Official Metaknight Discussion

[The Sage of Shadow: Darklink]

it doesnt matter overswarm if you can name those people, its just subjective. Whats to say the SBR's take on this issue is more relevant than the good players attending tournaments.

 

[iRJi]

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.

Hmm, interesting. But is the current metagame is actually healthy? Isn't the metagame not just based off of the characters play, but the players response to how the meta game really is? If the metagame was as healthy as proclamed, why would half of the players want him banned, and the same on the vise versa? Which was what I brought up a plathora of pages ago. Just sitting here and talking about how things might happen isn't going to solve what is going to happen. If you want results on how the ban would take effect on players, then we can temp ban him and see the actual result of it. He has been in the game for 2 years, and the experimentation of what would happen if he is gone has not been undergone.
because of this, we will actually never result in an answer of if the community/ metagame will be the same or not. If the fear of him being temp banned would change peoples opinions about him/metagame, isn't that what we are actually looking for? If you feel it can not carry any potential danger and he is truly overall fair, wouldn't the temp ban of metaknight only prove that further?

 

[Omni]

I'm leaving to go play some video games. I'll be back later.

@Overswarm: See how much we can discuss when you're not writing a book? Unfortunately, the only thing being said is how we disagree with each other. Well, I disagree. You just think people are wrong, but to each their own.

 

[Kewkky]

it doesnt matter overswarm if you can name those people, its just subjective. Whats to say the SBR's take on this issue is more relevant than the good players attending tournaments.

Because the people in the SBR-B have proven to be smart, knowledgeable top players and/or respectable TOs who see the metagame with their own eyes during their large-scale tourneys... I would prefer it if they were the ones who voted, and ALL of them voted (unlike the last time, where there were inactive SBR-B members and there were about 3x members who didn't vote). Now's a better time too, seeing as the SBR got a re-vamp and refreshed their member list.

 

[Overswarm]

I'm leaving to go play some video games. I'll be back later.

@Overswarm: See how much we can discuss when you're not writing a book? Unfortunately, the only thing being said is how we disagree with each other. Well, I disagree. You just think people are wrong, but to each their own.

We haven't discussed anything but your inability to make a valid statement that you can stand behind.

Inui might be wrong, use foolish thought patterns, take isolated incidences as trends, and be overall grating on the nerves on a consistent basis... but he takes a stand. He doesn't support his decisions on how he views the game by simply hiding behind whatever is most relevant and evading any and all attempts at making a concrete statement.

 

[Omni]

Hmm, interesting. But is the current metagame is actually healthy? Isn't the metagame not just based off of the characters play, but the players response to how the meta game really is? If the metagame was as healthy as proclamed, why would half of the players want him banned, and the same on the vise versa? Which was what I brought up a plathora of pages ago. Just sitting here and talking about how things might happen isn't going to solve what is going to happen. If you want results on how the ban would take effect on players, then we can temp ban him and see the actual result of it. He has been in the game for 2 years, and the experimentation of what would happen if he is gone has not been undergone.
because of this, we will actually never result in an answer of if the community/ metagame will be the same or not. If the fear of him being temp banned would change peoples opinions about him/metagame, isn't that what we are actually looking for? If you feel it can not carry any potential danger and he is truly overall fair, wouldn't the temp ban of metaknight only prove that further?

The metagame being healthy is completely subjective. You know that.

It is not uncommon for a community to be split on a character who is the best. The argument that the community is split and is evidence that MK is bad means nothing to me since I believe it is the common.

I also disagree with a temporary ban. The problem is that it won't get national approval which is what we need. If only a few regions temporarily banned MK, the only information you're receiving is how the absence of MK effects said region based on the current metagame. Those stats could change pending on the region, the time frame that it is issued, the players that attended and/or did not attend, etc.

K, be back later.

 

[OverLade]

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?

Well naturally that's where it all becomes subjective if one person if making the decision, but it's the most realistic kind of community consensus I can think of. If the results clearly point one way or the other I think making the decision would be much easier but to be honest I think we'd need the results before we could really decide what kind of verdict should be reached.

This is how I think it should go down.

There should be a topic (no poll included), where each ranked player from said regions (deciding which regions would take some mulling over) vote pro ban or anti ban and a brief statement why. I think individual rationale might be important, as both sides may agree that people vote for different reasons.

Personally I'd like to see something like this implemented, because it would allow the entire community to see what "ranked players" think, rather than the behind doors discussion in the SBR that those outside are oblivious to.

 

[Flayl]

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?

http://www.capcom-unity.com/jgonzo/...reet_fighter_iv_developer_blog:_buff_not_nerf

So that means that the feel of playing Sagat won't really change in SSFIV?

Okada: To a point, it will be really close to how it was in SFIV. Of course, there will be adjustments made to his move's damage output and effectiveness, so it won't be exactly the same as SFIV. But it is our intention to keep as much as possible of the play of Sagat that players found fun and interesting.

Tamamura: Also, I don't think that there will be any instances where you feel that a move has become really nerfed from the previous game. Not just the moves, we are also looking at things like vitality and stun values.

He's being nerfed.

 

[CRASHiC]

Wait, someone called C018 a 'rare' player a while back. Since when? He's not rare at all. He's at a good deal of the majors and frequents locals and regionals.

 

[Omni]

We haven't discussed anything but your inability to make a valid statement that you can stand behind.

Inui might be wrong, use foolish thought patterns, take isolated incidences as trends, and be overall grating on the nerves on a consistent basis... but he takes a stand. He doesn't support his decisions on how he views the game by simply hiding behind whatever is most relevant and evading any and all attempts at making a concrete statement.

Dumb.

I disagree with everything you just said. I have made a stance. I have supported my stance. I'm not hiding. If you honestly believe that I've done no such thing since I've started the debate then maybe you should reexamine yourself.

You're just being a douche and you don't agree with my standpoint. u mad

Edit: Flayl, that was always one of my sources. Characters are receiving buffs, not nerfs. That was my argument. The other guy was suggesting that good characters were going to be nerfed when that isn't the case.

The "nerf" on Sagat won't be dramatic. However, the buffs will. That's the entire point.

 

[Overswarm]

I also disagree with a temporary ban. The problem is that it won't get national approval which is what we need. If only a few regions temporarily banned MK, the only information you're receiving is how the absence of MK effects said region based on the current metagame. Those stats could change pending on the region, the time frame that it is issued, the players that attended and/or did not attend, etc.

So you'd be in favor of a temp ban, if, say, over half the nationals of this year were willing to ban MK as well as multiple TOs?

Dumb.

I disagree with everything you just said. I have made a stance. I have supported my stance. I'm not hiding. If you honestly believe that I've done no such thing since I've started the debate then maybe you should reexamine yourself.

Please let us know what they are, because we can't find them.

 

[Kewkky]

Dumb.

I disagree with everything you just said. I have made a stance. I have supported my stance. I'm not hiding. If you honestly believe that I've done no such thing since I've started the debate then maybe you should reexamine yourself.

You're just being a douche and you don't agree with my standpoint. u mad

Instead of making your posts seem much more intellectual by expanding them with extra words, just be blunt and tell him straight out what he wants to know. Don't beat around the bush, don't water down your arguments... Just be blunt.

 

[Omni]

I'm not in favor of a temporary ban, period, OS. However, if one was to be made it needs to be applied to all regions just how MK not being banned is applied to all regions.

And by "we" you mean "you". If my message isn't clear or isn't being delivered, stop asking questions. That simple, buddy.

Edit: o_O Kewkky, I'm completely blunt. Lmao. Maybe too blunt for most people's liking.

 

[The Sage of Shadow: Darklink]

There are regions that wouldn't ban MK even if he was banned by the SBR

 

[Overswarm]

And by "we" you mean "you". If my message isn't clear or isn't being delivered, stop asking questions. That simple, buddy.

No, it's we. I've got 7 IMs open with people asking me "WTF is omni's argument".

Edit: o_O Kewkky, I'm completely blunt. Lmao. Maybe too blunt for most people's liking.

He didn't mean "blunt" as in "rude", he meant as in "to the point". No one knows what it would take for you to ban MK because it changes like the wind.

 

[Omni]

Well naturally that's where it all becomes subjective if one person if making the decision, but it's the most realistic kind of community consensus I can think of. If the results clearly point one way or the other I think making the decision would be much easier but to be honest I think we'd need the results before we could really decide what kind of verdict should be reached.

This is how I think it should go down.

There should be a topic (no poll included), where each ranked player from said regions (deciding which regions would take some mulling over) vote pro ban or anti ban and a brief statement why. I think individual rationale might be important, as both sides may agree that people vote for different reasons.

Personally I'd like to see something like this implemented, because it would allow the entire community to see what "ranked players" think, rather than the behind doors discussion in the SBR that those outside are oblivious to.

i like it. nothing wrong with more information and data.

i mean, if you'd like, you could go ahead and get the information yourself. you don't have to be in the BBR to make your own project.

 

[Kewkky]

Edit: o_O Kewkky, I'm completely blunt. Lmao. Maybe too blunt for most people's liking.

Too blunt? Man, people must not know what "blunt" truly is then. I personally think you make your posts more professional to emphasize your messages, and people end up skipping your whole argument and think you were just "beating around the bush". o_o That's just me, though.

See, the part of the reply I didn't quote is what "blunt" means to me: a straight-up 'Yes/No' with nothing to water it down, like "but if blah blah happens, then..." for example.

 

[Turbo Ether]

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?

Health decreased by 100 and damage on Tiger Uppercut has been reduced.

 

[rathy Aro]

my region is the most mk-heavy region and I don't think the TOs would mind a temp ban on mk. The last tourny I went to (gauntlet on saturday) I kept hearing ppl saying "this game sucks" etc. I wasn't around for melee, but I don't think that ever happened. I also remember doom apologizing for the way he abused mk's tornado against bum. Ok, technically it was in ny, but there were quite a few nj ppl there. Point is that everyone is pretty fed up with mk. I'm sure if I were a higher level player I might be annoyed with him too.

 

[Omni]

He didn't mean "blunt" as in "rude", he meant as in "to the point". No one knows what it would take for you to ban MK because it changes like the wind.

my stance hasn't changed. i explained what it would take.

what you and possibly other pro-ban players may want is "MK should be banned if he wins x amount of nations, y amount of regions, and places 1st on z amount of times on a t time span" it's not that cut and dry. i examine the game from a very global approach

i see a split community.
i see constant regional tournament results with non-MK mains taking 1st.
i see new AT's being developed.
i see a diddy taking 1st in the most recent national.
i forsee more character growth.
i forsee more AT's being discovered and developed.
i forsee more players becoming top contenders.

there you go. i see a healthy metagame. the game has grown since it's release 2 years ago and i don't see it stopped just because of MK's existence. when i stop seeing the things i mentioned i.e.:

a community no longer split but heavily wanting MK banned (2/3r'ds)
constant (and recent) regional tournaments with non-MK's not taking 1st.
new AT's no longer being developed.
non-MK's no longer taking 1st in nationals.

my opinion may change. however, the issue is that without the outside of tournaments results and the community, i view Metaknight as a character that fits within the game. imo, he does not overstep boundaries when boundaries consist of living until 200%, 0-death chaingrabbing, extremely useful projectiles (grenades, lasers, bananas), etc. again, that's my opinion and part of the reason why i'm anti-ban

OS, you're pretty much full of it. we've discussed on several occasions our issue about MK or lack thereof and you're just now making the point that i'm flipflopping or not making a stance? when i'm the person who pretty much represented the anti-ban argument that was made a few months ago? chill.

again like i'm going to get constant "i disagree with your point, omni" arguments but that's not going to change my mind. i'm not making my point to say "you need to adjust your way of thinking and align it with mine". as i have said several times, my arguments are my viewpoints on the situation and what i believe. IF U DISAGREE THATS FINE but don't get butthurt if i disagree with your point

 

[iRJi]

The metagame being healthy is completely subjective. You know that.

It is not uncommon for a community to be split on a character who is the best. The argument that the community is split and is evidence that MK is bad means nothing to me since I believe it is the common.

I also disagree with a temporary ban. The problem is that it won't get national approval which is what we need. If only a few regions temporarily banned MK, the only information you're receiving is how the absence of MK effects said region based on the current metagame. Those stats could change pending on the region, the time frame that it is issued, the players that attended and/or did not attend, etc.

K, be back later.

Hmm... I infact do know this. Which is why it is a problem.

There has to be a defined underline of what something takes to be "healthy" So, what does healthy actually mean?

Ill just use a more detailed definition for this one:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy

Health:

# Health is generally defined as being "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity".

By using this definition, I can now relate it to how the metagame is. In order for the metagame to be "healthy" it needs to have a complete physical, mental, and social well being, with at the same time, not being absence of things that potentially can be unhealthy. By this definition, this means that the metagame needs to be more dominate on a side of one's thoughts, opinions, and state of mind overall. As of right now, the metagame can not be considered "healthy" because overall, people feel reluctant to accept the fact of metaknight being fair or not. Because of this, it puts a wedge between achieving an actual metagame. You are right, The metagame being healthy is subjective. It varies between how people view it, and it has many possibilities depending on how one views the over all situation of what is going on, but there is a common ground that we can stand on to say if something is healthy or not. By definition, even subjective, it is right now not healthy. Which is why I am for the temp ban. For counter-less times, we sat behind out computers arguing over and over again about this, that, and the third. While it is important to persuade people to see your view, the only result is that: "People only seeing the view" As of right now, we can only guess on what might happen if he is gone. I feel it is time to stop guessing, and start taking action. The only thing this will provide is a definite answer of:

"A yes or no to metaknight being too powerful for the game to handle or not"

 

[MarKO X]

my region is the most mk-heavy region and I don't think the TOs would mind a temp ban on mk. The last tourny I went to (gauntlet on saturday) I kept hearing ppl saying "this game sucks" etc. I wasn't around for melee, but I don't think that ever happened. I also remember doom apologizing for the way he abused mk's tornado against bum. Ok, technically it was in ny, but there were quite a few nj ppl there. Point is that everyone is pretty fed up with mk. I'm sure if I were a higher level player I might be annoyed with him too.

the problem with NY banning MK is that NJ might not come to our events anymore, because I'm almost sure they're not banning MK. It's not that NY doesn't have enough players, but there is a risk that any new players or returning players might not fully compensate for the absence of NJ.

 

[CRASHiC]

I kept hearing ppl saying "this game sucks" etc. I wasn't around for melee, but I don't think that ever happened.

It happens right now what are you talking about? Have you not heard people complaining about Hungrybox. The differences is that we all except that playing gay is the way to play Brawl, most Melee players don't, thus a 17 year old kid comes in with a year or two worth of experiences, plays gay as possible with Puff and pisses half the community off. They can get away with it somewhat more, because of the gap between skill levels in Melee, but they still play gay. The trouble is that people don't know that playing gay is how you should play these games, and all fighting competative games.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTNaAUJZz5k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvD26Vbgov0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ikH1aa1T1w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxke7BGgMow

Play gay, Breloom begs you too.

 

[Overswarm]

a community no longer split but heavily wanting MK banned (2/3r'ds)
constant (and recent) regional tournaments with non-MK's not taking 1st.
new AT's no longer being developed.
non-MK's no longer taking 1st in nationals.

Define "regional", because that's already happening across the united states. If you mean "MD/VA", you should step your game up because you're 1/3rd of the MKs there.

What do you mean by "new ATs no longer being developed"? Are you saying that as long as there is the potential for new ATs that MK couldn't be banned, or no new ATs in X amount of months, or what?

Define "national". 150+ entrants?

 

[swordgard]

Define "regional", because that's already happening across the united states. If you mean "MD/VA", you should step your game up because you're 1/3rd of the MKs there.

What do you mean by "new ATs no longer being developed"? Are you saying that as long as there is the potential for new ATs that MK couldn't be banned, or no new ATs in X amount of months, or what?

Define "national". 150+ entrants?

I can name you many places where MK ain't always taking 1st as regionals, you never heard of WC did you? Or NY? Or Canada? Or South?

 

[Kewkky]

I also agree that Brawl's metagame being healthy right now or not, is subjective to each person's view of the data. It's something that can be persuaded to change, but everyone has differing standards on what it takes to reach a "healthy" status. I think it's unhealthy, what with the general strong dislike of MK and all of the gay things he can do. I think MK must be taken care of, but I want to find some sort of compromise between both pro-and-anti ban. A temp ban sounds good since no one loses anything in the end, in fact, all we do is gain information... But even that option is disliked by a number of people.

No side will agree to anything unless it's an absolute ban or absolute non-ban? Why is it so hard to simply agree on a compromise? What will people lose at a national level if MK was banned for a few months? A couple of people (inb4chueee) aren't even top-ranked nor great players in their regions, yet they feel like their opinions matter when it comes to MK's future when they lose nothing at all during the whole process... Some of the people haven't even seen the fight against MK from outside of their mains' perspective, thus are having some sort of tunnel-vision to the whole situation.

I would much rather have the SBR-B decide on what MK's fate should be. A large amount of TOs would follow the SBR-B's inevitable-if-used recommendations (like the banning of items, tactics, stalling, characters), and keep experimenting with avoidable-if-allowed rules (ledgegrab limits, stages, anti-scrooging, infinites)... Players who have never been in a TO's shoes shouldn't even speculate otherwise, much less if the only competitive games they've played are Super Smash Brothers games (in all the other competitive games, TOs always follow the upper-echelon of players' decisions on what the rules should be).

 

[Raziek]

my stance hasn't changed. i explained what it would take.

what you and possibly other pro-ban players may want is "MK should be banned if he wins x amount of nations, y amount of regions, and places 1st on z amount of times on a t time span" it's not that cut and dry. i examine the game from a very global approach

It's hard for it not to be cut and dry. Isn't one of the biggest issues having a set creteria on which to ban him? Seems to me, this is what they're providing, yet you want to stick with wishy-washy global interpretations

i see a split community.
i see constant regional tournament results with non-MK mains taking 1st.
i see new AT's being developed.
i see a diddy taking 1st in the most recent national.
i forsee more character growth.
i forsee more AT's being discovered and developed.
i forsee more players becoming top contenders.

When did the word isolated become "constant"? ADHD, Ally, and the sparse few others that win is NOT Constant, nor is it even COMMON.

Your last three points are completely hollow. All three have barely any relevance, and could all serve to further WORSEN the situation. Suppose a new planking tactic is discovered? Suppose several extremely skill MK mains emerge? Suppose MK grows even more as a character? Stop hiding.

It's become quite apparent that you refer to your ideas as "viewpoints", because it allows you to get away on the opinion clause. However, even when your "viewpoints" are confronted with hard data, that EVEN INTERPRETED heavily in your favor, still works against Meta-Knight?

I really admire Overswarm's patience in dealing with you, the man must have a lot more patience than I.

 

[Omni]

Hmm... I infact do know this. Which is why it is a problem.

There has to be a defined underline of what something takes to be "healthy" So, what does healthy actually mean?

Ill just use a more detailed definition for this one:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy

Health:

# Health is generally defined as being "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity".

By using this definition, I can now relate it to how the metagame is. In order for the metagame to be "healthy" it needs to have a complete physical, mental, and social well being, with at the same time, not being absence of things that potentially can be unhealthy. By this definition, this means that the metagame needs to be more dominate on a side of one's thoughts, opinions, and state of mind overall. As of right now, the metagame can not be considered "healthy" because overall, people feel reluctant to accept the fact of metaknight being fair or not. Because of this, it puts a wedge between achieving an actual metagame. You are right, The metagame being healthy is subjective. It varies between how people view it, and it has many possibilities depending on how one views the over all situation of what is going on, but there is a common ground that we can stand on to say if something is healthy or not. By definition, even subjective, it is right now not healthy. Which is why I am for the temp ban. For counter-less times, we sat behind out computers arguing over and over again about this, that, and the third. While it is important to persuade people to see your view, the only result is that: "People only seeing the view" As of right now, we can only guess on what might happen if he is gone. I feel it is time to stop guessing, and start taking action. The only thing this will provide is a definite answer of:

"A yes or no to metaknight being too powerful for the game to handle or not"

i like this. we disagree with healthy, tho'.

i think it's healthy that we're actually having this debate. i think it's healthy that so many people are contributing to the debate from both sides. i think the character discussion forums are healthy. it's kinda like a couple where you may suggest arguing is unhealthy, but i personally believe the lack of arguing is more scary

regardless, your point is solid, dude. i definitely see where you're coming from and i think it's legit. i just don't agree with some of the key points

 

[The Sage of Shadow: Darklink]

*wonders if west coast will ban metaknight

 

[swordgard]

I also agree that Brawl's metagame being healthy right now or not, is subjective to each person's view of the data. It's something that can be persuaded to change, but everyone has differing standards on what it takes to reach a "healthy" status. I think it's unhealthy, what with the general strong dislike of MK and all of the gay things he can do. I think MK must be taken care of, but I want to find some sort of compromise between both pro-and-anti ban. A temp ban sounds good since no one loses anything in the end, in fact, all we do is gain information... But even that option is disliked by a number of people.

No side will agree to anything unless it's an absolute ban or absolute non-ban? Why is it so hard to simply agree on a compromise? What will people lose at a national level if MK was banned for a few months? A couple of people (inb4chueee) aren't even top-ranked nor great players in their regions, yet they feel like their opinions matter when it comes to MK's future when they lose nothing at all during the whole process... Some of the people haven't even seen the fight against MK from outside of their mains' perspective, thus are having some sort of tunnel-vision to the whole situation.

I would much rather have the SBR-B decide on what MK's fate should be. A large amount of TOs would follow the SBR-B's inevitable-if-used recommendations (like the banning of items, tactics, stalling, characters), and keep experimenting with avoidable-if-allowed rules (ledgegrab limits, stages, anti-scrooging, infinites)... Players who have never been in a TO's shoes shouldn't even speculate otherwise, much less if the only competitive games they've played are Super Smash Brothers games (in all the other competitive games, TOs always follow the upper-echelon of players' decisions on what the rules should be).

Guide to speculating:

1st: Steal TO shoes.
2nd: Speculate
3rd: ????????
4th: Profit!



Among other news, temp ban screws MK mains over if MK is decided not ban worthy as they lost the ability to use their main which was legit for the said period.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I'm not going to doubt that banning MK would improve the metagame, but I value keeping a character in if the pros aren't enough to outweigh the cons of losing a character. At this point I'm not convinced banning him would make other characters more viable.

Attendance if it is correlated to MK would be more reasonable. Of course we can't really prove that he is the direct cause of it.

If the community as a whole can get new criteria rather than the old many are dissatisfied with, which no one has done, then you get a better cause for banning him.

You guys also need to stop assuming a 4:6 is a hard counter and means the person with the 6 has an auto-win. It's means they are more likely to win, not that it is guaranteed.

Among other news, temp ban screws MK mains over if MK is decided not ban worthy as they lost the ability to use their main which was legit for the said period.

I think I've said this to people pages back multiple times where only RJ listened to me and tried debating the issue.

 

[iRJi]

Guide to speculating:

1st: Steal TO shoes.
2nd: Speculate
3rd: ????????
4th: Profit!



Among other news, temp ban screws MK mains over if MK is decided not ban worthy as they lost the ability to use their main which was legit for the said period.

Not if yo give them a window of time to pick up someone new and practice for a while before it goes in effect.

 

[WindMajor]

Among other news, temp ban screws MK mains over if MK is decided not ban worthy as they lost the ability to use their main which was legit for the said period.

Not really.

MKs won't be able to play as him in tournament matches, but they can still play in friendlies and MMs.

 

[Omni]

It's hard for it not to be cut and dry. Isn't one of the biggest issues having a set creteria on which to ban him? Seems to me, this is what they're providing, yet you want to stick with wishy-washy global interpretations

are you suggesting that attempts have not been made to establish it? what was the last MK debate to you? we discussed MK for months in both the BBR and in public. we then took a vote on both the bbr and the public. the criteria for banning MK was not met. there were no interpretations in that regards

When did the word isolated become "constant"? ADHD, Ally, and the sparse few others that win is NOT Constant, nor is it even COMMON.

Your last three points are completely hollow. All three have barely any relevance, and could all serve to further WORSEN the situation. Suppose a new planking tactic is discovered? Suppose several extremely skill MK mains emerge? Suppose MK grows even more as a character? Stop hiding.

It's become quite apparent that you refer to your ideas as "viewpoints", because it allows you to get away on the opinion clause. However, even when your "viewpoints" are confronted with hard data, that EVEN INTERPRETED heavily in your favor, still works against Meta-Knight?

I really admire Overswarm's patience in dealing with you, the man must have a lot more patience than I.

uh, all top non-mk players normally win in their region on a consistent basis. i have yet to see a weekend where MK has taken 1st in each thread when based on his credentials he SHOULD be taking 1st place.

i dont care if you think my points are hollow. those points contribute to what i see in a growing, competitive, and healthy game. you can throw around all these "supposes" but u cant deny that ADHD did become a contender through hardwork. no one's hiding, dude. stop being mad when someone doesn't see the end result in the same perspective.

my ideas are view points. what else could they be? when my opinions are confronted with data the data does not suddenly take over. the only way this could happen is if my opinions were FALSE STATEMENTS. my opinions are made from the hard data.

get over yourself, dude. you'd be surprised what i and dozens of other people have had to deal with in regards to Oversawrm.

 

[BSP]

I think the community needs to take action as well, but said action will be difficult to decide. Right now, we're just kinda sitting here going back and forth on (mostly) old data. I think we should at least try something. If it doesn't work, we can just go back to the old method or try something else.

And I also don't get how a temp. ban would really screw over MK users. He'd be banned from tournament play (which is still up to the TO), not from the entire game. I'm sure people would still practice against him since there would be a chance of him coming back.

 

[Kewkky]

Guide to speculating:

1st: Steal TO shoes.
2nd: Speculate
3rd: ????????
4th: Profit!

SPECULATION! It will always end up frustrating someone. :|

Among other news, temp ban screws MK mains over if MK is decided not ban worthy as they lost the ability to use their main which was legit for the said period.

Well what's keeping some TOs from running "MK Allowed" tourneys just like how some other TOs ran "MK Banned" tourneys after the last poll ended? That's why I didn't want to sound absolute with what I said, there will probably be rebels.

Plus, a temp ban wouldn't take MK off of the Brawl disc. If the players want to keep their MK skills from rusting, they could MM people or play some friendlies whenever they get the chances. That's what I do for my Melee Samus, and for ZSS... I didn't have a Wii since August and finally got it fixed while at Pound4, with tourneys being the only times I could play people (rare attendance to tourneys on my part, I'm always broke and still am). It didn't take me a day's worth of practice to play my Kirby well again, took me like 2-3 days to play my ZSS well again, and Melee Samus, well, blah (a month without playing kills you for a while)...

Now, that's personal experience, but I went through a situation MK mains would probably go through if he did indeed end up temp banned, and I'm still the best Kirby and ZSS by far in PR.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Not if yo give them a window of time to pick up someone new and practice for a while before it goes in effect.

Still doesn't change the fact we banned a non ban-worthy character for six months to test it, if he wasn't banworthy.

Not really.

MKs won't be able to play as him in tournament matches, but they can still play in friendlies and MMs.

Not if he was discovered to not be broken and was fair for tournament play. We cut them off from an option that wasn't banworthy, assuming it would prove he isn't banworthy.

 

[Kewkky]

I'm not going to doubt that banning MK would improve the metagame, but I value keeping a character in if the pros aren't enough to outweigh the cons of losing a character. At this point I'm not convinced banning him would make other characters more viable.

Umm, we've been talking about metagame being healthy and brawl dying (and all that whatnot) for a while now. Why bring up "character viability"? :|

Still doesn't change the fact we banned a non ban-worthy character for six months to test it, if he wasn't banworthy.



Not if he was discovered to not be broken and was fair for tournament play. We cut them off from an option that wasn't banworthy, assuming it would prove he isn't banworthy.

That's why it's a temporary ban for 6 months... We're not completely banning him, we're just removing him from the tourney scene temporarily until we get a good look at how Brawl would end up without MK, both in the eyes of the player and the mouths of the people.

 

[BSP]

And if he's not ban worthy, just bring him back.

I see how it could be unfair to the MK users though, but we need to try something.

 

[iRJi]

Still doesn't change the fact we banned a non ban-worthy character for six months to test it, if he wasn't banworthy.



Not if he was discovered to not be broken and was fair for tournament play. We cut them off from an option that wasn't banworthy, assuming it would prove he isn't banworthy.

Argument is kind of nulled right here lol. I just said there's no proof of him actually being ban worthy or not. read above.