The Samus Boards are at Peace | The Dead Social

[IsmaR]

ya know Isy sometimes i wonder if your serious or just your usual sarcastic self

Truth be told, I'm sarcastic less than 100~/ish% of the time. But naw dog, I was srs in this case.

Shame that the thread was desired so much only to add to the awesomenamebutdeadthreads-threads.

Theres only 2 rules to understanding Ismar;

#1. You must ALWAYS take him seriously

#2. You must NEVER take him seriously

hope that helps

Sums it up pretty well. Unless you're the Misses, who knows me better than I do, hardly anyone sees me beyond the surface, even Mikel(me).

it all makes sense now. i was once blind but now i see.

no not really.

I was going to respond with something else, but listen to this instead. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6zHyxHNcFg&feature=related

 

[Mr9]

hehe funny

 

[Xyro77]

im back. wahahahahahahhahahahaah

 

[Jasona]

no joke, last week undr told me the samus forums were closed due to inactivity. sorry to say that i believed him. you guys suck that bad LOL!
anyway, i'm back too xyro... i'm back too

 

[Undrdog]

Xyro AND sauna are back!? It's the proverbial cavalcade of mediocrity! Hazzahs all around!

But seriously though, he totally believed it.

 

[DelxDoom]

LMFAO.

Anyways, I am acquaintences with two Pit mains... Valuno is one of them.
Undr, what is your opinion of him? imo he is a MAJOR LAMEO

 

[Undrdog]

Val? I don't recall how his Pit is, but as a person I like him. He's a cool guy but I haven't seen him in quite a while. Usually chatted it up a bit in the Pit Chat but that place was dead last I checked.

 

[DelxDoom]

lolololo

Yeah I know him through Brawl+
pit is sooooo good in +
makes me sad

 

[Mr9]

alright going to phase tomarrow wish me luck erbody

 

[KillerJawz]

Good luck man.

 

[Mr9]

Good luck man.

you are always the first to snap at me and aalways the first to show kindness.


strange

 

[Karcist]

Xyro being back means one more voice in the backroom discussion about the metaknight ban, heh.

 

[NO-IDea]

Oh dear. MK banning again? When will people learn...

Taking a poll exclusive for Samus boards. Who here is in favor of banning MK?

Pro-Ban: Xyro
Anti-Ban: Noid

Feel free to post why you think so if you wish. This is a social thread after all.

 

[KillerJawz]

you are always the first to snap at me and aalways the first to show kindness.


strange

Yeah im weird like that.

MK Ban Status: Neutral for me. I cba to post why though...

 

[Darkshadow7827]

I thought the whole MK ban "debate" blew over already.

 

[Xyro77]

for the record. even tudor was pro-ban. look up his old posts.

 

[Karcist]

Pro ban. Although I think the ban hammer should have fell 1 1/2 yrs ago, it might be too late now since metaknight has become so grounded in brawl and could cause more damage than benefit. lol, and I was actually saying that there's one more voice for the ban in a positive way Xyro.

EDIT: I forgot to actually include why I thought so. I think Xyro put it pretty well when he said that brawl is best as a counterpick game. With metaknight gone, the game would be a lot more interesting since you can't use just one character (unless you're just that good with him to beat any counterpicks). Metaknight has an advantage over every character (I don't buy into the hype around ADHD or some of the matchup boards suddenly saying "50-50!"). Metaknight also has what it takes to control any map, but especially the counterpicks. It's just a matter of how well he can control them and if other characters might be able to control them better.

I don't think banning him is essential to the game or that he's unbeatable. But I do think that if was banned early before people became attached him to him would have added a lot of flavor to the game.

 

[RaigothDagon]

At first I was pro-ban. No reason either, I just hated MK. Then I was against it when I started seeing vids of people like M2K, because then I figured Brawl matches were actually worth watching (at that time I was still a big fanboy of Melee since I arrived on the scene late). After they had a discussion about it, I realized a pretty good number of pro-banners had very legitimate points on why he should be banned. What can I say for the other side? Didn't really have any good points at all. More just feelings than anything, and some references to other games that didn't really compare to Brawl.

After thinking about it and discussing it with some of my friends, I realized that banning MK was a very logical thing to do. He is a very broken character and has no bad matchups or good counter picks against him. At best you can call a "bad" matchup for him 50/50. I think there are too many reasons for banning MK, and only feelings for keeping him. I admit, while I hate having characters that are so overpowered it makes it pretty unplayable for others, I hate even more that there would be a character in a game that would be so bad that people would actually consider banning him. If he ended up getting banned, I would hate that it would have to come to that, but I realize it would be a necessary thing for the reasons that pro-banners support.

So summing it up, I support the MK ban, but I definitely don't push it since I don't like it.

 

[NO-IDea]

(directed to Karcist)

In response, I'd like to highlight that you do agree that MK is certainly not unbeatable or broken. Rather, he has a very low learning curve with high reward. Not to mention his popularity has progressed his metagame rapidly, more so than every other character in the game.

However, let's face it. You are on the boards because you play brawl competitively, enter tournaments for money, and hopefully have fun trying to win. If we treat brawl as a competitive fighting game, we must acknowledge that there will be a dominant character. Only rarely do we find that the difference between tiers of characters is small.

I personally do not believe MK has an advantage over every character, and that there are several that can take sets of MK when both players are of equal calibur. We often forget that the best players do flock to the best character, but again, I repeat that MK being the best character does not mean he is broken, which I think is the one and only criteria a character must reach to deserve the ban hammer.

As far as Xyro's argument concerning Brawl as a counterpick game, we must analyze our current ruleset(s). Stages with walls or walk-offs are banned because of D3. Large stages are banned because of potential stalling. Hazardous stages are banned because we are afraid of the stage having too much influence. If you haven't gotten the picture yet, our ruleset is already detrimental to Xyro's image of a counterpick system. Even Green Greens, his favorite stage, is banned at his own tournaments.

Perhaps you should look at the bigger picture if you want to ban MK with counterpicking as your reasoning. Look more at alternatives, such as having a wider stage selection, enforcing stage striking for first match, allowing 2 bans per set, etc. to really advocate the counterpick system brawl has the potential to have.

If you're worried about MK stalling once gaining the percent lead, perhaps a new ruling on time is in order. Clearly, ledge grab rules do not work. I can stall anyone out with MK with having maybe 20 ledge grabs only, depending on the stage. (Possibly less on BF, definitely less on SV, etc.) Perhaps if you remove the time, then call over a TO if excessive stalling is occurring, less complaints on planking/scrooging will occur. If you haven't realized this either, time is an advantage for MK in nearly all scenarios because of his campy tactics.

These are only examples of course. I just find that banning a character for the wrong reasons, and especially when no right reason exists yet is... wrong. Instead, there are alternative ways into making Brawl a better competitive game. Like attacking the source of planking (the timer) or addressing the viability of characters (stage selection.)

I hope you have considered all of this before choosing a pro-ban status. If you have, then by all means stand by your decision.

Poll:

Pro-Ban: Xyro, Tudor, Karcist, RaigothDagon
Anti-Ban: Noid
Neutral: KillerJawz

 

[Mr9]

im not necessarily pro-ban but i just got back from phase and there were nothing but MKs there

lik three MKs for every other chracter
so not ban but maybe limit.

 

[Karcist]

(directed to Karcist)

In response, I'd like to highlight that you do agree that MK is certainly not unbeatable or broken. Rather, he has a very low learning curve with high reward. Not to mention his popularity has progressed his metagame rapidly, more so than every other character in the game.

However, let's face it. You are on the boards because you play brawl competitively, enter tournaments for money, and hopefully have fun trying to win. If we treat brawl as a competitive fighting game, we must acknowledge that there will be a dominant character. Only rarely do we find that the difference between tiers of characters is small.

I personally do not believe MK has an advantage over every character, and that there are several that can take sets of MK when both players are of equal calibur. We often forget that the best players do flock to the best character, but again, I repeat that MK being the best character does not mean he is broken, which I think is the one and only criteria a character must reach to deserve the ban hammer.

As far as Xyro's argument concerning Brawl as a counterpick game, we must analyze our current ruleset(s). Stages with walls or walk-offs are banned because of D3. Large stages are banned because of potential stalling. Hazardous stages are banned because we are afraid of the stage having too much influence. If you haven't gotten the picture yet, our ruleset is already detrimental to Xyro's image of a counterpick system. Even Green Greens, his favorite stage, is banned at his own tournaments.

Perhaps you should look at the bigger picture if you want to ban MK with counterpicking as your reasoning. Look more at alternatives, such as having a wider stage selection, enforcing stage striking for first match, allowing 2 bans per set, etc. to really advocate the counterpick system brawl has the potential to have.

If you're worried about MK stalling once gaining the percent lead, perhaps a new ruling on time is in order. Clearly, ledge grab rules do not work. I can stall anyone out with MK with having maybe 20 ledge grabs only, depending on the stage. (Possibly less on BF, definitely less on SV, etc.) Perhaps if you remove the time, then call over a TO if excessive stalling is occurring, less complaints on planking/scrooging will occur. If you haven't realized this either, time is an advantage for MK in nearly all scenarios because of his campy tactics.

These are only examples of course. I just find that banning a character for the wrong reasons, and especially when no right reason exists yet is... wrong. Instead, there are alternative ways into making Brawl a better competitive game. Like attacking the source of planking (the timer) or addressing the viability of characters (stage selection.)

I hope you have considered all of this before choosing a pro-ban status. If you have, then by all means stand by your decision.

Poll:

Pro-Ban: Xyro, Tudor, Karcist, RaigothDagon
Anti-Ban: Noid
Neutral: KillerJawz

Ehh, I would say I just enter tournies for fun, not so much to win money. (I'm simply not on the level of the top players and probably will never place top 3 in a tourney).

I doubt Xyro's image of a game based around counter picking is quite so "black and white". What I mean is, the counter picking he is referring to is more about the character than the stage. That being said though, metaknight has no bad stage, and only very good ones and a few neutrals. Increasing the available stages would not hinder metaknight's dominance at all, but only increase the stages he can dominate on.

I realize that you believe MK to have three even match ups. Even that isn't enough to give an MK user any reason to learn any other character. Also, say an MK is playing a Falco. Maybe it is 50-50 on a map like FD or SV, but if the Falco wins, the MK can simply take the game to a map like Brinstar or Rainbow Cruise and make the next game nearly unwinnable and get an easy win. (which I believe is what makes him broken)

 

[NO-IDea]

Ehh, I would say I just enter tournies for the latter , not so much to win. (I'm simply not on the level of the top players).

I doubt Xyro's image of a game based around counter picking is quite so "black and white". What I mean is, the counter picking he is referring to is more about the character than the stage. That being said though, metaknight has no bad stage, and only very good ones and a few neutrals. Increasing the available stages would not hinder metaknight's dominance at all, but only increase the stages he can dominate on.

I realize that you believe MK to have three even match ups. Even that isn't enough to give an MK user any reason to learn any other character. Also, say an MK is playing a Falco. Maybe it is 50-50 on a map like FD or SV, but if the Falco wins, the MK can simply take the game to a map like Brinstar or Rainbow Cruise and make the next game nearly unwinnable and get an easy win. (which I believe is what makes him broken)

In response to that, MK may not have bad stages, but other characters certainly have good ones. I will counter pick a MK to BF with Samus, or a Falco will CP a MK to FD, etc. etc. The object of counterpicking is to level the playing field first, put yourself at an advantage second.

Secondly, increasing stage availability further qualifies the first purpose of counterpicking, which is to level the playing field. You don't always have to be the only with advantages on a stage... you simply have to know how to capitalize on your advantages more than your opponent. For example, taking MK to Delfino with Sheik. Yes, MK can gimp Sheik easily on this stage during the switches. But, the walk-offs allow Sheik to kill with DACUS or grab release into grab release. It evens the playing field, but Sheik can learn to utilize her advantage better than MK. Sheik has to deal with the gimp disadvantage at all stages in all her MUs so it isn't too difficult.

To use another example that isn't personal and supports the stage availability option, consider a D3 counterpicking an MK to Pictochat. Potential walls, hazards that D3 can tank, one of D3's better stages to recover on: this stage is an amazing counterpick against MK. It's banned solely because of hazards, and we as players attempting to make brawl a competitive game are against allowing a stage to dictate the fight. But then what is the point of counterpicking? Allowing higher stage viability inevitably increases character viability and therefore a weakening of MK's strengths (as a character good on all stages) relative to the rest of the cast.

(I couldn't care less if Pictochat becomes legal or not, but the arguments against it go directly against Brawl being played as a counterpick game. Hence, usually the anti-Pictochat players also tend to counterpick with neutrals instead of stages like Halberd or Delfino.)

Lastly, as far as even MUs go, there are characters that go even with him on certain stages. We agree. We also agree for the most part that MK has favorable MUs. But the best character is supposed to have that. And by no means do those favorable MUs stand into the 65-35s or even 60-40s against some characters. MK is far from broken, and that's the only solid criteria for banning IMO.

EDIT: One last example before I go to bed:

Consider Bridge of Eldin. It is banned only because of D3's chain grab limiting the viability of over half the cast. But since when did the smash community become so centralized on character mains? If we must treat brawl as a competitive game, we must learn there are options to avoid D3's chain grab. There are characters that can't be chain grabbed. The whole point of being told what stage you're being brought to is to prepare for the worst possible scenario. So sure enough, our ruleset is setting forth the image of competitive brawl.

It doesn't focus on counterpicking enough so you can't use that as your reasoning to ban MK. If it did focus on counterpicking to the fullest extent, allowing stages to actually influence character decisions and dictate the fight, MK wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

 

[KillerJawz]

Bridge of Elden is also banned to prevent camping. Not just D3. Also a jab lock can lead to death on this stage.

The rest of that post is pretty sexy though imo, no real judgements against it.

 

[Xyro77]

i like to play super smash brothers(variety of character)

not super metaknight brothers(where nearly everybody 2nd or mains metaknight)




Xyro=pro-ban




When Anti-ban starts winning ill drop some cold hard facts that anti bans HATE to see.

 

[Mr9]

i like to play super smash brothers(variety of character)

not super metaknight brothers(where nearly everybody 2nd or mains metaknight)




Xyro=pro-ban




When Anti-ban starts winning ill drop some cold hard facts that anti bans HATE to see.

this here is 100% true seriously that was all there was at phase nothing but MKs.

 

[Darkshadow7827]

Neutral. I can see the point of MK being a beast/god tier character, but I personally haven't fought enough metaknights to make a decision yet. Fighting scrub MKs doesn't really help either. I find this interesting though. Is there actually a set date for the ban/no ban? Otherwise, I feel like it'll just be endless debate, points, and counter-points.

 

[Xyro77]

Neutral. I can see the point of MK being a beast/god tier character, but I personally haven't fought enough metaknights to make a decision yet. Fighting scrub MKs doesn't really help either. I find this interesting though. Is there actually a set date for the ban/no ban? Otherwise, I feel like it'll just be endless debate, points, and counter-points.

i am in the SBR(brawl swf government) and we have done SEVERAL(3 or 4) public polls asking the public if meta should be banned. ALL 3-4 said meta should be banned. All across swf there have been topics asking him to be banned and there have been others that want to restrict him in some way because he has been a problem since day 1.


having said that, the sbr STIL decided to keep him legal. They said they dont have reason enough to ban him. MOST of the sbr uses metaknight and of course they will vote to keep him on.




This metaknight debate is BACK and will ALWAYS return untill he is banned. IF you have not noticed, MOST people MAIN or have meta as a 2nd. The debate will ALWAYS retrun, remember that.

 

[darksamus77]

i am in the SBR(brawl swf government) and we have done SEVERAL(3 or 4) public polls asking the public if meta should be banned. ALL 3-4 said meta should be banned. All across swf there have been topics asking him to be banned and there have been others that want to restrict him in some way because he has been a problem since day 1.


having said that, the sbr STIL decided to keep him legal. They said they dont have reason enough to ban him. MOST of the sbr uses metaknight and of course they will vote to keep him on.




This metaknight debate is BACK and will ALWAYS return untill he is banned. IF you have not noticed, MOST people MAIN or have meta as a 2nd. The debate will ALWAYS retrun, remember that.

As an MK main, I like Melee way better than Brawl or Brawl+, however MK is significantly nerfed in Brawl+. But I see your point. Until MK gets banned, this'll be a never-ending debate. I'd like to see some of those facts, though, sir. I'm very intrigued to know what they are

 

[Xyro77]

As an MK main, I like Melee way better than Brawl or Brawl+, however MK is significantly nerfed in Brawl+. But I see your point. Until MK gets banned, this'll be a never-ending debate. I'd like to see some of those facts, though, sir. I'm very intrigued to know what they are

Ok if we are going to have this debate then you MUST accept some KEY aspects. This is VERY important in understanding SMASH/metaknight.


1. You CANNOT compare Smash to ANY OTHER fighting game. Smash is NOT a fighting game. It was designed to be a PARTY game but WE(the players) turned into a fighting game. By doing so, we encounter/created problems that NO OTHER game can relate to and/or have.

2. Brawl+/BB/B- all mean nothing. They are modified versions of brawl that will take you no where. Please leave it out of the discussion.

3. Melee. The definition of SMASH is melee.

4. Counter-picking. This aspect is why ^ was SO good. It made things FAIR9or more fair) and allowed only the SKILLED players to win. CPing can be done with a STAGE or with a CHARACTER.






My next post will include some facts but what is listed above is what you MUST accept in order to understand why meta has to go.

 

[NO-IDea]

3) The definition of smash is not Melee. It's a fatal flaw in the pro-ban argument. You cannot treat this game in the same way you treated Melee. Different fighting mechanics->different character viability->different game. Therefore, you cannot attempt to change the game into one where, like in Melee, several characters reign supreme. Because then your only argument was that MK was dominant, and that's a stupid notion to call a ban for. The one thing a player may find broken about MK is planking, but then it's not as much MK's fault as it is the timer which strengthens and/or makes this strategy more favorable. Again, the timer was an aspect drawn back from Melee. Ironic...

4) I've already addressed the counterpicking issue. Counterpicking is very possible in this game, but our ruleset severely hinders it. Please, rather than focus on MK, look at the other more reasonable ways to make this game more rock-paper-scissors oriented. Or drop your whole counterpicking argument... because it's wrong.

EDIT:

Bridge of Elden is also banned to prevent camping. Not just D3. Also a jab lock can lead to death on this stage.

The rest of that post is pretty sexy though imo, no real judgements against it.

(Bear in mind nothing against you KJ. <3)

Please forget that camping is not an issue. Stalling is. Bridge of Eldin does not have the tools to allow effective stalling. If I approach you, you can only run away so far until you have to go through me. If you're Falco, this may be easier for you but it still lets me know what options you have in your attempts to go pass me. It's not as if this were Hyrule Temple or the New Pork City, where the circular structure promotes stalling.

As far as jab locks go, it's simply another aspect to look out for. How often are characters pulling off jab locks when knowledgeable of the threat? The only character that comes to mind is Lucas's jab lock->kill set-up. A banana lock would certainly kill characters on this stage however, thus you may in fact have to adopt a different playstyle if a Diddy uses this stage as a counterpick. Or even use a different character. (pst, Xyro, counterpicking!!! <3)

And on the matter of walk-offs, Castle Siege and Delfino are legal, despite having walk-offs, on the grounds that the stage shifts don't make the walk-offs permanent. Well... Bridge of Eldin turns into a bridge you know >.>. How different is it between playing Samus vs D3 and positioning yourself to not suffer from the full extent of regular chain grab and playing Link vs Diddy and positioning yourself so banana locks lead to the edge? And while waiting for the bridge to form, you camp with Link?

Speaking of D3 and chain grabbing... why are infinites illegal? Because they inhibit the use of certain characters? I repeat, there are characters that can't be chain grabbed... if we want to make this a counterpick game, remove that stupid rule. There are so many instances where the ruleset just screams "WE DON'T WANT THIS TO BE A COUNTERPICK GAME." I mean, there's even talk of only allowing three neutrals instead of five. Give me a break.

 

[Xyro77]

3) The definition of smash is not Melee. It's a fatal flaw in the pro-ban argument. You cannot treat this game in the same way you treated Melee. Different fighting mechanics->different character viability->different game. Therefore, you cannot attempt to change the game into one where, like in Melee, several characters reign supreme. Because then your only argument was that MK was dominant, and that's a stupid notion to call a ban for. The one thing a player may find broken about MK is planking, but then it's not as much MK's fault as it is the timer which strengthens and/or makes this strategy more favorable. Again, the timer was an aspect drawn back from Melee. Ironic...

4) I've already addressed the counterpicking issue. Counterpicking is very possible in this game, but our ruleset severely hinders it. Please, rather than focus on MK, look at the other more reasonable ways to make this game more rock-paper-scissors oriented. Or drop your whole counterpicking argument... because it's wrong.

3. You need some sort of standard to go by to determine whats a "good" smash game when it comes to rules. MELEE is the ONLY game where that can be found. Again, melee is the ONLY smash game of the 3 that has lived 9 years and STILL breaks records. OBVIOUSLY, its rules are decent and obviously its a pretty balanced game. You cant just have a NEW set of TOTALLY diff rules for each game.

btw, ssb64 rules are an edited version of melee rules. We are not trying to make another melee. We are trying to base our rules around what WORKS....aka melee



4. The rules are fine if you take away meta. UNLIKE YOU, ive actually tried it( i run tournaments) and it worked EACH time. Most bad matchups were made more closer to even(this is when skill takes over and determines a win) and some flat out changed by a landslide(aka japes+falco). Insert meta into any MU+STAGE and he is NEVER at a disadvantage.







N0-idea=anti ban scum

 

[NO-IDea]

If you're attempting to base rules off of what works, you should analyze the mechanics of Brawl. The ledge system and edge guarding in general are far different than in Melee. The timer is not working. It promotes stalling and planking measures that are sometimes too gray of an area to call for a TO to DQ. I agree, there does need to be a standard. But from that standard, for a different game like brawl, the ruleset needs to evolve.

The reason why your tournaments work is because you're avoiding the problem instead of addressing it altogether. The problem lies not in the character but in the ruleset that makes that character stronger. Ignoring the cancer doesn't remove it you know. The only thing your anti-meta tournaments are doing is attempting to promote a new metagame, which would be alright if it didn't attempt to change the game (by removing a character built-into the game (for the wrong reasons)) in the process.

Xyro=too stubborn to listen

EDIT: Also, to use the following logic:

"Most bad matchups were made more closer to even(this is when skill takes over and determines a win)"

How is this any different than taking a MK to BF with Samus, making the MU *60/40 or *55/45, then using skill to determine the win?

*These ratios still exhibit a disadvantage for Samus, but still even enough that victory is more than possible. In other words, these ratios literally show that you would win 4 out of 10 times on such stage, or 9 out of 20 times. Which is not bad.*

(Perhaps an extreme example since the majority of the Samus boards fear MK, but that's only because Samus's metagame is developing so slowly and many still don't know how to fight that MU)

 

[Xyro77]

If you're attempting to base rules off of what works, you should analyze the mechanics of Brawl. The ledge system and edge guarding in general are far different than in Melee. The timer is not working. It promotes stalling and planking measures that are sometimes too gray of an area to call for a TO to DQ.

The reason why your tournaments work is because you're avoiding the problem instead of addressing it altogether. The problem lies not in the character but in the ruleset that makes that character stronger.

Xyro=too stubborn to listen

Ledge guarding= Stoping the foe from grabbing the ledge or getting back on the stage. Its harder to do in brawl but the way its done is still EXACTLY the same........you do whatever it takes to keep the foe away from the ledge/stage.

Timer does not promote camping/stalling. It didnt in melee nor did it in ssb64(in both games i could be done btw). Camping/stalling is determined by the player. I have seen/known(as have you) players that could have easily stalled/camped to win but decided not to because they made a CHOICE not too.

Example: GUNS dont kill people. PEOPLE abusing the gun kill people.


Now as for my events. Since XYRO is the one to RUN the events, he KNOWS what the problems are and how to fix them. When it comes to metaknight, you either BAN him or you restrict him SO MUCH that he becomes "fair" and guess what........its worked. i do this because metaknight does not fit into what SMASH is. He takes what we made in melee and what we applied on brawl and breaks it. ALL other chars fit into it nicely.



No-idea=trash

 

[NO-IDea]

The aspect of ledge guarding as changed so much in this game. Are you kidding me? Denying that would be denying the very differences between Brawl and Melee. That would be saying the air dodge mechanics haven't changed that much. Wrong. Did you know the instant you use a ledge recovery move (get-up, ledge attack, jump) the ledge is free to grab? (THIS WAS NOT IN MELEE) That the reach to snap to the ledge is insanely huge and allows a large margin of error? (ALSO NOT IN MELEE) Brawl is different than Melee. Why are we treating them the same?

How does the timer not promote camping/stalling? We've turned this game into "Whoever has the lead in the end wins" instead of "Whoever kills their opponent three times first wins." Already, because we've altered the objective by implementing a time rule, we've also altered how one should go about playing their match. To put in a different perspective, the winning objective of a stock match these days isn't to take all their stocks. The winning objective of a stock match these days is the same as having a 2 minute Free-for-all time battle on wifi: to be in the lead at the end. Is this really what we want?

As far as your events go, again you simply ignore the problem in hopes of ushering in a new metagame... when there's nothing wrong with our current one. Of course a new metagame would work. Just like moving away from a city to avoid a problem would work. That doesn't mean it's the best route to take, especially when we have the tools to fix the problem.

If your problem is counterpicking and how MK is a hindrance to this concept, my response is to fix the ruleset because the ruleset already is a hindrance. MK is just the gun/drug/tool. Attack the seed, not what spawns from it.

If your problem is just MK being too strong of a character... you're simply crying over the possibility of a dominant character in a competitive video game. When every other successful competitive fighter has one. If we want to discuss successful video games (like Melee), look at the mechanics that make them successful. Melee has a built-in system that allows high character viability. Brawl doesn't. We must cater to that fact, not change it.

 

[Xyro77]

The aspect of ledge guarding as changed so much in this game. Are you kidding me? Denying that would be denying the very differences between Brawl and Melee. That would be saying the air dodge mechanics haven't changed that much. Wrong.

Ledge guarding is the same in all 3 games: do whatever it takes to stop the foe from getting back on stage/ledge. It has never changed.

How does the timer not promote camping/stalling? We've turned this game into "Whoever has the lead in the end wins" instead of "Whoever kills their opponent three times first wins." Already, because we've altered the objective by implementing a time rule, we've also altered how one should go about playing their match.

BRAWL from A-Z is why we made brawl in this defensive/campy/spamy...ect. It became this way because of the MILLION ******** things this game has to offer.

CGs that can be done at any percent(ddd/ic)
CGs that do OBSCENE damage and CAN lead to free zero-death kills(pika/ic/ddd/falco)
Grab releases to OBSCENE damage or KOs
Transcending priority
Airdodge system
Things that do OBSCENE damage that require little to NO skill(snake jab to f-tilt, meta tornado)
Refreash/Stale system
Tilt/wall/laser/ice block locks.
Super/grab amor
Buffering
Port priority
Lack of TRUE combos
Impossible match-ups(ddd vs dk)


And of course the list goes on. but i WILL say that timer is not the REASON why this game has turned out to be the way it is. Timers were in melee and ssb64 and it was RARE to see a game go to time in those 2 games and it was even MORE rare to see serious bouts of camping.

Now, as a TO. If i were to eliminate timers, it would cause my events to last longer. Timer helps this.

As far as your events go, again you simply ignore the problem in hopes of ushering in a new metagame... when there's nothing wrong with our current one. Of course a new metagame would work. Just like moving away from a city to avoid a problem would work. That doesn't mean it's the best route to take, especially when we have the tools to fix the problem

So if it works, who cares? And we do have the tools.......ban meta. case closed.

 

[Karcist]

In response to that, MK may not have bad stages, but other characters certainly have good ones. I will counter pick a MK to BF with Samus, or a Falco will CP a MK to FD, etc. etc. The object of counterpicking is to level the playing field first, put yourself at an advantage second.

Secondly, increasing stage availability further qualifies the first purpose of counterpicking, which is to level the playing field. You don't always have to be the only with advantages on a stage... you simply have to know how to capitalize on your advantages more than your opponent. For example, taking MK to Delfino with Sheik. Yes, MK can gimp Sheik easily on this stage during the switches. But, the walk-offs allow Sheik to kill with DACUS or grab release into grab release. It evens the playing field, but Sheik can learn to utilize her advantage better than MK. Sheik has to deal with the gimp disadvantage at all stages in all her MUs so it isn't too difficult.

To use another example that isn't personal and supports the stage availability option, consider a D3 counterpicking an MK to Pictochat. Potential walls, hazards that D3 can tank, one of D3's better stages to recover on: this stage is an amazing counterpick against MK. It's banned solely because of hazards, and we as players attempting to make brawl a competitive game are against allowing a stage to dictate the fight. But then what is the point of counterpicking? Allowing higher stage viability inevitably increases character viability and therefore a weakening of MK's strengths (as a character good on all stages) relative to the rest of the cast.

(I couldn't care less if Pictochat becomes legal or not, but the arguments against it go directly against Brawl being played as a counterpick game. Hence, usually the anti-Pictochat players also tend to counterpick with neutrals instead of stages like Halberd or Delfino.)

Lastly, as far as even MUs go, there are characters that go even with him on certain stages. We agree. We also agree for the most part that MK has favorable MUs. But the best character is supposed to have that. And by no means do those favorable MUs stand into the 65-35s or even 60-40s against some characters. MK is far from broken, and that's the only solid criteria for banning IMO.

EDIT: One last example before I go to bed:

Consider Bridge of Eldin. It is banned only because of D3's chain grab limiting the viability of over half the cast. But since when did the smash community become so centralized on character mains? If we must treat brawl as a competitive game, we must learn there are options to avoid D3's chain grab. There are characters that can't be chain grabbed. The whole point of being told what stage you're being brought to is to prepare for the worst possible scenario. So sure enough, our ruleset is setting forth the image of competitive brawl.

It doesn't focus on counterpicking enough so you can't use that as your reasoning to ban MK. If it did focus on counterpicking to the fullest extent, allowing stages to actually influence character decisions and dictate the fight, MK wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

Wow, that's a lot of examples, nice.

You mentioned dedede CP'ing MK to Pictochat. It's not because MK is bad on the stage thats the reason he could CP, but rather because dedede would be just that good on it. The problem with that though is that dedede could counter pick anyone there and have a severe advantage.

When I said that the CP argument isn't so black and white, I meant that it's not simply one or the other. I think the game should be based around CP but should follow specific guidelines to make the game more fun, and more and more people are starting to find the game less fun which is why I think there should be more restrictions. All of the above examples were banned because they simply made the game less fun to play, and any map that could be used against meta knight could be used against the other characters much worse.

All that being said though, I have to respect the way you are anti ban and a Samus main at the same time. Most all of anti ban people seem to main one of the 45-55 characters or meta knight himself.

 

[KillerJawz]

I'd just like to say that there were plenty of CGs in melee that were just as deadly, combos that were just stupid ( Jiggs uthrow to rest on fox). And the ICs did have zero to deaths on all chars.

 

[Darkshadow7827]

I tried playing some melee again, but brawl habits>me = fail.

 

[DelxDoom]

Metaknight is awesome

 

[Karcist]

Metaknight is awesome

...in a really... lame sort of... way...