The Official "Should/Will Metaknight be banned?" Thread (LISTEN TO THE SBR PODCAST!)

[metaXzero]

My question for you is... why give MK another broken tool to own the rest of the cast with?

As if he doesn't have enough going for him already...

Is it ACTUALLY broken and overcentralizing? If it is, bring irrefutable evidence to prove that point in practice (which would finally end this). If you can't bring any, the ban of IDC is unsubstantiated and keeping it banned is an act of being a scrub. Are we a community of scrubs?

EDIT: Genome Squirrel. If you use IDC, you are saying you can use it's strengths to take down your opponent within the timer. If you don't think you can do it (or IDC's strengths aren't good enough. Meaning, IDC isn't broken), you don't have to IDC.

 

[Flamingo]

metaXzero makes a great point. You guys should really listen to him.

 

[infomon]

metaXzero: wait, mebbe I missed something... how is IDC not broken? I never really paid attention to its dynamics, my understanding is that it allows MK to be invincible/invisible for as long as he wants... has this been proven false?

 

[Vulcan55]

metaXzero: wait, mebbe I missed something... how is IDC not broken? I never really paid attention to its dynamics, my understanding is that it allows MK to be invincible/invisible for as long as he wants... has this been proven false?

No, Metaxzero is just a ****** with twisted sense of logic who likes proposing arbitrary rules on top of existing rules and answering questions with more questions instead of providing proof despite the burden of evidence laying on his own two shoulders.

Also, Why the **** is this here again?

 

[metaXzero]

metaXzero: wait, mebbe I missed something... how is IDC not broken? I never really paid attention to its dynamics, my understanding is that it allows MK to be invincible/invisible for as long as he wants... has this been proven false?

As a stall, obviously that's really broken.

In other applications, that remains to be seen (mostly because of it's premature ban making it really hard to get ANY evidence for either side). What little evidence we do have doesn't clearly answer the question (2 tourney vids of IDC approaching being punished, Hylian running to an edge and punishing a ZSS who just sat there and spammed D-Smash, and Dojo IDCing behind Santi a few times (and getting B-aired in the face once) and then punishing Santi with a grab when he shot an arrow for NO reason.

Vulcan55. The burden of proof to prove IDC is NOT broken will be on me Once the anti-ban side proves IDC is broken as an approach/defense in the first place! I have 2 vids of IDC approaching being punished, the keep ban side has 2 vids of IDC punishing moments of idiocy. What is wrong with this picture?

 

[infomon]

And it would certainly be used for stalling, and so is totally broken... other applications don't even have to matter, so I don't know why they're worth spending the time/effort to consider at a competitive level.

Nevermind, I just read the thread in your sig..... you propose to add more arbitrary rules onto Brawl for the purpose of allowing this move to be not necessarily broken for stalling, although almost certainly (but not yet proven) broken for other reasons.

*shrug*

This isn't the thread to discuss the merits of such an idea. But just a personal question... why do you care so much? Of all the things that get banned by Brawl TO's, IDC should be the very least of your problems if you're worried we're degenerating into a scrub community.

 

[metaXzero]

^This thread's original purpose is long gone. lol

Why do I care? Things shouldn't be banned unless they are proven broken and overcentralizing. Like D3's CG, ledge camping, and MK himself, it's just plain scrubbyness to ban IDC when it hasn't overcentralized the game around itself (and the one CURRENT valid point for it's banning (stalling with it) is null).

 

[infomon]

There's a fine line between proof and reasonably convincing argument. True proof is impossible for a claim like "x is broken / ban-worthy" because ascertaining that claim comes down to a subjective opinion about what it means to be ban-worthy. The point is that virtually noone (except you I guess?) has trouble believing that IDC would dominate the game to such a degree that it would be ********.

and the one CURRENT valid point for it's banning (stalling with it) is null

No, it isn't null. Just because you have proposed adding a new rule that would (in your opinion, but with much disagreement from others) solve this problem, doesn't mean the problem is gone. The implications of any such rule would have to undergo scrutiny on its own right. This thread isn't the place to discuss such things, but the point is the issues involved are nontrivial, so you can't claim that the stalling argument is null.

 

[metaXzero]

There's a fine line between proof and reasonably convincing argument. True proof is impossible for a claim like "x is broken / ban-worthy" because ascertaining that claim comes down to a subjective opinion about what it means to be ban-worthy. The point is that virtually noone (except you I guess?) has trouble believing that IDC would dominate the game to such a degree that it would be ********.



No, it isn't null. Just because you have proposed adding a new rule that would (in your opinion, but with much disagreement from others) solve this problem, doesn't mean the problem is gone. The implications of any such rule would have to undergo scrutiny on its own right. This thread isn't the place to discuss such things, but the point is the issues involved are nontrivial, so you can't claim that the stalling argument is null.

And yet, we have a tourny with 2 vids where IDC was allowed and it DIDN'T dominate. It got punished. In-Practice results>Theoretical Analysis lol

Long story short, all the "keep ban" side would need to shut me up (besides MKs dominating tournys using IDC) is a high level match vid of a MK using IDC near perfectly and most of the time and dominating. If their was nothing the opponent could do but get hit. But they can't present anything close to that.

If the "IDC stalling" is still a valid point, TELL ME HOW WHY. If you use IDC, trying to run out the clock is self-destructive. You LOSE if that timer hits zero, so as a MK who uses IDC, WHY would you want to drag out the match?

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

lol. How would they lose?

 

[Yuna]

Is it just me or with all these issues with stalling maybe instead of making arbitrary bans on things that we cant completely monitor we should ban Brawl from tourneys.

Stop stealing my ideas. I suggested we implement this rule a year ago.

metaXzero: Your solutions are not viable. I also suggest you stop whining about the IDC ban in every single thread you're in, even when they have absolutely nothing to do with the IDC ban. If people aren't interested in your own thread about the subject, so be it. Don't bring every other thread on Tactical off-topic because of that.

lol I remember yuna used to keep saying the burden of proof lied on the people who wanted things banned and so did a lot of the other anti ban group. Funny how things shifted now.

Yes, but this is already banned. However, I'm arguing that metaXzero finds a viable and working solution to combating the IDC stall and then we'll talk. I'm also maintaining that since the IDC is so friggin' broken, it won't take even a month before it's banned against just for being friggin' broken.

 

[St. Viers]

metaxzero: that's like saying DDD's CG isn't broken (which said it is), because I can find videos of people messing it up. It's like saying Akuma shouldn't be banned, because I can find videos of him losing. The reason you don't see IDC being used as effectively as possible is because it was banned--people didn't use it perfectly at the beginning, but people still realized that if it was given time, people would consistantly be able to use it to run the clock, or approach.

Also, asking for video evidence is stupid, as only a small number of videos are posted, AND only a small number of matches get recorded anyways.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

Oh. I found his thread. It's ********.

The burden of evidence is on you.

If you truly believe it to not be broken host tournaments with it allowed and submit evidence. Don't forget to include how LONG the tournament took. I saw that you argued with Hylian about stalling. Even if the opponent ISN'T successful at stalling they're still going to attempt it. It'll make tournaments run WAYYY too long. Also you're dumb. Just throwing that out there.

 

[infomon]

And yet, we have a tourny with 2 vids where IDC was allowed and it DIDN'T dominate. It got punished. In-Practice results>Theoretical Analysis lol

2 vids from one tournament proves absolutely nothing. Come on, you should know better than that

Long story short, all the "keep ban" side would need to shut me up (besides MKs dominating tournys using IDC) is a high level match vid of a MK using IDC near perfectly and most of the time and dominating. If their was nothing the opponent could do but get hit. But they can't present anything close to that.

Do you honestly think this would be hard to obtain if anyone actually cared? And it wouldn't even be proof, because it would be just one match, it might convince you but not another vocal zealot, so the exercise would be futile.

If the "IDC stalling" is still a valid point, TELL ME HOW WHY.

Because MK will hit you once and spend the entire remainder of the match invincible and invisible. This means he wins, according to the rules of pretty much every tournament that's ever happened. Unless we, you know, ban IDC.

If you use IDC, trying to run out the clock is self-destructive. You LOSE if that timer hits zero, so as a MK who uses IDC, WHY would you want to drag out the match?

No, that wouldn't happen, because noone's accepted your proposed rule. It would introduce more problems than it solves, and noone likes it. We could unban New Pork City but introduce arbitrary rules designed to mitigate circle-camping; but that would suck, so we don't. Adding arbitrary limits to moves in the game is more scrubby than just banning the glitches that are obviously broken.

Again, I don't know why you care about this more than unbanning stages like Big Blue.

 

[Justblaze647]

Adding arbitrary limits to moves in the game is more scrubby than just banning the glitches that are obviously broken.

This should be the end of all that let's un-ban a glitch talk.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

There is no purpose for this thread anymore.