• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

The SBR's Official Position on Metaknight

Status
Not open for further replies.
Inui

Inui

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
22,230
Location
Ocean Grove, New Jersey
Yah, ESAM is better than me at Melee and he was on fire that day. He took 4th in singles with ChuDat and DaShizWiz there.

He lost to me in teams, though! :D

I was always better in teams in every Smash game...
 
Yuna

Yuna

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
10,358
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
Smooth Criminal;6372044 I don't think any of us doubt that you've gotten better said:
Both players being on their last stock does not necessarily mean it was close. However, losing 2-0 does not mean it could not have been close, either.

At FC6, I lost to Chinesah 2-0 (IIRC). Both games (IIRC) ended with both of us on our last stock at very high %. I especially remember that the last game was literally "First one to hit wins". He had 156%, I had 95% (or somesuch), he got an Upair in, I died.

In my view, that's a close set, even if it was 2-0. Both matches were "First one to hit wins". He just happens to have been the one to have gotten that hit in both times.
Click to expand...
 
M

mimic_king

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,002
I still don't consider myself any good. I was in one tournament. I made it to the second round. Another guy I knew was also in that tournament and he made it to the fourth round. One of my friends made it to the 3rd round. One made it to 2nd. Two lost in the first round. One of the two friends that lost in the first round is the best one out of all of us. The one who made it further than any of us really sucks.

These tournament results are completely off from our skills. Can you guess which tournament this was?
 
M

mimic_king

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,002
Who? Me? For what? I was clearly not spamming. But whatever.

It was the GameStop launch party which was so rigged. Anyone could win that tournament, pro or no pro.
 
Fox Hater

Fox Hater

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
449
Location
Puerto Rico
I think a 2-0 can be a close match(depends on the situation), the only thing it proves the consistency of the other player, now 3 stock thats ****.
 
[FBC] ESAM

[FBC] ESAM

Smash Legend
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
12,197
Location
Pika?
I think they were 2 stocks inui, idk. All i remember is then you beat us in teams cuz 3rd match you went green greens. Me and my partner were like wtf.
 
Inui

Inui

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
22,230
Location
Ocean Grove, New Jersey
You didn't twostock me. I don't suck against Samus. I beat Wes in tourny back when he was a top player. ~_~

Green Greens + Double Ganondorf = ****.
 
omnicloud7strife

omnicloud7strife

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
169
Location
Needham, Mass
Having never had the strongest opinion of MK, I view the SBR decision as perfectly fine. They're all (at least, I'm pretty sure they are) a LOT better than I am, and know what they're doing. I don't like MK. Not because I think he's overpowered. I just think he's terrible. Which, I admit, most people would tell me that I'm stupid for that. Even so, I happen to prefer others.

Having said this, I feel that knowing that MK is not (likely to be) banned, it just gives me a better reason to practice against him.

Anyways. I just wanted to say thank you for giving a wonderful explanation, and taking so much to make a decision.
 
adumbrodeus

adumbrodeus

Smash Legend
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Messages
11,321
Location
Tri-state area
Sadaharu Inui said:
Green Greens + Double Ganondorf = ****.
Click to expand...
YES!

Best team ever for that stage.


But, that was my secret team... how'd you find out Inui?


omnicloud7strife said:
Having never had the strongest opinion of MK, I view the SBR decision as perfectly fine. They're all (at least, I'm pretty sure they are) a LOT better than I am, and know what they're doing. I don't like MK. Not because I think he's overpowered. I just think he's terrible. Which, I admit, most people would tell me that I'm stupid for that. Even so, I happen to prefer others.

Having said this, I feel that knowing that MK is not (likely to be) banned, it just gives me a better reason to practice against him.

Anyways. I just wanted to say thank you for giving a wonderful explanation, and taking so much to make a decision.
Click to expand...
Ok, I guess that's a fine reason for not liking him, as long as you don't want him banned.


And yes, them releasing an opinion was a good thing, it helps the legitimacy of the decision considerably.
 
Fox Hater

Fox Hater

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
449
Location
Puerto Rico
Sadaharu Inui said:
You didn't twostock me. I don't suck against Samus. I beat Wes in tourny back when he was a top player. ~_~
Click to expand...
Wes lol hes a pretty cool guy I played against his sonic and beat him like 4 times, he did not wanted to play melee but he was not that good compared to hugs.

PS: Berto vs Collazo that was a robbery collazo won that fight by a long shot :(
 
adumbrodeus

adumbrodeus

Smash Legend
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Messages
11,321
Location
Tri-state area
yummynbeefy said:
well no its because ice climbers take like 3 months to get his playing style down and probably longer to master

metaknight takes like 3 days to learn everything i seriously think he should have been banned
Click to expand...
Irrelevant, if they were good, everyone would play them.

infzy said:
Why should that matter?
Click to expand...
It doesn't.

The issue isn't that it's difficult to do, it's near impossible to actually grab your opponent while desynched while Nana is close enough to actually infinite your opponent. A lot of this is because of their horrible grab range, but the stringent execution conditions don't help.


There are quite a few ICs that can execute the infinite flawlessly, almost never making a mistake. So, why aren't they winning tournaments? Because ICs aren't good, infinite or no.


So, having a 0-death isn't all it's about, it's having a 0-death that can actually be used reliably in a match. If everybody that had a 0-death on Wario had an advantage against him, Wario would be bottom tier.
 
B

Brawl4Lyfe

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
23
Location
in front of a wii
shuttle loop is good

nair is good

the rest of his moves are good

priority's good

matchups are all good

people suck against him besides like

snake

why is he not banned

sonic is so hard to play against him

it's stupid

metaknight is a ballsack
 
Browny

Browny

Smash Hater
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
10,416
Location
Video Games
umm, what exactly are you trying to say? you basically quoted the idea, and imply it is a bad idea with no reasoning whatsoever.
 
Smooth Criminal

Smooth Criminal

Da Cheef
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,576
Location
Hinckley, Minnesota
NNID
boundless_light
djbrowny said:
umm, what exactly are you trying to say? you basically quoted the idea, and imply it is a bad idea with no reasoning whatsoever.
Click to expand...
>_>

Do I have to be wordy?

I think my second sentence summed it up pretty well. Is there any reason why you would support the notion, DJ? Because I'm sure as hell not typing up a god**** essay explaining how lame it is to be limited in how many times you use a particular character.

Seems pretty scrubby to me. Can't we just accept the fact that MK is there and move on without these ridiculous suggestions?

Smooth Criminal
 
infomon

infomon

Smash Scientist
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
5,559
Location
Toronto, Canada
Justblaze647 said:
Accepting a problem without at least trying to find a solution sounds pretty scrubby to me. At least DJ is thinking outside of the box.
Click to expand...
But Smooth Criminal prolly doesn't see MK as a problem. I think even djbrowny said that MK isn't ban-worthy dominant in Australia anyway, so it sounds to me like trying to solve a "problem" that simply isn't.
 
Justblaze647

Justblaze647

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
1,932
Location
Running for my life in the forests of Eelong
infzy said:
I don't understand what you mean to imply with this post. Sorry, I'm sleepy :laugh:
Click to expand...
kk :laugh:

I like the idea that an MK player can only win one match per set with that character, after which he is forced to choose a secondary. But that doesnt apply to a loss. You can lose every match of your set with MK and not have to switch. this keeps scrubby MK's from complaining if they lose, forces the good MK's to have diversity in their game or else be punished for it, and keeps MK from running the entire tourney scene.

I like that idea.

edit: oh yeah. it's funny b/c Australia doesnt really have any good MK's to worry about (or so I've heard), and they solved that issue before it had a chance to start.
 
infomon

infomon

Smash Scientist
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
5,559
Location
Toronto, Canada
Ah, okay.

I agree the idea is neat and kind of elegant in the way it works.... but I think it's the wrong approach. Especially since America seems to be getting over the hurdle of believing MK is ban-worthy, to finding effective ways of dealing with him. There doesn't seem to be the MK-crisis that was once forecast to completely dominate the game. So it's kinda scrubby for Australia to ban something before there's an indication it's actually a problem.... :urg:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom