Official Metaknight Discussion

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Trolls killed this thread. -.-

 

[etecoon]

Trolls killed this thread. -.-

MK ban discussion: trolls do what the moderators should have done weeks ago.

 

[Vyse]

Tell a moderator if you and a sizable portion of other posters want to see a thread closed instead of spamming it.

I'm not willing to close this just yet since there is still more things people seem to want to say, but if you have nothing useful to contribute to general 'Metaknight' discussion, take it to the sticky I created:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=266590

It's designed to be a much more general discussion thread for ya'll.

etecoon: Please stop?

Jeez, this thread was okay before I left SWF to focus on Uni for a week.

 

[etecoon]

etecoon: Please stop?

if you insist, but I still don't think there's really anything left to discuss until orlando, people have just been repeating themselves for a long time

and there was an episode where someone tried to say that pit has better planking than MK. so this thread is repetition and nonsense

 

[Kitamerby]

So what about that Link?
Hes so horrible hes broken for being so bad.
Screw Jigglerpuff, ban L1nk

Ganondorf breaks the counterpick system by having no good or even matchups.

 

[Raziek]

Posts like these are why I gave up when we were around page 300....

 

[1048576]

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9928310&postcount=10198

Just doing my part to keep the discussion alive.

You know, AvaricePanda isn't the only one who is allowed to respond to this

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

if you insist, but I still don't think there's really anything left to discuss until orlando, people have just been repeating themselves for a long time

and there was an episode where someone tried to say that pit has better planking than MK. so this thread is repetition and nonsense

Tommy G, like Orion, has had about maybe 1 good post in this entire thread? The concept that Pit is a better planker than MK is so wrong that I doubt anyone is honestly taking him seriously. If you want to plank offensively, agressively, sure. But offensive planking is in almost every case a legitimate strategy which is not "too good". Even strictly defensive planking such as MK's "perfect" planking is only truly unstoppable in... well, MK's case.

 

[fkacyan]

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9928310&postcount=10198

Just doing my part to keep the discussion alive.

You know, AvaricePanda isn't the only one who is allowed to respond to this

The question he poses in that post has already been shown to be utterly unanswerable, just the same as the question: What exactly do we gain from removing him? Nobody can actually answer either of those questions without it being a ton of theory.

 

[Tommy_G]

FFFFf smashboards

 

[Tommy_G]

Tommy G, like Orion, has had about maybe 1 good post in this entire thread?

That's my thought on every one of your posts, too.

This is the reason why people have given up on this thread: stubborn people who wave their hands in the air when someone makes an irrefutable point.

I think this thread should have been kept locked when it was locked a long time ago. It's just getting a bunch of people's post count up.

 

[solecalibur]

Ganondorf breaks the counterpick system by having no good or even matchups.

We are discussing meta knight not ganon, the Cping system was developed in 64 and in melee days and we just adapted it to brawl, One of Pro-ban's arguments was to redesign the system (Of course shut down) as meta knight can only CP neutrals or your only aloud to use Meta knight once per set, their isn't many ideas for what to do but MLG's new stage list might help meta knight or hurt him only time will tell, since certain counter pick stages are very good vs Meta knight compared to others(G&W vs MK on RC G&W has an easier time) but the question is , is it really worth keeping this stage because character X has an easier time vs Meta knight because a lot of the other characters get screwed over

~also for the love of god get out of this topic if your just going to troll or spam the crap out of this thread and say this thread has run it's course because their is to much spam

 

[Tommy_G]

i love smashboards and their double-post-causing database errors

 

[AvaricePanda]

1) I'd be willing to guess that at least 95% of the people in this thread are so adamant (stubborn) that they will not change their viewpoints on any issue. For anything. Tommy G, you're wasting your time because BPC will never believe that Pit's planking is better. BPC, you're wasting your time because Tommy G will never believe that MKs planking is better. Theorycraft all you want, but nobody's opinions will change and all you're doing is keeping a (horrible) discussion(?) going that shouldn't be.

HAY GUYS LOOK WHAT I SAID!

The problem with this thread and threads like these in general are that the two sides (which shouldn't be as concrete as they are) are so stuck-up that they refuse to change their viewpoints no matter what. With the exception of a small amount of people, no one's willing to even accept the other side's viewpoints.

And the thing is, this isn't, "Pro-ban vs. anti-ban who wins!?!" it's a decision that affects the entire competitive Brawl community forever. Sadly, people who are sooo concerned about winning a petty argument and having the, "no matter what I'm always pro-ban/anti-ban!" mentality are people who have a say in the decision.

 

[AvaricePanda]

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.

The only example you showed was someone recovering to the stage though. And I'm not saying my opinion is concrete (see "I can't think of many uses honestly), I'd just like to know other uses of the dimensional cape glitch than what's already known.

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.

It was said in the last MK-ban thread (which I believe was directly after Genesis) that the bolded would happen. It hasn't. I believe that the IDC was known close to the beginning of Brawl's release (I could be mistaken), but whenever it was discovered, people would have realized that you can do it without stalling infinitely (obviously). It wouldn't be a stretch to say that using the dimensional cape glitch for non-stalling purposes would have been a known tactic since the IDC was found, yet it still isn't a commonplace tactic now.

Until that happens and the use remains infrequent (I've personally never seen it in tournament or heard of it being used in tournaments I didn't go to in my region), it's a decision that should be left to the TO.

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.

Advantage? Yes. Unfair? That's where the subjectivity lies. It's difficult to assess how much picking MK is an improvement because the character only takes someone so far. There's also the issue of there being more MKs mains than other character mains (which would boost his good ratings), the amount of good MK mains compared to good mains of other characters in a region, etc.

There's also the issue of just what you're comparing—how well MK mains do in comparison to non-MK mains. It's hard to judge if the MK mains are doing X amount better solely because of MK because that's the only character they've been using. I can't think of many (not a nearly substantial enough amount) of people that used a different character, switched mains to MK, and boosted their results by a lot (2 to 3 times as you said?).

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.)

You say it's doable, and I say sure—on paper. As you can tell, I don't trust heavy theorycrafting well. Until someone shows me that an MK can abuse this rule to force the opponent to be DQd for the LGL, and the opponent isn't a much worse player than the MK, then I can't believe this will happen. I'm not saying I want evidence of a lot of MKs doing it or for it to become a problem, I just want to see if it's even possible first.

I haven't seen a character other than MK exceed the LGL by that much. I do think that's a problem if it can cut into legitimate ledge play, but I'm still wondering two things. One, is MK's planking literally impossible to beat, or just difficult to beat? And two, why is targetting the planking rule only for MK a bad decision (other than it just being scrubby by definition?)

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?

Again, you have to look at the reception of everyone to this person. On paper and by the competitive definition, this player is using all he legally can to win and is just being a competitive player. To the people actually at that tournament and involved with the situation, the person who does that looks like a jerk (which is what I meant moreso than calling the person actually a jerk). It's obvious that the LGL wasn't intended for that particular exploitation, and people know that. By exploiting the rule and (assuming he wasn't leading in % when the match timed out) pushing to the TO that he should win, as I've said multiple times, will cause people to lose respect for him.

Sure, it's "scrubby", but every single Brawl competitive player doesn't adhere to what's technically scrubby and technically competitive. It's a completely reasonable reaction for them to do this.

(also, this exploitation wouldn't even be limited to MK. any character would be able to do this if the LGL was low)

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.

Refer to above. Some would lose respect for them, but some would find what they did just fine. It would cause controversy at the least, and it'd probably cause more had it been a large regional/national.

Also, the LGL isn't part of the SBR official ruleset. TOs can add or alter rules as they please. To circumvent this problem if it ever came up, a TO could add a clause of how "the rule only takes affect if a character's planking" or "the TO has the final say," or whatever. Maybe it's scrubby, but it avoids a problem. TOs don't always adhere to all of the SBR rules anyway (see MK banned tournaments) or sometimes their own rules (see players being late 20 minutes and being allowed to play regardless).

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

Not what bad things are lost by eliminating him. I meant what specific problems are MK causing to the competitive community right now (which you kind of answered anyway).

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.

There wasn't much I disagreed with what you said before aside from a few adjectives (and having a question) but I had to stop at this. This is more of my opinion than anything else, but match-ups aren't nearly as blown up as people make them on the boards. There's a lot of people who beat 40-60 match-ups consistently, and a lot of the times match-ups fluctuate (I referenced Diddy's match-ups earlier).

I guess I'm trying to say that 60-40 match-ups, which seems to be the worst number for most members of A or B tier, is winnable enough for them to stick with one main and still compete at the top of regional/national levels.

This isn't really as important though.

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.

Again, I want examples of this. It's hard to determine whether a person is winning because of their skill or because of MK if MK's been their consistent main. You can't really say, "oh well they'd be worse without him." I haven't seen any examples where a sub-competent player becomes more than that because of MK (this may mean name-dropping, but oh well lol).

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.

A lot of this may have to do with the fact that there's more MK mains than any other character mains; is this because the character's better or because the character's unfairly better?

It's obvious that MK is the best character in the game, but I feel that a lot of people pick him up because of this fact, so there's a larger pool of MK players which means there's a larger pool of good MK players, which skews tournament results in his advantage and makes it look like he's better than what he really is. That's my opinion at least; can you show me otherwise?

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.

There's more worries than MK about stage legality (I don't know about the custom stage contest, but can you list any current stages that would be legal in more places with MK banned?). I agree to everything else though.

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.

It wouldn't be a stretch to say that most of the time, Brawl just isn't a fun game to watch because of the game mechanics. Personally, unless I know the people playing well and want to see the outcome, I'm waiting on a match and want to see my opponent, or it's a match with my main in it (Diddy), I don't watch matches. MK doesn't have much to do with that. At a somewhat small February tournament in Indianapolis (it had about 25 people in singles I believe), I don't think many people were watching grand finals either, and it was Krystedez (Wario) vs. Renegade (Snake). More people were watching and playing Brawl-, and I was playing Melee friendlies.

Would you say that everyone would be watching if it was BlueRogue vs. say . . . Infern or YbM? Maybe more people would watch, but I personally wouldn't be one of those people if I already had plans to play something else or just go home. This game isn't Melee, where to most people most matches are fun to watch and only Jigglypuff dittos are boring (lol pound4).

Also, it depends who the MK player and match-up is. I watched Nairo vs. Jtails on the Polybrawl livestream a few weeks ago, and I was rooting for Nairo despite him being MK and the opponent being Diddy. Nairo's MK is fun to watch in that match-up because he just does amazingly vs. Diddy, like...wow.

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.

I'm confused as to what you're trying to say here.

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.

As I said before, I don't think your character choice is a really strategic thing. Most people are really good with one character. Some have a good secondary, but are still more comfortable with their main. There's only a couple of players (lol Ninjalink) that actually use the character counterpick system to its fullest. It's mainly because most people don't bother learning an entirely new character and getting them to the level their main is just because their main has a few 40-60 or moderately disadvantageous match-ups. Most, including myself, would rather just deal with the match-ups with their main.

Heck, the most I counterpick for is when I have to deal with the Diddy ditto, as I use Diddy, Peach, MK, or Falco depending on the type of Diddy I'm fighting.

Some characters can also abuse MK in certain situations. For example with Diddy, a lot of MK's attacks aren't safe on shield if he has a banana. His D-air camping (how many people even do this anymore? lol) or just being above you isn't as good as compared to other characters. I honestly kind of like platforms for the match-up, so I counterpick BF and try to strike to BF.

For the most part though I agree; MK does exceptionally well against the character counterpick system, the part I disagree with is how important the character counterpick system is.

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.

MK is not the problem for tournament attendance. I've said it before too; only in special situations is MK a sole negative factor for tournament attendance.

As far as watching matches goes, this is a problem not with MK but with Brawl's general gameplay physics. Most matches are campy. I've timed out countless people with Diddy and been timed out quite a few times. Most of my matches last longer than 6 minutes. It just happens. This was said by a lot of people during pound4; some people thought it was unfair that Melee cut into a good chunk of Brawl's livestream time, but most people agreed that Melee was a more enjoyable game to watch.

As far as actually attending tournaments goes, this is an issue of how the tournament is run—where it's held, how much entrance is, how many places get paid out, if pools are run or not, if the venue is air conditioned and well-sized, if the atmosphere is nice, if there's fun side events or not, if there's overnight housing, if food is cheap or near the venue, who might attend, if there's plenty of set-ups, if there's a schedule, if it runs on time, if the TO doesn't have a past history of running bad tournaments—these are just some of the things that affects how many people attend a tournament.

MK is not one of them except for rare situations which I've mentioned in previous posts (regions of New Mexico, Gtan, Puerto Rico). In my initial lengthy post I gave evidence as to why all the things I listed were more important to tournament attendance. If you want the evidence, refer to my initial post or just ask me again. There have been much more situations where a region's struggled with attendance and improved the attendance by stepping up how tournaments were run (and how many were run).

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.

I answered this as a hypothetical already, but I agree with what Thio said; since we don't know how an MK-less competitive Brawl would play out over 2 years, we don't know what would happen by adding him in. Similarly to how we don't know what banning MK will concretely do without evidence.





Overall, my conclusions are:

1) MK isn't causing nearly enough of a concrete problem to the competitive Brawl community.
2) Supposing the competitive Brawl community could be improved from what it currently is, banning MK is too much of a leap of faith that could potentially do more harm than good.

I'm afraid of a temp-ban, at least how we have a temp-ban imagined now, because it may not (IMO probably will not) show the results that we'd get from an MK-ban. Something like some amount of TOs not following through with the temp ban and hosting MK legal tournaments would most probably happen. I honestly can't imagine everybody hosting MK-banned tournaments for six months.

There's more to the MK ban than tournament results, but if hosting a few more MK-banned tournaments or side-events helps us know a bit more of what would happen in the event of a ban, then I suppose I'm for it.

edit: Sorry for double posting, I just assumed someone would post in the time it took me to respond to this.

 

[Tommy_G]

-inbefore40pageresponses-

I wanna see people respond to long posts like these and only make them longer.

 

[Crow!]

-inwith40pageresponse-

Nah, seriously, I'll keep this brief. All the quotes make this post look longer than it is.

Advantage? Yes. Unfair? That's where the subjectivity lies.

If a coin is shown to have a 50.00000000000000000000001% chance of landing Heads rather than Tails, it is, by definition, an unfair coin. (Showing this is the case would be very difficult, of course...)

It's difficult to assess how much picking MK is an improvement because the character only takes someone so far. There's also the issue of there being more MKs mains than other character mains (which would boost his good ratings), the amount of good MK mains compared to good mains of other characters in a region, etc.

There's also the issue of just what you're comparing—how well MK mains do in comparison to non-MK mains. It's hard to judge if the MK mains are doing X amount better solely because of MK because that's the only character they've been using. I can't think of many (not a nearly substantial enough amount) of people that used a different character, switched mains to MK, and boosted their results by a lot (2 to 3 times as you said?).

Either you never read or you didn't comprehend this post.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9626469#post9626469


Compare:

You say it's doable, and I say sure—on paper. As you can tell, I don't trust heavy theorycrafting well. Until someone shows me that an MK can abuse this rule to force the opponent to be DQd for the LGL, and the opponent isn't a much worse player than the MK, then I can't believe this will happen. I'm not saying I want evidence of a lot of MKs doing it or for it to become a problem, I just want to see if it's even possible first.

Versus:

Until that happens [IDC use becoming a problem] and the use remains infrequent (I've personally never seen it in tournament or heard of it being used in tournaments I didn't go to in my region), it's a decision that should be left to the TO.

Double standard.

I haven't seen a character other than MK exceed the LGL by that much.

Unless you refused to click the link you quoted, this is simply not true. You've now seen a non-MK demolish the limit.

Sure, it's "scrubby", but every single Brawl competitive player doesn't adhere to what's technically scrubby and technically competitive.

The weakness of an argument that has to make this statement should be obvious.

Suppose we legalized Bridge of Eldin and the like. Yes, there would be scrubs out there who play with honor and don't use the walkoff edges, etc. in the various ways for which the stages are usually banned. This does not allow us to ignore the players who are competitive.

(also, this exploitation [utilizing the Ledge Grab Limit to win] wouldn't even be limited to MK. any character would be able to do this if the LGL was low)

No character should be allowed to do it, ever.

Also, the LGL isn't part of the [BBR] official ruleset.

And, if I can help it, it will continue to be absent for the reasons I have listed in this thread and more.

Again, I want examples of this [evidence that MK, the character, makes players perform better]. It's hard to determine whether a person is winning because of their skill or because of MK if MK's been their consistent main. You can't really say, "oh well they'd be worse without him." I haven't seen any examples where a sub-competent player becomes more than that because of MK (this may mean name-dropping, but oh well lol).

This demonstrates a misunderstanding of how to do experiments and statistics based off off those experiments. This is a handy life skill, so I'll go into detail here with an example.

You (the reader) have a drug (code named "MK") which you are going to test on your lab rats to see if it boosts their ability to do a particular task (we'll code name that task "Brawl"). How do you do the experiment?

Avarice Panda suggests that you first see how well the rats Brawl before doing MK, and then give them MK and compare. Or alternatively, start on MK and then withhold it. This doesn't work! The rats are learning as the successive measurements are made.

The root problem here is that the method used doesn't control for a key variable: the number of times the rats have already done the experiment in a particular way. Our case with Brawl is even more problematic with respect to the elapsing of time because tournament players aside from the specific ones being investigated are also learning.

The correct solution is to take your rats and split them into groups. Some of them are given MK, while others (the "control group") are not (and are usually given a placebo). Now you can fairly compare how well MK rats do at Brawl versus how well non-MK rats do.

This is, effectively, what we have done. Some players have been on MK, while others have not. How large each sample is is irrelevant; [edit: provided each sample is big enough to do statistics on, of course] we analyze the distributions of performance that come out.

It's obvious that MK is the best character in the game, but I feel that a lot of people pick him up because of this fact, so there's a larger pool of MK players which means there's a larger pool of good MK players, which skews tournament results in his advantage and makes it look like he's better than what he really is. That's my opinion at least; can you show me otherwise?

Have you ever seen my analysis at all?
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9585089#post9585089
And I'm being much too lenient in that iteration of the analysis; see the post I linked above.

Personally, unless I know the people playing well and want to see the outcome, I'm waiting on a match and want to see my opponent, or it's a match with my main in it (Diddy), I don't watch matches. MK doesn't have much to do with that. ... This game isn't Melee, where to most people most matches are fun to watch and only Jigglypuff dittos are boring (lol pound4).

Personally, I find Brawl more exciting to watch than Melee. This, of course, is the epitome of subjectiveness.

Polling tournament goers could shed light on which opinions are common.

There's only a couple of players (lol Ninjalink) that actually use the character counterpick system to its fullest. It's mainly because most people don't bother learning an entirely new character and getting them to the level their main is just because their main has a few 40-60 or moderately disadvantageous match-ups. Most, including myself, would rather just deal with the match-ups with their main.

My argument is that, with MK out of the picture, using the counterpick system to its fullest will provide a more notable advantage than before, especially if your opponent only knows one character. There will be guys that play as only one character, but doing that becomes a lot more of a liability in terms of winning chances.

MK is not the problem for tournament attendance. I've said it before too; only in special situations is MK a sole negative factor for tournament attendance.

Right now, your words hold no more or less weight than mine on this matter. A temp-ban could settle the matter.

There are, of course, other factors which affect tournament results. As long as MK isn't the reason one of those other factors is set to a particular way (or vice versa), this would not interfere with analysis.

I'm afraid of a temp-ban, at least how we have a temp-ban imagined now, because it may not (IMO probably will not) show the results that we'd get from an MK-ban. Something like some amount of TOs not following through with the temp ban and hosting MK legal tournaments would most probably happen. I honestly can't imagine everybody hosting MK-banned tournaments for six months.

Think back to the lab rats. If both MK allowed and MK banned tournaments ran at the same time, that would be perfect for analysis!

There's more to the MK ban than tournament results, but if hosting a few more MK-banned tournaments or side-events helps us know a bit more of what would happen in the event of a ban, then I suppose I'm for it.

We need the ban to be widespread enough and long enough for the first batch of metagame evolution trends to become obvious before it can be useful in terms of analyzable data.

 

[AvaricePanda]

I think you misunderstood some of what I said. Like when I said, "I've honestly never seen a non-MK exceed the LGL by that much," I was actually referring to the video where Vex grabbed the ledge like 100+ times. I meant something like, "Oh, I've honestly never seen a non-MK exceed the LGL by that much," as in, "thanks for showing me because now I know the rule is impeding on non-MK users to do a fair tactic."

I also haven't yet seen your analysis, so I'll look at that.

I'll respond more later, but I have a question: so if we were to carry out the temp-ban but we don't want every tournament to be an MK banned tournament (is that what you're saying?) then how would we go carrying that out? Is it just something like the BBR encourages people to host more MK-banned tournaments, or what?

 

[Limeee]

seriously you guys, stop arguing like morons, you don't need an entire essay about your argument when you can sum it up in a paragraph or two

all your trying to do is hide your argument behind lots of words so its easy to miss lies

i'm not saying everything needs tl;dr, i'm saying this is the internet, not english class

 

[etecoon]

I'll respond more later, but I have a question: so if we were to carry out the temp-ban but we don't want every tournament to be an MK banned tournament (is that what you're saying?) then how would we go carrying that out? Is it just something like the BBR encourages people to host more MK-banned tournaments, or what?

pretty much. this is why I've mostly made ridiculous facetious posts in this topic, the BBR can say what they want but most of my region is going to go "lol no" and MK will still be allowed here.

 

[Raziek]

^ Protip: Don't like it, don't read it, stay out of the argument. Walls of text are QUITE OFTEN loaded with valuable information. I've yet to see one of Crow's that hasn't been.

Edit: Ack, Etecoon ninja'd me. My ^ is directed to Jujitsutide.

 

[salaboB]

It was said in the last MK-ban thread (which I believe was directly after Genesis) that the bolded would happen. It hasn't. I believe that the IDC was known close to the beginning of Brawl's release (I could be mistaken), but whenever it was discovered, people would have realized that you can do it without stalling infinitely (obviously). It wouldn't be a stretch to say that using the dimensional cape glitch for non-stalling purposes would have been a known tactic since the IDC was found, yet it still isn't a commonplace tactic now.

Until that happens and the use remains infrequent (I've personally never seen it in tournament or heard of it being used in tournaments I didn't go to in my region), it's a decision that should be left to the TO.

Maybe it's because any use of the IDC (Even short duration) was declared illegal pretty much immediately after it was publicized, and most people don't break rules in a tournament even if they can get away with it? (They might not get away with it if the TO decides to make an example of them, for one thing.)

Maybe?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

HAY GUYS LOOK WHAT I SAID!

The problem with this thread and threads like these in general are that the two sides (which shouldn't be as concrete as they are) are so stuck-up that they refuse to change their viewpoints no matter what. With the exception of a small amount of people, no one's willing to even accept the other side's viewpoints.

And the thing is, this isn't, "Pro-ban vs. anti-ban who wins!?!" it's a decision that affects the entire competitive Brawl community forever. Sadly, people who are sooo concerned about winning a petty argument and having the, "no matter what I'm always pro-ban/anti-ban!" mentality are people who have a say in the decision.

Truth. Again. In general, people are not that hasty to change their opinions. In my case though? I have still never seen a bit of evidence that doesn't, in my brain, point to an extreme unbalance through metaknight. And I have never had any evidence provided from anyone from anti-ban besides you that there's even an argument against it other than "I main MK, no ban plz".

 

[etecoon]

I main snake, no ban plz

 

[AvaricePanda]

seriously you guys, stop arguing like morons, you don't need an entire essay about your argument when you can sum it up in a paragraph or two

all your trying to do is hide your argument behind lots of words so its easy to miss lies

i'm not saying everything needs tl;dr, i'm saying this is the internet, not english class

All we're trying to do is get across as much information as possible that pertains to the debate. I know I'm really wordy when I get tired (which is usually 15 minutes in replying to something), but there's way too much information in what we're saying to sum up in a paragraph or two. All of my questions towards Crow! and others would probably constitute a paragraph or two, lol.

Truth. Again. In general, people are not that hasty to change their opinions. In my case though? I have still never seen a bit of evidence that doesn't, in my brain, point to an extreme unbalance through metaknight. And I have never had any evidence provided from anyone from anti-ban besides you that there's even an argument against it other than "I main MK, no ban plz".

There's Omni, adumbrodeus, and Thiocyanide all with anti-ban arguments or just MK-ban worries that aren't that. That's just from the top of my head in this thread.

I agree; it's not easy for people to change their decisions, but there's a difference between holding a strong opinion and denying every single thought that could challenge that opinion (lolbadanalogy).

edit: Crow, I'm a freshman in Algebra II, ergo bad at statistics since I haven't taken any classes for it or anything, so your data is going to take me a while to analyze and understand.

 

[Masmasher@]

what would a temp ban prove?
this needs to be deaded right now?

 

[solecalibur]

what would a temp ban prove?
this needs to be deaded right now?

As stated before they are seeking a temp ban as many anti bans are willing to turn over for a temp ban and see how the brawl meta game develops accordingly, I am all for a temp ban to see if the meta game just shifts
-to just placings without the meta knight mains (Very unlikely as many characters are a lot more viable with out MK not just marth)
-To just snake since he is the 2nd best character
-Or the meta knight mains do what they do best and camp until the temp ban is over and completely throw out the reason for the temp ban and say it wasn't a good idea

 

[Masmasher@]

As stated before they are seeking a temp ban as many anti bans are willing to turn over for a temp ban and see how the brawl meta game develops accordingly, I am all for a temp ban to see if the meta game just shifts
-to just placings without the meta knight mains (Very unlikely as many characters are a lot more viable with out MK not just marth)
-To just snake since he is the 2nd best character
-Or the meta knight mains do what they do best and camp until the temp ban is over and completely throw out the reason for the temp ban and say it wasn't a good idea

Its really sort of silly.
It wont really do anything ether. what happens when meta knight comes back. What are you looking for when you actually do it. you already know that the results are going to change... you will have gained nothing except the opinion of the community which would be subjective on how much they like the situation with him gone. with him gone how do you prove that he is ban worthy. you have gained no ground. You ether ban him or you dont plus you are taking players practice with the character away. Theres no criteria to say that he is banworthy and the very fact that a temp ban would happen would be becuase you "feel" like having him gone.

I just think that this isnt the best way to go abot things...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

what would a temp ban prove?
this needs to be deaded right now?

Well, put simply, if the temp ban goes the way the pro-bans are expecting, there is exactly one argument left for anti-ban: "I like winning with Metaknight, because he unbalances brawl and makes it easier for me to win". I'm serious!
We get to test:
-If there is a new "dominant character" in the metagame, AKA a new "metaknight".
-If there is increased character balance; tied in with this, if other characters become viable.
-If tournament attendances rise/fall.

It's incredibly sensible.

 

[solecalibur]

We dont "feel" like banning him just because. we "feel" like banning him because of the dominance of meta knight in the community and other many reasons (Im sure you have heard of these reasons before) and I still dont quite see solid answer's from anti ban (all i see is just anti ban trolls)

We are doing this to gauge how the meta game will change and when the temp ban is gone, we are going to discuss if meta knight is really ban worthy, we aren't just going to temp ban meta knight then do nothing after that

edit - @Budget If we do have a temp ban I can guarantee a lot of meta knight mains will just practice their character while the ban is gone and just not go to tounrys (there are some exceptions) until the temp ban is removed

 

[theunabletable]

-If there is increased character balance; tied in with this, if other characters become viable.

So character viability is a logical reason for a ban, you're saying?

 

[Masmasher@]

thats just it though. the fact is the results arte going to change and the fact is that the there will be more character diversity. but you dont ban him to make the result change. the ratio being highly dependeant on the pro ban would make the view of the results subjective.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So character viability is a logical reason for a ban, you're saying?

Arguably, in conjunction with game balance? Yes. You'd ban Akuma to make a street fighter game balanced, wouldn't you?

 

[theunabletable]

^Let's ban D3's infinite so we can have better balance, then, right?

And why stop there? Why not just ban all the tactics that cause characters to be unviable so we can have a perfectly balanced game? And if we're doing that, why not just ban the tactics that make MK bannable (such as scrooging limitations)?

And I know sooooo little about SF that I'm not going to bother trying to answer that.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

^Let's ban D3's infinite so we can have better balance, then, right?

And why stop there? Why not just ban all the tactics that cause characters to be unviable so we can have a perfectly balanced game?

And I know sooooo little about SF that I'm not going to bother trying to answer that.

I believe that Overswarm had this in one of his posts....

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

What this shows, essentially, is that Brawl without metaknight is a shockingly well-balanced game! Brawl with Metaknight is SF2 with Akuma. Pick a version.

 

[Luxor]

^Let's ban D3's infinite so we can have better balance, then, right?

And why stop there? Why not just ban all the tactics that cause characters to be unviable so we can have a perfectly balanced game? And if we're doing that, why not just ban the tactics that make MK bannable (such as scrooging limitations)?

And I know sooooo little about SF that I'm not going to bother trying to answer that.

We'd have to ban Sheik (vs. Ganon) and Pika (vs. Fox) then. Better just to stick to a global ban rather than a surgical one imo. It's mostly a moot point for D3's infinite anyway, since most TO's ban it to encourage DK & Friend's attendance.

It'd be nice if there was an official SF primer for the layman Smash community.

 

[theunabletable]

@BPC: Did you even read my post?

1) You didn't answer my question. 2) I said that I know very very little about SF, why the hell are you still making comparisons to it when you and I both know that it'll go right over my head because I have no experience with those? 3) I never stated that Brawl would be badly balanced even without MK. I think the game would be better all-around without MK. But we don't make our rulesets based on what makes the game better and if we were, a Brawl with a surgically limited MK would be even better than a Brawl without MK at all. So your mentioning of OS' post is completely irrelevant.

Answer the questions I asked in my last post, which were: Why not ban D3's infinite for better balance? Why stop there? Why not just ban all the tactics that cause characters to be unviable so we can have a perfectly balanced game?

I personally have no problem playing a game with rules altered for the sake of balance, but if we're banning MK just for balance purposes, why not just limit him and all the things that cause every unviable character to be viable so we can have a balanced game? I don't personally have a problem with this, but 95% of the people do so I don't even bother trying to debate such a point when I know it won't make a **** bit of good.

Either balance is not a reason at all to ban a character, or it is and we should take balance into account with making every rule we make.

We'd have to ban Sheik (vs. Ganon) and Pika (vs. Fox) then.

I'm not sure what it is about Sheik that makes the matchup broken vs Ganon. I heard that Ganon can't approach Sheik with the chain out but Idk... And for Pika vs Fox we could just ban Pika's CG (not saying at all that there is logical reason to do this, but if we're already making our rules in the name of balance like BPC is suggesting we should, why not?)

It's mostly a moot point for D3's infinite anyway, since most TO's ban it to encourage DK & Friend's attendance.

Just because a lot of TOs do it doesn't make it logical to do so.

 

[MKOwnage]

This thread needs to be closed.
MK isn't going anywhere. He didn't win Pound 4. Mk clearly isn't as much as a problem as we thought and the meta game will continue to move in a positive way.
MK= Melee Sheik.
Kthxclosethisthread

 

[DMG]

Unable Table: Banning things to Balance out the game ONLY if it passes a certain threshold. You could ban something to improve Balance only once things were outta whack by a significant degree.

MK = Arguably at or past this point.

Dedede's Infinite = No way in hell. People who say they ban this for Balance might be right, except that the infinite does not make a huge impact on the metagame. Honestly, if you think that Dedede's Infinite is TOO destructive or powerful and you need to remove it for balance, then MK would need to have been removed ages ago. Which is why I am puzzled a lot of people who vote for MK to stay are all "Wahhh! Snifle! Pooooooooor Donkey Kong + friends! We need to make sure that they specifically do not lose that particular matchup that bad! He's such a meanie for grabbing them!".

 

[Raziek]

Why does everyone think Pound 4 means everything? We've been through this 50 times already. ADHD, M2K, and Ally can all reasonably be classified as statistical outliers, leaving the rest of the tournament OVERWHELMINGLY dominated by MK. Just because MK didn't win, doesn't mean he isn't causing problems.