You can jump, roll, spotdodge, and grab from shield without having to unshield. The exception is Yoshi, who is unable to jump out of shield.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Official Metaknight Discussion
- Thread starter Hylian
- Start date
- Status
Again, this is where you're just not understanding a simple concept.
I haven't said once that your data is faulty or wrong. You're the only one who throws those terms around.
Interpretation means you give data and draw Conclusion #1. Someone else sees data and draws Conclusion #2. I've said this before the majority of us can look at the same data and information over and over but because we have different lenses we have different conclusions. Keyword: different. Not wrong or right. And this is where you simply disagree. I preached this on the podcast as probably my first main argument.
Do you understand that I am not saying that your data is not wrong? Data CAN'T be wrong. Data is factual evidence of numbers and statistics. What comes into play is how people perceive it and how our perceptions are not WRONG but simply conflicting ideals.
I'm pretty sure he's not saying your data is wrong. Data can't be "wrong".
He's saying your data is open to interpretation. Some people have a problem with the fact that Metaknight floods tournament placements spots, some don't. That's all.
I agree that the bar is low, but you're trying to logically argue people into the ground using data when it's a completely subjective argument.
You're asking people "Do you think this data shows that Metaknight should be banned?", and when people answer "No", you can't fathom why. Instead you should be asking "Do you think that this data shows that MK is overcentralizing?" Then perhaps people - me included - would say "Yes". Then you can whip out the "should he be banned" question.
The point is that people have different ideas of what should be banned and what should not; we talked about this on the podcast.
Ummm, all it shows is that top-level players are tier-whores.
I don't think he's saying that ZSS can't shieldgrab. Just that her shieldgrab is basically useless.
Eddie G
Smash Hero
Blah blah blah, interpretation this, interpretation that. That's all well and good but how about we see just how much (in the form of a statistical explanation if possible) is too much in YOUR own perception. I see where you're coming from but what, in the form of data, would actually convince you that he needs to be banned? Is that even a possibility within your perception?
Lol.
I banned myself because I was getting constant PM's/IM's from people who thought your underhanded approach to create a single biased topic that could only be combated with an opposing thread was unfair and devious. I had a lot of homework/projects to work with that day.
Don't be makin' lies, Pinnochio. I know it's one of your best tactics but try to tone it down.
Statistically speaking a character would need to hard-counter a majority of the cast in order to overcentralize.
This is just my opinion, based on competitive principles; you don't have to agree with it. People get so worked up over other people disagreeing with them around here, it's amazing.
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
That's funny. I got a bunch of IMs and PMs supporting me and a lot of top players asking me if "he'll finally be banned".
Omni has refused, on multiple occasions, to give any concrete numbers. The numbers he's given in the past have all since long been overcome, but "that was then and this is now".
See, if Omni just says "it's open to interpretation" and "it's all subjective" a lot, he doesn't actually have to prove anyone wrong or take an actual stand and can merely shift his stance by whatever is going on at the moment. First it was Snake is the obvious answer to MK, and now it's Diddy. That kind of thing.
Don't "blah blah" interpretation. It is the sole reason why this argument will forever exist.
I've given my perception CONSTANTLY and asked people to ask me questions so that I could share them. I'm a huge fan of giving my viewpoint on a subject. Asking me questions is the best way to get them out of me since it's specific.
Data that would convince me that Metaknight needs to be banned? I can't say for sure. To be specific, the reason why I am still against the ban is because of the data that is currently being presented. I see results where Falco is dominating their region, ADHD taking a national, etc. and all of these results happen on a frequent and recent basis. I see new AT's being discovered. I see new champions rising (ADHD was not as dominant as he was a year ago). It's been 2 years and all I see is massive growth in the metagame and I can not forsee that growth slowing down. Based on all these facts, it's easy for me to draw the conclusion that a ban on a character is not necessary sine the current metagame is healthy.
That's my viewpoint on your question.
Eddie G
Smash Hero
Yeah I noticed. Is it even worth it if he's just going to try and make people run in circles the entire time he argues with them?
It doesn't matter all that much what he was trying to conclude; I was correcting his usage of frames because he was adding 7 frames from unshielding before grabbing, which is unnecessary because it doesn't happen.
Ankoku's got it right. ZSS can shieldgrab Snake's 2nd ftilt hit since it's only what, 17 frames (excluding shield hitlag, which should be like ~2 frames)? But if it WAS 24 frames, Snake could just throw out another ftilt while ZSS starts her shieldgrab... Getting our shields ftilted by Snake is actually very beneficial for ZSS.
Just to be fair, I've been watching you and OS go back and forth, you threw out "healthy metagame". Previously you've been saying that that's entirely subjective, so technically you can't use it to back up your point. That's like OS saying MK should be banned because he's making the current metagame unhealthy.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
Over-centralization has to do with in game statstics, not things like matchups. Going to use two examples, one I won't go into detail with because its not a fighting game, another one because its a fighting game that was so quickly destroyed from its major hype.
Example 1
This pokemon became the CENTER of EVERYTHING pokemon. Its still disputed weather or not he is truly Uber, but never the less, Garchomp took a HUGE amount of focus for every team, so much so that 25 percents of all team had to carry Gengar just to stop him. He overcentralized the game, not because he destroyed so many pokemon, Blissey does that and you don't hear anyone crying, but because the game became far to CENTRALIZED around him.
But that isn't a fighting game so I'll go here, and by here I mean the only charecter to take one of the most hyped fighting games of all time and take it off the competative scene within a matter of 3 months flat.
Now, here are some facts about V-13
1. The 2nd best character in the game.
2. Had even matchups on a good deal of the cast, only hard countered 3 people.
3. Despite being drastically overcentralizing, there were still charecters that would pop up in the chart from time to time, most notably, Mike Z playing Mike Z. . I mean Iron Tager.
4. Most charecters outside of the top tier had harder matchups. V-13 was not their worst matchup.
NEVER THE LESS. V-13 turned that game into competative **** because of how much she over centralized the game. Now that game is a laughably small side event at Evo while everyone waits for the new version of the game to come out, the new version being the only reason V-13 wasn't banned, as tournaments had basically boiled down into V-13s taking all top spots, and Mike Z.
Does this sound familiar at all?
Example 1
This pokemon became the CENTER of EVERYTHING pokemon. Its still disputed weather or not he is truly Uber, but never the less, Garchomp took a HUGE amount of focus for every team, so much so that 25 percents of all team had to carry Gengar just to stop him. He overcentralized the game, not because he destroyed so many pokemon, Blissey does that and you don't hear anyone crying, but because the game became far to CENTRALIZED around him.
But that isn't a fighting game so I'll go here, and by here I mean the only charecter to take one of the most hyped fighting games of all time and take it off the competative scene within a matter of 3 months flat.
Now, here are some facts about V-13
1. The 2nd best character in the game.
2. Had even matchups on a good deal of the cast, only hard countered 3 people.
3. Despite being drastically overcentralizing, there were still charecters that would pop up in the chart from time to time, most notably, Mike Z playing Mike Z. . I mean Iron Tager.
4. Most charecters outside of the top tier had harder matchups. V-13 was not their worst matchup.
NEVER THE LESS. V-13 turned that game into competative **** because of how much she over centralized the game. Now that game is a laughably small side event at Evo while everyone waits for the new version of the game to come out, the new version being the only reason V-13 wasn't banned, as tournaments had basically boiled down into V-13s taking all top spots, and Mike Z.
Does this sound familiar at all?
I'm not running people in circles, King Beef. I am still anti-ban.
You simply don't agree with me. I've made statements; I've answered questions; I've given opinions; I've actively participated in open discussions on several occasions.
I've driven my point on several occasions. Do not suggest that I am trying to run in circles when my standpoint has been very clear.
The problem with you and Overswarm is that you feel there are right and wrong answers. That there are right and wrong paths. That a person who disagrees isn't thinking different, but is simply wrong because they oppose what you believe is right. In the end, this whole MK debate is SOLELY based on interpretation of facts that can be construed to give several messages.
Simply put, I disagree with your views. Don't be mad; just agree to disagree.
Yes.Just to be fair, I've been watching you and OS go back and forth, you threw out "healthy metagame". Previously you've been saying that that's entirely subjective, so technically you can't use it to back up your point. That's like OS saying MK should be banned because he's making the current metagame unhealthy.
My point is that my perception of the data being presented is a healthy metagame.
Overswarm's perception of the data being presented is an unhealthy metagame.
I'm simply answering a question that requires my opinion on the subject. After the data subsides, a subjective interpretation is what follows.
And OS does say MK should be banned because he is making the current game unhealthy. I disagree with him but he's entitled to his opinion.
Nah. Items are legit. I'm sure because there's little proof to argue against my point.
Thankyou.
I actually agree with cheap peach even though I'm anti-ban (sort of), your posts often just try to undermine the person rather than the argument itself so its hard to take them seriously.
So that's what you're trying to avoid! You think mk is going to cause the game to die. *gives himself a cookie for finally finding out why OS wants to ban mk* Now if only I could get OS to elaborate on the question I've asked him like 3 times now. =/
Wouldn't work. No MK's in md/va. He could just play snake and do slightly worse. lol
This is an excellent point.... *seriously reconsiders his position*
lastly: firefox>all. Y'all tripping.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
That may be pokemon's interpretation of the term, but it certainly is far removed from what the term actually means, the term was coined by Sirlin to refer to things which centralize the metagame to too great a level by nature. My understanding is that Garchomp did in fact do so because in order to beat him every OU team had to run a garchomp counter, and they couldn't even beat him on switch-in.Over-centralization has to do with in game statstics, not things like matchups. Going to use two examples, one I won't go into detail with because its not a fighting game, another one because its a fighting game that was so quickly destroyed from its major hype.
Example 1
This pokemon became the CENTER of EVERYTHING pokemon. Its still disputed weather or not he is truly Uber, but never the less, Garchomp took a HUGE amount of focus for every team, so much so that 25 percents of all team had to carry Gengar just to stop him. He overcentralized the game, not because he destroyed so many pokemon, Blissey does that and you don't hear anyone crying, but because the game became far to CENTRALIZED around him.
But that isn't a fighting game so I'll go here, and by here I mean the only charecter to take one of the most hyped fighting games of all time and take it off the competative scene within a matter of 3 months flat.
Now, here are some facts about V-13
1. The 2nd best character in the game.
2. Had even matchups on a good deal of the cast, only hard countered 3 people.
3. Despite being drastically overcentralizing, there were still charecters that would pop up in the chart from time to time, most notably, Mike Z playing Mike Z. . I mean Iron Tager.
4. Most charecters outside of the top tier had harder matchups. V-13 was not their worst matchup.
NEVER THE LESS. V-13 turned that game into competative **** because of how much she over centralized the game. Now that game is a laughably small side event at Evo while everyone waits for the new version of the game to come out, the new version being the only reason V-13 wasn't banned, as tournaments had basically boiled down into V-13s taking all top spots, and Mike Z.
Does this sound familiar at all?
So, either they used it wrong, or they didn't use it like you said, which is it?
So this arguement is all good and well then. So what do you propose as a solution to deciding which perspective the community as a whole agrees with? We can assume that "overcentralization of the metagame" (aka unhealthy metagame) is legitimate criteria for banning. Majority vote would be the most logical way to decide, but which majority? Would we have:
If it's subjective in a 1 on 1 arguement that means the community has to decide which perspective they agree with. One perspective fits the interests of certain people and another fits the interests of another group of people so...
A public poll? A poll in the back room? A poll of only ranked players?
THIS is where the problem is. OS did the dirty work and got the data, now if has to be voted upon by the right people. So I recommend instead of arguing about whether or not MK is too good we should argue about how the process of deciding what the community wants should go down...
Na that's way too subjective. You'd have to compare smash to other competitive fighters, where you would reach inconclusive data.
Compared to melee the metagame is really ****ing unhealthy but compared to games omni mentioned it's not that unhealthy.
You have to decide whether or not he overcentralizes the metagame which imo is a lil less subjective, and when I say decide it has to be decided by some kind of majority vote.
This was already done. The last MK Debate allowed anti-ban and pro-ban to give their perspectives on Metaknight and then let the community make their decision with those supporting ideas.
Was there a problem with the procedure used last time? I think it was a great and the community did not have a 2/3'rds support thus a ban was not implemented.
The issue is that the pro-ban are allowed to keep reintroducing the topic. I mean, they're entitled to reexamine Metaknight as the metagame evolves. I have no quarrel although I do wish that the time limit that we were to reexamine Metaknight would have been followed.
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
That's highly debated, even within these pokemon boards here. Some simply claim that they don't know how to fight him (Umbreon) others claim he simply IS broken. Garchomp will always be that way, just like someone else. . .
The SBR should handle the SBR's decision. The public can try and persuade the SBR-B into being one-sided with their decisions, but the SBR-B should be the ones who have the final say in what they will add onto the SBR-B Recommended Ruleset.
iRJi
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 2,423
Mm...
Wth happen to the actual issue? =/. I am still on the subject of "if you sit here and debate, no real information will be developed on terms of actual criteria" If you seriously want to see how tings would change, just seriously test it...
Omni, I have a simple question for you. Why do you think he should not be banned? I understand Overswarm's perspective of it, but I am a little unclear on yours.
Wth happen to the actual issue? =/. I am still on the subject of "if you sit here and debate, no real information will be developed on terms of actual criteria" If you seriously want to see how tings would change, just seriously test it...
Omni, I have a simple question for you. Why do you think he should not be banned? I understand Overswarm's perspective of it, but I am a little unclear on yours.
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
And there it is, again.
Come back when you have something specific, because right now you've got no reason to argue against anyone.
Your "reasons for being anti-ban" are shots in the dark. While I'm looking at the scope of the game since its inception in its entirety, you're looking at small pockets in the country with a few top players and saying "maybe this will turn into a trend". Your hope is my reality.
The Sage of Shadow: Darklink
Smash Ace
seriously, ranked players and tournament hosts should be only people allowed to vote. people who dont have an adept understanding of this game should NOT be allowed to vote because they just aren't smart
Turbo Ether
Smash Master
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2006
- Messages
- 3,601
I don't understand why anti-ban compares MK to SF4 Sagat. The developers of SF4 acknowledge that Sagat is overpowered, which is why he's being toned down in the upcoming SSF4. Unlike them, we don't have the luxury of waiting on a near-future sequel, to fix our "problem" character.
Personally I think that for a first time it was a good attempt but it's not accurate in the grand scheme of things. People who have never been to tournaments were allowed to vote, people who don't play competitively or well were allowed to vote, and worse, people who have never played against a good MK. A lot of these people simply jumped on the bandwagon of "farmiliar names" due to youtube glory and seeing these people in tournament results.
Imo there should be a poll of only ranked players in regions where top MKs are present. That sounds difficult to implement but I think it'd be the only real way to have the opinions of people with legitimate opinions expressed. BUT looking at that, the reality is that MK players would be over-represented in ranked players, which makes it more interesting. If most ranked players are MKs what does that say about the metagame.
*I just circularly led myself to that point, so in retrospect, I can't say exactly what kind of poll would work and be representative of people who matter*
Not all ranked players have a thorough understanding of the game, some regions have such a small/underdeveloped Smash scene that their ranked players are far below the skill/knowledge level of other regions' scenes.
I'd much rather have the SBR-B handle it, and have everyone else try and persuade them just like how it's being done now: our arguments being thrown into one topic, mass-debating, and revisiting old situations to learn from them. Some people think we're going around in circles, but I definitely don't see it that way! I always see productive discussion, and it's always giving me a clearer understanding on each active debaters' perspective on the whole issue. I can understand why they're on their own ground this way, and we can then clear up misconceptions (if we find any, of course) and persuade them into changing their positions to find out if the majority actually DO favor the ban, or are against it.
Don't be a **** and partially quote me, OS, since I explained myself.
"Data that would convince me that Metaknight needs to be banned? I can't say for sure. To be specific, the reason why I am still against the ban is because of the data that is currently being presented. I see results where Falco is dominating their region, ADHD taking a national, etc. and all of these results happen on a frequent and recent basis. I see new AT's being discovered. I see new champions rising (ADHD was not as dominant as he was a year ago). It's been 2 years and all I see is massive growth in the metagame and I can not forsee that growth slowing down. Based on all these facts, it's easy for me to draw the conclusion that a ban on a character is not necessary sine the current metagame is healthy."
To suggesting that I don't have a reason to argue against anyone is you being ********.
For me, what determines Metaknight being banned or not being banned is the lack of results and data that I explained above.
Your issue, OS, is that you attempt to throw data and say, "See! Look, this is why!" I see enough of the latter to believe that the best choice is for MK to stay in the game.
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
I can name 5 people off the top of my head that want MK legal so Mew2King can win more money.
Top players and TOs can be just as biased and stupid.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
CRASHiC
Smash Hero
Its a bad comparison anyway. Compare Pound 4 and Genesis to the world championship and Evo in relationtion to Sagats. Sagat is probably one of the most top tier characters in SF history despite his vast problems. He's no 3rd Strike Yun and no Old Sagat and no Akuma. He's more along the lines of Pikachu in 64.
Well, what happened last time was exactly what you suggested minus the preference from well-ranked characters but including a BBR poll as well.
I think your idea about making a poll of ranked players in regions is interesting. What do you intend to do with that information depending on how it sways?
You know, if those "top players" were actually smart people, they'd help capacitate M2K so he could earn a living the right and secure way, not continue something's life which will eventually end and **** him over. Smash won't be around for the rest of his life, and when Smash disappears, he'll wish there was a reason back in the day that would've made him want to improve his life and get ready in all ways for his inevitable independence.
Tsk tsk tsk, M2K meat-riders.
Tsk tsk tsk, M2K meat-riders.
Where are you getting your facts?
I listened to several podcasts and videos with players interviewing Capcom.
Sagat is not being nerfed. They specifically said they will be approaching the game by buffing the weaker characters aka Claw having his claw longer or giving lower tier characters interesting buffs. What are you talking about?
- Status