What does it take to be banned?

[ShroudedOne]

Yeah, I don't think anyone's going to even consider banning Fox. He's definitely NOT over-powered.

 

[KoNfucius]

Wobbling is not very hard to do. I think grabbing your opponent is harder.

 

[JPOBS]

And something like 75% of the community.

general majority opinion on pretty much any topic is pretty terrible. think about things like slavery, gay rights, womens rights, etc

doing (or not doing) anything because the majority wants it isn't a substantial reason for actually doing it.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Heh. Interesting tidbits of info, M2K.

Subscribed.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Black Mantis]

"planking jiggs"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTHfcafE9ig
shoutouts to Tero lol

 

[Mike G]

*sees black mantis posting the same tired link*

I hate you, Rock Lee.

 

[sulliman1]

There have been approximately 0 serious discussions about Fox being banned in Melee.

one of the major reasons? we love comboing him to death

doesn't happen to MK

 

[Robsta]

Reading all this controversy and smiling about how many new players we will get from this.

 

[CloneHat]

Ask INSANECARZYGUY.

 

[Black Mantis]

*sees black mantis posting the same tired link*

I hate you, Rock Lee.

Well if its any consolation I didn't intend to offend. I just felt like posting that vid with mk gone.

Now if I wanted to be a douche I could've put all of his vids and pinkshinobi's up but I didn't.

So yeah Mike G if you took it the wrong way then well idk.

Spoiler

theory crafting crap about brawl being more balanced than melee with mk gone now this

 

[MuraRengan]

Half the reason Metaknight is such a hot topic is that he's the only good character in a garbage game filled with garbage characters.

Fortunately, we have a good game with a bunch of good characters.

I'd sig this, but I have appearances to maintain. But I must say I lol'd heartily.

 

[JPOBS]

theory crafting crap about brawl being more balanced than melee with mk gone now this

There were 8 different characters in the top 8 results at Genesis 2.

After 10+ years, melee players don't really care about "balance" anymore, our metagame is pretty advanced.

 

[TheDekuNut]

i thought this was a thread about getting banned on smashboards. to my disappointment, it is not.

Edit: CloneHat knows whats up

 

[Strong Badam]

we need to have a really ****ty piece of **** community playing a really ****ty game to ban something

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

we need to have a really ****ty piece of **** community playing a really ****ty game to ban something

Items

 

[Master WGS]

M2K, you seem really salty about this MK decision. Just come back to Melee where we don't ban your tactics and characters.

 

[Iron Dragon]

strong bad made the best post ever

 

[Armada]

Kirbykaze: Camping and stalling is a big difference... just saying

I actually posted a lot in the thread when they talked about MK being banned and I can honestly just say this.
They are ****ing whiners that don´t wanna learn things and don´t wanna accept things. They are trying to ban him so much that their arguments is so ****ing bad.

Useing infinite cap (that already is banned) as a argument for broken.
And also when I said one truley MK main (and Ally that plays a lot of chars) have won over the last 2 years in a national someone mention something about 5 cause things with MK are banned.

I don´t think anything in melee have a possibillity to get banned except for wobbling (I don´t wanna ban it Im just saying it is not impossible)

 

[kevo]

If you can't beat something, you have to get better and overcome it. Asking for something to be banned because you can't beat it is the lowest common denominator. But I also think it might be because of the game of Brawl itself. My experience with Brawl is scant but maybe MK is broken to the point that there are no good strategies and match-ups against him? I find it hard to believe that an ENTIRE COMMUNITY over the course of several years could fail to develop a balanced metagame. Then again, perhaps Melee is just that awesome.

 

[Kal]

People are aware that we have plenty of unwarranted bans when it comes to stages, right? As in, our justification for banning stages like Mute City, Pokéfloats, Jungle Japes, and Corneria is roughly the same whining as what goes into banning Meta Knight. And the parallel is so good it's almost palpable: the reason these stages remain banned is because most players prefer it that way. That, or they make absurd arguments to circumvent proving these stages are broken.

I think we need to get off our collective anti-scrub high-horse. I mean, we have a ****ing backroom committee of more-or-less self-proclaimed experts who decide what rules we should use, and whenever they publish a ruleset they provide very little explanation for why anything is banned. We're not really that much better than the Brawl community. There is no Melee-equivalent of Meta Knight in terms of single-strategy dominance, so we've never had to deal with such an issue. But I would guess that, if such a thing existed, it would plague our community just as badly. And I would not be surprised if the MBR ruled in exactly the same fashion as the URC.

MetaKnight was not only banned because top players won tournaments with him. He was banned because of his attributes in the game itself. With proper Directional Influence and Momentum Cancel, MetaKnight can be very hard to KO. He has the fastest shield roll in the game. He has the ability to glide twice. His tornado attack has a lot of priority. And on top of that, he has four ways of recovering back to the stage. Although a lot of people were disappointed at the fact that MetaKnight was banned, it was the right choice.

It's rather arrogant to act like you've got the entire issue figured out. Frankly, your entire argument in favor of banning him is just a list of pros about Meta Knight. Yes, the character is good. In fact, he's the best. Can you explain to me why this makes him broken?

I know this is a bit off-topic, but really it's the players like you, who can't keep an open mind and realize that this issue is, at the very least, not black-and-white, and that therefore your views shouldn't be forced, who end up causing problems in the community. Players who personally feel Meta Knight should be banned, but are aware that they have no convincing argument and thus don't push the issue, are the ones in the right here. Not the ones who convince themselves that Meta Knight should be banned and decide everyone needs to see it their way.

 

[Pi]

yea our stage bans are pretty whack and fit into what armada was saying tbh lol

'but i don't WANT to learn to deal with being camped' boo hoo hoo just let me combo people on flat ground like i practiced on that lv 1 cpu!

 

[Kal]

My personal favorite is "Peach wins matches on Mute City which she shouldn't!"

 

[Pi]

'promotes camping' is mine

 

[tarheeljks]

'promotes camping' is mine

derail time: a defensible gripe (in some cases) imo

edit: or maybe i should say that such a notion has some merit

 

[Pi]

yea of course,
but it's used as a blanket term in most cases and never fought against
people just say 'yea i dun wanna deal with that i agree lol'

 

[CloneHat]

Metaknight's like Magneto, but instead of being able to zero-death him when you get an opening, you have to chip away his life

bit

by

bit

 

[Black Mantis]

Well you did ban wobbling.

 

[Strife]

to be perfectly honest, and I would bet ANYTHING this is accurate: after failing six times to ban MK in polls in BBR, a few super pro ban members of BBR got together and created the URC, formerly known as the BBR-RC (ruleset committee). Then these guys kept bringing in more pro-ban members and TOs to the URC, until it was guaranteed that MK would be banned with their ruleset, which is pretty much the only thing most of them were after. One of the members there (i think AZ) has power the mod power on smashboards (something like that) to sticky tourneys or not, and he said anyone that doesn't use Unity will not be stickied. It's an abuse of power from a small group of members, who honestly deserve no power at all. People who don't deserve decision making power are now able to get it a lot. It's pretty much exactly like mikehaze described

Can't the community complain in forum support or something to stop AZ(or whoever) not to abuse there power? I really dislike Metaknight, but even I think such a blatant abuse of power is bull****.

 

[bossa nova ♪]

not sure if this was already mentioned, but it's pretty plausible to assume that the Meta Knight ban is a ploy by the "leaders" Brawl community to get attention for their game... a game which seems to be dying faster than Melee these days.


honestly, i can't say it doesn't make me a little more excited about Brawl. it's great to see mid/low tiers in the top 10s for any game, and yeah, now that's a little more likely.


but, again, these just seem to be the effects of a game that's intended to be uncompetitive being forced into competition.




EDIT:


ahh, nice. M2K's post is along the lines of what made sense to me. i'd like to assume that the information is valid...

 

[Strife]

not sure if this was already mentioned, but it's pretty plausible to assume that the Meta Knight ban is a ploy by the "leaders" Brawl community to get attention for their game... a game which seems to be dying faster than Melee these days.

They're local tournaments are more frequent and attract more attendants than melee tourneys, even if our regional and national tournament do attract slightly more members than theirs. I'd say the Brawl community is still stronger than the melee community at this point.

People are aware that we have plenty of unwarranted bans when it comes to stages, right? As in, our justification for banning stages like Mute City, Pokéfloats, Jungle Japes, and Corneria is roughly the same whining as what goes into banning Meta Knight. And the parallel is so good it's almost palpable: the reason these stages remain banned is because most players prefer it that way. That, or they make absurd arguments to circumvent proving these stages are broken.

I think we need to get off our collective anti-scrub high-horse. I mean, we have a ****ing backroom committee of more-or-less self-proclaimed experts who decide what rules we should use, and whenever they publish a ruleset they provide very little explanation for why anything is banned. We're not really that much better than the Brawl community. There is no Melee-equivalent of Meta Knight in terms of single-strategy dominance, so we've never had to deal with such an issue. But I would guess that, if such a thing existed, it would plague our community just as badly. And I would not be surprised if the MBR ruled in exactly the same fashion as the URC.

This is so true, we are just as bad if not worst than the brawl community. Half of the stages are banned because we thought Fox would be broken on them, so instead of banning the character we banned all but just 7 stages now. What's worse is that Metaknight was at least proven to be an overly dominant character, Fox was never dominant even with these now banned stages, we banned the stages simply out of fear. I find it ironic that so many people in this thread are making fun of the brawl community.

 

[stelzig]

I think there's always been a pretty clear difference between the "neutral" stages and those other appearently "banned out of fear" stages, and that we (especially europe) have decided to base our metagame on those grounds is alot more reasonable than to ban metaknight all of a sudden. Not to mention banning a character is a much huger step than just banning a stage. Fair enough, perhaps you could have more stages allowed, but with the stages allowed in the european ruleset now we're at least not being inconsistent with what kind of stages are allowed.
I think we created a better competitive game without goofy stages, and not just because of the fox excuse, it would still be better even if fox wasn't in the game.

If you read what m2k say you'll also have to consider how this idea about metaknight is being ruled by some TOs who haven't been able to enforce it through the BBR (failed with their "final" poll 6! times...), whereas the stage stuff in melee isn't just opinions from a certain group of players. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it's mostly the worse players who eagerly want more stages allowed, and doubt that how good you are on them has much influence on anyones opinion regarding them. I have a feeling the situation is kinda like with items where the people wanting them will still be ***** by the much better players who made a rule against the items (or stages) to begin with. Likewise with metaknight, I don't think we'll see many metaknight mains suddenly do alot worse - at least not relatively to how it could affect other character mains if their character was banned. So the question is, who is really the biased in the 2 (3) situations?

Maybe metaknight is alot more broken than I think, but right now I see this decision as quite ridicilous, and the way it has been decided to be even more ridicilous. Several big TOs going together and agreeing on a rulesets so the players can't really just stop supporting their tournaments because it would kill their community completely, and then even holding the remaining TOs down by not allowing them a sticky? Even if someone wanted to host a FFA tournament with items, I think it would deserve a sticky if it had big support and was supposed to get huge, who the hell are they to decide what gets stickied and what doesn't? TOs should rely on the knowledgeable and experienced players (backroom) to make the right decisions, and not suddenly take matters into their own hands like this just because they don't get their way.

Edit: Just in addition to this stage thing, there has also been more stages allowed in europe, but it can't really be denied that they've always been neglected and the metagame's development always has been mostly based on the neutral stages. Most people I know will only consider putting on counterpicks in friendlies when they got bored and really want to screw around. Has it been common to say "no metaknight in friendlies" in brawl? To me it seems like his metagame is the one that has been developed the most.

 

[bossa nova ♪]

They're local tournaments are more frequent and attract more attendants than melee tourneys, even if our regional and national tournament do attract slightly more members than theirs. I'd say the Brawl community is still stronger than the melee community at this point.

well, technically i only referred to the rate at which the communities are dying, not the current levels of popularity.


i think it's certainly a possibility that this ban accelerated the entropy of Brawl's competitive scene. these kinds of decisions typically lead to that kind of effect or its direct opposite.

 

[KirbyKaze]

Kirbykaze: Camping and stalling is a big difference... just saying

When you're playing to time the opponent out, and doing so very clearly, is it considered just really intense hardcore camping? Or stalling?

 

[JPOBS]

honestly, i can't say it doesn't make me a little more excited about Brawl. it's great to see mid/low tiers in the top 10s for any game, and yeah, now that's a little more likely.
.

This isn't true. Mid/Low tiers won't suddenly move up the ranks of wwinning tournys just because MK is gone. There will just be a ton more Snakes/Marths/whoever is good. The mid/low tiers still have have bad matchups vs the top tiers, removing one of them won't suddenly make them place any higher.

Its like in melee, removing any single one of fox/falco/sheik won't magically make low tiers like DK and Samus place higher, they still gonna get ***** by the others.

This is so true, we are just as bad if not worst than the brawl community. Half of the stages are banned because we thought Fox would be broken on them, so instead of banning the character we banned all but just 7 stages now. What's worse is that Metaknight was at least proven to be an overly dominant character, Fox was never dominant even with these now banned stages, we banned the stages simply out of fear. I find it ironic that so many people in this thread are making fun of the brawl community.

MK being proven dominant, and Fox being proven dominant aren't the same thing.

MK is dominant regardless of ruleset or stage selection. Ergo, its necessary to ban him as a character (allegedly). Fox can only be dominant if you give him all the dumb stages. Thats why fox never "proved" himself dominant, because his character isn't broken, the game just has a ton of dumb stages.

If we played a ruleset that allowed all the stages, Fox would be the only character worth using.

MK's dominance is unaffected by what stages are allowed. Fox's dominance is a factor of what stages are allowed.

Its better to ban stages than character. No one wants to ban fox just so they can play luigi vs DK on icicle mountain in tourny without having to worry.

 

[GhllieShdeKnife]

i disagree with above post, if all stages were allowed fox would not be banned.
although some counterpicks would be so op.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

i disagree with above post, if all stages were allowed fox would not be banned.
although some counterpicks would be so op.

...which is why we ban them.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Juggleguy]

This thread has been an interesting read.

Tagged for later.

 

[40secondz]

Let's ban pichu.

I'm with this guy.

 

[Kal]

I think there's always been a pretty clear difference between the "neutral" stages and those other appearently "banned out of fear" stages, and that we (especially europe) have decided to base our metagame on those grounds is alot more reasonable than to ban metaknight all of a sudden. Not to mention banning a character is a much huger step than just banning a stage. Fair enough, perhaps you could have more stages allowed, but with the stages allowed in the european ruleset now we're at least not being inconsistent with what kind of stages are allowed.
I think we created a better competitive game without goofy stages, and not just because of the fox excuse, it would still be better even if fox wasn't in the game.

I didn't deny that the starter (please don't call them neutral, they're not neutral) stages were not clearly different than the remaining stages. But that's not justification for banning the other stages. By that logic you can easily ban just about anything.

And frankly, I don't see why banning a character is a "much huger step" than banning a stage. This seems pretty arbitrary to me.

If you read what m2k say you'll also have to consider how this idea about metaknight is being ruled by some TOs who haven't been able to enforce it through the BBR (failed with their "final" poll 6! times...), whereas the stage stuff in melee isn't just opinions from a certain group of players.

The MBR is what decides on the ruleset. Since the MBR does not consist of every single Melee player, the stage bans are exactly "just opinions from a certain group of players."

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it's mostly the worse players who eagerly want more stages allowed, and doubt that how good you are on them has much influence on anyones opinion regarding them.

You haven't made any argument here in response to why these stages should not be banned. Instead, you've opted to claim that the players who don't want these stages banned must suck. Well, that's definitely it. I'm really bad at Smash, so I want to play Marth/Fox on Hyrule, because these characters aren't already favored overwhelmingly on the MBR ruleset.

I have a feeling the situation is kinda like with items where the people wanting them will still be ***** by the much better players who made a rule against the items (or stages) to begin with. Likewise with metaknight, I don't think we'll see many metaknight mains suddenly do alot worse - at least not relatively to how it could affect other character mains if their character was banned. So the question is, who is really the biased in the 2 (3) situations?

Everyone is biased. I don't really like the non-starter stages either. But that's not really relevant. What is relevant is that people seem to think it's ok to ban things despite having no convincing argument for banning them. This is the case with the Meta Knight ban, and it's the case with MBR's ban on virtually every stage.



To clarify on the stage-bans, since some people are showing confusion about what I mean:

I have no problems with bans like Hyrule, where Fox is clearly broken. And some stages, like Green Greens and Onett, despite not being proven broken, are at least banned because the MBR thinks they're broken (though I wouldn't be surprised if the actual logic was "Green Greens has falling blocks, Onett has cars, LOL"). It's stages like Mute City which I have a problem with, where the argument is overwhelmingly ****ing stupid, usually in one of the following forms:

1) Peach has too many counterpicks. Thus, if she wins the first match, she is likely to win the entire set. So, we either keep Brinstar or Mute City on, but not both.
2) Stuff like lava and flying cars are janky. It should be player vs. player, not player vs. player vs. stage.
3) Peach does better there than she should.

But I have no problem with bans which are explicitly to remove broken strategies: Hyrule, Onett, Fourside, etc.

 

[the_CAM_factor]

theres a major difference between banning a stage and a char. you dont main a stage and devote hours learning how to control and react with it.