- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 5,493
Yeah, I don't think anyone's going to even consider banning Fox. He's definitely NOT over-powered.
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!
general majority opinion on pretty much any topic is pretty terrible. think about things like slavery, gay rights, womens rights, etcAnd something like 75% of the community.
one of the major reasons? we love comboing him to deathThere have been approximately 0 serious discussions about Fox being banned in Melee.
Well if its any consolation I didn't intend to offend. I just felt like posting that vid with mk gone.*sees black mantis posting the same tired link*
I hate you, Rock Lee.
I'd sig this, but I have appearances to maintain. But I must say I lol'd heartily.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.
There were 8 different characters in the top 8 results at Genesis 2.theory crafting crap about brawl being more balanced than melee with mk gone now this
Itemswe need to have a really ****ty piece of **** community playing a really ****ty game to ban something
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?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.
derail time: a defensible gripe (in some cases) imo'promotes camping' is mine
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****.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
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.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.
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.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.
well, technically i only referred to the rate at which the communities are dying, not the current levels of popularity.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.
When you're playing to time the opponent out, and doing so very clearly, is it considered just really intense hardcore camping? Or stalling?Kirbykaze: Camping and stalling is a big difference... just saying
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.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.
.
MK being proven dominant, and Fox being proven dominant aren't the same thing.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.
...which is why we ban them.i disagree with above post, if all stages were allowed fox would not be banned.
although some counterpicks would be so op.
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.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.
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."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.
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.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.
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.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?