Official Metaknight Discussion

[etecoon]

nothings stopping you from hosting MK banned tournaments, you just need to understand that you are not going to be part of the mainstream metagame and that you will be left behind, that's all.

 

[Ripple]

he's said repeatedly that he would simply quit the game

he then later said he wouldn't. Its his main source of income. it's like quiting his job

 

[link2702]

he then later said he wouldn't. Its his main source of income. it's like quiting his job

thats....kinda sad actually.......hell i like smash and all, but its kinda a gamble to make playing in video game tournaments your main sorce of income, even if M2K is the best/one of the best brawlers around, there is always that chance that he MIGHT actually lose, small as it might be, still there, and then what? he'll have no money for that month, really it confuses me how some folks try to make the game thier whole source of income i like gaming and all, but my job is still my main source of income, the gaming is just a fun passtime/hobby

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Sadly, hosting MK banned tournaments is in fact detrimental to your scene. This isn't theorycraft, it actually works like that. NM was a metabanned region for an extremely long time, and we really sucked hard back then. Unless it actually haooens on a national level, MK banned tournies are screwing that region, nothing more

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

Has anyone considered to have mid tier and low tier side events with mk legal in them?

I know it sounds ******** since the point of those events are to give those characters a chance to win with out the top tiers but it might be a way to test who mk makes unviable since it would show match ups that we haven't seen for a year and a half.

Of course i doubt people would want to join an event like that i know i don't.

 

[Espy Rose]

Good luck convincing people to pay money to enter low/mid tier events with Meta Knight allowed.

 

[Gnes]

LMAO lets go jiggs vs mk. Hes everything i am, but 100X better

 

[giuocob]

Has anyone considered to have mid tier and low tier side events with mk legal in them?

I know it sounds ******** since the point of those events are to give those characters a chance to win with out the top tiers but it might be a way to test who mk makes unviable since it would show match ups that we haven't seen for a year and a half.

Of course i doubt people would want to join an event like that i know i don't.

Almost everyone in C or lower has more unwinnable matchups than Meta Knight that keep them below the water. The problem is that there are plenty of A and B characters that would have a good chance at tournaments if they didn't get ***** by Metaknights at half their skill level.

 

[Espy Rose]

Except that all of his B moves are actually good, Gnes.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

MK does 7-3 a lot of mid-low tiers, then their are those oddballs like Jigglypuff who don't get LOLRAPED, by him.

 

[SharkAttack]

Instead of 3 stock matches how about making each match 1 stock and having a best of five series instead of a best of 3. Metaknight would have to be more careful because he's a lightweight and the mid to low tier characters in each match could get a lucky break and get a dominating streak going to win a match. Metaknights will win a marathon based on the more stock a match has; but could he win a sprint in the aspect of less stock per match? A player can only make a nice run at Metaknight for so long in a match before Metaknight takes over with his beastly priority and edgeguarding game.

By the way I am still in favor of the way things are now; but this is an idea for tournaments across regions that absolutely despise Metaknight but are too cautious to ban him. I don't think anyone would want to play a match with 1 stock; but then again the series could be extended so that competitors actually get to play a good deal of time.

Then again this plan would bring about the problem of characters who could chaingrab and own a match in 1 stock like Falco or the Ice Climbers.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Yes, lets just make even more rules to limit him rather than ban.

Also, this is absurd because MK usually has the lead in %, which just encourages him to stall even more lol.

 

[Blacknight99923]

unless TOs run MK ban and MK legal tournaments globaly any ban has to be national or your region will be ****ed nationally.



Unless MLG is willing to ban MK during their tournaments banning MK during MLG is a bad idea that TO's won't sign off on as to prevent their region from sucking.

assuming MLG will not ban MK then the temp ban can really only take place globally AFTER MLG

 

[AvaricePanda]

Every anti-ban reason I've heard is either "just wait and see" (tendency: MK is getting better, not worse), "Too many pro players main MK to ban him now" (not really a reason not to ban him; they need to learn a new character. Most characters other than, say, MK, Snake, and Diddy need a secondary; snake and diddy should have one anyways. Now MK needs one too.), or the old "I MAIN EMM KAY PLEASE NO BAN".

EDIT: or the faulty "it's too late" and "no criteria" arguments which I went through yesterday.

I'm almost positive that the reason I wrote a long post going over my concerns about banning MK was explicitly because you wanted reasons other than, "I mean MK don't ban him," or "let's just wait and see what happens."

Long post warning. The three bolded posts are my concerns.

How much dominance is too much?

This has been brought up before and quickly dismissed, but it's a serious question. The pro-ban argument has shown a lot of information that Meta Knight is dominating; this is something that shouldn't come as a surprise. However, we don't know if the dominance is banworthy because we don't know how much dominance is too much. The cutoff would be different from person to person, so the information shown could be overdomination to some and perfectly fine to others

Any dominance cutoffs created by this point would be biased — that much is obvious.

What happens after Meta Knight is banned?

Again, this is another point that's been brought up. We only know a few things for certain:

1)An MK ban will force a large chunk of the Brawl community to change their mains for MK banned events.
2)An MK ban (should) bring in more varied tournament results.

The former is the only thing we really know for sure. There's no true proof of the latter happening, but it's hard to argue against with the character rankings and match-ups presented. What happens past then — increased tournament attendance, a split in the community, past MK mains remaining top pros, new players coming, Brawl lasting longer, etc — is all speculation. We have no way of knowing what will actually happen, but there are definitely many concerns about what would happen to the community.

Suppose you take a region, like Atlantic North, that has a good amount of MK mains, and it's after the MK ban. Would all of the TOs follow through with the ban? Suppose they all or mostly don't, and within Atlantic North the competitive scene remains as it usually has been. What happens if they try to host a national, or MK players want to compete in a national out of region? They probably won't be able to well because of the MK-banned vs. MK-legal tournament attendee discord. Suppose some TOs follow the ban and others keep MK legal. What happens to attendance within region with all of the MK mains? Will they only go to MK allowed tournaments? Will non-MK mains go to those same tournaments, or will they keep to the MK banned ones? Will they just switch mains? Suppose most or all TOs follow the ban. What happens to the large chunk of MK mains in the region? There probably won't be enough people that quit because of MK and are waiting to come back to fill in their shoes, so does the region just suffer if all the MK mains decide to quit? Or do they just switch mains?

There are too many questions that we can't answer because we don't know for sure what will happen with an MK ban. The game could turn out better or worse, but we don't know.

(One thing that an MK ban will not do, however, is magically increase tournament attendees. While some increase may happen over time, a bunch of new players won't join the competitive scene simply because MK is banned. Attendance is somewhat different only in the sense that if a region is literally turning into MK dittos and people are quitting in the region because of that, then an MK ban would increase the attendance. It won't bring in new players or tournament goers. That's more of the issue of the tournament itself. I'll expand on this later.)

A possible solution for the “We don't know anything!” dilemna is a temp ban. Banning MK for a time period like 6 months could provide the evidence we need to make a final verdict. However, I'm very wary about a temp ban because we don't know for sure if the evidence and results we find would show what we'd get with a permanent ban. It's all up to what the TOs and players do; if there's a split with MK-banned and MK-legal tournaments, we won't get very accurate results. If certain players just stop playing, or only go to MK-legal tournaments, etc., it's the same result.

Is Meta Knight a real problem in the Brawl community right now?

Think about this question for a second before you instantly say “yes.” This question is ignoring the theorycraft, the ban criteria concerns, the LGL rule specifics, all of that stuff — looking at the real picture of actual tournaments, is Meta Knight a real problem?

MK ban threads usually only come around the time of a national. CoT4, Genesis, SNES, Pound 4, etc, and there's usually not much commotion about the MK ban until then. When the thread comes up and we see tournament results, everybody goes frantic. Why? The results of nationals shouldn't be surprising; top players get top spots, a lot of top players main Meta Knight, Meta Knight gets a lot of top spots.

People like to throw around blanket statements of how much MK is destroying the community, how MK is overcentralizing the metagame, how MK is decreasing tournament attendance — I even heard that the game wouldn't last until 2010 (which is obviously false). However, what MK actually does to the community seems to be quite region specific. For example, I heard that New Mexico (from Dekar), GtaN (from Swordgard), and Puerto Rico (from Kewkky) have all had MK problems or overcentralization to the point where they had to ban the character. He would consistently be taking 6-7 out of the top 8, and people have stopped going to tournaments because of him in the regions. In that case, a ban is completely understandable.

What about everywhere else?

What about places like Atlantic North, where a lot of people main MK but a lot of people are fine with it, and a ban of MK would cut a large chunk of the playerbase? What about places like Eastern Midwest, where MK exists but isn't really dominating? In most places, sure MK has the top results since he's the best character in the game, but he's not a real problem. People have mentioned the slow decline of tournament attendance and have correlated it with the slow increase of MK's results. Honest question: Do you think a ban of MK will boost tournament attnedance in your region?

If you answered yes, stop and think for a bit. I said before in a parenthetical remark that a MK ban wouldn't bring any more new attendees, and except for special cases such as New Mexico, GtaN, and Puerto Rico, his ban wouldn't really bring much more tournament attendance. Certain regions have been having trouble with attendance recently, and more likely than not it isn't because of MK dominance that attendance is declining, but of tournaments themselves.

The MD/VA tournament scene was struggling a few months ago (not sure if it's the same now) mainly because of how tournaments were run. They usually had $10 venue fees, not great venues, top 3 payouts, and sometimes no pools. This is horrible for anybody who isn't around top 5-10 in the region, and it's especially horrible for the worse players. Imagine being new to the competitive scene (AKA probably not good), driving a good distance to go to a tournament, shelling out $30 for entry+gas+food, having the tournament go slowly because of the lack of set-ups, and when it's all said and done you only play two matches because of the lack of pools. That's not even worst case scenario — that happens in quite a lot of tournaments (I'm not taking a stab at MD/VA by the way, this is just in general). They're set up and run badly, and as a result the lower end of the player spectrum has a bad experience and no motivation to go to future tournaments. They don't see much hope of getting better, and it just isn't fun for them. This leads to tournament attendance decline. Things like losing to a planking Meta Knight may contribute a small bit to this, but it's hardly the main reason why attendance is lacking.

Now let's take a look at Ohio. Ohio's tournaments are amazingly well run, and as a result they have a huge and very competitive scene. If you have the time, I'd advise you to read this thread (it's the chat between AlphaZealot and Takeover, and AZ gives great advice on how to run a tournament. How his tournaments are run are pretty much how most of Ohio's tournaments are run).

Anyway, I've heard from pretty much all sources, from AIM, on SWF, and in person, that Ohio tournaments are just fun experiences. TOs and helpers such as AZ, Nope, Keist, and OS all do the suggested things for smooth and fun tournaments, so it caters really well to everyone. They have cheap entry fees, tournaments that run on time, pools, and tournaments in each region: Springfield, Cincinnati, Columbus, NEOH. The result is a large amount of good players all competing for the Ohio Power Rankings.

I don't know from experience, but I heard that SoCal was in a slump similar to MD/VA, but Champ with 2GoodGaming has stepped it up with tournaments and helped boost the scene there.

Overall, what I'm trying to say is that region's tournament success or tournament troubles doesn't seem to have anything to do with MK. All of those regions have their share of MK mains, good and bad. Their existence doesn't have an effect on the tournament scenes.

Those are my three viewpoints on those questions. I feel that MK's dominance is region specific and we can't put a broad blanket over how MK performs in the world. I feel that we can't know what will happen afterwards if a ban was instituted, and there's no evidence to suggest the ban will improve the community. I feel that MK isn't even a problem in the community right now, and while we can argue over specifics about him on SWF, he doesn't have actual impact on a region's tournament attendance — other factors do and we should be addressing those. Because of all this, I'm anti-ban.

I know for a fact I left something major out I wanted to say. I also lost focus towards the end of this and rambled on some points. This is much wordier than I hoped. Hopefully anyone who wants to say anything about my points won't nitpick at small things and will get the big picture of what I'm saying, but hopefully people aren't strictly arguing against my points anyway; it's exactly what we shouldn't be doing. We've been having redundant arguments over the MK ban since fall of 2008, and we haven't accomplished much or anything since then.

Feel free to ignore this in a few weeks and make a generalized, nonconstructive attack at anti-ban though.

More on-topic:

Popular opinion in the region ties into a TOs decision to host MK-banned tournaments, but because the opinion is (in general) split 50-50, and with the presence of MLG + other large nationals like APEX, The Showdown, and The Airship on the way, I don't see why a TO would want to. These are all MK-allowed events up to the end of 2010, and any reasonable TO of these nationals wouldn't suddenly change to MK-banned. A TO hosting MK-banned events would be holding the people in their regions back, as they get less MK match-up experience.

We can debate on here all we want (and probably not advance the debate much), but any realistic action of a temp-ban or TOs experimenting with MK-banned events can't happen until 2011.

 

[Damage Points]

airship is canceled buddy.

 

[Jack Kieser]

So, basically, we pick our poison.

We already have plenty of testimony that people (maybe not a majority, but still a significant amount) are getting sick of MK; thanks to MLG, the status quo got a slight boost, but for all rational intents and purposes, if something doesn't happen, these people will just quit. It's a slow, agonizing death.

Or, we act in some way, but all the MK mains will *****, moan, complain, and revolt instantly. This is seppuku.

So, guys? Which one do we want? Death by annoyance, or death by childishness?

 

[Espy Rose]

any realistic action of a temp-ban or TOs experimenting with MK-banned events can't happen until 2011.

Yeah.

Too bad this game will be six feet under by then.

 

[Blacknight99923]

based on how long till championship at MLG will be any national after that will have more then enough time to deal with ruleset changes if any are made

 

[Jack Kieser]

Yes, but the players won't want to. It's ridiculous. The MK mains are almost as bad as the Republicans; "we don't even want to try changing anything, so we're going to ***** and ****-block everything until you stop caring!"

The frustrating thing is, we don't know if a temp-ban will result in a perma-ban. We have no idea. We need the data, but the MK mains and anti-banners are so afraid to try that they forget that a test-ban might help their argument. But, oh no, we can't do that, because all of them will whine and quit playing if we do.

"Well, we'll just keep playing with MK."
"We're just going to ignore the ban."
"Whine whine, *****, moan!"

It's disgusting. We're supposed to be a singular community. We all play the same **** game. But these children refuse to be a part of it. Pro-ban isn't kicking them out or anything. It's not like they are saying "Hey, MK mains! Stop playing entirely for 6 months." We're legitimately trying to find a middle ground solution so that, even if one group gets a result they didn't want, at least that result was obtained fairly.

But, oh no. We can't have that. Omni's going to round up his MK group to ignore the temp ban, and AN is going to secede from Brawl, and all of the sudden, nothing is gained. It's just fine for pro-ban to be in a negative situation for the MLG circuit, or 6 months, or a year, or until the next Smash game, but for the MK mains to have to learn one more character for six months...

...look the **** out! That's unfair and unacceptable. We're alienating them. We're persecuting them.

If you can't tell, I'm sick of this bull****.

Seriously, if you see a MK main or an anti-banner that's opposed to a temp ban experiment, it's you're duty as a Smasher to sack-tap them and tell them to grow the **** up. We're at 781 pages, and it's not going to stop until we get more info, info we're only going to get with a temp ban. We had a perfectly acceptable template a few pages back; it's not like this is impossible to set up.

 

[AvaricePanda]

So, basically, we pick our poison.

We already have plenty of testimony that people (maybe not a majority, but still a significant amount) are getting sick of MK; thanks to MLG, the status quo got a slight boost, but for all rational intents and purposes, if something doesn't happen, these people will just quit. It's a slow, agonizing death.

Or, we act in some way, but all the MK mains will *****, moan, complain, and revolt instantly. This is seppuku.

So, guys? Which one do we want? Death by annoyance, or death by childishness?

Seems like a really unfair statement.

People have been sick of MK forever, and from what I can gather (also backed from the information from the polls) that number hasn't changed much. These people could quit in the future, but they also could have quit months and years ago. One, this honestly isn't anything new, and while I've heard a lot of annoyance from these people, not many have quit (at least not in noticeable numbers) solely because of MK. And...

Yeah.

Too bad this game will be six feet under by then.

...people have been saying that since the entire argument started as well. People said that the game wouldn't last until 2010, and look where we are. Now we actually have an incentive (MLG) to last until 2011, so I'm not sure why the game would die. I don't know about your regions, but Midwest East is really hyped for MLG Columbus, pretty much every weekend is filled with one, probably two tournaments, Clowsui and Day are hosting smashfests in Cincy leading up to it...I mean there's a lot of preparation.

As for the game lasting longer, maybe MK is a problem, or part of the problem. I think a large portion of people who quit Brawl for a reason directly tied to the game itself quit because of the game's physics in general, not specifically MK. Whatever you think, there's not good evidence at all to suggest that MKs ban will make the game's competitive scene last longer.

Even ignoring all of that though, the most effective way to increase competition in regions that we know of is increasing the quality, quantity, and spread of the tournaments themselves. Regions with excellently run tournaments with incentives for players to come back (things like cheap fees, top 5 payout, comfortable venue, pools played, and side events are just some of the things that are good) and a good spread of tournament locations throughout the region do well and are very competitive (Ohio). Regions that don't do that usually aren't as competitive (MDVA in fall-winter 09).

Stepping up a region's tournament quality and quantity can boost the competition by a lot. I've heard from SoCal players that Champ with 2GoodGaming revitalized the Brawl community and boosted the Melee one, and that's just one TO stepping up. I don't see MK being nearly as responsible for tournament attendance as compared to the tournaments themselves.

Edit: I don't even disagree with a temp ban (if it's at the start of 2011 or after MLG is over) but

MAD GENERALIZATIONS

calm down.

Spoiler

also, somehow you managed to attack republicans in an MK ban debate LOLOLOLOLOL

 

[John12346]

I think a large portion of people who quit Brawl for a reason directly tied to the game itself quit because of the game's physics in general, not specifically MK.

This might be a bit unrelated, but MK DOES take advantage of a lot of the physics in Brawl 10 times better than most other characters can. Luigi can Nair his way out of everyone's combos except MK's, for example...

 

[Jack Kieser]

Sorry, man, but pure_awesome had as flawless a proposition as we've had in this thread so far, and there's still talk of people like AN refusing to play ball. It's really frustrating to me. I don't respect people like that, straight up.

If AN really would ignore a proposition like that, if they'd really boycott a Brawl-wide temp ban experiment just because they don't want to learn a second character, even though their actions directly force people to learn a character they don't want to learn...

Honestly, if I were Grand Chancellor of Brawl, I'd just kick them out. Obviously, I can't do that, but like I said, I can nut-check them if I see them at a tournament. And I really think others should do that, too.

Also, how were those statements generalizations? AN has already said they wouldn't respect a temp ban attempt, and Omni has already said he'd do what he could to undermine a temp ban, and MK mains (not all, but some) have already said they'd ignore the ban, even if it's at the expense of the community.

 

[Blacknight99923]

tbh I don't know anyone who has left soley because of MK and honestly MK mains would probably stay regardless if he was banned and switch, what we need to decide is wether we as a community enjoy brawl more with MK gone, and will it be more appealing to new members with MK gone, and honestly the temp ban idea gives people that option to see for both


we are giving people (assuming ban starts in November) 6 months to get better with a second character
6 months to play with that character in a tournament enovrioment we aren't springing this upon them. This proposal is fair to all parties imo

 

[John12346]

if they'd really boycott a Brawl-wide temp ban experiment just because they don't want to learn a second character, even though their actions directly force people to learn a character they don't want to learn

This is the most beautiful line I have ever read in my life

Coulda gone one step further, and added a "without even having a guarantee of winning" at the end of that, though... >w>

 

[Ripple]

jack, I highly suggest you send a PM to HYlian, overswarm, or whoever(multiple people would be better) is in the back room and suggest your idea and pure_awesome's idea.

 

[Jack Kieser]

What, pure_awesome's Temp Ban proposal and my idea to nut-check people who'd boycott it?

 

[AvaricePanda]

I thought they meant they'd ignore a Brawl-wide permanent ban.

Whatever the case — if they ignore a temp-ban then oh well. You still have data for all these other regions and it should be sufficient. Besides that, if any nationals are planned (like an MK-banned national, which sounds nearly necessary towards the end of the temp-ban period) all the MK mains are just losing out. But they don't have to follow the sBR's decisions. TOs can do whatever they want, and as long as people are coming to their events satisfied, then they're succeeding.

Still, it's a dumb generalization to say only people who main MK oppose a temp-ban; I'm sure people do for legitimate reasons. I've opposed a temp-ban for a long time and am neutral with the situation now, and I'm a Diddy main (a character who's viability really won't change with MK gone lol). I could just call everyone for the temp-ban, "low or mid-tier mains who are crying because their characters aren't slightly more viable because MK isn't banned," but you know what gets accomplished when people throw around generalizations?

Nothing!

Really, all they'd be doing in that case would be holding themselves back in a temp-ban metagame but advancing in an MK-allowed metagame. Still, it's absolutely no reason for you to get personally angry at people from AN and for you to tell others to do the same simply because their TOs disagree with you.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm gonna say it right now, Pure_awesome's proposal is quite similar to one I've suggested to some people before.


But you've got a few basic issues that have been hounding the temp ban (for data) idea for a while now.


1. Where's our target, what results do we wanna see in order to prove one way or another. It's not so much that we don't have opinions on this, it's more that there isn't enough agreement to get any one to pass.

2. What a temp ban actually is getting fuzzy, unfortunately there's actually major disagreement over what a temp ban would be. The idea that "a temp ban would lead to a permanent ban" isn't as far off as you would think, because some of the supporters wanna treat it as "ban for now, re-examine in 6 months, and treat it like removing the ban" as opposed to a set beginning and ending, again, it's lack of agreement (and I could not in good conscience support this view of temp ban, because it's a stealth perma-ban).

3. Did I mention lack of agreement?

4. How do we deal with other factors that we haven't finished exploring when the temp ban is over?



Until those issues are solved, we as a community, are gonna have a major problem getting any temp ban across.



Not that I'm not working on a proper proposal myself and am not gonna take Pure_awesome's post into account. I just wanted to point out the difficulties.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I thought they meant they'd ignore a Brawl-wide permanent ban.

Whatever the case — if they ignore a temp-ban then oh well. You still have data for all these other regions and it should be sufficient. Besides that, if any nationals are planned (like an MK-banned national, which sounds nearly necessary towards the end of the temp-ban period) all the MK mains are just losing out. But they don't have to follow the sBR's decisions. TOs can do whatever they want, and as long as people are coming to their events satisfied, then they're succeeding.

Still, it's a dumb generalization to say only people who main MK oppose a temp-ban; I'm sure people do for legitimate reasons. I've opposed a temp-ban for a long time and am neutral with the situation now, and I'm a Diddy main (a character who's viability really won't change with MK gone lol). I could just call everyone for the temp-ban, "low or mid-tier mains who are crying because their characters aren't slightly more viable because MK isn't banned," but you know what gets accomplished when people throw around generalizations?

Nothing!

Really, all they'd be doing in that case would be holding themselves back in a temp-ban metagame but advancing in an MK-allowed metagame. Still, it's absolutely no reason for you to get personally angry at people from AN and for you to tell others to do the same simply because their TOs disagree with you.

Man, you have no idea what you're talking about.

First of all, without the MK players, our data is without an important component. Let's assume that we have a PR system and 10 players are ranked within it, with MK players taking up the top 4 spots, then a Snake, then another MK, then a Diddy, and 8-10 MK. If we do a temp ban and the players end up having the same ranking at the end of 6 months, even though they switched characters, then the overcentralization of MK in the PR was purely coincidence! Those players would have ranked that well regardless, and so we can't just chalk it up to MK.

Or, those MK players could leave, and we'd lose that valuable data.

Furthermore, there's no way to know the community's top player composition post-MK ban. If all the top players (mostly MK mains) leave because of the ban, then we've lost a great mine of top-of-the-metagame data for whatever characters they would have mained if they stayed. Now, we don't know how well more characters could perform in a MK-less game (and possibly a MK-inclusive game, as well) because the players that will fill the void will most likely be lesser players that couldn't rank before because of skilled play. Who knows! Maybe they didn't rank because of MK, maybe it was because of the players. Without the players, we'll never know.

Also, I'm personally angry at obstructionists. This extends to everything, not just Smash. I don't dislike every AN player because they don't want MK banned. I've admitted many times before that they may be right in the long run... but without more data, we can't know for certain. And if they all rage-quit just because we're doing something they disagree with, even though it may help them in the long run, they are being petulant children, and they will get no respect from me, nor will they deserve it.

I never have respected anyone who obstructs experimentation because they might not like the outcome, and I never will. If they don't want MK banned, then they better do their work to make sure that doesn't happen. If they want to cry in the corner and separate themselves from the rest of us just because they might not like the outcome, screw them ; we don't need people like that, anyway.

 

[Konner]

Jack, that's some real talk right there. That experiment would probably benefit the community massively, excluding the whiners who will moan about it.

 

[Espy Rose]

@AP:

Yeah, people have been saying that, but with reason.

Hell the last few Texas tournaments with the exception of WHOBO2 have been pretty small, and a lot of people have expressed (to me, at least) their waning interest in Brawl/Brawl's metagame/Meta Knight.

 

[ChKn]

Two questions:

1) Do we know exactly which regions would primarily agree to a temp ban or is it just generalized based on the concentration of MKs in the regions?

2) Since the MLG season goes through the bulk of the year, how would a temp ban be put in place assuming it gets picked up in 2011?

 

[AvaricePanda]

@Jack

It's hard for you to not come off as offensive when you preface what you say with, "Man, you have no idea what you're talking about." I never said I was perfect and know everything, and if I'm not understanding something (which I apparently didn't), then tell me, but there's no reason to come off as that rude.

If we need AN to participate in the temp-ban to find whatever we're looking for, then statements like, "I'm going to nut-check everyone who disagrees with it," doesn't seem to help. The best bet is outlining, especially for those particular TOs that wouldn't run MK-banned tournaments, why them participating in the temp-ban is so important. Getting furious and insulting other people about people "whining" over a temp-ban will solve nothing.

Who are these specific TOs anyway? Someone dropped a blanket statement that, "AN will probably keep hosting MK-allowed tournaments," and I doubt every single TO in AN would do that. It seems like you're getting furious over something you don't even know for certain is happening. And if it is happening, they don't know the importance of it because it was just brought up.

 

[DMG]

It's been dying in Texas for awhile now. MK has generally been a big factor of why. Most people who think about quitting altogether, it's because of MK. Most people that actually end up quitting, MK will be like the #2 or #3 reason they quit (Money, Lack of Interest/Time to dedicate to a game, Car/GF/Lazy johns are the only things I see above that).

AP, I don't think you understand. AN is the most headstrong region in the world regarding rules. By this, I mean they almost universally have Dedede's infinite banned (at one point Inui strongly considered banning Wario's long CG on DK because he thought it was gay. JUST to paint a picture for you of what they might consider/end up doing), they have their own conservative stage list suited to what they specifically want, even if they don't use stages recommended as counter in the SBR ruleset, they will disqualify you for planking if they see it (TO discretion), etc. Besides maybe Xyro, AN is basically the region that does what they please.

If MK were to be banned, I guarantee you most AN TO's who want to keep a crowd will have MK legal. In fact, Inui himself said he would talk to most of the TO's and reassure them personally that keeping MK legal is the best choice. Even if every region in the world banned MK, AN would not follow suit.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Two questions:

1) Do we know exactly which regions would primarily agree to a temp ban or is it just generalized based on the concentration of MKs in the regions?

2) Since the MLG season goes through the bulk of the year, how would a temp ban be put in place assuming it gets picked up in 2011?

1 ) TOs and players from AN came into this very thread before and have explicitly said "If you even temp ban MK, we will just continue to play with him." Other regions aren't quite as ballsy, and haven't outright said they would either agree/deny a temp ban.

2 ) Either MLG would listen to the SBR and ban MK for that season as well (doubtful), or we'd host our tournaments with him banned, and let the MK mains play MK at MLG.

EDIT@ AP: Sorry, man. I really apologize... Like I said, this just really angers me. Like I said, waaaaaay back when we first seriously talked about a temp ban, Omni came in and said that he'd gather up people (primarily from AN) and they'd all just ignore it. Granted this was like 2-3 months ago at least, so good luck searching this beast of a thread for that. Either way, AN makes a lot of money off of MK. It doesn't surprise me at all that they wouldn't even want to risk giving up 6 months worth of that cash to test out a MK ban.

Not every AN player or TO is a douche, and I know that... but I'm fairly certain that most would just ignore it, and the last few months of discussion reinforce that.

EDIT AGAIN: Thank you, DMG.

 

[Ripple]

sadly enough, I bet the BBR has already thought of this. they just don't care

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well, adum and others have came in and said they still care... but unfortunately, thanks to the whole "shadowy league of players" thing, we have no clue what's going on. I trust adum more than most Broomers, so if he says so, I'm willing to believe it... but still. It's hard to have much faith in the group when they're so silent all the time.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I'm gonna say it right now, Pure_awesome's proposal is quite similar to one I've suggested to some people before.

Isn't it funny when you've suggested this idea multiple times, yet someone else suggests it every 2-3 weeks and people jump on the idea.

Well either way no matter who came up with it, lets look at the basic idea.

1. Where's our target, what results do we wanna see in order to prove one way or another. It's not so much that we don't have opinions on this, it's more that there isn't enough agreement to get any one to pass.

We need to set a goal that we can get 60% of the community to agree to. I'd express a I don't care attitude if >39.99% disagree. Most from the fact disagreement is going to happen no matter what we do at this point.

2. What a temp ban actually is getting fuzzy, unfortunately there's actually major disagreement over what a temp ban would be. The idea that "a temp ban would lead to a permanent ban" isn't as far off as you would think, because some of the supporters wanna treat it as "ban for now, re-examine in 6 months, and treat it like removing the ban" as opposed to a set beginning and ending, again, it's lack of agreement (and I could not in good conscience support this view of temp ban, because it's a stealth perma-ban).

This is partly why I think a temp ban is a bad idea. There are going to be major problems when the time limit runs out.

Oh limits up unban him,
we don't want to unban him,
wtf unban him,
no leave him banned,
flame flame,
rage rage,

We're better off going to a theoretical level and looking at tournament results, figure out a 60-65% agreeable line to be crossed and continue.

3. Did I mention lack of agreement?

It's unavoidable, I say just get a 60-65% agreement level and go from there.

4. How do we deal with other factors that we haven't finished exploring when the temp ban is over?

As much as I don't like going off of theory, I really think it's our only choice when testing is kinda impossible without causing the example I made above.

 

[Blacknight99923]

ban off season remove ban one month prior to MLG season restarting is my recomendation

 

[swordgard]

Sorry, man, but pure_awesome had as flawless a proposition as we've had in this thread so far, and there's still talk of people like AN refusing to play ball. It's really frustrating to me. I don't respect people like that, straight up.

If AN really would ignore a proposition like that, if they'd really boycott a Brawl-wide temp ban experiment just because they don't want to learn a second character, even though their actions directly force people to learn a character they don't want to learn...

Honestly, if I were Grand Chancellor of Brawl, I'd just kick them out. Obviously, I can't do that, but like I said, I can nut-check them if I see them at a tournament. And I really think others should do that, too.

Also, how were those statements generalizations? AN has already said they wouldn't respect a temp ban attempt, and Omni has already said he'd do what he could to undermine a temp ban, and MK mains (not all, but some) have already said they'd ignore the ban, even if it's at the expense of the community.

His proposition was not flawless...


Never be too sure of one thing, as you could be wrong. How can you even propose to force people to be open minded. That is a contradiction in itself.