

Seriously the exact same thing you're saying right now could be said about any other rule before it was made. Arbitrary =/= inherently bad

scrooging 3 times... I can always ask why 3 and not 4, and I'm not sure if you could even vaguely justify it.

You can't justify 3 stocks. It's less than Melee. Justify why Melee uses 4 stocks. And then give logical justification for why we should have less than Melee. Sure it's a more defensive and campy game, but that's not justification for lower lives. Why not timer mode like it comes out of the box?

Not that I defend scrooging rules yet. I haven't seen any data that shows it to be unbeatable, so currently I don't think any rules should be made to stop scrooging.

 

[MarKO X]

Melee's 4 stocks were arbitrary as well.

and that went down from 5 in Smash64.

That stops it from being arbitrary... why?

I didn't say it did.

Why not 10 minutes, or 7? We already changed the amount of stocks, why not the amount of time? Why did we change the amount of stocks anyway?

Why is an amazing question. The best I can tell you is time constraints. Hardly justification, but enough people will be like, "oh, ok." doesn't make it rite tho.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Fallacious argument, right there.

Arbitrary rule, as well.

I didn't say that it wasn't arbitrary because of tradition. I said it's arbitrary, but was picked probably because of competitive fighting game tradition.

Yeah it's the highest handicap. And that makes it a good handicap for the highest perecentage to use chain grabs... why?

My guess is that because when you out there with sudden deaths, enough of a character's moveset can kill you at that percent.

Just a guess tho.

I think 20-25, MK only, would be fine.

not this again.
you realize that no matter how arbitrary any of the previous numbers were, they applied to every character... right?

Unlikely number to hit in a normal match. It's arbitrary, sure, but it gets the job done.

An aggressive edge guarding MK is likely to hit 20-25.
But you're perfectly fine with nerfing MK's legit tactics just to deal with his planking, amirite?

Seriously the exact same thing you're saying right now could be said about any other rule before it was made. Arbitrary =/= inherently bad You can't justify 3 stocks. It's less than Melee. Justify why Melee uses 4 stocks. And then give logical justification for why we should have less than Melee. Sure it's a more defensive and campy game, but that's not justification for lower lives. Why not timer mode like it comes out of the box?

Time constraints for the tourney is the best answer I can give you for the stock and the time. As for why not the time out the box.... because said mode doesn't promote competition well. At least that what I've been told.

Nah, I don't think the 2 minute all items on gaming promotes skill either.

Not that I defend scrooging rules yet. I haven't seen any data that shows it to be unbeatable, so currently I don't think any rules should be made to stop scrooging.

Scrooging helps plankers not get that deadly number.
All the while going under the stage, where many many characters can't quite hit MK.
It's like a giant shield.

but i like how you need evidence first.

 

[Tommy_G]

Matches are 3 stocks. You shouldn't need to go under the stage more than 1 time per stock(you're not going to be forced under the stage more than once per stock.)

If you use all 3 first stock, and are forced under the stage in hitstun, that sucks for you. You shouldn't have flown under the stage.

Example:

MK has 51 ledge grabs, Snake has 7.
Match ends with MK 2 stocks 140%, Snake 1 stock 10% time out.
Take the difference of 51-7=44
40 grabs is one stock=Bringing MK to 1 stock; Now it's MK 1 stock 0%, Snake 1 stock 10%
44-40(for the stock)=4*2=8%
MK=8%, Snake=10% both last stock
MK wins.

lol?

as for your scrooging rule... you know, *insert classic arbitrary number argument here*.

If MK isn't planking, he's going to force other people on the ledge more and the less ledge-grabs hes going to have himself. The more he planks, the more of a chance he has to have a lot more ledge-grabs than his opponent.

Besides, this isn't just for MK. I actually think Pit is a better planker than MK when done right.

 

[AvaricePanda]

What problems, if any, are MK causing to the Brawl competitive scene?
What is going to be accomplished by banning MK?

I want to stop this argument that's happened 20 times before and reintroduce these two questions. I'm not looking for a debate on this, I just want honest answers to see where people stand on this.

 

[theunabletable]

and that went down from 5 in Smash64.

Which is STILL arbitrary.

I didn't say it did.

Then remove the timer during stock because it's arbitrary, right?

I didn't say that it wasn't arbitrary because of tradition. I said it's arbitrary, but was picked probably because of competitive fighting game tradition.

That doesn't make the rule any better, so why mention it?

My guess is that because when you out there with sudden deaths, enough of a character's moveset can kill you at that percent.

We have never played sudden deaths out, though, so they are irrelevant...

you realize that no matter how arbitrary any of the previous numbers were, they applied to every character... right?

Which they shouldn't, imo. MK is the only one with an illegal tactic, so in my opinion MK is the only one who should have anything done about his unbeatable planking.

Nah, I don't think the 2 minute all items on gaming promotes skill either.

Why not just timer at 2 minutes? Whoever got the most kills wins, or whoever was at the lowest percent wins.

Scrooging helps plankers not get that deadly number.

And? Some characters can beat it (I think, anyways. Until someone pulls a DMG and shows us why we can/can't beat it), and afaik it really only works well on one stage.

I don't see any logical reason YET to do anything about scrooging (I'd love to have scrooging rules, just so that this game can be a little better (honestly I'd like an LGL on Pit, MK, and G&W just so the game isn't as lame, but that isn't logical justification for it, so I don't bother debating it)).

Sure he can fly under the stage to not go over the LGL, but that means he's not doing the DMG style of planking, which is the only reason, imo, that an LGL should be made.

I want to stop this argument that's happened 20 times before and reintroduce these two questions. I'm not looking for a debate on this, I just want honest answers to see where people stand on this.

You know what'll be accomplished by banning MK? ADHD and Ally will still win everything except there won't be any challenger in the way.

 

[Orion*]

ADHD and Ally will still win everything except there won't be any challenger in the way.

na thiocyanide will prolly get second. hEStOOgOOD!

 

[theCook]

I think Metaknight's sword is really cool.

ALl the other swords in the game have that classic look- but MK's sword is so fantastic; and I mean that as in it belongs in a fairy tale (from a fantasy).

It's even got a jewel on its hilt. Classy.

 

[Laem]

ADHD and Ally will still win everything except there won't be any challenger in the way.

actually, adhd loses to any character that is not MK (slight exaggeration, but you get the point)
and i can see ally, although hes awesome, lose to marths and ikes san.
also, i love how you evade the timeconstraint point. you suck.

 

[etecoon]

I think Metaknight's sword is really cool.

ALl the other swords in the game have that classic look- but MK's sword is so fantastic; and I mean that as in it belongs in a fairy tale (from a fantasy).

It's even got a jewel on its hilt. Classy.

well I think galaxia is tacky

meta knight is a big fat ugly head and he should be b7!

 

[demonictoonlink]

actually, adhd loses to any character that is not MK (slight exaggeration, but you get the point)
and i can see ally, although hes awesome, lose to marths and ikes san.
also, i love how you evade the timeconstraint point. you suck.

Right...not trying to insult this poster but...

ADHD would do amazing with or without MK. Yeah, he's disgustingly good at the MU, but what do you think he does in tournament? Plays against nothing but MKs?

Ally...loses to Marths? How so? He lost to MikeHAZE at Evo IIRC and came back to beat him in a later set. He beat Neo last time they played...What Marth's are there to beat him? Has he lost to any recently?

San/Ike...you did watch the match, correct? It was a 2-0. Ally didn't even look like he was taking it seriously.

 

[GeneralWoodman]

ally's first main was marth dude. the first title he had at gfaqs was marth champ. he must cry inside when he loses to marfs

 

[salaboB]

Right...not trying to insult this poster but...

ADHD would do amazing with or without MK. Yeah, he's disgustingly good at the MU, but what do you think he does in tournament? Plays against nothing but MKs?

Ally...loses to Marths? How so? He lost to MikeHAZE at Evo IIRC and came back to beat him in a later set. He beat Neo last time they played...What Marth's are there to beat him? Has he lost to any recently?

San/Ike...you did watch the match, correct? It was a 2-0. Ally didn't even look like he was taking it seriously.

There would probably be more Marth's if MK wasn't around to squelch them.

Whether Ally would have a problem with Marth is an entirely different point, but not having many Marth's around doesn't mean much given how the most popular character in the game just kinda outdoes Marth at Marth's job.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

There would probably be more Marth's if MK wasn't around to squelch them.

Whether Ally would have a problem with Marth is an entirely different point, but not having many Marth's around doesn't mean much given how the most popular character in the game just kinda outdoes Marth at Marth's job.

Na their would be more Snakes.

 

[AvaricePanda]

I want to stop this argument that's happened 20 times before and reintroduce these two questions. I'm not looking for a debate on this, I just want honest answers to see where people stand on this.

hi i'm a fairly undiscussed point

Edit:

Try it yourself. The uses are numerous, and it's actually pretty cool.

I'd try it myself but I'm terribad with MK. Other than recovering from the ledge to the stage, I can't think of many uses honestly.

Fun fact: extension of the dimensional cape is actually DOES happen at tournaments (it's a good move!) and it IS wittnessed. But apparently, so far nobody has enforced it, ever. And this is of little surprise; the current rule fails to define what constitutes a use of the "infinite" dimensional cape "glitch."

Other than Dojo vs. M2K I haven't seen it much. You should send me a couple of videos of its usages because I honestly want to see. But my point was that if TOs don't consider it to be worthy of being DQd for, they just don't. It's completely under their discretion, so I feel like it's inane to argue the discrepancies of a rule online (how long is too long? etc) when it will rarely be carried out in person.

Because it stands against any sense of competitive responsibility... see the next few items.


If being denied their unfair advantage is sufficient to make them stop attending, let them stop. But most people are better than that, I believe, and soon would be having more fun than they ever could have as MK.

These are all subjective points. In my opinion, MK is not an unfair advantage (unless you were talking about planking, which I agree might be an unfair advantage, I dunno). But as you can tell with the year and a half the ban has been discussed and the nowhere we've gotten with it, arguing iffy subjective points like that isn't going to do anything.

You had asked what is wrong with modifying the rules to keep MK around. Here's one of the reasons why this particular rule fails: the LGL introduces a new victory condition to the game. If the LGL is made small enough to prevent any subtstantial amount of planking, it allows characters (such as MK!) to pressure their opponent into regrabbing the ledge repetitively until the LGL is exceeded, and then stall only well enough to not lose all 3 stocks. So, depending on the number chose, LGLs either are ineffective, will actually make victories by stalling easier than it was before in some cases, or both simultaneously!

I honestly haven't seen this used (aside from Super Theory Bros. Brawl, lol). I haven't seen tournaments with such a low LGL that an MK can actually do this. 40-50 seems to be the norm, where characters with ledge games aren't exactly harmed whereas MK can't plank the entire game. Are there any videos of the above happening, though?

Another reason why this work well on paper is that it seems like you're forgetting the TO and player elements. The TO or whoever watching would realize it's not actually planking and just an exploitation of the rule and wouldn't DQ the guy who lost, probably. And if not, someone would have to be quite the jerk to exploit a rule like that. Maybe on paper it's fair for a player to do that, but anyone who's watching and the opponent he's playing against would lose lots of respect for them. Most people aren't "ballsy" enough to do that.

Also Crow, I'd like a response to the two questions. I just want to see where people stand on this.

 

[salaboB]

Another reason why this work well on paper is that it seems like you're forgetting the TO and player elements. The TO or whoever watching would realize it's not actually planking and just an exploitation of the rule and wouldn't DQ the guy who lost, probably. And if not, someone would have to be quite the jerk to exploit a rule like that. Maybe on paper it's fair for a player to do that, but anyone who's watching and the opponent he's playing against would lose lots of respect for them. Most people aren't "ballsy" enough to do that.

It's not being a jerk to utilize every rule available to force a loss on your opponent in a competitive setting.

 

[AvaricePanda]

It's not being a jerk to utilize every rule available to force a loss on your opponent in a competitive setting.

People in in-person tournaments aren't playing Super Theory Bros. like we are. People would clearly get mad in a situation like that. If you forced someone to pass the LGL (somehow) and camped to time out the match, then pushed towards the TO that the opponent should be disqualified, pretty much everyone there would hate you.

I thought I said something like people would lose a lot of disrespect for that player in the first post anyway.

 

[etecoon]

I don't think it's realistically possible to force someone to grab the ledge that many times unless they're significantly worse than you to begin with, in which case it didn't matter.

 

[MarKO X]

lol @ not enforcing a rule because the way the condition was met didn't fit the intent of the rule.

 

[AvaricePanda]

lol @ not enforcing a rule because the way the condition was met didn't fit the intent of the rule.

It's under the TOs discretion, as I've said multiple times. The entire thing's subjective anyway: if they believe that the person shouldn't be DQd then they don't DQ them. The BBR won't hunt them down (especially with all of the added rules, or the people who don't always DQ people for being late despite listing Mage's DQ rules in the rules). If they believe that the person should be DQd, then they DQ them (but of course a lot of people will lose respect for the person that did that, so it's their decision if they want to deal with it).

Besides that, not only does the LGL have to be insanely low for this to happen, and the TOs would have to ignore all the complaints they got on the threads or whatever for them to institute it, but the player exploiting the rule would have to be so much better than the other to actually force the other to grab the ledge X amount of times anyway. I honestly don't think someone would grab the ledge 25 times to try to get on stage. Honestly, when has this ever happened in an actual match?

All in all though, this is a complete non-issue because it's a decision completely up to the TO. There is absolutely no point in talking about it in this thread.

Can someone please answer the questions I poised? I still want to see where more people stand on this and what people are trying to do with the MK ban.

 

[theunabletable]

also, i love how you evade the timeconstraint point. you suck.

Sorry that I missed one thing out of 7 quotes I made...

How does 7 minutes, which is less than 8 minutes, cause time constraints?

Ally...loses to Marths? How so? He lost to MikeHAZE at Evo IIRC and came back to beat him in a later set. He beat Neo last time they played...What Marth's are there to beat him? Has he lost to any recently?

Ally lost to MikeHAZE at ActiveGamers IIRC.

I'd try it myself but I'm terribad with MK. Other than recovering from the ledge to the stage, I can't think of many uses honestly.

The IDC doesn't work in the air.

@MarKO: Are you going to reply to my last post?

 

[MarKO X]

I tried.
I only ended back up with stuff that I've already said.
Which would only lead to stuff that you've already said.

I will say that the issue I'm seeing with the LGL is inconsistency.

 

[Crow!]

[responding to using extensions of the dimensional cape for non-stalling purposes]
I'd try it myself but I'm terribad with MK. Other than recovering from the ledge to the stage, I can't think of many uses honestly.

In that case, you should refrain from talking about rules regarding cape until such time as either you or someone you have played against has.

This applies to everyone else here, too. Educate yourselves, or else whatever you say is probably a bunch of BS.

Other than Dojo vs. M2K I haven't seen it much. You should send me a couple of videos of its usages because I honestly want to see. But my point was that if TOs don't consider it to be worthy of being DQd for, they just don't. It's completely under their discretion, so I feel like it's inane to argue the discrepancies of a rule online (how long is too long? etc) when it will rarely be carried out in person.

Here's one vid I have off the top of my head. Finding others would take time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI2usXy6R48#t=1m0s
I've personally witnessed other cases.

Nobody really knows how to determine what's allowed and what's not, so nobody tries to enforce it. Given the advantages of using it and the 0% enforcement rate, it would seem likely to be only a matter of time before this sort of thing goes from being infrequent to commonplace.

These are all subjective points. In my opinion, MK is not an unfair advantage (unless you were talking about planking, which I agree might be an unfair advantage, I dunno). But as you can tell with the year and a half the ban has been discussed and the nowhere we've gotten with it, arguing iffy subjective points like that isn't going to do anything.

There is nothing subjective about it. Playing as Meta Knight enables players to do better than equally skilled players who select other characters. My analysis has shown that among the players at comparable, high skill levels, selecting Meta Knight improves tournament performance by somewhere between 2 and 3 times (using Ankoku's weightings) over any other character, and it only gets worse from there.

The argument is no longer about whether playing as Meta Knight gives you an unfair advantage. It's whether that advantage is acceptable or not. Given the degree of the advantage, I think the answer is no. At a minimum, the advantage warrants an investigation.

I honestly haven't seen this used (aside from Super Theory Bros. Brawl, lol). I haven't seen tournaments with such a low LGL that an MK can actually do this. 40-50 seems to be the norm, where characters with ledge games aren't exactly harmed whereas MK can't plank the entire game. Are there any videos of the above happening, though?

MLG's got a limit of 35. Using the rules to win the game is totally doable at that point.

By 50 grabs, MK can plank/scrooge for quite a long time and the rule is becoming useless.

Even at 50 grabs, legitimate ledge play can easily exceed that number. Here, for instance, is a vid of a Pit player taking on the ICs. Notice that Pit is still vulnerable as he does his edge play; he's not stalling, he's merely choosing to have the fight happen at the ledge.

Count the ledge grabs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR3nuRY2N7k

(On a side note, the only difference between Pit here and MK is that MK is too good. So apparently we're goint to stop MK from doing what every other character has a right to do simply because his version of it is the best.)

Another reason why this work well on paper is that it seems like you're forgetting the TO and player elements. The TO or whoever watching would realize it's not actually planking and just an exploitation of the rule and wouldn't DQ the guy who lost, probably. And if not, someone would have to be quite the jerk to exploit a rule like that. Maybe on paper it's fair for a player to do that, but anyone who's watching and the opponent he's playing against would lose lots of respect for them. Most people aren't "ballsy" enough to do that.

Anyone who has the opportunity to exploit a rule like that to win but doesn't is, by common definition, a scrub. I would like to think that it is beneath you to resort to name calling directed at those players who truly play the game competitively. What the heck good are rules if they fall apart when you try to use them?

And no respectable tournament director would deny a win from a player who the rules explicitly say won the game. If the TO had any decent reputation before doing something like you suggest, it would be completely gone afterward.

Also Crow, I'd like a response to the two questions. I just want to see where people stand on this.

The questions AvaricePanda refers to here amount to "What good is gained and what bad things are lost by eliminating Meta Knight?"


Of course, by eliminating Meta Knight, character diversity is gained, but the awesome part is the way in which the character diversity works out. Right now, the character list is very clear: MK on top, then Snake, then a huge spread of characters. It has been suggested that Snake is only as high as he is because of Meta Knight; Ally has gone so far as to claim that Snake shouldn't even be listed as the second best character in the game. Looking at the tier list presently shows a list of "how well does this character do against Meta Knight?"

Point is, once Meta Knight is out of the way, it is not at all clear which character is the best, leaving Brawl with an unusually well balanced game in comparison to most fighting games. With Meta Knight in, on the other hand, it is an unusually poorly balanced game.

Even better, apart from Meta Knight, every character has even and disadvantaged matchups at mid tier and lower. This means you can actually keep yourself at a strategic advantage in every game without touching the "best" characters at all! I would go so far as to say that playing a wide variety of characters becomes a much superior choice over only mastering one A or B tier character. I predict that in a developed post-ban metagame, a majority of the top players will be those who frequently play three different characters in the same tourney.

Character diversity is easily testable at the end of a temp-ban period.


I will also appeal to the unfair advantage bit again. Currently, Brawl is a game where the most skilled player is not necessarily the one who wins most often; a player can make up for a rather large deficit in skill level by selecting Meta Knight. This is thorougly against the principles of competitive play.

By repeating my analysis methods, it should be easy to determine determine if choosing Snake (or whoever is the top character in a post-MK landscape) is giving the sort of unfair advantage that choosing Meta Knight had after a temp-ban period.


Keeping Meta Knight in the game is logistically taxing, too. Meta Knight currently has either 2 or 3 akward rules specifically targeting him in common rulesets. He dominates nearly every discussion of stage legality. I don't know who here pays attention to the custom stage contest in the stage subforum, but a common problem in designing stages is that, essentially, any stage which does anything interesting just gives Meta Knight something new to exploit.

I strongly suspect removing the ledge grab limit and (when present) scrooging rule will be completely fine once Meta Knight is gone, and obviously the weird ban on certain uses of Meta Knight's down-B will be gone.


As for excitement, generally the only cheering you'll hear in a game with MK playing is if people see him lose. At Delta Upsilon II, for instance (This year's Ohio Circuit opener) more people watched random games in the all items on free for all side event than M2K vs BlueRogue grand finals for the real tourney.. before it was over, I'd estimate there were less than 10 people left, and many of those simply waiting for rides/passengers. Apparently the grand finals of an event they devoted their entire day to wasn't exciting enough to bother watching, evidently because it involved a MK who was going to win.

Why is Meta Knight so boring? Strategy almost doesn't exist for MK; nearly all the strategy in a game with a MK in it is borrowed from the qualities of the character he plays against.

For between games, I've already discussed how MK wrecks the otherwise strategic question of which characters to play as. In game, MK is a light character with instant, combo-stopping, safe attacks, who cannot really be attacked offstage, and isn't any worse on the ground than in the air, and isn't any easier or harder to approach from the front vs the back vs the top vs the bottom, and never has to worry about landing with so many jumps and a plethora of safe ways to land even if he does choose to fake out his landing so many times that he runs out of those jumps... the list goes on. Point is, he's almost never any better or worse off in one situation versus another. (Part of the reason he planks/scrooges/air camps off stage so well is because most characters lose the majority of their options when going goes offstage.. MK isn't affected, like, at all.)

With Meta Knight, it's all about your basic skills: did you guess your opponent's action right? Did you space that attack right? Did you time your defensive options right? Meta Knight, to the fullest degree that any character could, lets you ignore everything else about the game.

And let's face it.. when it comes to choosing a game that showcases your mad technical skills, Melee is better. The Brawl community consists of people who are much closer to the "strategy" end of the gaming spectrum than most fighting games attract. And this is a good thing: within our audience's niche, Brawl doesn't really have that much competition.

Testing this at the end of a temp-ban is obviously more difficult, but I suggest polls conducted by or directed toward TOs to determine how frequently people stay for the full tournament before and after Meta Knight was banned. Overall tournament attendence, of course, is the biggest factor of all.


So let me turn the questions around.
Suppose Meta Knight did not exist in the game. Is there anything good, from a competitive point of view, that would happen by adding him in?
There's certainly no shortage of bad baggage associated with introducing him.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

I can't be certain but I think I counted at least 97 ledge grabs =/.

 

[AvaricePanda]

stuff

Honestly thanks for taking your time to point all that out, I'll think about all of that and get back to you later.

I still want more people to answer the questions just to see where people stand with this issue.
1) What problems are MK causing to the competitive Brawl community right now?
2) What problems would be fixed after banning MK?

From a quick brush through, I just wanted to point out a couple of things:
1)I wasn't really arguing much about the dimensional cape rules, I may have pointed them out but it wasn't the intention of anything I said.
2) I honestly didn't realize some characters legitimately grabbed the ledge that many times in certain match-ups.
3) Despite it being "scrubby" and "technically legitimate" by definition, it doesn't change the fact that people still dislike it. People get mad at people who time out matches or plank the last couple of minutes, so I would believe that obviously people would get frustrated with someone who exploited the LGL then pushed it to a TO that the opponent gets DQd. If nothing else it would sure cause a lot of drama/problems/controversy, and for lack of a better word, the person who would do something like that is "ballsy."

Things that are on paper logical don't always pull through in person. Remember Dojo vs. DEHF at Genesis, and how there was actually a vote on whether or not Dojo should have been disqualified for air-camping?

Anyway, thanks.