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

[Hylian]

In case you missed it Hylian, reposting:



@Last post:

That covers the stages...what about the items/characters? Or, and I in the wrong for asking for that information?

I don't know where the items discussions are, there are several topics about them. For the most part the community would never accept that because it's practically a different game. This was the path the community chose, not the SBR. Same with stages.

And we had discussion about EVERY CHARACTER IN THE GAME and POSTED THEM IN ALL OF THE CHARACTER FORUMS and had them STICKIED FOR MONTHS. Not only that but we posted both anti-bans and pro-bans arguements for the mk debate.

What more can we do? We tell you guys a lot some people just refuse to look.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The first part was proven wrong through hacking, there are definitely spawn points on the stage.

I believe you misunderstood, what I meant (and I'm pretty sure what Hylian meant since I remember him posting something referring to it) is that there are specific spawn points which are "randomly" chosen by the game engine.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Does there really need to be a criteria for items? They appear in (somewhat) random places and give advantage to random people!

(And please don't respond to this mentioning character moves that have a randomness factor; that's something to consider when using the character or playing against them.)

 

[AvaricePanda]

tl;dr:

You're all asking questions that have been asked and answered multiple times before in other MK ban threads. They aren't hard to find. Nobody, aside from maybe the T4 comparison, has brought up anything new to this ban argument on either side. What's the point of refueling a debate that's already over when you have nothing new to say?

 

[Jack Kieser]

The first part was proven wrong through hacking, there are definitely spawn points on the stage.

There is no such thing are true "random", but the spawn points are chosen in a "weighted random" manner, emphasizing center stage and losing player in that order.

And spawn items are "randomly" chosen.

Sorry for the double post if that happens, but I need to set the record straight here. The game DOES NOT weigh item spawns by how much a player is losing by or position on the stage; there is absolutely no evidence of that in the code. The way the game calculates spawn position is that each stage has predetermined square areas that items can spawn in; the game chooses one of the square areas, then chooses a random point within the area. As for time, IIRC, items will spawn roughly every 30-45 seconds on low.

Items chosen are indeed totally random.

 

[Hylian]

tl;dr:

You're all asking questions that have been asked and answered multiple times before in other MK ban threads. They aren't hard to find. Nobody, aside from maybe the T4 comparison, has brought up anything new to this ban argument on either side. What's the point of refueling a debate that's already over when you have nothing new to say?

Thank you.

Everything in this discussion is redundant. People just need to read the old threads.

 

[HeroMystic]

@Hylian: Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I also remember the SBR MK ban discussion, and the Podcast for that matter. It was pretty divided, kinda heated too.

So how exactly did this go from Criteria talk to looking at SBR information? I believe OS said himself there was no Character ban criteria.

 

[Espy Rose]

I don't know where the items discussions are, there are several topics about them. For the most part the community would never accept that because it's practically a different game. This was the path the community chose, not the SBR. Same with stages.

And we had discussion about EVERY CHARACTER IN THE GAME and POSTED THEM IN ALL OF THE CHARACTER FORUMS and had them STICKIED FOR MONTHS. Not only that but we posted both anti-bans and pro-bans arguements for the mk debate.

What more can we do? We tell you guys a lot some people just refuse to look.

*Remembers the terrible Sonic SBR Discussion*

.....*shudders*

I'm onto you shadowy folk...

==========

Well, in any case, it's still a shame that things have gone so awry. Still enough reason for me to be upset.

I think I'll blame Meta Knight, because **** him for making all of this nonsense happen.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Actually I just said something new (to this thread) which is that character randomness moves are different from item randomness.

 

[MarKO X]

tl;dr:

You're all asking questions that have been asked and answered multiple times before in other MK ban threads. They aren't hard to find. Nobody, aside from maybe the T4 comparison, has brought up anything new to this ban argument on either side. What's the point of refueling a debate that's already over when you have nothing new to say?

what was the point of the civil rights movement if every time they rallied, they had nothing new to say?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Let me put it this way: I challenge someone in here who is pro-ban to VM/PM me, and we'll debate this one on one so we both see each other's points clearly.

 

[Espy Rose]

Let me put it this way: I challenge someone in here who is pro-ban to VM/PM me, and we'll debate this one on one so we both see each other's points clearly.

I'm terrible when it comes to convincing people about stuff, so...

NOT IT.

 

[stingers]

I believe you misunderstood, what I meant (and I'm pretty sure what Hylian meant since I remember him posting something referring to it) is that there are specific spawn points which are "randomly" chosen by the game engine.

Oh, yeah, sorry adam, that's right. I don't see the problem with that however, through practice and research you can know (roughly) where items will spawn, even if you don't know what they will be or when it will happen (though you should have a rough idea of that too). I don't think that's actually something to be concerned about, random events have decided Brawls since day 1. Trying to minimalize the random events as best as you can is all fine and dandy, but we clearly allow some random events (such as Delfino, which decides which course it will take through the stage randomly, Halberd, which decides background hazards randomly, Frigate, which switches randomly, PS1, which randomly selects a transformation, etc etc...not even going into all of the moves which have random effects.)

Why do we allow some random events in our game but not others? Is there a point of randomness that we're just trying not to cross? And if there is, where is it defined? I've never seen anyone try to quantify the amount of randomness that's acceptable in competitive Brawl. There's no reason to allow some random events but not others other than what boils down to personal bias. And if we're allowing personal bias to create the ruleset which decides the winners of thousands of dollars in huge, international tournaments, it sounds like the ruleset we use is an even bigger problem then any of us ever imagined.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Sorry for the double post if that happens, but I need to set the record straight here. The game DOES NOT weigh item spawns by how much a player is losing by or position on the stage; there is absolutely no evidence of that in the code. The way the game calculates spawn position is that each stage has predetermined square areas that items can spawn in; the game chooses one of the square areas, then chooses a random point within the area. As for time, IIRC, items will spawn roughly every 30-45 seconds on low.

Items chosen are indeed totally random.

I can search up the data, but I remember that there was a small but noticable advantage, but a large advantage for center stage (center stage was most likely a side effect however since most items will end up closer to you in a random spawn).


Wobbles did some pretty exhaustive testing on it.

Oh, yeah, sorry adam, that's right. I don't see the problem with that however, through practice and research you can know (roughly) where items will spawn, even if you don't know what they will be or when it will happen (though you should have a rough idea of that too). I don't think that's actually something to be concerned about, random events have decided Brawls since day 1. Trying to minimalize the random events as best as you can is all fine and dandy, but we clearly allow some random events (such as Delfino, which decides which course it will take through the stage randomly, Halberd, which decides background hazards randomly, Frigate, which switches randomly, PS1, which randomly selects a transformation, etc etc...not even going into all of the moves which have random effects.)

Why do we allow some random events in our game but not others? Is there a point of randomness that we're just trying not to cross? And if there is, where is it defined? I've never seen anyone try to quantify the amount of randomness that's acceptable in competitive Brawl. There's no reason to allow some random events but not others other than what boils down to personal bias. And if we're allowing personal bias to create the ruleset which decides the winners of thousands of dollars in huge, international tournaments, it sounds like the ruleset we use is an even bigger problem then any of us ever imagined.

Because it's impossible to remove all random events honestly, so we limit them.


Again, counter-pick stages are a ban issue, not standardization, so we limit them.


But at a certain point, the game has randomness, so the best we can do is limit it and try to provide enough tests that the better play comes out on top. That's why it's 2/3 and 3/5, not 1 match.

 

[AvaricePanda]

what was the point of the civil rights movement if every time they rallied, they had nothing new to say?

Bad comparison.

Here we've not only had four official polls, but we've also had multiple side threads about this issue. We've had clear debates from both sides, and the general consensus in each of the polls was that in a community vote, pro-ban won by a very slight margin.

You know that if you want MK banned you need 2/3rds or greater in the SBR vote (not sure about community). Either way, you'll have to persuade a lot more people, and the only way you'll be able to do that is if you bring a new argument to the table instead of saying what's been said a year ago.

We've been through this four times. I get sparking the debate again after the first time, maybe even the second. After that, you knew what the results were going to be, and unless you could provide substantial new evidence that MK is ban-worthy nothing new would happen.

So what's the point of bringing it up every couple of months? There is none. Both sides have said nothing new. Either stop being lazy and get new evidence or arguments, or stop being lazy and look at the four previous MK ban threads for your answers to your "ban criteria" or "items" or "match-ups" or whatever other aspects of MKs ban that have been asked 50 times already.

Either way, stop being lazy.

 

[Hylian]

I'm going to show you an example of one post in the sbr so you can see it's the same kind of discussion out here about mk etc. I'm going to censor out the names though as I haven't asked the people if I could copy their posts.

Everything under this is not me, it's two posters in the sbr:


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

People like * and * have claimed that the Metaknights in the brackets at Pound4 primarily suggests the popularity of the character, not any kind of unfair advantage he might impart, although most people recognize him as the best character in the game. Based on the stats I posted in the social thread, Metaknight is indeed popular. There were 14 of them (of some sort) in the top 48, which is 29% of bracket players. This is exactly the same as Fox in the Melee brackets. They are both great characters that are also popular.

"Not any kind of unfair advantage he might impart"

Not really sure what you're referring to, but I hope it's not about how MK is better than the rest of the cast. It's an obvious advantage over the rest of the cast. I hope you aren't suggesting that it's an unfair advantage to the rest of the cast that Metaknight, the best character in the game, is also the most popular and most used.

However, of the Metaknights in the brackets 64% of them made it into the top 12. Compare that to just 28% of Foxes in the Melee bracket. I can agree that Metaknight is popular, but why are his results so much better than the equally popular Fox? If he was just popular, we would expect to see a more even distribution of results, wouldn't we?

*, you're missing something very basic here. You cannot compare Fox and Metaknight solely off popularity. Fox is not the best character in the game in Melee. The Top 4 characters from Melee can be argued interchangeably between Fox, Marth, Sheik, and Falco and even if Fox was claimed to be the best it would not be as obvious as MK within the brawl scene.

The reason why Metaknight's results are better is because Metaknight is a clear powerhouse in the Brawl scene. Melee has a very balanced high tier range of characters.

Imagine that you are putting marbles of various colors into a bag and pulling them out, observing the order in which the colors were removed. There were more red marbles in the bag in the first place, so you are obviously going to expect to see more of them and you are definitely more likely to see one early than any other... but if on multiple passes of pulling marbles from the bag, you kept seeing red ones come out in a high concentration early in the pull order, you might think that there is more to it than just the number of red marbles in the bag, wouldn't you? You would have to start to assume that there was some quality to the red marbles that caused them to pull out on top.

Of course. The red marbles have the highest attraction rate to coming out on top. This is an interesting metaphor, but it does not take into consideration the other marbles and their effect or lack thereof of being pulled out of the bag in succession. I'd rather stay away from word play and stick to the nitty gritty, but I do understand the point you are making.

So I don't think you can reasonably say that the density of Metaknights that finished on top at P4 is just due to popularity. If its not that he imparts some kind of excessive advantage, then I need the people that don't want to vote to ban him to give me a better alternative explanation. The numbers suggest that there is a problem here. Every number we have for this game says so: Match-up charts, tournament results, weighted character rankings... all of it. Popularity doesn't answer this question.

Popularity is not the absolute answer, but it definitely plays a major role.

The best MK's from nearly every region of the US attended Pound. Havok, Judge, Mew2King, Shadow, Ksizzle, Seibrik. All of these MK's are top placers in their region as well. Metaknight is the claimed King of Brawl and statistics show that your chance of winning is highest if you choose Metaknight. Thus Metaknight will be in full attendance.

Interestingly enough, the numbers show that a Metaknight should have been the first marble to come from the bag, however, a Diddy emerged first. Followed by a Metaknight and then followed by a Snake. Despite Metaknight's popularity and overusage, the Top 3 players were completely diversified. It's actually scary to think how jumbled the results would be if ADHD and Ally had fellow Diddy's and Snakes that were close to or on par with their character just like Mew2King and the rest of his MK spawns.

Second, let's say that we can't discount that its really JUST ADHD and Ally that seem to be able to top elite Metaknight players on a regular basis and we say that its more about the characters than the players exactly. Let's say that Snake really goes about even and Diddy goes even or might even be a soft counter to Metaknight. I'm not sure we can prove these these assumptions, but that seems to be the stance of the anti-ban side, so I'm going to roll with it for the sake of this argument.

Eh... okay, but I'm not sure if the anti-ban says that Snake is a soft counter. I consider it an even matchup. I guess I'll see where this assumption goes...

So based on these assumptions, if Metaknight is a strong enough character that only Diddy can reasonably be expected to beat him, but he wipes out elite players for just about all other characters... essentially making just 2-3 characters viable at a national event, is that a healthy competitive game? Are we going to be successful as a community, growing the tournament scene, sustaining local tournaments and making nationals a hyped up event worth attending, if the game boils down to Metaknight vs. Diddy? For that matter, if Diddy is a difficult character to learn and MK is an easy character to learn, pushing the density of players even further in favor of MK, does the game stay healthy in the long run? Do we have a tournament scene that is worth getting into for new players?

Hm.

*, the question you're asking comes from something rooted inside you. You are unhappy with a competitive video game that does not allow for many characters to be viable and all of them interchangeably having the ability to grab 1st place (see Melee).

So there is no right or wrong answer to your question. It becomes a matter of preference.

A healthy competitive game is a game that grows over time and attracts a large amount of people, in my opinion. Your opinion may be different. However, I think it is important to allow the game to grow on its own instead of attempting to dictate how results "should" look.

The evidence of this can be seen from many competitive games. You'll find 3rd Strike results lined up with all Chun Li's or all Jun's. MvC2, perhaps one of the most popular and successful fighting games in America, has about 50+ characters but a clear team of 3 people was the most common to be seen during Championships. And here are Street Fighter 4's current rankings:

09/01/2010 (new update on 2 weeks)
Currently Arcade Machines' Ranking of Japan

01 Mago (Sa) 545.923
02 Daigo (Ry) 355.414
03 Ojisan Boy (Sa) 351.024
04 RF (Sa) 290.602
05 Tokido (Go) 198.879
06 Momochi (Go) 187.810
07 Radiowave (Sa) 187.273
08 Uryo (Vi) 184.301
09 Shiro (Ab) 182.672
10 Rikuson (Sa) 170.263
11 Kindevu (Ru) 163.099
12 Eita (Go) 159.701
13 Hamaa (Sa) 140.107
14 Akua (Sa) 139.329
15 Oaru (Sa) 134.608

Sagat totally dominates the tier list and the rankings list, but the winner of SBO (Super Battle Opera) was a team consisting of a Viper and a Rufus. The most important aspect to realize is that the game brought out hundreds of players for competition. Despite Sagat's overwhelming power the game is still very healthy and competitive.

I do truly feel that the Brawl scene is and will continue to grow. With ADHD taking 1st place, there will be countless players sitting home watching ADHD videos trying to learn how to beat the MK army with their newfound hero. Can they do it? Who knows? The important thing is that the game is still showing results that show room for improvement, chances, and possibilities. Some people suggest that the overwhelming amount of MK's "stagnate" the metagame, but I simply see it as a the same large and common barrier that players have to cross: the high tier, Hi-Im-The-Best-Character-in-The-Game-Oh-my, barrier.

The result is ADHD's Diddy, Ally's Snake, DEFH's Falco, Riddle's ZZS (who just placed 1st placed in the Florida region tournament with Seibrik's MK), Logic's Olimar. The only difference between these guys and the MK players is that they don't have an army behind them like Metaknight does.

Actually, one more point. Imagine the state of the game without Metaknight. What does it look like? Is it more diverse? Is it more interesting? Is it a healthier competitive environment? Are we more likely to grow the community with this Metaknightless tournament system? What are the results?

Again, your question's answer can changed according to the eye of the beholder. We could argue 'till our heads spin if a Metaknight-less tournament system would be successful or not, but we couldn't prove it until that system was put into place. The main issue is before considering implementing a new system, can we really find that our current system is faulty enough that it requires a replacement? In my own opinion I do not think so.


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

 

[stingers]

Again, counter-pick stages are a ban issue, not standardization, so we limit them.

What do you mean by this?

 

[SuperScizor]

yea i'm having a lot of trouble believing you as well......any chance you could get a vid up?

Unfortunately no, I didn't save a replay. It was pretty easy, and on a scale of 1-10 of how good I am at Brawl, I'd say I'm about a 7.

 

[-Mars-]

Unfortunately no, I didn't save a replay. It was pretty easy, and on a scale of 1-10 of how good I am at Brawl, I'd say I'm about a 7.

So in your opinion MK shouldn't be banned?

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Just wait 4 the system to worsen, if it's that hard to see.

 

[•Col•]

Wait, so is Hylian saying that they actually did set up a criteria for whether or not a character should be banned?

 

[Luxor]

tl;dr:

You're all asking questions that have been asked and answered multiple times before in other MK ban threads. They aren't hard to find. Nobody, aside from maybe the T4 comparison, has brought up anything new to this ban argument on either side. What's the point of refueling a debate that's already over when you have nothing new to say?

Quoted for truth.

Oh, yeah, sorry adam, that's right. I don't see the problem with that however, through practice and research you can know (roughly) where items will spawn, even if you don't know what they will be or when it will happen (though you should have a rough idea of that too). I don't think that's actually something to be concerned about, random events have decided Brawls since day 1. Trying to minimalize the random events as best as you can is all fine and dandy, but we clearly allow some random events (such as Delfino, which decides which course it will take through the stage randomly, Halberd, which decides background hazards randomly, Frigate, which switches randomly, PS1, which randomly selects a transformation, etc etc...not even going into all of the moves which have random effects.)

Why do we allow some random events in our game but not others? Is there a point of randomness that we're just trying not to cross? And if there is, where is it defined? I've never seen anyone try to quantify the amount of randomness that's acceptable in competitive Brawl. There's no reason to allow some random events but not others other than what boils down to personal bias. And if we're allowing personal bias to create the ruleset which decides the winners of thousands of dollars in huge, international tournaments, it sounds like the ruleset we use is an even bigger problem then any of us ever imagined.

Quoted for even more truth. One of the problems with Brawl was that everyone came into it with Melee expectations. The biggest problem now, though, is that we have no objective criteria for bans whatsoever. Other communities do. Until the SBR creates a standardized, rational definition for what makes a character/stage/practice broken, we'll never get anywhere. If we had such guidelines, we would have not only an improved stage list not simply ripped from Melee but potentially some actual new discussion about MK. Apparently in "item standard play" items are evaluated for "brokenness" by the comparison of risk to reward; I would definitely like to see this applied to stage legality discussions and maybe even characters as well.

Because it's impossible to remove all random events honestly, so we limit them.


Again, counter-pick stages are a ban issue, not standardization, so we limit them.


But at a certain point, the game has randomness, so the best we can do is limit it and try to provide enough tests that the better play comes out on top. That's why it's 2/3 and 3/5, not 1 match.

Luck, that classic issue of competitive games. How do you minimize its effects? On CP stages, I don't see luck as an issue- it has the potential for randomness that will almost certainly benefit whoever CP'ed it. That's a good thing, and as long as that little bit of luck doesn't break the matchup completely or instantly take away a stock, I'm fine with it.

This is the issue with items (along with the fact that the community at large doesn't want to change and start using them).

I'm kind of rambling off topic here, so I'll stop. This is a pretty defining quote for how the community mindset functions, though.

 

[Eddie G]

I think I'll blame Meta Knight, because **** him for making all of this nonsense happen.

I think there's a root beyond Metaknight for all of this.

I'm looking at YOU Sakurai! >.<;

 

[RDK]

....lol.


What do I need to shed light on? People were complaining that the sbr didn't ban enough when the game first came out because we tested the **** out of everything, including items, before banning them and saw them in tournaments.

People are just throwing around generalizations and assumptions when they really have no idea what they are talking about in regards to what went on in the sbr then.

This is what I've said since the beginning of the thread, and nobody listened to me because they were too busy complaining about my criteria.

Jack Kieser:

Yes. As of now, then entire metagame focuses around Metaknight; you choose your main based on how well they do against MK, spend the majority of your time training against MK, and still end up playing MK because he's simply the best choice.

The game is centralized around MK, not overcentralized. Do you have to choose him to stand a chance at winning? Does he shut down a majority of the cast?

Nobody disputes that he centralizes the game around himself. If MK didn't, another character did; there has to be a best character. That much should be obvious.

As if that's not enough, he also has planking/air camping, which is totally over-centralizing; it's very easy to argue that most of the cast (I could argue 1/2, and I'm sure someone with more experience, like Overswarm, could argue 2/3's without breaking a sweat) can't deal with it in any significant way, and the other people who can do it can't do it anywhere near as well or as effectively. Meanwhile, it's almost impossible to ban; any ledge grab limit we set will be, ultimately, a totally arbitrary number, and air camping is impossible to limit without judges.

Planking, as well as scrooging, falls under stalling and is handled however the individual TO's see fit.

MK is full of stall tactics that shut out most of the cast. This last one is so close to the second that it's not really a different criteria.

What else is there, besides IDC (which is already banned) and scrooging / planking?

Is he unable to be dealt with, or is he just really really good? Pro-ban needs to stop kidding themselves IMO.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Why do we allow some random events in our game but not others? Is there a point of randomness that we're just trying not to cross? And if there is, where is it defined? I've never seen anyone try to quantify the amount of randomness that's acceptable in competitive Brawl. There's no reason to allow some random events but not others other than what boils down to personal bias. And if we're allowing personal bias to create the ruleset which decides the winners of thousands of dollars in huge, international tournaments, it sounds like the ruleset we use is an even bigger problem then any of us ever imagined.

I don't think there's any need to specify any definitive "point" of randomness to cut off at. It's really more a matter of human judgment as to whether the randomness is detrimental enough to gameplay so as to warrant a ban.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What do you mean by this?

Something becomes a ban issue when a player is presented with a choice but the ruleset forces them to limit their options.


It's a "tournament standardization issue" when it's an invisable and the player is never forced to ignore options.


ex. if character selection was dictated to be random character on a random stage, that is a tournament standardization choice. If it's all characters except for a certain few are legal then it's a ban.


I really like this post on Sirlin's forum that talks about it actually.

 

[Orion*]

everything youve said.

you are at best... a complete idiot.

wtf is hating on the SBR at this point going to even do? NONE OF YOUR POSTS IN THIS ENTIRE THREAD HAVE ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING.
even if you get the sbr to change their current rule set to your magical land of banned metaknight and items ITS STILL UP TO THE TO's.

all youve done is create mad ridiculous, exaggerated responses.
if you actually want people to agree with you, your not going to get done here.
host a national.
get support from people, if you can make something large scale with a big enough pot. pros and players alike would go.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"what was the point of the civil rights movement if every time they rallied, they had nothing new to say? "

to whoever said that
if i was a mod, i would infract you for how unrelated, and offensive that was. you just made jacks way out comparisons look like childs play.

who are you to compare Generations of peoples lives, sacrificing, tears, blood, welfare and poverty to a ****ing video game character. tactless and sightless.

 

[BSP]

host a national.
get support from people, if you can make something large scale with a big enough pot. pros and players alike would go.

I think that's the problem with the proposed items. There haven't been any big events with them on. But, that could be our community's fault for being so against change.

 

[RDK]

Actually I just said something new (to this thread) which is that character randomness moves are different from item randomness.

It's been said multiple times; they like to trot out Luigi and Peach as if that is in any way relevant to item spawns.

 

[Hylian]

It's really true. If people want change then they need to stop just complaining and actually do something. Host a tournament. Talk to TO's. Go do SOMETHING. Trying to convince an entire community to see the light on smashboards is going to get you nowhere.

Everyone should read this post:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9396692&postcount=1056

 

[stingers]

It's really more a matter of human judgment as to whether the randomness is detrimental enough to gameplay so as to warrant a ban.

That's personal bias, which is what I said later on in that paragraph is the exact kind of thing we don't need. We need a definitive, clearly defined set of criteria that something has to break for it to be banned from competitive play, otherwise we're just playing a game that is molded by the whims of whoever creates the rules.

 

[BSP]

That's personal bias, which is what I said later on in that paragraph is the exact kind of thing we don't need. We need a definitive, clearly defined set of criteria that something has to break for it to be banned from competitive play, otherwise we're just playing a game that is molded by the whims of whoever creates the rules.

I think stingers is right abbout this. If we don't have a set ban criteria, it's really hard to define what's bannable and what isn't.

 

[Espy Rose]

It's really true. If people want change then they need to stop just complaining and actually do something. Host a tournament. Talk to TO's. Go do SOMETHING. Trying to convince an entire community to see the light on smashboards is going to get you nowhere.

Everyone should read this post:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9396692&postcount=1056

I think that trying to change anything now is nigh impossible.
Everyone's pretty much chosen which side of the fence they're on, and everyone's too stubborn to be persuaded either way (myself included).

It sucks.

 

[hotgarbage]

Bah, I made a stupid mistake in the graph in the previous post, here's the correct one:

 

[MarKO X]

I think stingers is right abbout this. If we don't have a set ban criteria, it's really hard to define what's bannable and what isn't.

the problem with this is that both sides are going to come up with criteria that leans towards or against a ban depending on their stance on the issue.

 

[RDK]

I think stingers is right abbout this. If we don't have a set ban criteria, it's really hard to define what's bannable and what isn't.

I'm not sure how many times we have to point out the fact that there was, is, and always has been a clear ban criteria.

Rigid criteria:

Does the tactic / character over-centralize?
Is the game completely centralized around one tactic or character to the point of absurdity? (The majority of the roster is usually where we draw the line here; in this case 2/3).

Is the tactic / character anti-competitive?
Is there excessive randomness, lag, or does it take away player control in an unreasonable way?

Does the tactic / character prevent competition?
Are there freeze glitches, invisible characters, stall tactics, are characters removed from the field, etc.?

This criteria is simple and all-encompassing. It ranges from characters, stages, etc. to items. Anything that should be banned falls under this criteria.

 

[Orion*]

I think that trying to change anything now is nigh impossible.
Everyone's pretty much chosen which side of the fence they're on, and everyone's too stubborn to be persuaded either way (myself included).

It sucks.

not true. i was originally pro ban and i mained mk at the time

now ive been using falco/mk/ics and have had good tourny results, and i changed to anti ban. both sides of this argument can be short sided, but i think people are just lazy when it comes to mk.

 

[stingers]

Any criteria created by a member of this community any time in the past 2 years aren't acceptable. I said this a few hours ago.

The only way to properly use a criteria for banning anything at this point in the game (ie. when we're all biased) is to 1. Find an outsider who knows absolutely nothing about Brawl in particular but is experienced in the fighting game genre to create criteria or 2. Find criteria created before the release of Brawl.

 

[BSP]

the problem with this is that both sides are going to come up with criteria that leans towards or against a ban depending on their stance on the issue.

True.

I'm not sure how many times we have to point out the fact that there was, is, and always has been a clear ban criteria.:

Oh. Well, didn't know. Where is this anyway?

 

[RDK]

Any criteria created by a member of this community any time in the past 2 years aren't acceptable. I said this a few hours ago.

Says who?

And why does it have to be someone outside of the Smash community? Pro-ban consistently complains about how we use other fighting games' criteria, but now you're asking for someone outside the Smash community to model our ban policies off of? Even so, you still lose, because a lot of what Sirlin wrote was adopted into Smash. Both Melee and Brawl. That was more than 2 years ago.