Why MK should NOT be banned (the opinion from someone who actually fights them)

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Just gonna go repeat what I said before.

How to end this argument: unban planking (remove the ledgegrab rule; it technically isn't stalling), and see what happens. Does MK become an unstoppable juggernaut so that we have to reinforce the rule to prevent him from absolutely reaping everyone at everything? If yes, then he's obviously broken and needs to be banned. If not... well okay, we should be good and will have to search for something else.

EDIT: Scizor, it's not possible to beat brawl level 9s. Well, almost. It's really, really hard. M2K pulled it off once, I hear. But the AI only gets better... In Brawl+, it is legally impossible to beat a level 9 AI. You just can't do it. And a Brawl- Luigi AI 5-stocked Ally without taking damage. I wish I was kidding.

 

[stingers]

Superscizor just gave proof that MK doesn't need to be banned and you people are simply overlooking it.

It's not proof until we see the video, personally I can't even imagine what he said actually happening.

 

[Sucumbio]

Should be left up to the TO.

example: we have a monthly "game afternoon" at the library, lol small, but for 2 hours it's on. outcome: no one mains MK anyway so it doesn't matter. standard sbr rule set applies, and it's pretty much a no brainer. everyone has fun. now if someone comes in, or 2 someones, or even 3... who all main MK and are GOOD with him, and win 1st, 2nd, 3rd month after month, and people stop coming even... yeah, tough choice. Do I ban MK and those three jump me in the parking lot afterward (euphemistically, but the point stands) so I can keep others from ditching? Or do I allow MK and end up with a 4-man tournament, 3 MKs and me. I ban MK. 3 people suck it, call me gay, whatever, maybe use a secondary cause they really just wanna brawl, or maybe I never see them again.

Pro-ban: MK is totally over centralizing the game. P4 results mk mk mk mk mk mk diddy. C'mon. Even if he wasn't technically that much better a character than every other character, look at all the people that focus on using him as if he IS that awesome. MK gets results, plain and simple. Take him out so at least the rest of the cast has a real shot. If MK is the only character your character can't beat, and you use 10 different characters, MK has doomed all your chances of true tournament viability.

Anti-ban: MK is not over-centralizing the game. He's a quick fix, an easy route, perfect for the lazier player who wants a cheap edge. MK-banned tournaments yield the same results as non-MK-banned tournaments... the same high tiers dominate, with a few off the wall exceptions thrown in, an Olimar here, a Toon Link there, a few Falcos maybe, a DDD here and there, Snake still way up the ladder. Banning MK will only reduce the game by 1 character, it'll shorten the game's life span by frustrating MK mains, and it'll result in leading to Diddy being next. or IC, or some other random High to S tier.

Solution? Weigh the evils. The lesser of the 2 wins. In my case, banning MK makes more sense, so I would. But in Pound 4's sense, it made NO sense to have banned MK. And he wasn't. And ADHD still *****.

 

[Remzi]

But then food on low is banning itemless brawl, is no items anti-competitive and/or excessively random?


Yes, when we're talking about pre-sets, each one is evaluated on it's merits as a tournament standardization issue.

This is worded strangely...

Items on is the default setting. Itemless brawl is what we resort to once we've proven that the default is indeed banworthy. I'm not going to go through every single item, but let's assume that each one was proven banworthy under RDKs criteria BESIDES food on low. Food on low CANNOT be banned according to that criteria, therefore it stays in the game.

If we don't go by the games default settings, we may as well start every character off as illegal and try to determine which are fair and activate them that way.

*EDIT: gah, what Jack said >__>

 

[RDK]

EDIT: Oh, real mature, RDK. Real mature. <_< >_> <_<

...*runs away to cry moar*

My eyes can only take so much abuse.

I'll respond to your lime green abortion when I get home.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Trying to ban or limit the abusive properties of MK's moveset and traits is the logical equivalent of trying to ban ST Akuma's Air Fireball, instead of just banning Akuma.

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

Why do people seem to think MK is the only character who can plank?

 

[.AC.]

Why do people seem to think MK is the only character who can plank?

because they need another excuse.

ps:lucario is broken

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

AC, shhhhh. That's a secret.

 

[DMG]

MK is the only character IMO that you can reasonably argue breaks the game with planking. Pit and G&W, while still being good at it, certainly do not break the game with it. If these characters were truly that good at it, they would be frequently mentioned or thought of as the second and third best characters.

As it stands, either of those characters would be lucky to be top 8, let alone top 5. You would think that if they were able to plank and do it THAT good, that they would be higher up on the list. Most mains of either of those characters do not feel that with planking, their characters are top 5 or higher because of it. If the characters can't breach top 8, there's a really good chance they aren't able to exploit it to the point where it would warrant a top spot. If you can't take a top spot with it, chances are it's not broken (for them at least).

 

[Jack Kieser]

My eyes can only take so much abuse.

I'll respond to your lime green abortion when I get home.

You don't have to make up reasons not to post if you can't respond, you know.

...woah, I thought I was RDK for a second there.

 

[adumbrodeus]

This is worded strangely...

Items on is the default setting. Itemless brawl is what we resort to once we've proven that the default is indeed banworthy. I'm not going to go through every single item, but let's assume that each one was proven banworthy under RDKs criteria BESIDES food on low. Food on low CANNOT be banned according to that criteria, therefore it stays in the game.

If we don't go by the games default settings, we may as well start every character off as illegal and try to determine which are fair and activate them that way.

*EDIT: gah, what Jack said >__>

As far as characters go, no, because you select them and selection is part of the gameplay.


That said, the tournament standard does determine where "gameplay" starts, in Jack's format banning items needs heavy justification (he allows item counterpicking) but having them on default doesn't.


In the same way, removal from neutral requires little justification but removal from counterpick requires heavy.


Rest is responded to below.

Ok, that's BS. If we're really starting from scratch and applying a standardized banning criteria, only banning things when absolutely necessary, then why would we ban food on low? First, we'd ban all items on high, then medium, then move to low and start banning items one by one until reaching food on low.

Tournament standardization is a BS cop-out. Food on low is not "banning itemless Brawl" because "itemless Brawl" is not a default setting; if we were doing it right, itemless Brawl would have never even existed because we would have realized we didn't need to go that far.

EDIT: Oh, real mature, RDK. Real mature. <_< >_> <_<

...*runs away to cry moar*

Not at all.


For a competitive community to develop there needs to be a standard, and every setting you pick is basically equivalent to banning every other one. I'm sorry, but brawl without items is as much content as Brawl with items.


Unless of course we should have the mutally exclusive options all on at the same time too, have fun with high gravity low gravity brawl then...


Anyway, I'll direct you to a nice post on the topic in Sirlin's forum that tackles this topic nicely.


http://forums.sirlin.net/showthread.php?t=2192

 

[Col. Stauffenberg]

MK is the only character IMO that you can reasonably argue breaks the game with planking. Pit and G&W, while still being good at it, certainly do not break the game with it. If these characters were truly that good at it, they would be frequently mentioned or thought of as the second and third best characters.

As it stands, either of those characters would be lucky to be top 8, let alone top 5. You would think that if they were able to plank and do it THAT good, that they would be higher up on the list. Most mains of either of those characters do not feel that with planking, their characters are top 5 or higher because of it. If the characters can't breach top 8, there's a really good chance they aren't able to exploit it to the point where it would warrant a top spot. If you can't take a top spot with it, chances are it's not broken (for them at least).

To be fair, I don't think many of them have actually been willing to try it.

And they can't really with how hard most TOs would smack them down for it.

 

[DMG]

Which is where a big problem lies:

With planking banned/limited at a lot of places, it's hard to collect tournament evidence for characters like that who obviously are good with the tactic, but it's somewhat unclear how they would do. I'd rather some people get upset and know for sure whether it's really good or not than for us to not have that much evidence for them.

Although from what I see in tournament and from what my instincts tell me, they can do it well but not like the level MK can take it. More results and matches with planking allowed however would prove at least somebody right.

 

[Remzi]

Trying to ban or limit the abusive properties of MK's moveset and traits is the logical equivalent of trying to ban ST Akuma's Air Fireball, instead of just banning Akuma.

Agreed. At least to an extent. Like I understand wanting to ban IDC while meanwhile keeping MK in the game, but once we have to start enforcing ledge grab limits, rules against scrooging, and possibly air planking even, it should set off a red flag...

Why do people seem to think MK is the only character who can plank?

Because he is the only character that can legitimately plank. Pit's "planking" is highly overrated and in reality is unsafe against most characters. G&W you can make an argument for, but then again it's never been a problem with him so I'm sure it isn't too effective. I personally have never had to deal with it so I don't know what options you have against it firsthand.

You don't have to make up reasons not to post if you can't respond, you know.


...woah, I thought I was RDK for a second there.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Not at all.

For a competitive community to develop there needs to be a standard, and every setting you pick is basically equivalent to banning every other one. I'm sorry, but brawl without items is as much content as Brawl with items.

"Besically equivalent" =/= "equivalent". I'm sorry, but here in the real world, 49 - 1 =/= 49. (The number of items in Brawl, btw). When you take things out, there is inherently less content.

Unless of course we should have the mutally exclusive options all on at the same time too, have fun with high gravity low gravity brawl then...

Um, no? Because the anti-ban argument has always been "we start with the default options and only change or ban when it is absolutely necessary / follows these certain criteria".

That's. Not. True. We don't add things that aren't default options unless we have to, and even then, we only add as little as possible. The default is "2-minute Brawl", but not only is that not long enough, but a pure timer breaks the game because of stalling, so we add stocks and some time. We could have added coins, but they weren't next on the list in the options.

Now you're just using extremist arguments that aren't even remotely realistic.

Anyway, I'll direct you to a nice post on the topic in Sirlin's forum that tackles this topic nicely.

http://forums.sirlin.net/showthread.php?t=2192

I'll try to read when I get a chance.

 

[Rx-]

all characters in brawl should be banned except for one

that's the only way to balance game.

 

[Remzi]

As far as characters go, no, because you select them and selection is part of the gameplay.


That said, the tournament standard does determine where "gameplay" starts, in Jack's format banning items needs heavy justification (he allows item counterpicking) but having them on default doesn't.


In the same way, removal from neutral requires little justification but removal from counterpick requires heavy.


Rest is responded to below.



Not at all.


For a competitive community to develop there needs to be a standard, and every setting you pick is basically equivalent to banning every other one. I'm sorry, but brawl without items is as much content as Brawl with items.


Unless of course we should have the mutally exclusive options all on at the same time too, have fun with high gravity low gravity brawl then...


Anyway, I'll direct you to a nice post on the topic in Sirlin's forum that tackles this topic nicely.


http://forums.sirlin.net/showthread.php?t=2192

The default settings should always be the original standard. In melee, items were ON to begin with, and were turned off after heavy debate and analysis. It is accurate to say that items in melee fell under the criteria that RDK posted (if not for exploding crates, melee could very possibly have had food and other items on low throughout it's competitive scence) and were banned accordingly. In Brawl, items were immediately BANNED, the standard was that items were going to be ON, and the SBR's first ruleset banned them. At the very least, food on low is not banned according to RDK's criteria, and should still be allowed in tournament.

RDK's criteria however, is NOT what has been used in the past, and who says we should start now?

 

[adumbrodeus]

"Besically equivalent" =/= "equivalent". I'm sorry, but here in the real world, 49 - 1 =/= 49. (The number of items in Brawl, btw). When you take things out, there is inherently less content.

No, Brawl without items is fundamentally in all senses of the word, a different game, there are different strategies, different rewards.


No, it's different content, period.

Um, no? Because the anti-ban argument has always been "we start with the default options and only change or ban when it is absolutely necessary / follows these certain criteria".

That's. Not. True. We don't add things that aren't default options unless we have to, and even then, we only add as little as possible. The default is "2-minute Brawl", but not only is that not long enough, but a pure timer breaks the game because of stalling, so we add stocks and some time. We could have added coins, but they weren't next on the list in the options.

Now you're just using extremist arguments that aren't even remotely realistic.

No. We leave alone when it detracts from player choice in-game.


When the "game" begins is defined by the standard, and yes, we could standardize the game around random characters in random stages, or battlefield only, or whatever.


But our standard says pick character and pick a stage, so therefore we're left with the implications of this, in other words, high standards for banning in those areas.

The default settings should always be the original standard. In melee, items were ON to begin with, and were turned off after heavy debate and analysis. It is accurate to say that items in melee fell under the criteria that RDK posted (if not for exploding crates, melee could very possibly have had food and other items on low throughout it's competitive scence) and were banned accordingly. In Brawl, items were immediately BANNED, the standard was that items were going to be ON, and the SBR's first ruleset banned them. At the very least, food on low is not banned according to RDK's criteria, and should still be allowed in tournament.

RDK's criteria however, is NOT what has been used in the past, and who says we should start now?

Why? Chooses a different one is prior to player options, which is what high standards for ban is engineered to protect. That's why the distinction has been drawn.


Neutral guard on?

 

[DanGR]

Objective Criteria.​

Criteria

criterion |krīˈti(ə)rēən|
noun ( pl. -teria |-ˈti(ə)rēə|)
a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided : the launch came too close to violating safety criteria.

Objective

objective |əbˈjektiv|
adjective
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts : historians try to be objective and impartial.
• not dependent on the mind for existence; actual : a matter of objective fact.

-----------------------------------------

Do you guys see the problem here?

Criteria: a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

My point?

It is the nature of criteria to be subjective, so stop asking for objective criteria. You're not getting it.

 

[Espy Rose]

I've been reading this thread since it's started.

I DO have trouble putting my thoughts on the matter down, so I'll try to just bare-bones it.
I WILL, however, say that those arguing for the pro-ban side are making a more convincing argument than the anti-ban side.

Though I'm sure it's only because RDK's personal criteria is just absurd, and several people are pointing it out, while he continues to argue that it's the right way to go.

I agree with most people in here though, that a criteria for the issue needs to be created (I'm also pretty upset upon realizing, through DMG's posts, that there was never a criteria for banning in Brawl). Else this issue is just going to continue popping up.

I feel as though Meta Knight is slowly eating away at this game, and upon reading the topic concerning Brawl's similarities to the decline of the Tekken 4 community, I feel like I have a good reason to be concerned with Brawl's future if Meta Knight continues to be allowed under the circumstances that he's currently in (restriction tactics that he excels at in order to level the playing field).

In any case, yeah, that's all I have to say. You may now kick my *** with your fancy-pants wording since my views are so [insert adjective here].

 

[Jack Kieser]

No, Brawl without items is fundamentally in all senses of the word, a different game, there are different strategies, different rewards.


No, it's different content, period.

Again, no. It's less content, which creates a different metagame. The particulars to Brawl don't change with any one thing on over any other: the controls are the same, the characters are the same, the objective remains the same. What we do with that is the metagame. "Metagame" is not the same as "content", and you said that banning stuff leaves behind the same content. Not true.

No. We leave alone when it detracts from player choice in-game.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. Could you clarify, please?

When the "game" begins is defined by the standard, and yes, we could standardize the game around random characters in random stages, or battlefield only, or whatever.

But our standard says pick character and pick a stage, so therefore we're left with the implications of this, in other words, high standards for banning in those areas.

First of all, the "game" begins when Brawl is finished loading the stage. Again, anything before that is the realm of metagame. Either way, our current standard says that, sure. But, the question is why? As you said, we can make the standard anything we want it to be. This isn't really even that legit of an argument; all you're saying is that we have high standards for the things that matter most to us... which is a no brainer. Well done.

Why? Chooses a different one is prior to player options, which is what high standards for ban is engineered to protect. That's why the distinction has been drawn.

Again, could you clarify this statement, please? I must be missing something.

Also, many <3's to DanGR for the definitions. You've got to love the English language, huh? <_<'

 

[stingers]

I was trying to get people to rethink the ruleset in this thread http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=262110

items are the big one tbqh

 

[Jack Kieser]

I was trying to get people to rethink the ruleset in this thread http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=262110

items are the big one tbqh

I would attend items tournaments.

I think AZ is a pretty smart guy and knows the game well; screw what I say, if he says they might work, I'd believe him.

That being said, yeah, the rules could use a little work... but a MK ban would make that less of a necessity.

 

[stingers]

i think items would at least partially help people deal with planking of all forms which is the main reason MK needs to be banned, MK can just be a solid top tier that isn't truly broken if characters have ways to combat his stalling methods

 

[solecalibur]

i think items would at least partially help people deal with planking of all forms which is the main reason MK needs to be banned, MK can just be a solid top tier that isn't truly broken if characters have ways to combat his stalling methods

Guess I'm stealing what SMF is saying but why do we need to create rules to make metaknight fair and completely change the way the game is played

 

[adumbrodeus]

Again, no. It's less content, which creates a different metagame. The particulars to Brawl don't change with any one thing on over any other: the controls are the same, the characters are the same, the objective remains the same. What we do with that is the metagame. "Metagame" is not the same as "content", and you said that banning stuff leaves behind the same content. Not true.

Different metagame = different content, if it plays fundamentally differently then it IS different.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. Could you clarify, please?

Items (by which I mean attributes of the game, such as handicap, gravity level, whether neutral guard is on or off, random stage selection, or whatever other options the game has) that are removed before the player has the ability to do or choose anything is a matter of standardization.

First of all, the "game" begins when Brawl is finished loading the stage. Again, anything before that is the realm of metagame. Either way, our current standard says that, sure. But, the question is why? As you said, we can make the standard anything we want it to be. This isn't really even that legit of an argument; all you're saying is that we have high standards for the things that matter most to us... which is a no brainer. Well done.

No, it doesn't. Character picking, counterpicking, and stage-striking are all as much parts of the game as playing it, and they effect the outcome in clear measurable ways. This is ESPECIALLY true of double-blind picks.

Again, could you clarify this statement, please? I must be missing something.

Having items on or off doesn't force the player to ignore an option that they would not otherwise have.

A player having an option (picking a character, infiniting an opponent, etc) but BEING FORCED not to do it because of the ruleset, that's when it becomes a ban.

If it never touches the player it's a matter of tournament standardization. And again, our ruleset forces us to be concerned about counterpicks (but not neutrals) and characters, just like yours forces you to be concerned about items for counterpicks, though the neutrals are a standardization issue.

 

[HeroMystic]

Regardless of this discussion or not, something needs to be done, because the way it is now just isn't working.

Criteria-wise, it's just too late for an objective criteria, it'd literally be the same as getting MK banned or not banned. What my gut feeling is telling me right now is that in order to gain criteria, we need to discuss in exact detail of how Metaknight is a bannable character, then work from there.

 

[Lareit]

Guess I'm stealing what SMF is saying but why do we need to create rules to make metaknight fair and completely change the way the game is played

Or instead of constantly having to find ways to make a certain unfair chr less so.....we could just ban him and save alot of time, effort and necessary moderation.

I don't see why removing 1 chr suddenly makes the game bad? It's not like people are raging over the fact Ganon, Falcon, Link,Samus never are in the brackets.

I actually think we should adopt character striking. That would enchance the meta game more then adding in anti planking rules.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Or instead of constantly having to find ways to make a certain unfair chr less so.....we could just ban him and save alot of time, effort and necessary moderation.

I don't see why removing 1 chr suddenly makes the game bad? It's not like people are raging over the fact Ganon, Falcon, Link,Samus never are in the brackets.

I actually think we should adopt character striking. That would enchance the meta game more then adding in anti planking rules.

I am.

:<.

 

[Sosuke]

I think it's been started a few times in this thread that Brawl tournaments have been getting larger and larger.

Where is this data coming from, exactly?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I think it's been started a few times in this thread that Brawl tournaments have been getting larger and larger.

Where is this data coming from, exactly?

Easy, they make it up.

 

[stingers]

Unbanning items isn't creating a rule to keep MK in place.

Game Settings =/= Bans

 

[Jack Kieser]

Different metagame = different content, if it plays fundamentally differently then it IS different.

"Content" is what is on the disc. "Content" would be stages, characters, textures, music, anything that is distributed to us by Nintendo (or, I guess, things we hack in ourselves, thanks to the Workshop). What you're trying to argue is NOT content. Our ruleset is not "content". It didn't come with each copy of Brawl and was not distributed by Nintendo. As one debater to another, read a dictionary; you're trying to argue a point using the wrong words, and it's not making you look very smart.

Items (by which I mean attributes of the game, such as handicap, gravity level, whether neutral guard is on or off, random stage selection, or whatever other options the game has) that are removed before the player has the ability to do or choose anything is a matter of standardization.

I think I see what you're trying to say here, but I really don't see how that has anything to do with the debate at hand. Remember, we're trying to figure out if MK is banworthy in this thread; the only reason we're talking about rulesets are because of RDK's "criteria" argument. The fact that we have to "standardize" isn't really even a given, not 100%; are you willing to say that any of Xyro's tournaments aren't "real Brawl tournaments" because they don't follow the SBR's rules 100%?

No, it doesn't. Character picking, counterpicking, and stage-striking are all as much parts of the game as playing it, and they effect the outcome in clear measurable ways. This is ESPECIALLY true of double-blind picks.

No, they aren't! We made CP'ing up! Nowhere in the Brawl manual does it say anything about counterpicks. Since when can we make sh*t up and call it a "feature" of the game? They are a part of our made-up way to play the game. The self-importance here is staggering; I think we all need to remember that we're forcing a party game to be competitive and be a little humble.

Having items on or off doesn't force the player to ignore an option that they would not otherwise have.

A player having an option (picking a character, infiniting an opponent, etc) but BEING FORCED not to do it because of the ruleset, that's when it becomes a ban.

If it never touches the player it's a matter of tournament standardization. And again, our ruleset forces us to be concerned about counterpicks (but not neutrals) and characters, just like yours forces you to be concerned about items for counterpicks, though the neutrals are a standardization issue.

There are countless times in (and out) of matches that people are forced to ignore options that they would have otherwise had. Are you really going to DB-pick DK? Are you going to decide to use Fox's lasers when MK is in your face? Is Snake going to DACUS when Diddy puts a Banana in his path?

Of course not.

Situations will always change regardless of our ruleset, and players will have options taken away from them forcibly by sheer circumstance. That's life. I don't even know what you're trying to argue here...



That being said, I'll be back in about an hour; I'm leaving work (where I was goofing off on SWF) to go home (and do work). Don't ask me to make sense of that, because I can't make it make sense to me, either.

 

[Espy Rose]

I think it's been started a few times in this thread that Brawl tournaments have been getting larger and larger.

Where is this data coming from, exactly?

Strange. I've noticed a DECLINE in tournament attendance here in Texas.

 

[Sosuke]

I've noticed a lot of people quitting, which is why I ask.

 

[stingers]

Yeah, Brawl tournies in NC are seeing a decline as well. :/

 

[•Col•]

I agree with most people in here though, that a criteria for the issue needs to be created (I'm also pretty upset upon realizing, through DMG's posts, that there was never a criteria for banning in Brawl). Else this issue is just going to continue popping up.

Even though I don't have much to say, I also was pretty upset when I read that the SBR never came up with a criteria for banning a character when deciding to ban MK or not.

I kind of fell like the anti-ban side is afraid to agree upon a criteria for banning MK. Mostly because, once those criteria have been reached Metaknight will HAVE to be banned, and they wouldn't have any way to argue about it since they've already agreed to the criteria. Meanwhile, the pro-ban side(or at least a large portion of it) already feels like there's either a slim or no chance at all that Metaknight will be banned anyway. At least with a set criteria, we can have something to actually look for... Instead of having the pro-ban side will come back after every major tournament, where Metaknight has once again become even more dominant, and ask "Is this enough to ban him yet?" only for the anti-ban side to respond with a resounding "NO."

Plus, at least then all this stupid arguing would stop... Well, besides the arguing that would take place to agree upon a set criteria... But at least then it'd be more productive.

And just so everyone knows... I'm not trying to start an argument with anything I've said in this post. I really just am tired of all this stupid bickering back and forth. If we had a criteria, I'd at feel like at least then we could have something we could all (or at least most) agree upon.

But like some people have said.... It might even be too late to make a criteria now. -_-

 

[Ripple]

as are tournies in IL

 

[Lareit]

Yeah, Brawl tournies in NC are seeing a decline as well. :/

SC is more dead then it has ever been.