adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
*sits on fence*
Waiting for somebody to convince me.
Or we could derive from overarching principals and apply to smash...
-
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!
Why MK should NOT be banned (the opinion from someone who actually fights them)
- Thread starter ADHD
- Start date
- Status
Waiting for somebody to convince me.
GunmasterLombardi
Smash Champion
Luxor is right we need to redo our ruleset from scratch. I'm serious it's a mess.
#HBC | Red Ryu
Red Fox Warrior
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 27,486
- Location
- Milwaukee, Wisconsin
- NNID
- RedRyu_Smash
- 3DS FC
- 0344-9312-3352
While I have stayed anti-ban ever since this discussion started, I never did ignore something that the pro-ban did point out to me.
The game would be better without Metaknight, but is banning him giving more pro's than con's. I don't think it is worth it, it's not worth making people change just to help some characters out.
There are characters that do go even with MK, while some maybe questioned, Ice Climbers, Wario, Falco, it doesn't change the fact there are options to face MK. Even then, most of the time MK only has a 60-40 advantage, it's not unwinnable in the slightest, being at a disadvantage doesn't equal an instant lose.
I've said this quite a few times when this debate came up, but maybe someone will read this.
Dunno.
Strangely enough the tournament I go to has only increased in attendance, I guess since it's in IL and not in FPSfest WI.
The game would be better without Metaknight, but is banning him giving more pro's than con's. I don't think it is worth it, it's not worth making people change just to help some characters out.
There are characters that do go even with MK, while some maybe questioned, Ice Climbers, Wario, Falco, it doesn't change the fact there are options to face MK. Even then, most of the time MK only has a 60-40 advantage, it's not unwinnable in the slightest, being at a disadvantage doesn't equal an instant lose.
I've said this quite a few times when this debate came up, but maybe someone will read this.
Dunno.
Some tournaments also don't report to Ankoku's thread.Bah, I made a stupid mistake in the graph in the previous post, here's the correct one:
Strangely enough the tournament I go to has only increased in attendance, I guess since it's in IL and not in FPSfest WI.
HeroMystic
Legacy of the Mario
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,473
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- NNID
- HeroineYaoki
- 3DS FC
- 2191-8960-7738
Originally pro-ban, then switched to anti-ban; now I'm also on the fence, but at the same time I don't really care. One method is just one less MU to practice and master.
I do agree the ruleset needs fixing. Perhaps more so than this MK debate. Hell, changing the rules could affect the metagame at a drastic level, especially if items are allowed.
I do agree the ruleset needs fixing. Perhaps more so than this MK debate. Hell, changing the rules could affect the metagame at a drastic level, especially if items are allowed.
#HBC | Red Ryu
Red Fox Warrior
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 27,486
- Location
- Milwaukee, Wisconsin
- NNID
- RedRyu_Smash
- 3DS FC
- 0344-9312-3352
Many people dismiss items are scrubby casual play.
It's quite sad that this is the common mindset.
It's quite sad that this is the common mindset.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
Aren't you creating a criteria right now?
GunmasterLombardi
Smash Champion
Yoshi/Fox vs. MK is 60:40 correct? I need to see some1 use one or the other and beat a great MK like Dojo or m2k or else the matchups excuse doesn't mean anything 2 me, sry.
Yeah, 40:60 and 35:65 is winnable against MK but are ppl actually winning those matchups and are they doing it a lot for it to matter.
@Red Ryu about items: it's disgusting how items were cut that way.
stingers
Smash Obsessed
...I'm creating a criteria for creating a criteria, yeah. That doesn't have anything to do with the ruleset however.
What? It has everything to do with the ruleset. You're determining how the ruleset is made.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Wait... are competitive smashers talking about including ITEMS in standard play?
*Looks up to see if it's raining dogs and sheep are flying*
Nothing wrong with it, but if MK is really bad enough to make people consider items play...
*Looks up to see if it's raining dogs and sheep are flying*
Nothing wrong with it, but if MK is really bad enough to make people consider items play...
stingers
Smash Obsessed
I'm determining who should make the ruleset, how they go about it is up to them. This is all semantics anyway, you're just trying to get us to use your criteria by trying to invalidate my criteria for selecting criteria. **** that word, btw :3 =)
I've supported items for awhile now, ever since I moved past my whole Brawl = Melee phase it's only made more and more sense.
I've supported items for awhile now, ever since I moved past my whole Brawl = Melee phase it's only made more and more sense.
GunmasterLombardi
Smash Champion
W/ or w/o MK shooting down the Item Plane before is really took off was stupid. Items could definately help keep MK but that's just my opinion...
It's not so much that they're considering it, as much as, if we take the criteria RDK has given (and insisted on as being "THE criteria") us, then we should include food on low/a ton of other stages that aren't currently part of the ruleset. Basically, just people looking for a "better" criteria.
#HBC | Red Ryu
Red Fox Warrior
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 27,486
- Location
- Milwaukee, Wisconsin
- NNID
- RedRyu_Smash
- 3DS FC
- 0344-9312-3352
The only time I feel like people have a right to complain is when the MU is 30:70 or worse, half of Link's top tier MU's lol.
Being a person who has set-up items tournaments for a library I can say it's not nearly as crazy or unbalanced as people say it is. While from a competitive standpoint I agree they shouldn't be on, but a lot of people dismiss item play without actually trying it.
People are smart enough to ban the items that truly ruin it, Starman, bob-ombs, etc. While I do ban smashball at the tournaments I host, they aren't even as bad as people think they are.
Sonic, Wario, and the spacies are the only ones with WTF final smashes.
While I do think no item play is better competitively, item tournament play is not the scrubfest a lot of people think it is.
I don't quite understand how people think food on low still isn't randomly favoring one player over the other simply because the food happened to land closer to them than the other person on the stage.
This falls under the current criteria just fine.
HeroMystic
Legacy of the Mario
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,473
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- NNID
- HeroineYaoki
- 3DS FC
- 2191-8960-7738
Oh no, it's definitely being considered.
Personally, I'd find items interesting, but I have no real opinion on the matter. I'm just fighting for lifting stage bans.
GunmasterLombardi
Smash Champion
Smashballs actually are that bad 'cause it's so game breaking we end up w/ a new best broken character.
SuperScizor
Smash Cadet
Yeah, pretty much.
#HBC | Red Ryu
Red Fox Warrior
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 27,486
- Location
- Milwaukee, Wisconsin
- NNID
- RedRyu_Smash
- 3DS FC
- 0344-9312-3352
Oh Falco, lol.Smashballs actually are that bad 'cause it's so game breaking we end up w/ a new best broken character.
GunmasterLombardi
Smash Champion
The Smashball + how easily Falco can break one pretty much gives him a 60:40 advantage already over almost every character in the game. He doesn't have to worry 'bout killing 'cause he'll use his landmaster. It's bad enough he has camping and d-throw combos on you but now he has a ******* tank. If you're not careful you'll lose an extra stock right when you spawn back off the platform, not like you needed it right?
Because of this
has at least a 70:30 advantage over everyone in the game except ICs, Marth and probably Kirby. Boy I'm glad I picked this bird. C:Yes, it is randomly favoring, but it isn't excessive. It has very little effect on the outcome of the game. Unless one person is off the stage a ton (planking, scrooging, stalling in general) each player has a *near* equal chance of getting it. It in no way heavily (excessively) affects the outcome of the game. Besides, if one person were to go after the food a lot (again, we're talking like 4-5% every 30 seconds or something like that) their opponent has ample time to punish them for going after it, completely offsetting the reward for getting it in the first place.
Is it random? Yes. Is that the criteria? No. Is it excessively random? No.
IMO, the lava on Brinstar does far more to affect the outcome of a game then food on low would.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just posting my interpretation of it.
•Col•
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,450
I used to think any items at all would be stupid for competitive play, even though I never really minded playing matches with items on.
And yet I am still intrigued and interested in trying Food on low.
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
I'm against banning of any stage that doesn't merit it in a clear way with tournament evidence. I to this day would like to see tournament evidence for banning Onett and, to a much lesser extent, rumble falls.
Didn't Rumble Falls have something to do with it being a scrolling stage? Not sure about Onett though, that one boggles my mind.
TP
Smash Master
How much do you know about statistics and chance? It can be assumed over the course of a match that the placements will roughly balance out, thus not favoring either player. This of course stops being true when you look at exactly 1 placement at a time, where it clearly favors one person.
Kuraudo
4Aerith
To be honest, thinking back on it, I don't understand why Rumble Falls IS banned to begin with.
The speed up is hardly match-breaking in comparison to stages that invoke hazards that are also avoidable. To be honest, it kind of reminds me of Pokéfloats from Melee, just you gotta be quicker sometimes.
stingers
Smash Obsessed
In the interest of a more interesting meta game, I see two options. Namely, people can't be trusted not to stall the **** out of matches. Which is fine in that they're playing to win, but on the other hand, it's literally killing the metagame...and if we let it continue then Brawl will die in a year or two.
Just think about Pound 4, and all the stupid stalling **** that happened there. Atomsk/Lee vs. Ling Ling/Excel, M2K/Ally, Ksizl/Ally, etc...the way Brawl is going now is just plain uninteresting. None of us get excited over systematic, deliberate, and unbeatable stalling. If you say you do, you're a liar. I dare you to sit through an 8 minute match of nothing but watching M2K scrooge some ICs on Smashville and tell me that the match grabbed your attention the whole time.
Ban scrooging? Oh, well then he counterpicks FD next time and planks the ledge.
Ledge grab rules? Oh, he'll just go to back SV and platform camp him the whole time. He bans SV? Oh, he'll just pick one of his many other campable stages, like Rainbow Cruise, or Battlefield, or Brinstar, or Delfino or Halberd...there's no way to stop it. And let the metagame continue to evolve in the direction we are already watching it go towards and I can guarantee you that Brawl will be dead within a year, 2 at max.
If you don't see a problem, you sincerely lack foresight. There has been enough precedent set already that what I said cannot be called baseless conjecture. There have been too many times where the Brawl Community has said, "Oh, just let the metagame evolve and it'll all work out in the end." Anyone with this mindset is supporting the death of the game, because we all know now what an evolved metagame looks like. Barring some extremely convenient glitch being found that will rid us of these problems, we need to act now. Here are the two options I PERSONALLY (!!) see. If you have any other ideas, please share them. If one of your other ideas is to do nothing, then just don't say it, because it's not working.
* 1. Legalize items and keep MK
Why do I think that items are the solution to the problem? Take a look at Jack Kieser's Items Standard Play thread to look at what they currently consider legal items.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=164675
(Sandbag) (Food) (Warp Star) (Bunny Hood) (Beam Sword) (Lip’s Stick) (Star Rod) (Super Scope) (Fire Flower) (Motion Sensor Bomb) (Freezie) (Smoke Ball) (Pitfall) (Mr. Saturn) (Green Shell) (Banana Peel) (Franklin Badge) (Screw Attack)
With the following items available as Counterpick items (read the thread if you're confused about the idea of Counterpicking items):
(Assist Trophy) (Dragoon) (Metal Box) (Home-Run Bat) (Hammer) (Ray Gun) (Cracker Launcher) (Gooey Bomb) (Hothead) (Spring) (Unira)
Now, considering just the items on random. How could these items collectively change the metagame enough that MK's Planking isn't an issue? Instead of going through them one by one, just look at them enough to see how many of them can be used to SAFELY combat 1. A character on the ledge, 2. A character in the air, and 3. A character under the stage.
The only major problem there is #3, none of those items can effectively combat a character under the stage. Of course, through the beauty of Counterpick items, Hotheads (or Dragoons, maybe) become situational but effective anti-scrooging options. However, this all relies on random spawn, right? Of course, but you have to consider that merely by stalling in a manner that prevents you from reaching them, there's a 99% chance that they're also giving up the opportunity to grab an item before you. This actually gives decisive, fullproof ramifications to avoiding combat on or off the stage. And I'll leave it at that.
* 2. Ban MK and leave things the way they are
This has been debated to hell and back, and you all have an opinion on it. I'll just ask you to consider what you've already read in this post, and I'll remind you that MK is the only problem character that has ways of getting around the ledge grab rule. Pit and Charizard can both glide (making scrooging possible), but neither of them have safe recovery options outside of that, making it riskier (I'd argue that Pit's Up B isn't considered safe when you're dealing with being off the stage 100% of the time). Kirby and Jigglypuff are the only characters besides MK that can really air camp (Pit and Charizard both have 3, IIRC, which doesn't really give them enough airtime to safely camp the way MK can), however, they don't have the safety that MK has during the eventual retreat back down to earth that makes MK's air camping so dangerous.
Anyway, I hope that people read this and give a serious opinion on what I just said. I'm writing this purely in hopes of a better Brawl metagame, because nobody likes the one we're facing today. Thanks.
Just think about Pound 4, and all the stupid stalling **** that happened there. Atomsk/Lee vs. Ling Ling/Excel, M2K/Ally, Ksizl/Ally, etc...the way Brawl is going now is just plain uninteresting. None of us get excited over systematic, deliberate, and unbeatable stalling. If you say you do, you're a liar. I dare you to sit through an 8 minute match of nothing but watching M2K scrooge some ICs on Smashville and tell me that the match grabbed your attention the whole time.
Ban scrooging? Oh, well then he counterpicks FD next time and planks the ledge.
Ledge grab rules? Oh, he'll just go to back SV and platform camp him the whole time. He bans SV? Oh, he'll just pick one of his many other campable stages, like Rainbow Cruise, or Battlefield, or Brinstar, or Delfino or Halberd...there's no way to stop it. And let the metagame continue to evolve in the direction we are already watching it go towards and I can guarantee you that Brawl will be dead within a year, 2 at max.
If you don't see a problem, you sincerely lack foresight. There has been enough precedent set already that what I said cannot be called baseless conjecture. There have been too many times where the Brawl Community has said, "Oh, just let the metagame evolve and it'll all work out in the end." Anyone with this mindset is supporting the death of the game, because we all know now what an evolved metagame looks like. Barring some extremely convenient glitch being found that will rid us of these problems, we need to act now. Here are the two options I PERSONALLY (!!) see. If you have any other ideas, please share them. If one of your other ideas is to do nothing, then just don't say it, because it's not working.
* 1. Legalize items and keep MK
Why do I think that items are the solution to the problem? Take a look at Jack Kieser's Items Standard Play thread to look at what they currently consider legal items.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=164675
(Sandbag) (Food) (Warp Star) (Bunny Hood) (Beam Sword) (Lip’s Stick) (Star Rod) (Super Scope) (Fire Flower) (Motion Sensor Bomb) (Freezie) (Smoke Ball) (Pitfall) (Mr. Saturn) (Green Shell) (Banana Peel) (Franklin Badge) (Screw Attack)
With the following items available as Counterpick items (read the thread if you're confused about the idea of Counterpicking items):
(Assist Trophy) (Dragoon) (Metal Box) (Home-Run Bat) (Hammer) (Ray Gun) (Cracker Launcher) (Gooey Bomb) (Hothead) (Spring) (Unira)
Now, considering just the items on random. How could these items collectively change the metagame enough that MK's Planking isn't an issue? Instead of going through them one by one, just look at them enough to see how many of them can be used to SAFELY combat 1. A character on the ledge, 2. A character in the air, and 3. A character under the stage.
The only major problem there is #3, none of those items can effectively combat a character under the stage. Of course, through the beauty of Counterpick items, Hotheads (or Dragoons, maybe) become situational but effective anti-scrooging options. However, this all relies on random spawn, right? Of course, but you have to consider that merely by stalling in a manner that prevents you from reaching them, there's a 99% chance that they're also giving up the opportunity to grab an item before you. This actually gives decisive, fullproof ramifications to avoiding combat on or off the stage. And I'll leave it at that.
* 2. Ban MK and leave things the way they are
This has been debated to hell and back, and you all have an opinion on it. I'll just ask you to consider what you've already read in this post, and I'll remind you that MK is the only problem character that has ways of getting around the ledge grab rule. Pit and Charizard can both glide (making scrooging possible), but neither of them have safe recovery options outside of that, making it riskier (I'd argue that Pit's Up B isn't considered safe when you're dealing with being off the stage 100% of the time). Kirby and Jigglypuff are the only characters besides MK that can really air camp (Pit and Charizard both have 3, IIRC, which doesn't really give them enough airtime to safely camp the way MK can), however, they don't have the safety that MK has during the eventual retreat back down to earth that makes MK's air camping so dangerous.
Anyway, I hope that people read this and give a serious opinion on what I just said. I'm writing this purely in hopes of a better Brawl metagame, because nobody likes the one we're facing today. Thanks.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Same here...
Honestly, I hate the standard AN ruleset, the fact that I might be forced to cave in order to TO around here makes it even worse.
Planking, DDD's infinite, and stagelist, the only thing missing is an MK ban and will have followed every smashboards ban trend.
Because it's going to be more significant who can gather the most food over the course of the match -- and who is in position to get the food more often (ie, a skill based issue) is going to matter then.
A few % less damage once (Or even twice) is very unlikely to change the outcome. The full match worth of food is much more likely to add up -- or gathering all the food because your opponent is planking.
Tripping is more likely to throw the outcome of the match than one lucky food drop.
Do you? We've discussed this at length before; I'm assuming you're talking about the coin-flipping example? It would take much much more than a best of 3 match set for the placements to balance out. Even if they did happen to balance out in that short of a time, what's the point of having food set on low anyway?
#HBC | Red Ryu
Red Fox Warrior
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 27,486
- Location
- Milwaukee, Wisconsin
- NNID
- RedRyu_Smash
- 3DS FC
- 0344-9312-3352
Glad I play him as well.The Smashball + how easily Falco can break one pretty much gives him a 60:40 advantage already over almost every character in the game. He doesn't have to worry 'bout killing 'cause he'll use his landmaster. It's bad enough he has camping and d-throw combos on you but now he has a ******* tank. If you're not careful you'll lose an extra stock right when you spawn back off the platform, not like you needed it right?
Because of this
Rumble falls has walk off, Spike that can potentially kill at 0%, speed up scrolling that can deterier from fighting, and MK/Kirby's Upthrows kill at % stupid low.
TP
Smash Master
To be fair planking and the D3 infinite aren't officially banned, at least by the SBR. Individual TO's decide whether or not they personally allow them.
Exactly, and then it falls into the category of changing the game. It's a completely different game now, one that is alien to the original. I.E., overcentralizing.
Then what's the point of turning them on in the first place? Refer to my previous post.
Why is there a dichotomy between banning MK and doing ISP? I don't get the logic there. It's as if some people here think turning items on will magically make MK not as good. If anything you're making the game worse.
Oh and anti-stalling rules are already enforced. It ultimately comes down to TO preference.
Thanks, I wasn't sure exactly what the reason for the ban was. If that's the case then I agree with it somewhat.
The point is to discourage planking/stalling. If it's DDD vs MK, and MK is stalling out DDD and is winning by 10%, DDD can grab food while MK is stalling so that MK has to fight again and can't just stall out. As for your reference to over-centralizing because of food, that would have merit if it were on high/medium. But, unless one player is planking/stalling a significant amount the effect of the food is negligent.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
The problem is our anti-stalling rules are difficult to enforce because they're neither discrete nor enforcable really, in other words they don't clearly differentiate between what is or is not stalling through a specific action, and the the actions that are banned are difficult to detect.
Which is why I frown on any ban that doesn't denote a specific non-ambiguous action.
I said AN aka Atlantic North, not complaining about the SBR here, AN's ruleset is a lot more scrubby.
- Status