Remove Metaknight's ability to counterpick non-starter stages

[Budget Player Cadet_]

just eliminate the unreasonable stages, there is no reason for brinstar or rc to be cp stages at all.

Did you even ****ing READ the OP?

Recommended reading:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=280360
THE ****ING OP OF THE THREAD YOU ARE RESPONDING TO

 

[ぱみゅ]

Probably people just want to keep things like they are to keep complaining.
Seriously, if ANYTHING could be done to balance something out, I'd give it a try.

 

[sunshade]

Why does the game need to be balanced any more than it already is?

 

[MaskedAvnger]

Because it isn't balanced.

I understand trying to give people a better edge against metaknight, but I don't think this is the way to do it.

But I also can't think of any better solution, and anything is worth trying at least once, imo. (Almost anything...)

 

[MaskedAvnger]

Phone double posted, my bad.

 

[deepseadiva]

The problem with this suggestion, and all other quick fixes like this, is that with a restriction you're admitting that MK is broken. "He breaks competition so he needs to be weakened to still be allowed to be chosen."

That's stupid and anticompetitive.

You don't get to pick and choose whether a character should still be allowed to be played when a conclusion is reached like that. That's catering.

If this is proban's last hand, the game has been over for awhile now.

Whatever happened to competitive integrity?

LOL WHUTS THAT LMAO

 

[Mikachiru]

I agree with Meno. I dunno why the pro/anti ban thing is up again... Guys, he isn't broken.

Countless times it's been proven that he can be defeated. He just happens to have alot of good tools.

I say we shouldn't have this CP thing for MK. Yes, I understand the points you guys are making, but I just don't think it's fair to put all these restrictions on him. Stuff might get messy...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Maybe I should clarify my stance.

I'm not necessarily recommending this if you're already all right with things like MK going Brinstar/RC. I'm recommending that before you/your TO goes and decides to ban a stage because he thinks MK is too good on it, this appears to be a very favorable solution. In either case, it's a surgical rule that hurts MK, but in only one of those cases does the actual competitiveness of the game go down by a considerable margin.

 

[ぱみゅ]

The problem is not that he's "unbeatable", nor "having good tools", but having a bunch of tools AND adding stage advantage to them.

Anyways, if I'd get to use this rule, I'd also ban certain stages for certain characters (Japes for Falco, Mario Circuit for Falco/DDD, and other overpolarizing ones).

 

[Kuraudo]

This is what I call overdoing it.

Bottom line is that Brawl is one of the most unbalanced video games played currently, primarily due to the reason that there was never any intended purpose of turning this into a fighting game in the MLG/professional light in the first place. Thus, developers didn't care about who was good using what or not, and just went with the flow.

In the end? We just deal with it.

 

[John12346]

The problem with this suggestion, and all other quick fixes like this, is that with a restriction you're admitting that MK is broken. "He breaks competition so he needs to be weakened to still be allowed to be chosen."

I'm sorry, but I just gotta point out that this sounds extremely pro-ban when you consider the fact the LGLs/scrooging limits/gliding under the stage limits found in most rulesets were put into play BECAUSE of Metaknight...

 

[Justin Wiles]

If this were ever seriously implemented on a national level, I would just ban MetaKnight at our tournaments instead of... beating around the bush. This is just silly.

Hey, I'm no SF guru, but how did Old Sagat end up with the "soft ban" status, and how did people even respect it? I've all ways compared the two characters in my head, seems like a similar situation. I'll go check Sirlin...

 

[AvaricePanda]

It's just unnecessary, and, as Meno and Sunshade said, and anticompetitive. I know I've said this three times, but it's limiting MK because you think he's too good on his counterpick stages. That's a loose opinion that's unable to be proven because everyone's definition of "too good" is different.

There's a rule restricting MK's IDC glitch because it's proven stalling. The glitch is banned, so obviously you can't do it for any amount of time.

There's a LGL rule (that should be fixed) because MK's planking is proven to be unbeatable with frame-data and without it, MK'd be able to stall the entire match. However, there shouldn't be a universal LGL, because the only planking that is frame-proven to be broken is MK's, so really it should just be a rule against MK's planking.

I haven't seen rules on scrooging in tournaments, but I've heard a bunch of people talk about it. I doubt it's actually unbeatable according to frame-data, but it hasn't been tested IIRC.

This rule would be implemented because MK has a good (but still obviously beatable) advantage on his CPs. It's an arbitrary and unnecessary rule. Plus, if this was carried out, who's to say Diddy can't CP FD, or Falco can't CP Japes, or Snake can't CP Halberd, etc? If you can argue MK's "too good" on those counterpicks, there's nothing stopping you from arguing the same for these characters.

It's anticompetitive.

blahblahblah don't ban a stage solely because of MK blahblahblah. I'm fine with Brinstar and RC, but if he really is as bad as you're describing on those stages, then it's better to just ban them (or one). Besides,

Melee Fox abused low ceilings, walk off edges, and walls via shine infinites among other things. Here's a list of stages banned mostly because of Fox:

Kongo Jungle
Onett
Yoshi's Island(Pipes)
Great Bay
Mushroom Kingdom
Mushroom Kingdom 2
Fourside
Peach's Castle

There are other reasons why the stages are banned, but some for of abuse by Fox is the most cited and strongest reasons.

For Pipes, there are 2 clips that sum up why the stage is banned in Shined Blind.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's just unnecessary, and, as Meno and Sunshade said, and anticompetitive. I know I've said this three times, but it's limiting MK because you think he's too good on his counterpick stages. That's a loose opinion that's unable to be proven because everyone's definition of "too good" is different.

There's a rule restricting MK's IDC glitch because it's proven stalling. The glitch is banned, so obviously you can't do it for any amount of time.

Sensible.

There's a LGL rule (that should be fixed) because MK's planking is proven to be unbeatable with frame-data and without it, MK'd be able to stall the entire match. However, there shouldn't be a universal LGL, because the only planking that is frame-proven to be broken is MK's, so really it should just be a rule against MK's planking.

I am a heavy opponent of LGLs personally, because unlike the IDC ban (any IDC is as good as all IDC, it's a glitch that shouldn't be in), MK's ledgecamping is a potent, but beatable tactic when not done in a specific way. I mean, me dropping below the ledge, using 5 jumps, then upBing to the ledge is hardly banworthy, neither is me doing it for 8 minutes, even if it makes falco/ICs/Fox put himself in a very bad position to hurt me.

I haven't seen rules on scrooging in tournaments, but I've heard a bunch of people talk about it. I doubt it's actually unbeatable according to frame-data, but it hasn't been tested IIRC.

Indeed, this is a ban that hasn't been shown to be warranted yet.

This rule would be implemented because MK has a good (but still obviously beatable) advantage on his CPs. It's an arbitrary and unnecessary rule. Plus, if this was carried out, who's to say Diddy can't CP FD, or Falco can't CP Japes, or Snake can't CP Halberd, etc? If you can argue MK's "too good" on those counterpicks, there's nothing stopping you from arguing the same for these characters.

Again, I'm not saying "Implement this rule no matter what". I'm saying "this rule is a better option than banning a stage because of MK being to good on them".

It's anticompetitive.

Getting rid of RC, Brinstar, Norfair, etc. would be even more so.

 

[Kaffei]

Someone tell me please why banning Brinstar, Norfair, & RC for MK only is a bad idea

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Someone tell me please why banning Brinstar, Norfair, & RC for MK only is a bad idea

This, and then why it's a worse idea then banning the 3 stages for everyone. Again, I'm not proposing this happen unless you would otherwise be forced to ban those 3 stages (**** YOU EAST COAST).

 

[AvaricePanda]

again, this

Melee Fox abused low ceilings, walk off edges, and walls via shine infinites among other things. Here's a list of stages banned mostly because of Fox:

Kongo Jungle
Onett
Yoshi's Island(Pipes)
Great Bay
Mushroom Kingdom
Mushroom Kingdom 2
Fourside
Peach's Castle

There are other reasons why the stages are banned, but some for of abuse by Fox is the most cited and strongest reasons.

For Pipes, there are 2 clips that sum up why the stage is banned in Shined Blind.

I don't agree with it and I think it's a bad idea just because I don't feel like MK is too good on those stages. He doesn't "break them" enough for them to be banworthy IMO. But I don't have a problem with it if people do somehow prove or TOs just think that MK is "too good" on those stages because banning stages mostly because of one character isn't something new.

oh, banning them for MK only is a bad idea since it's just arbitrary restrictions. there's also the issue of people CPing MK players to those stages just to make them not play MK (lol if I can CP M2K to Norfair with this rule and make him play one of his worse characters and have a better chance of winning)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

again, this

I don't care about melee rules. Like, at all. That is also, IMO, a bad precedent.

I don't agree with it and I think it's a bad idea just because I don't feel like MK is too good on those stages. He doesn't "break them" enough for them to be banworthy IMO. But I don't have a problem with it if people do somehow prove or TOs just think that MK is "too good" on those stages because banning stages mostly because of one character isn't something new.

It isn't? Where else have we banned a stage because of one character, and not because of a strategy? Don't say DDD-everyone has wall locks and most chars can blastzone camp.

oh, banning them for MK only is a bad idea since it's just arbitrary restrictions. there's also the issue of people CPing MK players to those stages just to make them not play MK (lol if I can CP M2K to Norfair with this rule and make him play one of his worse characters and have a better chance of winning)

Obviously it wouldn't work if I chose it as my counterpick and didn't pick MK. And again, arbitrary restriction on the use of stage X > banning stage X.

 

[Kaffei]

again, this



I don't agree with it and I think it's a bad idea just because I don't feel like MK is too good on those stages. He doesn't "break them" enough for them to be banworthy IMO. But I don't have a problem with it if people do somehow prove or TOs just think that MK is "too good" on those stages because banning stages mostly because of one character isn't something new.

oh, banning them for MK only is a bad idea since it's just arbitrary restrictions. there's also the issue of people CPing MK players to those stages just to make them not play MK (lol if I can CP M2K to Norfair with this rule and make him play one of his worse characters and have a better chance of winning)

I cannot stop laughing

 

[AvaricePanda]

I was referencing melee as the, "banning stages mostly because of one character isn't something new." Why is it a bad precedent? What would you have done to change the stage rules? You can't just dismiss it because Melee is a different game, because they're very similar with similar game mechanics and the same counterpicking system.

I was saying that if you ban a character from playing on a stage, what about the problem of someone else CPing that stage so their opponent can't use MK? My example being me CPing M2K to a stage on which MK is banned so he can't use MK. Would there be an exception?

And even disregarding that, banning a character from using a stage brings up other problems. For example, if you were to ban MK from using RC or Brinstar it'd be because he's "too good" on the stages, which is an arbitrary distinction, and despite the multiple matches of MKs losing on the stages and proving the stages are cut-and-dry broken for them, they're still banned.

Since you can't measure the amount of "good" MK is on those stages but are banning them exclusively for him anyway, you run into the problem of people wanting to do the same thing for other stages. Falco (and Kirby IIRC) is really good on Japes, much more "good" than what he would be on a neutral stage for him (which, I'm assuming since you support a 9 stage starter it'd be a stage like Yoshi's or something in this example). People could be upset that they have to "waste" a ban on Japes when Falco can still take them to PTAD (used in this example because IIRC you support it) which is still a REALLY good advantage for Falco, or even stages like FD or BF. If he's so much better and arguably "too good" on the stage, people can argue to ban Falco from Japes but not the stage itself.

Which brings problems of other characters, like Diddy and ICs on FD; an argument could be that people shouldn't have to waste a ban on it when both still are really good on BF and SV or PS1, and because those stages are not only "too good" for them but much better for them than their "neutrals", they should be banned. Even in any situation where X character is "too good" on a stage, like G&W on Norfair or Olimar on Mansion (side note, would much rather play an MK on brinstar/RC/norfair than these characters on these stages lol), people would argue for a ban only for the character because, well, you already did it for MK with some stages, why can't you do it with other characters?

Oh yeah, there's also the issue of not only banning MK from those stages. Do you only ban MK from RC/Brinstar/Norfair when other characters (like Wario on Brinstar, and G&W on Norfair) all get just as good buffs if not better ones from the stages? What about certain match-ups? D3 on RC is really dumb for some match-ups but fine for others.

"Too good" is too undefined to restrict certain characters from using the stage. The stage should be broken for it to be banned. Now, if one character clear cut broke a stage but it was perfectly fine for everyone else, it'd be a different story and not letting that character pick the stage is more realistic. But not only does that only work in theory, since realistically for a character to break a stage there have to be quite a few problems with it anyway, but MK doesn't break any of these stages. He just does well on them, and being the best character, he's going to be even better on his CPs.

A more realistic reason why Norfair is banned in most places and Brinstar banned in some is because MK does really well on them, and they aren't the best stages even without that. People can argue that Norfair should be banned even without MK, and I've heard arguments that Wario gets huge buffs on Brinstar to the point where banning it isn't so ridiculous. I don't really agree with banning them, but the stages have problems other than MK.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'll reply with more details later (it's super late), but...

Again, I'm not proposing this happen unless you would otherwise be forced to ban those 3 stages (**** YOU EAST COAST).

I don't support banning stages because MK is too good on them, but before you would do that, bending the rules like this just seems like a better idea. And to clarify, the rule would be "the player counterpicking cannot pick this stage and metaknight". Nothing more. It wouldn't be that you could stop someone from going MK by going to this stage-only yourself.

 

[iRJi]

This is overall kinda dumb. If you have to limit the one character from doing so, you might as well do it for the whole cast. If you have to put in place this rule JUST to limit him, then there is obviously something that is wrong with the character. Ban him, seriously. If you are not going to ban him, then this rule shouldn't be in place, either.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

What this rule is trying to avoid is having to impact the stagelist negatively due to one character. That's all, really.

 

[demonictoonlink]

I'm not trying to sound elitist, partly because I'm not even elite, but it really would be nice if there was a symbol or something next to people's names showing they attend tournaments.

So many things said in the thread just have no much competitive ignorance.

 

[Man of Popsicle]

I'd rather go to any of those stages then any neutral against MK.

 

[Smoom77]

I'd rather go to any of those stages then any neutral against MK.

Try maining ICs.

Think outside your character. This is the metagame we're talking about.

 

[rathy Aro]

Arbitrary and surgical.

Can people stop saying this. A lot of stuff we do could be considered arbitrary and deciding what is considered a "surgical" change is arbitrary as well. What you're saying basically implies that change is inherently bad.

 

[cutter]

This is what I call overdoing it.

Bottom line is that Brawl is one of the most unbalanced video games played currently, primarily due to the reason that there was never any intended purpose of turning this into a fighting game in the MLG/professional light in the first place. Thus, developers didn't care about who was good using what or not, and just went with the flow.

In the end? We just deal with it.

I don't want to go too off-topic, but Brawl isn't too bad of a game in terms of balance when you compare it to some other games. Like this for example.

Now that's just disgusting.

 

[sunshade]

I don't want to go too off-topic, but Brawl isn't too bad of a game in terms of balance when you compare it to some other games. Like this for example.

Now that's just disgusting.

Thats a really really bad example. You should play a game before you pick a random clip and say it is unbalanced. If you want I can go grab a clip from a melee combo video and say "Now that's just disgusting".

A games balance is based on how balanced the top tier characters are relative to one another. Lets say we had brawl and it consisted of only Snake, Falco, Dedede, Marth, and Ice climbers. Would this mini brawl become less balanced by adding ganondorf into the game? No, since he is a lousy character who will not be a part of the meta-game his inferiority is irrelevant.

Brawl's top tier is actually very balanced considering that most of the top tier match-ups are 50-50 or 60-40. It is for this reason that I say brawl is a well balanced game and if someone says "all the low tiers get *****" I respond with "welcome to every competitive fighting game out there".

 

[z00ted]

This is a good idea, but if we have to remove stages for a particular character aren't we proving that he's broken in the first place?

Dumb.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Fact: the most mk dominated region is ny/nj, which happens to also have the most narrow stage list.

If you actually go and look at the stages mk is winning on you would see that actually mk dominates and prefers starters/neutrals since they are the least likely to interfere with his inherently better moveset then other characters.

Fact: mlg implemented a larger then usual stage list, which many said would lead to mk dominated tournaments from the start, only to see below average/average results for mk. This even though mlg had the highest concentration of top mk players then any other national (except genesis which Columbus more or les tied in comparison).

 

[cutter]

Thats a really really bad example. You should play a game before you pick a random clip and say it is unbalanced. If you want I can go grab a clip from a melee combo video and say "Now that's just disgusting".

A games balance is based on how balanced the top tier characters are relative to one another. Lets say we had brawl and it consisted of only Snake, Falco, Dedede, Marth, and Ice climbers. Would this mini brawl become less balanced by adding ganondorf into the game? No, since he is a lousy character who will not be a part of the meta-game his inferiority is irrelevant.

Brawl's top tier is actually very balanced considering that most of the top tier match-ups are 50-50 or 60-40. It is for this reason that I say brawl is a well balanced game and if someone says "all the low tiers get *****" I respond with "welcome to every competitive fighting game out there".

I actually play MvC2. It's widely known as one of the most broken fighting games ever.

I could have gone back in the vid I linked to showing where Storm DHCs into Sentinel's HSF, leading to Spiral's death even when Spiral had roughly 3/4ths of a bar left instead of linking to the clip of Cable's AHVB x4 followed by the perfectly timed FP into AHVB to take out two characters in succession, but the fact remains... Brawl doesn't have that sort of brokenness available in competitive play.

 

[solecalibur]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WAjVtfHwCM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvpKOpaztuw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBB3Ah4latk

All on neutrals

 

[sunshade]

Fact: the most mk dominated region is ny/nj, which happens to also have the most narrow stage list.

If you actually go and look at the stages mk is winning on you would see that actually mk dominates and prefers starters/neutrals since they are the least likely to interfere with his inherently better moveset then other characters.

Is it also true that areas such as the midwest have consistently had more character diversity, and happens to also have the most open stage list?

10rhetoricalquestions

I actually play MvC2. It's widely known as one of the most broken fighting games ever.

I could have gone back in the vid I linked to showing where Storm DHCs into Sentinel's HSF, leading to Spiral's death even when Spiral had roughly 3/4ths of a bar left instead of linking to the clip of Cable's AHVB x4 followed by the perfectly timed FP into AHVB to take out two characters in succession, but the fact remains... Brawl doesn't have that sort of brokenness available in competitive play.

All of the high tier can do that so its not broken. Either way this is all besides the point and we should not derail the thread with talk of MvC2.

 

[cutter]

All of the high tier can do that so its not broken. Either way this is all besides the point and we should not derail the thread with talk of MvC2.

I can see where you're coming from, but that's why I made the comparison between two different games. But yeah, I won't talk any more on it since I don't want the thread to derail either.

@ solecalibur: I cringed a bit watching the 3rd match. That shield push to put ADHD in a techchase position at the end of the stage and getting killed at somewhat low % was really demoralizing. Though it could be said that Smashville for MK really isn't too neutral of a stage

 

[Orion*]

Or just ban brinstar and have an EC counterpick stagelist.

this

10wyatts

 

[sunshade]

If you really want to make a stagelist to hurt Metaknight use a liberal stage list with Brinstar, Rainbow Cruise, and Norfair banned.

This will take away Metaknight's counterpick options and the rest of the cast will gain stages which help them more than Metaknight. Thus weakening Metaknight and strengthening the rest.

 

[ShadowLink84]

All of the high tier can do that so its not broken. Either way this is all besides the point and we should not derail the thread with talk of MvC2.

MvC2 is horribly balanced.
A balanced game (closest ot it) is GG.
Worst matchup is Anji vs Potemkin for 65:35



MvC2, top 7 characters **** everyone.
Top 4 **** everyone below them
Magneto has a 2 frame move to start his infinite off of and even more options for it.
Let alone balance is in the scope of the ENTIRE cast.
Comparing only top/high tier is meaningless because they are high/top tier for being tournament viable in the first place! Meaning they already have decent matchup ratios anyway.
Very few games have a character who is insaney better than the rest of the top/high tier and those characters are banned.
i.e SSF2T Akuma.

 

[-Ran]

Most games with highly broken top tier characters don't have a metagame that matures enough to foster a competitive community.

 

[sunshade]

Let alone balance is in the scope of the ENTIRE cast.
Comparing only top/high tier is meaningless because they are high/top tier for being tournament viable in the first place! Meaning they already have decent matchup ratios anyway.
Very few games have a character who is insaney better than the rest of the top/high tier and those characters are banned.
i.e SSF2T Akuma.

Balance is not in the scope of the entire cast. Its 4am so I cannot gather my thoughts well enough to support this statement myself but here is a link to a very well done article from sonic hurricane on the topic of balance.

http://sonichurricane.com/?p=2930