Remove Metaknight's ability to counterpick non-starter stages

[ShadowLink84]

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

No.

Sonic hurricane is arguing about what is considered "acceptable" for a competitive game in terms of tournament gameplay.
He is not arguing about what can be considered balanced.

IT is fine to have 4 characters in a 3v3 who are viable.
It is fine to have 5 in a game of of 20.
It is fine to have 10 in a game of 100.
It is bad if only 1 is viable.
NO argument about it being actually "balanced."

 

[sunshade]

He makes the statement that the top tier is the only relevant part of the metagame.

"To be clear, it doesn’t matter how many squares there are on the character select screen. Who cares whether five useless portraits remain in the game or fifty? Percentage-based breakdowns are meaningless. Only two factors count when considering balance: whether there are four or more characters in top tier, and whether the matchups between them measure up to our high standards"

Answer me this. Would brawl be a more balanced game if ganondorf was never added?

 

[ShadowLink84]

He makes the statement that the top tier is the only relevant part of the metagame.

"To be clear, it doesn’t matter how many squares there are on the character select screen. Who cares whether five useless portraits remain in the game or fifty? Percentage-based breakdowns are meaningless. Only two factors count when considering balance: whether there are four or more characters in top tier, and whether the matchups between them measure up to our high standards"

Answer me this. Would brawl be a more balanced game if ganondorf was never added?

Wow, way to misconstrue the point of the article.
His statement is in reference to the metagame.
What is required for a healthy, living metagame.
NOT WHAT IS BALANCED!
Not once does he say balance din terms of character viability.
only balance in terms of a metagame that has GROWTH,.

Obviously the top tier characters have more of an impact.
They are the MOST tournament viable.
So removing a top tier is going to have a drastic effec t on the metagame more so than Ganondorf.
Does this mean the game is more balanced?
No!

It only means the next best characters will do better because they are now "the best" characters with the top character gone. This doesn't make the game anymore balanced because the other 700+matchups STILL exist.

He is talking about what it takes to have a healthy metagame, not a balanced game.

 

[maaple]

I had posted something similar to this when the voting of banning MK was going on. My idea was MK only being able to play neutrals will actual shift some matchups against him. I personally think snake and diddy would have a slight advantage on neutrals, along with helping every other character as well. When I posted my idea, most people just overlooked it due to if you need to make limits, why not just ban the character? I personally like the idea of MK only playing neutrals, and see how well that works.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

We COULD just ban Mach Tornado... :D

But other then that, I support maaple's idea. ^^

 

[John12346]

You all must admit, though, Brawl would be significantly closer to balanced if MK was cut rather than Snake.

(I mean, it still wouldn't be balanced, but it'd be closer w/o MK, definitely)

 

[PottyJokes]

how about we only play on starters. we almost ban everything anyway

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

this

10wyatts

how about we only play on starters. we almost ban everything anyway

$#)T*RYQ%*GT#FODHWT%R#FUT#$*(GYRHBUGIRBVS FASGEARW*YFCUWDF*WEHUCDWFIGWEFEWUIVWUEIgIWFQEU

THAT WAS ME SLAMMING MY HEAD AGAINST THE KEYBOARD FOR ABOUT 4 MINUTES.

Anyone who is honestly advocating extremely strict stagelists such as are used in places like the east coast or Nevada need to actually figure out what the **** they are talking about.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=280360

To make this more clear to some of you.
The movement for stages like PS2 or GG inside the SWF stage discussion forum is, AFAIK, less of a movement to unban stages X, Y, and Z, but rather to change the way of thinking about stages-something that we ban once we see that there is a real reason to ban them, as opposed to something that we ban to have the least interesting game possible, something resembling street fighter at best.

As to why this concept matters, you really only have to look at what they add, competitively. Let's say we work backwards (everything is banned, stages are unbanned one by one). When I add FD, I have a game where, when I main a character, I have to learn 38 matchups on one stage.
Now we throw Battlefield into the mix. All of a sudden, I still have those 38 matchups, but some of them play drastically differently on battlefield than they do on Final Destination!

Now we really throw everyone for a loop and add Norfair to the mix. Now I still have these 38 matchups, but now I need to not only learn how to play them on Battlefield, Final Destination, and Norfair, but I also have to learn how to play on Norfair at all! Once I've done that, I find that trapping my opponent with the lava if he is inexperienced becomes a very potent strategy, forcing him to learn how to play the stage or to die (imagine it, if you will, like a character matchup-if I run into the ICs and never have played against them before, I won't know that one grab = death until I've already suffered it. If I run into norfair without ever having seen it before, I won't know how to deal with the lava). I also have to, in turn, find ways around this strategy.

Now we add PS2 to the mix. Now I still have the 38 MUs, but not only do I have to know them on these 4 stages, have to know how to play on Norfair, but now I also need to know how to deal with PS2's transformations, know how to take advantage of the changes to the best of my ability, and how to get around things like MK's uair on the air segment. This is a RIDICULOUS amount of things you have to learn to play the game competitively at a high level. In other words: it adds to the competitive merit of the game.

So in short, by adding more stages, we are almost always making the game more competitive by giving it a longer learning curve. If you only have to learn 38 matchups on FD... oh well. If you have to learn 38 matchups on FD, Battlefield, Norfair, RC, Halberd... It's a lot to learn, and a lot more chance for someone to shine who is good at many facets of the game, instead of just one particular part.

TL;DR? Stages add a huge amount to this game as a competitive game. Banning stages unless you absolutely have to is a really bad idea because the act of banning a stage in itself makes the game less competitive. Only in cases where you have to ban the stage to keep the game competitive at all should you ban (for example, Wario Ware, Temple, Bridge of Eldin, etc.)

 

[ksizl4life]

Ban Meta Knight's ability to use a controller setting which features the "special" button. That will actually prevent him from using the dimensional cape's advanced techniques, unlike our present rule on the matter.

And it's no less fair to MK mains than this suggestion is.

hmm this is pretty interesting.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

If you ban MK, Falco's, Snake's and Diddy's will run rampant and one of them will be banned (No hypothetical mumbojumbo, just it happens).

If you ban counterpick stages, the character list becomes more stagnant.

This is what people do not realize and I did not realize for the first 4 or so months of this game. The main issue is not the counterpicks.

It is the neutrals. If more neutrals are added, as in a 7/9 stage list, the game will become less stagnant. IC's won't be forcing BF vs everyone that strikes FD and SV. Snake won't have a generally epic stage. Even diddy will be less balanced.

 

[solecalibur]

and this is what pissed off the higher lvl players because they play characters like diddy, ICs or falco because there losing there stages and they are more successful either because of the stage list favoring the character or there just to good

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

If you ban MK, Falco's, Snake's and Diddy's will run rampant and one of them will be banned (No hypothetical mumbojumbo, just it happens).

Proven wrong again and again and again. The top tier is like, melee-balanced in Brawl sans MK.

and this is what pissed off the higher lvl players because they play characters like diddy, ICs or falco because there losing there stages and they are more successful either because of the stage list favoring the character or there just to good

What are you even trying to say

 

[Metal Reeper]

MK is not overrated.

O c wut I did thar?

Yeah...nothing.

 

[Mr.-0]

Theres been like 5 "the ruleset should be changed" threads in the past week or two. WTF is up with this?

 

[z00ted]

Metaknight is broken, duh.

 

[Orion*]

ING MY HEAD AGAINST THE KEYBOARD FOR ABOUT 4 MINUTES.

Anyone who is honestly advocating extremely strict stagelists such as are used in places like the east coast or Nevada need to actually figure out what the **** they are talking about.

TL:DR

sorry, you can say what you want in like a paragraph rofl.

also, id probably care more if you wouldnt tell TOP PLAYERS that they should know what they are talking about when you have like garbage tournament experience rofl

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

TL:DR

sorry, you can say what you want in like a paragraph rofl.

I did. The wall is so that you understand why, and I recommend reading it-it's actually quite important.

TL;DR? Stages add a huge amount to this game as a competitive game. Banning stages unless you absolutely have to is a really bad idea because the act of banning a stage in itself makes the game less competitive. Only in cases where you have to ban the stage to keep the game competitive at all should you ban (for example, Wario Ware, Temple, Bridge of Eldin, etc.)

also, id probably care more if you wouldnt tell TOP PLAYERS that they should know what they are talking about when you have like garbage tournament experience rofl

It's a shame most top players (with a few exceptions, <3 AZ, OS, and AA) have no clue what they are doing when they talk about a stagelist. No really, look at that post and actually see if there's anything wrong with it other than "the person who made it isn't a super pro", because that is basically stereotypical ad hominem-rejecting the argument because of the arguer.

Theres been like 5 "the ruleset should be changed" threads in the past week or two. WTF is up with this?

Ionno. New trend?

 

[Flayl]

BF is a cp for diddy just as much as for a TON of other characters: Matchup-specific and it's not even among his overall best. Please stop pretending the 5 stage starter list is overcentralizing for diddy.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It could be overcentralizing for anyone, and where is BF on diddy's list of top stages? How about PS1?

 

[-Ran]

Theres been like 5 "the ruleset should be changed" threads in the past week or two. WTF is up with this?

The metagame is trying to evolve: one way or another.

 

[AvaricePanda]

IIRC Marth and Snake do really well on the neutral stages (as well as other characters obviously). I disagree with Flayl in saying that it's not one of his overall best because it is, but it's also match-up specific. Diddy CPing BF is just as much as a CP as other characters like Marth, DK, Snake, Toon Link, Kirby, Fox, Pokemon Trainer, Wolf, etc. And while BF is a reasonable CP for Diddy vs. say MK, it's definitely not vs. say DK.

I mean, I don't even disagree with a 7 or 9 stage starter list, but people are making a 5 stage starter list when tons of characters do great on the starters, not just Diddy, Falco, and ICs. Snake does extraordinary on all the starters (minus maybe Yoshi's), same with Fox (minus maybe Yoshi's) and Marth (minus maybe Yoshi's) and DK (BF and Yoshi's are REALLY good for him, the others pretty good for him). And the three characters everyone namedrops as overcentralizing on neutrals are all really good on the starters, minus maybe Yoshi's (like almost everyone else lol). I mean we could just play every game 1 on Yoshi's since it's so mediocre for all but like 4 characters, but in any starter list whether it's 5, 7, or 9, there are going to be lots of characters with lots of good stages.

Another thing I noticed and kinda want to point out (and this is getting kinda off-topic) but how many matches at MLG were played on the more "controversial" stages like Norfair or Green Greens? People often say, "Well there was less MK dominance at MLG and more liberal stages," but if those stages weren't used often if at all it's kinda a moot point. I really don't know though.

and @ BPC, you seem to be assuming your opinion is 100% right and it's not. Well, your opinion on stages isn't wrong, but really opinions on stages are just that — opinions. No one ever has said, "Okay this is how the best competitive stage is."

Your belief is that adding stages gives the game a larger competitive learning curve because you have to learn a match-up on multiple stages; that is what stages add. But your concept you quoted is unfair because you didn't consider why stages can be anticompetitive or banned. The post is talking about only the good thing about adding stages.

Some — actually a lot of people think that as a fighting game, Brawl should be about fighting your opponent, and when it gets to the point where stage tactics take priority over player vs player tactics and reading/punishing your opponent, the stage should be banned (a perfect example being TL or G&W watercamping on Pirate Ship. Sure, maybe you can beat them on paper, but not all characters can do it and it's so much more difficult on your end than it was for them to practice it for a little while, so they get a HUGE advantage). Many people think that, "If there's a point where I can abuse X part of Green Greens/Norfair/PTAD, do considerably less work in actually reading and playing my opponent, yet still have the advantage and win because of my abusing X thing my opponent has to work around before actually playing me, then the stage should be banned."

You say, "This is Brawl, not Street Fighter," but that statement doesn't validate a bad stage to suddenly be a reasonable counterpick. The counterpicks Brawl has are already quite different and still useful because of the stage layout differences, but on the available counterpicks you're benefitting because of those and still having to fight your opponent directly to get the benefits, whereas other stages there's the layout differences + pretty big hazards. You can say, "Just avoid them," but a lot of people don't think that messing up warrants taking 40% or dying from the stage when your opponent wasn't able to punish you directly.

 

[Mr.-0]

Metaknight is broken, duh.

No, MK is super easy to use and is broken on every level but the Ally VS M2K level. On that level, MK AND Snake are broken.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I mean, I don't even disagree with a 7 or 9 stage starter list, but people are making a 5 stage starter list when tons of characters do great on the starters, not just Diddy, Falco, and ICs. Snake does extraordinary on all the starters (minus maybe Yoshi's), same with Fox (minus maybe Yoshi's) and Marth (minus maybe Yoshi's) and DK (BF and Yoshi's are REALLY good for him, the others pretty good for him). And the three characters everyone namedrops as overcentralizing on neutrals are all really good on the starters, minus maybe Yoshi's (like almost everyone else lol). I mean we could just play every game 1 on Yoshi's since it's so mediocre for all but like 4 characters, but in any starter list whether it's 5, 7, or 9, there are going to be lots of characters with lots of good stages.

This is why the full starter list is good. Characters with lots of good stages are good. However, why should we put all their best stages in the starter list? Where's Norfair? Lots of chars do good there.

Another thing I noticed and kinda want to point out (and this is getting kinda off-topic) but how many matches at MLG were played on the more "controversial" stages like Norfair or Green Greens? People often say, "Well there was less MK dominance at MLG and more liberal stages," but if those stages weren't used often if at all it's kinda a moot point. I really don't know though.

Alternatively you can look at the east coast, which is swamped with MKs...

and @ BPC, you seem to be assuming your opinion is 100% right and it's not. Well, your opinion on stages isn't wrong, but really opinions on stages are just that — opinions. No one ever has said, "Okay this is how the best competitive stage is."

Neither have I. I'm assuming my opinion is 100% right because, well, nobody has offered a convincing argument against it, and I've been getting a lot of support from people who seem to know what they are talking about.

Your belief is that adding stages gives the game a larger competitive learning curve because you have to learn a match-up on multiple stages; that is what stages add. But your concept you quoted is unfair because you didn't consider why stages can be anticompetitive or banned. The post is talking about only the good thing about adding stages.

Shoulda quoted the next two paragraphs, where I explain that you do have to weigh certain aspects in (for example, warioware obviously takes much more away from the game than it adds), such as very potent randomness or overcentralizing tactics. You have to see if the stage adds more to the game than it takes away. If you aren't sure, err on the side of "well, let's test this" because otherwise, you are banning something you haven't really explored. Like, how I hear East Coast banned norfair after Spammerer abused jiggs's pound on that stage... Yeah, sorry guys, but that's definitely beatable. Scrubby ban.

Some — actually a lot of people think that as a fighting game, Brawl should be about fighting your opponent, and when it gets to the point where stage tactics take priority over player vs player tactics and reading/punishing your opponent, the stage should be banned (a perfect example being TL or G&W watercamping on Pirate Ship. Sure, maybe you can beat them on paper, but not all characters can do it and it's so much more difficult on your end than it was for them to practice it for a little while, so they get a HUGE advantage).

Pirate ship is definitely a ban candidate-rudder camping is in many matchups stalling, and very difficult to counter. Add normal water-camping... But it's not a stage I personally am vouching for.

However, what's wrong with having to "fight the stage"? That's hardly an argument to ban a stage, it's simply not wanting to learn another aspect of the game. This is, after all, not street fighter. It's a game where stages actually make a big difference, and to take this away seems ludicrous.

Many people think that, "If there's a point where I can abuse X part of Green Greens/Norfair/PTAD, do considerably less work in actually reading and playing my opponent, yet still have the advantage and win because of my abusing X thing my opponent has to work around before actually playing me, then the stage should be banned."

Except he has to abuse that point when it comes around, and do it carefully so as not to get abused himself. Requires skill, it just raises the risk/reward a little bit.

You say, "This is Brawl, not Street Fighter," but that statement doesn't validate a bad stage to suddenly be a reasonable counterpick. The counterpicks Brawl has are already quite different and still useful because of the stage layout differences, but on the available counterpicks you're benefitting because of those and still having to fight your opponent directly to get the benefits, whereas other stages there's the layout differences + pretty big hazards. You can say, "Just avoid them," but a lot of people don't think that messing up warrants taking 40% or dying from the stage when your opponent wasn't able to punish you directly.

We aren't validating bad stages. Don't see me advocating Temple, or NPC, or GHZ. Again, any stage that is either excessively random or has overcentralizing tactics are clearly anticompetitive and override the whole "stage adds depth" competitiveness. We're not trying to change what stages are bad or not, we're trying to change the way we look at stages.

I really don't think that "we don't think the game should be played like this" is an acceptable excuse when the alternative is simply a more competitive game with a higher learning curve and more options. It's like any other simple opinion, except without any of the facts to back it up.

On a side note, I really, really wish I was, for once, on the side of an argument where the other side can cross their arms, shake their hands, say "nuh-uh" and win.

 

[Megavitamins]

Let's see here:

- We've banned IDC.

The ability to go invisible and invincible for any set amount of time, therefore eliminating opponents invincibility frames shouldn't be banned?

- We've placed ledge-grab limits on games.

Find me three matches were the ledge-grab limit actaully came into effect

- We've banned Scrooging.

yeah, it's pretty much a free pass to time anybody out once they get a small lead.

- Some regions have banned counterpick stages simply because of MK (i.e. Brinstar).

Didn't hear about this one
- There's also the thread that says the one who spends the most time in the air loses.

Not many people supprt it lol.

Now we're seriously contemplating limiting MK even further by keeping him from counterpicking non-starter stages? It's already ******** enough that there are three rules in place solely for one character.

I see no negative reasons to NOT do this, it would give alot of characters chances to actually beat MK if they lose r1.

For example, I main marth, if I lose R1 I might as well forfeit. RC or B-star or both unwinnable unless I'm fighting kingz.

 

[Limeee]

seriously, this rule is amazing.
even m2k supported it lol.

 

[clowsui]

The ONLY way I would accept this rule is if every single person who supported this also supports the idea that Metaknight is broken and far above the rest of the cast and therefore deserves surgical rules to limit him to the point where we need to keep him in the metagame for the sake of keeping him in and for no other reason.

 

[AvaricePanda]

I just remembered how much off-topic the discussion got lol

BPC I don't even disagree with you in terms of the stage-lists but I just don't disagree with TOs that decide to use conservative stage lists, and I'm trying to explain why I feel that a conservative stage list is fine too. You say that more stages adds more competitive depth (which I agree with to a point, I'm still on the fence about quite a few stages) but a lot of people feel that some stages do the opposite with thoughts like, what's the point of adding in a stage that lets X and Y characters practically autowin or lets X tactic have a huge advantage they wouldn't anywhere else?

But about the original rule suggestion, MK isn't bad enough on Brinstar, RC, and Norfair for this to be warranted. And it's also unfair for the match-ups that want to play MK on these stages. While you may only be thinking about Snake, ICs, and Diddy, and how they generally don't like these stages, some match-ups vs MK are different, like Ness won't mind going to Brinstar, or G&W might want to go to Norfair. Restricting these stages would do the opposite affect for some characters.

edit: oh something I forgot. EC isn't "swamped" with MKs, NJ/NY is "swamped" with MKs and IIRC every other region on the east coast has a normal amount (new england, MD/VA, NC, FL if you count that). it's also hard to attribute the amount of MKs in NJ/NY to the stagelist when there are probably other factors (maybe random choice even, but I don't know I don't live there). tourneys in IN/KY have pretty much the same stagelist including pictochat and sometimes japes, and there are like no MKs here lol

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I just remembered how much off-topic the discussion got lol

I do that to threads. But the key point behind this thread is still not "let's limit MK" but instead "let's not nuke the stagelist because of him". I've moved on to greener, more critically obvious pastures (where my opponents still autowin by ignoring me, hooray)

BPC I don't even disagree with you in terms of the stage-lists but I just don't disagree with TOs that decide to use conservative stage lists, and I'm trying to explain why I feel that a conservative stage list is fine too. You say that more stages adds more competitive depth (which I agree with to a point, I'm still on the fence about quite a few stages) but a lot of people feel that some stages do the opposite with thoughts like, what's the point of adding in a stage that lets X and Y characters practically autowin or lets X tactic have a huge advantage they wouldn't anywhere else?

But the thing is, we've shown why it's up to them to show us why a certain stage is banworthy. If a stage lets a character practically autowin, it's an obvious ban candidate due to overcentralization, but the ones that we're proposing clearly aren't. And these guys are banning norfair, Japes, and PS2.

But about the original rule suggestion, MK isn't bad enough on Brinstar, RC, and Norfair for this to be warranted.

Some people think he is. This is for them, and only them. Unfortunately, these are likely to be the same people advocating 3-stage starter lists and trying to get lylat and halberd banned.

And it's also unfair for the match-ups that want to play MK on these stages. While you may only be thinking about Snake, ICs, and Diddy, and how they generally don't like these stages, some match-ups vs MK are different, like Ness won't mind going to Brinstar, or G&W might want to go to Norfair. Restricting these stages would do the opposite affect for some characters.

"You can go to any stage if you and your opponent agree on them"? Plus, why would MK pick those stages against ness or G&W?

edit: oh something I forgot. EC isn't "swamped" with MKs, NJ/NY is "swamped" with MKs and IIRC every other region on the east coast has a normal amount (new england, MD/VA, NC, FL if you count that). it's also hard to attribute the amount of MKs in NJ/NY to the stagelist when there are probably other factors (maybe random choice even, but I don't know I don't live there). tourneys in IN/KY have pretty much the same stagelist including pictochat and sometimes japes, and there are like no MKs here lol

Ionno.

 

[Nefarious B]

I duno, I think the stagelist that is fairly common right now, that includes RC and Brinstar and bans the other janky stages, is pretty good. The limitations of the first game striking system however, is what needs change. All the viable stages should be included in striking to reach a middle ground for the neutral first game. With the current common stagelist, this change conveniently wouldn't be overly dominant for either ground or air based characters either.

 

[Orion*]

you called.....
os and az top players LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

kk nvm i agree with this thread carry on ROFL

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

you called.....
os and az top players LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

kk nvm i agree with this thread carry on ROFL

OS is the 10th-highest ranked MK. I was pretty sure AZ was up there among the high-level diddies and TOs.

What we need, though, are the really big players testing these stages and trying to figure out if they really are that banworthy.

 

[iRJi]

This thread is still bleh. Lol. Such a silly idea.

 

[Katakiri]

Are people really still arguing this?

Is this thread not locked yet?

Am I in a backwards dimension where ideas like this don't get shot down and locked within the first page?

Is Hylian on vacation?

 

[iDeo]

Just learn ur MU for MK with ur character. Also learn the CPs and how u can utilize it that way u won't be at such a disadvantage when a MK CPz u there. At least then u'll have some knowledge on how to maneuver about the stage.

This is such a dumb idea to begin with. Building rules set around one character is getting pretty lame.

 

[JayBee]

Ban Meta Knight's ability to use a controller setting which features the "special" button. That will actually prevent him from using the dimensional cape's advanced techniques, unlike our present rule on the matter.

And it's no less fair to MK mains than this suggestion is.

IMO that was an ignorant response.

MMM said it all.

Surgical changes are bad.

Because we already done enough of those right? Nothing wrong with surgery, if its to save the patient lol.

The main problem I see is secondaries. If someone goes MK first round and loses, and they want to pick RC and switch to G&W, would this be allowed? Or what if they started as Kirby, and picked RC, would the opponent be allowed to switch to MK? And if the winner switches to MK on the loser's counterpick, the loser can't counter with MK anymore, because they picked a stage that MK can't counter... and so on. The actually rule would have to be super-specific to cover every possible scenario, it seems like too much effort.

I agree. im glad you brought this up.

He does, but no one takes advantage of the rule. People at this point want all or nothing when it comes to Meta Knight. You shouldn't ban an integral part of the game so that a character can be 'slightly less broken.'

Let's see here:

- We've banned IDC.
- We've placed ledge-grab limits on games.
- We've banned Scrooging.
- Some regions have banned counterpick stages simply because of MK (i.e. Brinstar).
- There's also the thread that says the one who spends the most time in the air loses.

Now we're seriously contemplating limiting MK even further by keeping him from counterpicking non-starter stages? It's already ******** enough that there are three rules in place solely for one character.

We've done all of this but hes not ban worthy apparently. sigh, it seriously feels like MK isn't banned at this point, simply because people "just don't wanna."

Im pretty sure the majority will finally get it, im just not gonna hold my breath, and just work on MK myself until then.

The ONLY way I would accept this rule is if every single person who supported this also supports the idea that Metaknight is broken and far above the rest of the cast and therefore deserves surgical rules to limit him to the point where we need to keep him in the metagame for the sake of keeping him in and for no other reason.

this.

Just learn ur MU for MK with ur character. Also learn the CPs and how u can utilize it that way u won't be at such a disadvantage when a MK CPz u there. At least then u'll have some knowledge on how to maneuver about the stage.

This is such a dumb idea to begin with. Building rules set around one character is getting pretty lame.

you know that people do that, right? this isn't a new idea to learn the MU, on either side of the issue. and if MK wasn't such a big deal then those rules in place already that deal with Planking and stuff would not even be in place, right? it is pretty lame that it had to be done though. But that's brawl.

 

[iDeo]

you know that people do that, right? this isn't a new idea to learn the MU, on either side of the issue. and if MK wasn't such a big deal then those rules in place already that deal with Planking and stuff would not even be in place, right? it is pretty lame that it had to be done though. But that's brawl.

I get the basis on some rulez being set in place against MK to allow competitive gaming. It's just enough is enough with putting another bogus rule (this one being the case), into the mix b/c some players just can't learn to face him when new obstacles arise.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

It's not gonna happen. Like, ever.

he has too much influence in too many important places in our community (sbr)

 

[Juushichi]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crow!
Ban Meta Knight's ability to use a controller setting which features the "special" button. That will actually prevent him from using the dimensional cape's advanced techniques, unlike our present rule on the matter.

JayBee
And it's no less fair to MK mains than this suggestion is.
IMO that was an ignorant response.

That's it, that's the joke.

 

[solecalibur]

seriously, this rule is amazing.
even m2k supported it lol.

Because he hates janky stages so he'd never be Cp'd to one lol

Heres an idea lets cut off his wings and give them to ganon

 

[Judo777]

Seriously guys if one character requires several rules to be in place to make them more balanced........ thats ban worthy in and of itself.

Hey guys i got an idea lets make it so that akuma cant do an air fireball within 5 seconds of his last action i think that would be more fair dont you?