Official Metaknight Discussion

Kaffei · Mar 4, 2010

I think you guys are arguing over something irrelevant and trivial just to prove who's right. Can we PLEASE discuss MK.

MarKO X · Mar 4, 2010

The Brigand said:
I'm glad my idea got shot down so I won't be thinking about it anymore (unless I suddenly decide to start hosting tournaments of my own, in which case I'll probably do it anyways), but I wanted to address this:

My point was that, when neither player is stalling, Brawl matches are almost always completed within reasonable amounts of time. So how, exactly, does linking to a video of M2K

1. Scoring a KO in the first 17 seconds of the match.
2. Proceeding to stall for the rest of the match.

Prove me wrong? Hell, if anything the fact that M2K scored that first KO so quickly is just evidence that I might be right.

I'm not sure if I can prove it wrong with "raw data," and the following questions probably won't prove anything right or wrong, but:

1) Do you think that M2K could have won that match in 51 seconds + revival invincibility time? Even if 51 seconds is too lol, do you think he could have won that match in 2 minutes?
2) Is Brawl a defensive game by nature? If yes, in such a defensive game, wouldn't stalling/making good use of the terrain/maintaining an advantageous position be the best idea?

Kaffei said:
I think you guys are arguing over something irrelevant and trivial just to prove who's right. Can we PLEASE discuss MK.

There's not much to discuss about MK. Anti-ban hasn't answered back at anything towards getting him banned, including but probably not limited to Crow's post and DMG's thread... at least to my knowledge. If you know of something I've missed, let me see it so I can just laugh at how pathetic it is.

of course, that last sentence is a poor stereotype that I should try to avoid using, but I was using stereotypes all day today at work, so I apologize.

The Brigand · Mar 4, 2010

MarKO X said:
I'm not sure if I can prove it wrong with "raw data," and the following questions probably won't prove anything right or wrong, but:

1) Do you think that M2K could have won that match in 51 seconds + revival invincibility time? Even if 51 seconds is too lol, do you think he could have won that match in 2 minutes?
2) Is Brawl a defensive game by nature? If yes, in such a defensive game, wouldn't stalling/making good use of the terrain/maintaining an advantageous position be the best idea?

1) I actually was going to say 2 minutes in my last post, so yeah, that's the time I'd go with.

2) Yes, it is, and yes, it would. But when you can win a match as easily as M2K got that first KO in that match, it makes me wonder what the point in dragging things out is. How quickly he won that is also why I just can't accept the idea of MK vs. Diddy being 50:50, but that's not what we're talking about so yeah.

Kaffei says it's irrelevant and trivial, though, so I'm just gonna accept that I'm probably wrong and move on.

Kaffei · Mar 4, 2010

MarKO X said:
There's not much to discuss about MK. Anti-ban hasn't answered back at anything towards getting him banned, including but probably not limited to Crow's post and DMG's thread... at least to my knowledge. If you know of something I've missed, let me see it so I can just laugh at how pathetic it is.

of course, that last sentence is a poor stereotype that I should try to avoid using, but I was using stereotypes all day today at work, so I apologize.

Lmao, I am strongly anti-ban but I'm not smart enough to explain why in words. But seriously, you guys should take it to PMs and not clutter the thread (which is officially about banning or keeping MK) with arguments that are subjectively trivial

Spelt · Mar 4, 2010

So, basically your anti-ban but you don't know the reason why?
antiban's arguments aren't complicated.

Kaffei · Mar 4, 2010

Spelt said:
So, basically your anti-ban but you don't know the reason why?
antiban's arguments aren't complicated.

No that is not it at all.

Lenus Altair · Mar 4, 2010

My thoughts:

If one character is clearly the best choice and clearly has a strategy which no others can respond to, he should be banned.

Mk fits this definition.

Spelt · Mar 4, 2010

Kaffei said:
No that is not it at all.

if you can't explain why you are anti-ban, imo it's just an excuse for you not really knowing why.

MarKO X · Mar 4, 2010

The Brigand said:
1) I actually was going to say 2 minutes in my last post, so yeah, that's the time I'd go with.

2) Yes, it is, and yes, it would. But when you can win a match as easily as M2K got that first KO in that match, it makes me wonder what the point in dragging things out is. How quickly he won that is also why I just can't accept the idea of MK vs. Diddy being 50:50, but that's not what we're talking about so yeah.

Kaffei says it's irrelevant and trivial, though, so I'm just gonna accept that I'm probably wrong and move on.

1) lol

2) My guess is that M2K personally dragged it out because he doesn't know the Diddy matchup. (of course, taking down gnes's 1st stock in 17 seconds suggest otherwise, but I'm a give that first stock another look after I post this). As far as the actual matchup between Diddy and MK... I'm not quite one to judge that either, but I don't think it's 50:50 and enough people don't think it's even either.

2b) It's not that everyone wants to drag things out... it's just that the defensive nature of Brawl does that naturally when players are trying to play as smart as possible. Even the most offensive of fighting games will have some "boring part" of the match because players aren't trying to get hit. However with Brawl, because combos are limited, almost every hit bring you into back to a neutral position or a position where a particular result of a set up can be avoided and brought back to a neutral position.

2btl;dr) Players would probably love to go aggro in Brawl, but because it's Brawl, the moment someone plays defensive, it's not smart to go aggro anymore.

I'm beating a dead horse, I know it, and I'm doing it anyway. I'm a probably ~~not~~ go to bed after this.

Kaffei · Mar 4, 2010

Lenus Altair said:
My thoughts:

If one character is clearly the best choice and clearly has a strategy which no others can respond to, he should be banned.

Mk fits this definition.

It has been shown that MK is definitely beatable (this logic is flawed according to OS because just cus it has a defeat screen does not mean he is healthy for the community etc) but the fact that we have to put rules just to keep in legal is a good enough reason for MK to be banned. <~ I think this is just being lazy
inb4 some smart person flaming me because they are smarter and have a better response so ill go to bed and be back later hopefully you guys can stay on topic please

spelt said:
if you can't explain why you are anti-ban, imo it's just an excuse for you not really knowing why.

That's subjective.

Spelt · Mar 4, 2010

oh sheesh marko stop using "lol" as an argument. just admit you have no actual rebuttal because you've gotten outsmarted and are, in fact, wrong.

Kaffei said:
That's subjective.

99% of this is thread is subjective, i don't see you proving me wrong yet.

Kaffei · Mar 4, 2010

Spelt said:
oh sheesh marko stop using "lol" as an argument. just admit you have no actual rebuttal because you've gotten outsmarted and are, in fact, wrong.

99% of this is thread is subjective, i don't see you proving me wrong yet.

Then get off my back and let me believe in what I want to. I'm not even talking about 99% of the thread's posts

Spelt · Mar 4, 2010

Kaffei said:
Then get off my back and let me believe in what I want to.

You don't really believe in it though...
as far as i can see it's just in your nature to think banning a character is wrong.
when someone believes in something they usually have points or evidence to back it up.

ElDominio · Mar 4, 2010

Kaffei said:
Then get off my back and let me believe in what I want to. I'm not even talking about 99% of the thread's posts

This sounds like a religious war.

Person A: I believe in lard because it is tasty!!!
Person B: But it has tons of fat and will probably kill you if you keep eating it
Person A: I DON'T CARE!!! I WANT LARD!!!

Too bad. If you're too blind to see how cheap MK is, and are not going to support your anti-ban POV, sadly you're as good as a troll. You offer absolutely no good reason for me to think "Hey, maybe we shouldn't ban MK, even though I've been show all of this info (planking, superplanking, blah more planking), I guess reason X that Kaffei gave me is good enough for me to finally think that MK should not be banned.

TL;DR - Get your arguments right.

EDIT:

Kaffei said:
inb4 some smart person flaming me because they are smarter and have a better response so ill go to bed and be back later hopefully you guys can stay on topic please

Are you serious? So you just say "great, I'm stupid. I hope someone comes here and realizes this. By then people will have forgotten all about me."

Kaffei · Mar 4, 2010

Spelt said:
You don't really believe in it though...
as far as i can see it's just in your nature to think banning a character is wrong.
when someone believes in something they usually have points or evidence to back it up.

We can just keep MK in by putting in lots of limitations on him, but the BBR says we should just ban him anyway because apparently a character who needs those kinds of limitations is breaking the game (which I can make sense of).
However if we can achieve a such a set of rules I believe that the community will be fine.
It has been proposed by M2K that MK should not be banned because he is the best MK and he doesn't win nationals as often because of diddies and stuff <~ these kinds of things are ignored and thrown out of the way because they are flawed and then a bunch of charts are shown which to me is a framing issue that leads more people who don't really know that much about the game into believing that MK is evil
People always pull the "planking is broken and scrooging is too" (which they are and MK does this the best which is really unfair to all the other characters) but nobody wants to put in more rules because it's too much work, it's just easier to ban him, or "MK can bypass restrictions easily"

Lenus Altair · Mar 4, 2010

Kaffei said:
It has been shown that MK is definitely beatable (this logic is flawed according to OS because just cus it has a defeat screen does not mean he is healthy for the community etc) but the fact that we have to put rules just to keep in legal is a good enough reason for MK to be banned. <~ I think this is just being lazy

I didn't say he wasn't "beatable" I said he was the best choice and had the best strategy (planking), and in his case, his planking does not have a real response. You basically have to rely on luck perfect shielding to MAYBE gain ground/get an attack in IF you're playing the right character. Even then there are no garentees.

Metaknight is beatable in the sense he is controled by human players which besides having flaws/making mistakes, can be predicted/ become predictable. In order to beat a Metaknight player, you either have to be notably better then them from the get go or consitantly predict his planking.

No character has the tools to beat MKs planking. The only option is a players mind. A games strategy without an in game counter is broken and unfair....

...Ban em'

MarKO X · Mar 4, 2010

@spelt: i asked the question under the assumption that i wasn't going to prove anything. i lol'd because I can apparently read minds in short, uncontrolled bursts.

and as for my posts against saucekey, i still stand by what I said because he didn't prove to me that good players aren't defined by their wins. i lol'd his question because he went and avoided mine.

and lol :laugh:

@ dora the explorer.

@kaffei, you know, if the SF community banned ST Akuma's teleport, air fireball, and red fireball lock, he'd be legal? He would merely be an O.Ryu with juggles that can't get dizzied...

Kaffei · Mar 4, 2010

Lenus Altair said:
I didn't say he wasn't "beatable" I said he was the best choice and had the best strategy (planking), and in his case, his planking does not have a real response. You basically have to rely on luck perfect shielding to MAYBE gain ground/get an attack in IF you're playing the right character. Even then there are no garentees.

Metaknight is beatable in the sense he is controled by human players which besides having flaws/making mistakes, can be predicted/ become predictable. In order to beat a Metaknight player, you either have to be notably better then them from the get go or consitantly predict his planking.

No character has the tools to beat MKs planking. The only option is a players mind. A games strategy without an in game counter is broken and unfair....

...Ban em'

This is exactly what I am talking about, people always pulling the plank card. I already asked if we could do a "if you grab x amount of ledges or more, under any circumstance, you lose the match".

@Marko: I don't know anything about SF because I only play smash
inb4 OMG HOW DO YOU NOT PLAY THAT GAME

brb shower + milk

ElDominio · Mar 4, 2010

Kaffei said:
People always pull the "planking is broken and scrooging is too" (which they are and MK does this the best which is really unfair to all the other characters) but nobody wants to put in more rules because it's too much work, it's just easier to ban him, or "MK can bypass restrictions easily"

Very important.
It's not that we want a ban because it is easier. It is because any restriction can be circumvented, rendering them pointless.

Kaffei said:
This is exactly what I am talking about, people always pulling the plank card. I already asked if we could do a "if you grab x amount of ledges or more, under any circumstance, you lose the match".

So you're not anti-ban, you're pro-restriction?
Can you not get the hint that restriction just prove his brokenness?

MarKO X · Mar 4, 2010

lol kaffei.
there are plenty of smashers that don't play SF, so it's all good.

hey guys, MK has two methods of taking no damage during the Super Sonic final smash. Discuss.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Mar 4, 2010

adumbrodeus said:
Well, understand this, the fact is that we do not dictate the community, we only recommend.

My chief concern about this process is the strong possibility that the community will not form around the result, and they'll be a major split.

So long story short, in the best case scenario, for at least a while it is extremely likely that there will be at least a few unbanned tournaments, just as if the SBR decides to not ban MK (without the lines, "but we are gonna revisit the issue) the reverse will happen.

We can only hope that for the sake of community unity, the losing side will choose to eventually follow the community decision.

IMO, getting an official MLG decision on it will FINISH the argument. Hence my idea of getting an impartial MLG third party to review the anti-ban and pro-ban arguments and make the decision.

SauceKay said:
So if a good Ganondorf player loses to an average IC player, the IC player is better?

Yes, because the ganon player picked ganon.

The Brigand said:
I'm glad my idea got shot down so I won't be thinking about it anymore (unless I suddenly decide to start hosting tournaments of my own, in which case I'll probably do it anyways), but I wanted to address this:

My point was that, when neither player is stalling, Brawl matches are almost always completed within reasonable amounts of time. So how, exactly, does linking to a video of M2K

1. Scoring a KO in the first 17 seconds of the match.
2. Proceeding to stall for the rest of the match.

Prove me wrong? Hell, if anything the fact that M2K scored that first KO so quickly is just evidence that I might be right.

Spelt said:
So, basically your anti-ban but you don't know the reason why?
antiban's arguments aren't complicated.

Yes, well, what's to keep the player from stalling, anti-stalling rules? LOL. Without a time limit, you never approach. Ever.

adumbrodeus · Mar 4, 2010

The Brigand said:
My point was that, when neither player is stalling, Brawl matches are almost always completed within reasonable amounts of time. So how, exactly, does linking to a video of M2K

1. Scoring a KO in the first 17 seconds of the match.
2. Proceeding to stall for the rest of the match.

Prove me wrong? Hell, if anything the fact that M2K scored that first KO so quickly is just evidence that I might be right.

*facepalm*

That was in opposition to your claim that people simply "don't play like that".

Regardless, you're missing the real issue here, which is, what specific rule would you put into place which would prevent all "stalling" but not prevent any "non-stalling"?

Edit: On second thought, I misread somewhat, but the real issue is still there, how do you define "excessively attempting to avoid confrontation?"

Honestly, that's a subjective as hell criteria, and at it's limit basically covers anything that's not constantly running towards your opponent.

Arturito_Burrito · Mar 4, 2010

adumbrodeus said:
lol

M2k vs gnes

Do some research.

Let me put it this way, anyone named AdumbroDeus, Overswarm, Plank, DMG, or a variety of others will gladly stall you for 8 minutes when given the chance, hell we'll stall you for 5 days if necessary. Please, don't make it necessary.

I don't understand this, stalling is playing to win when there's a timer. But with no time limit your not doing ****, what if AdumbroDeus faces OS? he won't approach you just because your stalling trying to bore him into being aggressive.

Stalling becomes pointless with out a timer because you can't win with it.

'V' · Mar 4, 2010

MarKO X said:
MK has two methods of taking no damage during the Super Sonic final smash. Discuss.

IDC being the obvious one.

Lenus Altair · Mar 4, 2010

Besides the point that it would be worked around there's the fact the if you do put a general ledge grab limit, your hurting more characters then MK. If your limiting the number of times any character can grab the ledge, then you are basically saying planking in general is broken. I don't think any of us believe thats true because other characters like pit are punishable while planking.

Spelt · Mar 4, 2010

THERE we go, kaffei.
that's all i wanted, an actual reason you are anti-ban.

Nowww, realistically, can you ever expect a limiting rule to work?
if the LGL is 50-60 mk can just stall out his jumps and uair spam and use one of his many options to get back to the edge.
if the LGL is 30 (which is rather excruciating, you can hit that amount easily in a regular non stalling match) meta knight can air camp until the few minutes, then when he safely has the lead he can plank out the rest of the match easily and untouchably to guarantee a win from there.
not to mention he can glide under the stage to stall out the LGL even further.
sure, he IS hittable.
but with very few characters, and putting yourself offstage like that against MK is just asking for trouble.
not to mention it doesn't really hinder MK much if at all because of his insane recovery.
LGLs also hinder other characters planking that is above average but still beatable, and in no way warranting a ban.
pit and G&W both have great ledge games, and putting on such a harsh LGL is just hurting them.
i'd much rather be offstage against ICs with pit.

my point is, that there will always be a definitive way around such rules. and this is all assuming the judge is strict on the LGLs as well.

this wall of text is rather unreadable but idc, probably gonna go to sleep soon and too lazy to fix it.

The Brigand · Mar 4, 2010

adumbrodeus said:
*facepalm*

That was in opposition to your claim that people simply "don't play like that".

I'd have to be an idiot to claim that people don't stall. And while I may look like an idiot, I assure you I am nothing of the sort. Now, what I think I said was "WHEN People don't play like that", which makes a lot more sense.

Regardless, you're missing the real issue here, which is, what specific rule would you put into place which would prevent all "stalling" but not prevent any "non-stalling"?

The rule would be "There is a large creepy man watching you play a video game, and if he thinks you're breaking a rule he's going to say you're done".

I understand that this is a completely subjective rule, that any tournament with more than two dozen people that expects to run quickly will not be able to make due with a single large creepy man, that getting two or more large creepy men can and probably will result in those large creepy men having different opinions on whether or not the rule's been broken, and that I may not be sufficiently large or creepy enough to keep people in line, though.

adumbrodeus · Mar 4, 2010

Arturito_Burrito said:
I don't understand this, stalling is playing to win when there's a timer. But with no time limit your not doing ****, what if AdumbroDeus faces OS? he won't approach you just because your stalling trying to bore him into being aggressive.

Stalling becomes pointless with out a timer because you can't win with it.

What if we don't get bored into aggression?

People can do crazy things with the right mindset, I've personally waited in a bush for about an hour, JUST TO TRAIN MY PATIENCE. Whoever is least patient will approach, so what happens if you have two very patient people (ex. me and OS)?

The answer, the tournament would last a year at least.

Kaffei · Mar 4, 2010

ElDominio said:
Very important.
It's not that we want a ban because it is easier. It is because any restriction can be circumvented, rendering them pointless.

Okay then explain to me please how MK can circumvent "If you grab the ledge over 30 times in 1 match under any circumstances, you will lose that match" because I am dumb and clueless so I would seriously appreciate it if you could explain that to me.
At the end of the match isn't there some thing that says your aerial distance covered in 1 match or something? What if we made it so that you cannot pass a specific totaled distance to prevent scrooging a lot or something

ElD said:
So you're not anti-ban, you're pro-restriction?
Can you not get the hint that restriction just prove his brokenness?

Right, and so you guys do not want to put in rules because you automatically decide that this is pointless since MK has bypassed the current rules already. Apparently everything has been thought of, well I am not a giver upper <~ not a word

^ then of course i will be ridiculed

spelt said:
THERE we go, kaffei.
that's all i wanted, an actual reason you are anti-ban.

Nowww, realistically, can you ever expect a limiting rule to work?
if the LGL is 50-60 mk can just stall out his jumps and uair spam and use one of his many options to get back to the edge.
if the LGL is 30 (which is rather excruciating, you can hit that amount easily in a regular non stalling match) meta knight can air camp until the few minutes, then when he safely has the lead he can plank out the rest of the match easily and untouchably to guarantee a win from there.
not to mention he can glide under the stage to stall out the LGL even further.
sure, he IS hittable.
but with very few characters, and putting yourself offstage like that against MK is just asking for trouble.
not to mention it doesn't really hinder MK much if at all because of his insane recovery.
LGLs also hinder other characters planking that is above average but still beatable, and in no way warranting a ban.
pit and G&W both have great ledge games, and putting on such a harsh LGL is just hurting them.
i'd much rather be offstage against ICs with pit.

my point is, that there will always be a definitive way around such rules. and this is all assuming the judge is strict on the LGLs as well.

this wall of text is rather unreadable but idc, probably gonna go to sleep soon and too lazy to fix it.

\

Lower it to 20 ledge grabs. M2K only grabbed a ledge 6 times in one recent match vs Ally iirc. 50~60 is not reliable.
Like I said, Im pretty sure there is a aerial distance thing at the end of each match. If we can average out normal distances covered by MKs then we can put a restriction on how far he flies, and if it is exceeded, we can call a stalling issue. I bet this is too much work.

I could pull up the issue "we could call a stalling issue based on judgements" but that is highly unreliable since people can just say "i wasn't trying to stall" etc etc.

Arturito_Burrito · Mar 4, 2010

adumbrodeus said:
What if we don't get bored into aggression?

People can do crazy things with the right mindset, I've personally waited in a bush for about an hour, JUST TO TRAIN MY PATIENCE. Whoever is least patient will approach, so what happens if you have two very patient people (ex. me and OS)?

The answer, the tournament would last a year at least.

Isn't it obvious you would both be DQed for stalling. Not just your match but the whole tournament. At least thats what i'd hope be done.

theunabletable · Mar 4, 2010

if the LGL is 30 (which is rather excruciating, you can hit that amount easily in a regular non stalling match) meta knight can air camp until the few minutes, then when he safely has the lead he can plank out the rest of the match easily and untouchably to guarantee a win from there.

I can't say I've ever seen someone grab the ledge 30 times without planking to some extent. And his unbeatable planking would go over the limit really fast. He'd have to burn like 6 minutes off the clock with pure camping without ever grabbing the ledge, then start planking.

LGLs also hinder other characters planking that is above average but still beatable, and in no way warranting a ban.
pit and G&W both have great ledge games, and putting on such a harsh LGL is just hurting them.
i'd much rather be offstage against ICs with pit.

Why does everyone assume a global LGL? An MK specific one would work great.

my point is, that there will always be a definitive way around such rules. and this is all assuming the judge is strict on the LGLs as well.

Sure MKs can still run out the timer with a 20-25 LGL, but they can't really plank.

Camping MK doesn't really seem broken to me.

I think 20-25 is a good number. It won't happen in a normal match without planking, and it restricts it pretty well.

Spelt · Mar 4, 2010

Kaffei said:
Lower it to 20 ledge grabs. M2K only grabbed a ledge 6 times in one match vs Ally iirc. 50~60 is not reliable.
Like I said, Im pretty sure there is a aerial distance thing at the end of each match. If we can average out normal distances covered by MKs then we can put a restriction on how far he flies, and if it is exceeded, we can call a stalling issue.

i don't think i have to explain how ridiculous this is.
if you're being ledge guarded to all hell (which one MK can very easily do to another) what are you suppose to do when you end up winning that match?
"HEY THIS GUY WENT OVER THE LEDGE LIMIT HE SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED!"

Kaffei · Mar 4, 2010

Spelt said:
i don't think i have to explain how ridiculous this is.
if you're being ledge guarded to all hell (which one MK can very easily do to another) what are you suppose to do when you end up winning that match?
"HEY THIS GUY WENT OVER THE LEDGE LIMIT HE SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED!"

AhahahHAHAHAHAHAHA LMAO.
okay, then 30. But seriously, what about my 2nd point

Spelt · Mar 4, 2010

Then that's just unfair to everyone else.
why just do it for MK? because frame data says it's unbeatable for him alone?
the meta knight can make a mistake just as easily as pit and GW.
Can you really say that meta knight's air camping isn't unbeatable if done right?
i'm not going to put a LGL in my tournament because you think it's fine. :/
I'd need some hard evidence.

Kaffei said:
okay, then 30. But seriously, what about my 2nd point

Like you said, it's highly unreliable.
oh and you could very easily be ledge guarded to 30 grabs. :/
MK has a sick recovery, after all.

adumbrodeus · Mar 4, 2010

The Brigand said:
I'd have to be an idiot to claim that people don't stall. And while I may look like an idiot, I assure you I am nothing of the sort. Now, what I think I said was "WHEN People don't play like that", which makes a lot more sense.

read the edit.

I'll give a personal example for that since I can't think of any off the top of my head, I'm sure others can though. Playing melee (a far more offensive game then Brawl), and I was playing peach against this guy's marth. We were both playing VERY defensively, so we got to 8 minutes in two consectutive matches on two different neutrals. We didn't do any hardcore planking or stalling, I was just turnip camping and he didn't wanna approach.

But you're really missing something important here, which is the issue of incentive, if there's no incentive for the losing player to approach, why would he?

The rule would be "There is a large creepy man watching you play a video game creepily, and if he thinks you're breaking a rule he's going to say you're done".

I understand that this is a completely subjective rule, that any tournament with more than two dozen people that expects to run quickly will not be able to make due with a single large creepy man, that getting two or more large creepy men can and probably will result in those large creepy men having different opinions on whether or not the rule's been broken, and that I may not be sufficiently large or creepy enough to keep people in line, though.

Which is completely sufficating for metagame advancement. People will be too worried about being called out for "stalling" to try anything new that even REMOTELY RESEMBLES stalling. If that were the case, we would never develop the complex ledge game that we have for smash.

Arturito_Burrito said:
Isn't it obvious you would both be DQed for stalling. Not just your match but the whole tournament. At least thats what i'd hope be done.

Why?

Stalling only applies to things that essentially prevent the game from continuing (in other words the infinite stalls like IDC, infinite chaingrabs continued over 300%), basically stuff that renders you effectively infinitely invincible.

What I am describing here is perfectly within the SBR rules and is known as "camping", not stalling.

So again, why would they get DQ'd?

salaboB · Mar 4, 2010

Spelt said:
Then that's just unfair to everyone else.
why just do it for MK? because frame data says it's unbeatable for him alone?
the meta knight can make a mistake just as easily as pit and GW.

The frame data says the MK actually has a decent bit of leeway for error before it becomes a vulnerability.

MarKO X · Mar 4, 2010

BigShirtKid said:
IDC being the obvious one.

DMG said:
from: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=267257

- Since MK is invincible for so long, he can technically drop from the edge, use Down B (even after a buffered Double Jump), and basically you cannot hit him until he gets out of his Down B. If you take the edge from him, he can move it onstage. If you do not take the edge from him, he gets to grab the edge with COMPLETE invincibility.

That being the 2nd method to not taking damage against Super Sonic.
Discuss.

Kaffei · Mar 4, 2010

Spelt said:
Then that's just unfair to everyone else.
why just do it for MK? because frame data says it's unbeatable for him alone?
the meta knight can make a mistake just as easily as pit and GW.
Can you really say that meta knight's air camping isn't unbeatable if done right?
i'm not going to put a LGL in my tournament because you think it's fine. :/
I'd need some hard evidence.

Nothing can be 100% fair, which is why putting restrictions on MK makes it so they cant plank as theorized.

spelt said:
Like you said, it's highly unreliable.
oh and you could very easily be ledge guarded to 30 grabs. :/
MK has a sick recovery, after all.

No I said that human judgement is unreliable, which is why i proposed the aerial movement thing.

Show me a video of a MK ditto w/ 30 grabs by edge guarding

Spelt · Mar 4, 2010

salaboB said:
The frame data says the MK actually has a decent bit of leeway for error before it becomes a vulnerability.

It's the same as people getting hit by a laggy smash.
you can sheild/spotdodge/avoid most of them on reaction but chudat hits with random fsmashes aaaaaaaaall the time.

Kaffei said:
Nothing can be 100% fair, which is why putting restrictions on MK makes it so they cant plank as theorized.

banning MK is fair for the 36 other characters. that's 97%.

No I said that human judgement is unreliable, which is why i proposed the aerial movement thing.

I'm really not sure how this would work. and you'd need a LARGE and VERY specific rule, not to mention the time and effort you would need to make a proper call.
i foresee a lot of problems with this.

Show me a video of a MK ditto w/ 30 grabs by edge guarding

show me a video of a 30 LGL stopping an MK from planking.

adumbrodeus · Mar 4, 2010

Budget Player Cadet_ said:
IMO, getting an official MLG decision on it will FINISH the argument. Hence my idea of getting an impartial MLG third party to review the anti-ban and pro-ban arguments and make the decision.

But they don't have an understanding of the community, while I do see the merit, I think a fair way in house is better.

Spelt said:
It's the same as people getting hit by a laggy smash.
you can sheild/spotdodge/avoid most of them on reaction but chudat hits with random fsmashes aaaaaaaaall the time.

Eh, that's more about mix-up game then anything else, but fair point.

Official Metaknight Discussion

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Smash Cadet

Smash Hero

BRoomer

Smash Hero

Smash Ace

BRoomer

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

BRoomer

Smash Hero

BRoomer

Smash Journeyman

Smash Hero

Smash Ace

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

Smash Journeyman

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

Smash Legend

Smash Master

Smash Lord

Smash Ace

BRoomer

Smash Cadet

Smash Legend

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Lord

BRoomer

Smash Hero

BRoomer

Smash Legend

Smash Champion

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

BRoomer

Smash Legend

Information

Network