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

[Tenki]

This thread.
IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAND!​

On topic:
Like Metaknight.

Which needs complete frame data.

 

[aeghrur]

OMG, DJBROWNY IS RIGHT! seriously. :O Amazing.

 

[salaboB]

Remember unlike melee, you can do ANTHING you want out of the shield. Use this tool to help in fights.

And remember that unlike Melee, you have poor spacing tools and no real combos so you can't easily punish for mistakes beyond one response hit -- so the superior character must make mistake after mistake compared to you to allow you to win, and even their worst mistake will rarely do more than give you one free hit.

 

[Dark.Pch]

And remember that unlike Melee, you have poor spacing tools and no real combos so you can't easily punish for mistakes beyond one response hit -- so the superior character must make mistake after mistake compared to you to allow you to win, and even their worst mistake will rarely do more than give you one free hit.

No cause there are characters that are great at spacing and they use that toll to help them win.

and with the rest of your post. thats how it is with every bad match much for characters. And its not even about them making mistakes, its about you not making any and being onpoint in a fight. Cause they could make mistakes and you can still get your butt handed to you.

 

[Naucitos]

That's because its a different game. That goes for any character, only a few characters can punish more than a very large amount of lag harshly

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

No cause there are characters that are great at spacing and they use that toll to help them win.

and with the rest of your post. thats how it is with every bad match much for characters. And its not even about them making mistakes, its about you not making any and being onpoint in a fight. Cause they could make mistakes and you can still get your butt handed to you.

I'm sorry but you just made it sound like the way to beat MK is to not make mistakes. even if its true couldn't you just tell the MK to do the same and incase you both play your roles as humans and screw up his mistakes count less than W/E character your using.

edit: also that last part where you said they could make mistakes and still own you well thats pretty much a given since MKs mistakes don't leave him open for as long.

 

[XienZo]

But what if some characters played without mistakes beat other characters who aren't played with mistakes?

Like Olimar vs MK?


Its kind of a useless topic, but 2 players not making mistakes doesn't mean it'll be a tie.

 

[DRaGZ]

But what if some characters played without mistakes beat other characters who aren't played with mistakes?

Like Olimar vs MK?


Its kind of a useless topic, but 2 players not making mistakes doesn't mean it'll be a tie.

Ganondorf can make zero mistakes and still get two-stocked. >_>

 

[memphischains]

so can snake technically...

 

[brinboy789]

so can snake technically...

snake make 0 mistake and still get 2 stocked? im missing something here.

 

[XienZo]

snake make 0 mistake and still get 2 stocked? im missing something here.

Yeah, I think thats a bit off.

Still, while MK is nearly invincible with no mistakes, Olimar has insane "growth rate" for making fewer mistakes(thus perfect camping), so he could theoritically win.

But now, when they say, highest level of metagame, is that the highest metagame possible?(like the above scenario) Or is it the highest current level of metagame?

Because by the first definition, MK loses to Olimar....

 

[Dark.Pch]

I'm sorry but you just made it sound like the way to beat MK is to not make mistakes. even if its true couldn't you just tell the MK to do the same and incase you both play your roles as humans and screw up his mistakes count less than W/E character your using.

edit: also that last part where you said they could make mistakes and still own you well thats pretty much a given since MKs mistakes don't leave him open for as long.

No thats not what I am saying. reguardless you are at a disadvantage. Not making mistakes increases your changes of winning.

Ether way you put it, you are screwed in a match up that you are at a disadvantage. So does that mean its over? just drop the controller and call it quits?

 

[Praxis]

Seriously banning meta wont change a damm thing. Its pointless.

Ok meta is gone, who do we have still thats a pain?

G&W (omg)
Snake
DDD
Wario
ROB

These characters are still up there in tournaments. You compare the balance of taking out one character and having these guys still here. We wont see low tiers raising up on tournaments. You still got all the bad azz characters behind meta.

Sheik never went this far, and was just as bad. But look at who was beating up sheik. Marth fox and falco. and even smart Peachs got at sheik. and Sheik was so broken. And not even made TOP tier.

People don't understand having characters being used so much helps you learn them better. I played so many of them whoring metas that I learned the match up faster than my easier ones for Peach. meta has weaknesses and they have to be abused. How? Pick up your character and figure it out.

Peach Vs meta is not a pretty match up for me at all. But I took the time from all my wins and loses against one to learn what worked and what I am doing wrong. The main reason People cry about him is cause they get annoyed. and when annoyed, you don't think. And it gives the character more of the advantage then they already have.

I have seen the basics of meta. Even from the pros and how they play him. If you see something over and over, dont you think you would take a hint as to what to expect? People are just lazy and want the easy way out so they can still have a chance at tournaments.

Meta does not need to be banned. people need to just stop being lazy and wanting the easy way out. If meta is gone, you still have 5 more trouble makers to deal with. Fighting meta with Peach is fun to me. He really puts me to the limits. He always keeps me on point and he helps me get better FASTER when I play a really good one. And when I beat them with Peach, it lets me know I did something right.

This is comming from a Peach main, who people said back then that Peach was horrible and even the melee Pros quit her. Now if I am saying this about meta, then I trully dont see an excuse for characters above Peach or even on her level to complain about him. And if anyone is gonna come and tell me that Peach does good against meta and thats why I am saying this, get your Peach up there and fight a good/great Meta. then come back to me and tell me how simple it was.

Dark, no offense intended at all ( <3 ) I think you really don't understand the argument here. Nobody's complaining that MK is "too hard". Actually, I consider G&W a much harder matchup for Peach than MK, and I would never, ever advocate a G&W ban.

You're reducing the argument to "oh everyone's just johning because they can't beat him", which isn't the case at all.

The problem with MK is that he has NO disadvantaged matchups. His worst matchup is another MK, his next worst matchup is slight disadvantage/almost even (Snake).

MK breaks the counterpick system, and picking MK instantly eliminates all of your bad matchups because he has none. This implies an inherent imbalance, and picking up MK as your main will instantly result in better tournament rankings after your adjustment period ends. Unless an MK counter is discovered (becoming less and less likely), more and more people will start picking up MK, because there's only two ways to beat MK:

1) Be considerably better, spending two or three times as many hours practicing if not more compared to your opponent

2) Play MK yourself.

While #1 sounds like a good option, it doesn't work at the highest level. If the best player in the state plays MK, it's unrealistic to expect yourself to be able to be considerably better than him, thus, there is very few options left. As MK's dominance will only spread, until every region is like Texas excepting those that have soft-banned MK (meaning, regions where people look down on MK players out of some kind of "honor system"), where MK's take all of the top three spots.

Only a few people that are ridiculously good with their characters will have a shot at placing if the scenario plays out- and character diversity will be greatly reduced. Banning MK significantly balances Brawl regardless.

It's one thing of MK just had a good matchup on Peach- but he has a good matchup on everybody barring one or two almost-evens-but-still-disadvantaged. That's what makes him unbalanced.

Ether way you put it, you are screwed in a match up that you are at a disadvantage. So does that mean its over? just drop the controller and call it quits?

Not at all, a disadvantage is not an auto loss, and I win matches with a disadvantage all the time. The danger is having a character to which everyone is at a disadvantage.

From a Sirlin-puristic, "Play To Win" mentality, anyone who does not pick Metaknight is disadvantaging themselves in all matchups.


MK breaks the counterpick system; If everyone switched to Game & Watch after MK was banned, then all the Snake and Marth players would eat them for lunch. If everyone went Snake, you'd see Dedede's and ROB's beating them up.



EDIT: Also, Sheik was not as bad. Sheik had several equals/better characters.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Dark, no offense intended at all ( <3 ) I think you really don't understand the argument here. Nobody's complaining that MK is "too hard". Actually, I consider G&W a much harder matchup for Peach than MK, and I would never, ever advocate a G&W ban.

You're reducing the argument to "oh everyone's just johning because they can't beat him", which isn't the case at all.

The problem with MK is that he has NO disadvantaged matchups. His worst matchup is another MK, his next worst matchup is slight disadvantage/almost even (Snake).

MK breaks the counterpick system, and picking MK instantly eliminates all of your bad matchups because he has none. This implies an inherent imbalance, and picking up MK as your main will instantly result in better tournament rankings after your adjustment period ends. Unless an MK counter is discovered (becoming less and less likely), more and more people will start picking up MK, because there's only two ways to beat MK:

1) Be considerably better, spending two or three times as many hours practicing if not more compared to your opponent

2) Play MK yourself.

While #1 sounds like a good option, it doesn't work at the highest level. If the best player in the state plays MK, it's unrealistic to expect yourself to be able to be considerably better than him, thus, there is very few options left. As MK's dominance will only spread, until every region is like Texas excepting those that have soft-banned MK (meaning, regions where people look down on MK players out of some kind of "honor system"), where MK's take all of the top three spots.

Only a few people that are ridiculously good with their characters will have a shot at placing if the scenario plays out- and character diversity will be greatly reduced. Banning MK significantly balances Brawl regardless.

It's one thing of MK just had a good matchup on Peach- but he has a good matchup on everybody barring one or two almost-evens-but-still-disadvantaged. That's what makes him unbalanced.



Not at all, a disadvantage is not an auto loss, and I win matches with a disadvantage all the time. The danger is having a character to which everyone is at a disadvantage.

From a Sirlin-puristic, "Play To Win" mentality, anyone who does not pick Metaknight is disadvantaging themselves in all matchups.


MK breaks the counterpick system; If everyone switched to Game & Watch after MK was banned, then all the Snake and Marth players would eat them for lunch. If everyone went Snake, you'd see Dedede's and ROB's beating them up.

Even if he has unfair match-ups, is it broken enough to warrant a ban?

Other games have had character who had no bad match-ups, but weren't banned. The main cases to ban him are; "he's too good"(his match-ups) or his dominance will destroy the competitive circuit (this one has yet to happen or have evidence of such.)

 

[Gindler]

What're G&W's disadvantageous matchups besides MK?

 

[Plairnkk]

Dark, no offense intended at all ( <3 ) I think you really don't understand the argument here. Nobody's complaining that MK is "too hard". Actually, I consider G&W a much harder matchup for Peach than MK, and I would never, ever advocate a G&W ban.

You're reducing the argument to "oh everyone's just johning because they can't beat him", which isn't the case at all.

The problem with MK is that he has NO disadvantaged matchups. His worst matchup is another MK, his next worst matchup is slight disadvantage/almost even (Snake).

MK breaks the counterpick system, and picking MK instantly eliminates all of your bad matchups because he has none. This implies an inherent imbalance, and picking up MK as your main will instantly result in better tournament rankings after your adjustment period ends. Unless an MK counter is discovered (becoming less and less likely), more and more people will start picking up MK, because there's only two ways to beat MK:

1) Be considerably better, spending two or three times as many hours practicing if not more compared to your opponent

2) Play MK yourself.

While #1 sounds like a good option, it doesn't work at the highest level. If the best player in the state plays MK, it's unrealistic to expect yourself to be able to be considerably better than him, thus, there is very few options left. As MK's dominance will only spread, until every region is like Texas excepting those that have soft-banned MK (meaning, regions where people look down on MK players out of some kind of "honor system"), where MK's take all of the top three spots.

Only a few people that are ridiculously good with their characters will have a shot at placing if the scenario plays out- and character diversity will be greatly reduced. Banning MK significantly balances Brawl regardless.

It's one thing of MK just had a good matchup on Peach- but he has a good matchup on everybody barring one or two almost-evens-but-still-disadvantaged. That's what makes him unbalanced.



Not at all, a disadvantage is not an auto loss, and I win matches with a disadvantage all the time. The danger is having a character to which everyone is at a disadvantage.

From a Sirlin-puristic, "Play To Win" mentality, anyone who does not pick Metaknight is disadvantaging themselves in all matchups.


MK breaks the counterpick system; If everyone switched to Game & Watch after MK was banned, then all the Snake and Marth players would eat them for lunch. If everyone went Snake, you'd see Dedede's and ROB's beating them up.



EDIT: Also, Sheik was not as bad. Sheik had several equals/better characters.

Where do you get the idea it's easy to win with MK at a high level? What high level players do you see winning with MK who wouldnt be winning with other characters? If MK was 2-3 times easier than other characters than it would be impossible to beat him. You are WAY overexaggerating him. He is the best, but not by nearly that far at all, and if he was so easy to use at a high level, ****ty players would be using him there and competing with good ones

 

[rehab]

Snake, Marth, imo DK are advantaged to gw.

 

[Praxis]

Where do you get the idea it's easy to win with MK at a high level? What high level players do you see winning with MK who wouldnt be winning with other characters? If MK was 2-3 times easier than other characters than it would be impossible to beat him. You are WAY overexaggerating him. He is the best, but not by nearly that far at all, and if he was so easy to use at a high level, ****ty players would be using him there and competing with good ones

I didn't say it was easy to win with MK.

I said that in MK-dominated tournaments, you have to be significantly better than everyone to be able to place, because ALL of your matchups will be disadvantaged, whereas in a balanced world you'd get both good and bad matchups.

I wasn't referring to his ease of use at all. I was referring to the fact that the player has to always fight at a disadvantage.

Also,

What high level players do you see winning with MK who wouldnt be winning with other characters?

Overswarm effectively proved this. Switched to MK, within two weeks was placing higher.
I'm testing it myself. I decided to pick up MK last minute before a tournament, watched a bunch of videos of Mew2King while at work, came home and played 50 minutes worth of friendlies, took him to tournament the next day in doubles and won 2nd place, beating the team of the best MK in WA + Sagemoon (best Pit in the world AFAIK), and took the best Marth and #1 on WA PR (who I can't touch with my main) to last stock despite with no matchup experience, just theorycrafting I read online.

You can fairly use me as an example of a "****ty [Metaknight] player" as you put it competing with the good ones. >.<

This is not to slight high end MK's, because I think many of the high end MK's are very, very skilled. And I actually was not referring to ease of use at all in my post. I think MK's the easiest character to get to an intermediate level with, the high level then requires learning matchups (which takes as much time as any character does).

 

[XienZo]

How often do you run into MKs ONLY during a tournament?

Its kinda like greenland's glaciers melting; if there's enough ice, greenland keeps the climate cool enough to snow. If there's a little snow melting, it also warms up the climate and lowers snowfall and increases the effect.

MK is sorta like that, where if we were to insert him into a perfectly balanced world, he couldn't dominate because the majority is still non-MKs, which are often CPed strongest by other non-MKS, but in a half-MK dominated metagame, he'd force more players to convert to MK since the majority is now MKs, so the only way to CP now is with MK.

 

[Praxis]

XienZo, I liked your example.

Texas is an area that is like you describe. There's so many MK's that you almost have to pick him up as a secondary to deal with him.

WA is an example of the former, where the majority is not MK (he's sort of soft banned, everyone looks down on the character, so only a few good players play him in spite of that). The MK's don't dominate because there's only one or two good ones.

Even if he has unfair match-ups, is it broken enough to warrant a ban?

Other games have had character who had no bad match-ups, but weren't banned. The main cases to ban him are; "he's too good"(his match-ups) or his dominance will destroy the competitive circuit (this one has yet to happen or have evidence of such.)

Did those characters have others with the same properties? If there are multiple characters with no bad matchups, there is no problem. See Marth/Fox/Sheik.

 

[DRaGZ]

MK is a negative positive feedback loop.

If you get my drift. *nudges your arm*

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Did those characters have others with the same properties? If there are multiple characters with no bad matchups, there is no problem. See Marth/Fox/Sheik.

The only one among those who debateably had no bad match-up was Fox. Even then he was beatable, heck other game have had characters who 60:40's everyone but the meta game didn't fall to hell.

I know this argument has been posted before, but seriously, if those game can handle it I can;t understand why Brawl can't unless the meta game starts to fall apart from his existence.

 

[DRaGZ]

The only one among those who debateably had no bad match-up was Fox. Even then he was beatable, heck other game have had characters who 60:40's everyone but the meta game didn't fall to hell.

I know this argument has been posted before, but seriously, if those game can handle it I can;t understand why Brawl can't unless the meta game starts to fall apart from his existence.

It's because we've had a precedent of banning things even if they didn't break down the metagame.

Items technically were competitively viable, but we chose to ban them for the sake of making the game more satisfying.

Meta Knight technically is competitively viable, but we can choose to ban him for the sake of making the game more satisfying.

The Halo 3 community has already done similar things just for the sake of making the game more satisfying. They mess around with the game's built-in settings to make things faster and certain things less overpowered (I think? I know for a fact they make things faster). The already given product of Halo 3 technically is competitively viable, but people chose to change things for the sake of making the game more satisfying.

 

[Naucitos]

No drags, yet again, that is NOT why they banned items, stop saying that as its complete bull -.-

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

It's because we've had a precedent of banning things even if they didn't break down the metagame.

Items technically were competitively viable, but we chose to ban them for the sake of making the game more satisfying.

Meta Knight technically is competitively viable, but we can choose to ban him for the sake of making the game more satisfying.

The Halo 3 community has already done similar things just for the sake of making the game more satisfying. They mess around with the game's built-in settings to make things faster and certain things less overpowered (I think? I know for a fact they make things faster). The already given product of Halo 3 technically is competitively viable, but people chose to change things for the sake of making the game more satisfying.

The difference between items and MK is that fact items give random advantages to on player or another based on where they appear. This doesn't promote skill.

MK's huge advantages come from good players playing MK like the beast he is. It's more skill.

I can see how communities have changed the game for the better, but is taking out a core element, a character, going to be worth it in the long run?

 

[DRaGZ]

No drags, yet again, that is NOT why they banned items, stop saying that as its complete bull -.-

Reading over the old arguments, I would say it is.

Edrees agrees as well.

Anyone who reads over the old arguments would also agree.

The difference between items and MK is that fact items give random advantages to on player or another based on where they appear. This doesn't promote skill.

MK's huge advantages come from good players playing MK like the beast he is. It's more skill.

I can see how communities have changed the game for the better, but is taking out a core element, a character, going to be worth it in the long run?

Items do actually invoke a skillset, a very different skillset than that of Smash without items. It does promote a certain kind of skill.

MK's advantage is based on the fact that even players who aren't that good can do much, much better using MK with minimal effort in learning him. This is almost entirely hinged on the fact that he has no disadvantages in match-ups.

And as for the "taking out core elements" thing, trading card games do them all the time. I don't know much about M:tG, but with Yu-Gi-Oh!, extremely powerful all-purpose cards that many players hinged on to bolster their decks were banned from the game to promote more satisfying gameplay (by that time, everything had eroded in OTK Chaos decks). And in terms of competitiveness, good trading card games are waaaaaaaaay more competitive than Brawl, probably even Melee. It takes months just to figure out what exactly is going on in the upper echelons of the metagame, and then it takes way longer than that just to assemble a proper deck, and then a lot of time invested in using that deck so you can actually get used to how it plays in real situations.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

No drags, yet again, that is NOT why they banned items, stop saying that as its complete bull -.-

why did they ban them then? AZ and some others seem to be fine playing with them.

edit: isn't not using a wii remote for a game on the wii taking out a core element?

 

[adumbrodeus]

why did they ban them then? AZ and some others seem to be fine playing with them.

Simple, we never did. Items are not in the metagame in the same way that 1.1 damage ratio isn't, and metal melee isn't.

It's a competitive standard, the game forces you to pick between various options before the game starts. Items on, items off, fire breath on, fire breath off, low gravity, normal gravity. We can't get around making that choice, so we have to, and they are all considered equally valid in a vacuum (before the advantages and disadvantages are accounted for).

So what happens when certain formats have actually disadvantages (like "make the game less skill-based")? We pick a format that doesn't do that or does it less.


Why must we have an established format? We can't actually develop our metagame without it unfortunately. Sure, we could have everything open to counter-picking (which WOULD be a competitive standard decision) but that would make the metagame too unstable and less skill-oriented.


So we chose the current competitive standard.

 

[da K.I.D.]

i just want to tell ppl who dont know, what ARENT the reasons items were banned.

go to SRK, from what i know the majority of them defended item play to the death.

they said, "hey if its random, than you just have to get good enough to deal with things that much faster."
and "If you are in control of the stage to begin with, you deserve to get those powerups anyway. And if you are good enough as a player, you can counteract and avoid the powerups that your opponent gets."
items are NOT auto win, yes they give random advantages, but the items have been proven to distribute themselves evenly to both players, giving them the exact same chances of getting those items..

as a matter of fact the game was suspected to have a self evening system that is made to help the losing player which just makes teh game that much even, and in that case item play is AN EVEN BETTER display of skill because if the game is subconsciously helping your opponent. and if you can defeat your opponent under those circumstances, there should be absolutely no debate on who the better player is.

man up get better and start playing with items. if you are skilled enough and have enough stage control, items play should be the ultimate test of skill

if you can play with metaknight, you can play with items.

you cant have your cake an eat it too.
pick one or the other

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

Simple, we never did. Items are not in the metagame in the same way that 1.1 damage ratio isn't, and metal melee isn't.

It's a competitive standard, the game forces you to pick between various options before the game starts. Items on, items off, fire breath on, fire breath off, low gravity, normal gravity. We can't get around making that choice, so we have to, and they are all considered equally valid in a vacuum (before the advantages and disadvantages are accounted for).

Actually the game only forces you to have 2 players choose a character. You never have to change it to stock or turn items off, not even choose a stage you can just hit start and go random.

So what happens when certain formats have actually disadvantages (like "make the game less skill-based")? We pick a format that doesn't do that or does it less.

This part actually supports some of the ban MK argument.

 

[Plairnkk]

praxis the problem is you are winning 2nd place in a ****ty region with no good players

same with overswarm

we could send one of 30 players from our region to yours and they would beat your god awful metaknight and win your god awful tournaments

 

[Natch]

MK is broken.

1. He has "no" weaknesses.
Before you harp on me for this, MK has no de facto weaknesses against the majority of the cast. As an example, a character could be made that dies in one hit, but has an instant kill move that is garunteed to hit. Sure, he dies in one hit, but that doesn't matter because he'll kill you first. His weakness does not exist, for all intents and purposes.

MK is like this, though to a lesser extent. He does have weaknesses on paper, but for whatever reason, they don't seem to make that much of a difference. It should be noted that the characters that can put up a fight are the ones who can exploit his weaknesses consistantly and effectively.


2. He has an answer to everything.
MK has too many options that are all above average. Whatever you do, he has an answer to it. The characters that do well against him are those that have better answers. But even that isn't enough. You need have to a fair amount of "better answers," or the right combination. The last option is to flatout have a strategy that can and will work against anyone, assuming the opponent makes a mistake. Take Diddy, for example. If you make a mistake, he will get you with a bannana, which usually leads to a free hit. Everyone has to deal with this. If you manage to beat Diddy, you still didn't beat his bannanas. You can never truly beat the bannanas, just the Diddy who uses them. This is called a brick wall.

This is why MK has 60:40's across the board, and the reason why previously questionable/bad matchups are now shifting. Snake, GaW, and Falco are examples. Once they found a tactic that worked, the matchup changed.


3. He is fundamentally different from every other character in the game.
How can a character have NO disadvantaged matchups? They either have to be perfectly designed and have absolutly no weaknesses, or they have to have something so incredibly powerful it essentially breaks the game. MK falls into the latter. His certain "something" is that his sword has wacky priority. MK's sword will never actually clank. The only way to actually hit MK is to attack before his hitbox comes out, or outrange him utterly and completely.

MK's sword is like a mobile projectile. Now, it's accepted that projectiles are brick walls. You must get past their projectile before you can actually fight your opponent. Whenever MK does a move, it's a brick wall. Brick walls mean that any weaknesses the character has do not matter, as you are not fighting the character. Once a brick wall is broken down-if possible-or gotten around, you can start actually fighting the character. The problem with MK is that his brick walls can be deployed in an instant.

In order to even stand a chance against MK, you either need a brick wall that the PLAYER cannot find a way around, or you have to continiously jump through a series of hoops. Shield the Tornado. Spotdodge the Down Smash. Avoid the Shuttle Loop. Stay away from the Dtilt. Airdodge through his Dair.

The list goes on and on.

The massive list of 60:40 matchups are because there are enough pros who can jump through these hoops on instinct, and the players who don't use MK have enough skill compared to those that do that it's possible for them to win. All the character has to have are good brick walls, and moves that actually outprioritize MK's moves. These in large part are one in the same, as the majority of brick walls are projectiles.


GENERAL NOTE: Exceptions are not the norm. If you find an exception, it doesn't disprove what I said. Assume I'm a reasonable and flexible person, that I apologize for my incorrect statement, and change it to include the exception.

 

[Big Red]

praxis the problem is you are winning 2nd place in a ****ty region with no good players

same with overswarm

we could send one of 30 players from our region to yours and they would beat your god awful metaknight and win your god awful tournaments

Yeah, and if that one person you sent switched to MK, they'd **** them a lot harder.

 

[DraKmoN001]

items are NOT auto win, yes they give random advantages, but the items have been proven to distribute themselves evenly to both players, giving them the exact same chances of getting those items..

as a matter of fact the game was suspected to have a self evening system that is made to help the losing player which just makes teh game that much even, and in that case item play is AN EVEN BETTER display of skill because if the game is subconsciously helping your opponent. and if you can defeat your opponent under those circumstances, there should be absolutely no debate on who the better player is.

1. Is there research, data, or articles about the game having a specific item spawning process for evening the game out? If you could link to those that'd be great.

2. What about doing something like attacking and hitting an explosive capsule/container that randomly spawns near you? I'm not sure how that is advantageous to oneself if one is already losing, nor am I sure how that counts as one's opponent's application of skill. It can be contested that the above is a rare situation, but the fact that it can happen is pretty crappy for competitive gaming.

 

[XienZo]

I personally think the #1 reason we do not use high/low gravity and that kind of stuff is defninitely...


We're just too lazy. Or perhaps the right word is practical?

There are hundreds of possibilities, of which our current system is only one of them. There's a VERY GREAT chance our current settings do not create the best atmosphere that is possible with Brawl. However, who's going to look through the hundred or so special combinations of special rules? Add in damage ratio, and it becomes thousands, add in custom stages and we're looking at billions.

If you'd prefer to go through all of them, be our guest. Except to gain an accurate survey, we need a commitee to look at this and then have them vote. If the SWF actively tried even the special brawl possiblities, the sheer time it would take is detrimental, and much of the current progress would be lost.

But alas, I have gone off-topic and no one was even really arguing this.

Anyway, does anyone know how to stop a negative positive feedback loop?

wait a minute, how can something be both positive and...

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

praxis the problem is you are winning 2nd place in a ****ty region with no good players

same with overswarm

we could send one of 30 players from our region to yours and they would beat your god awful metaknight and win your god awful tournaments

I guess other people are starting to take the M2K approach to this now.

What next only 6 characters are actually supposed to be winning tournaments and everything else is a fluke?

 

[Naucitos]

Natch, stop copying that over and over, its complete bull and says absolutely nothing.

 

[GofG]

Hey!!! Plank!!!

That's mean.

 

[pastaboy]

hahahah sonics up b is god awful with heavy grav, same with alot of other chars recovery

 

[Natch]

Natch, stop copying that over and over, its complete bull and says absolutely nothing.

How is it complete bull?

Also, I changed it. It no longer talks about how MK's matchups are "fundamentally different." Read it again.