Remove Metaknight's ability to counterpick non-starter stages

Budget Player Cadet_ · Jul 10, 2010

Seriously. You want a way to:
-keep brawl reasonable without banning RC, Norfair, Brinstar, and any stage MK really loves
-not have ridiculously restrictive stagelists
-Make the bat actually have halfway-even matchups?

This is probably gonna be it.

Now, I'm aware that banning MK will never happen. He's too prominent in the metagame. We've already started nerfing him slightly (LGLs vs. "No unbeatable planking rule"; without LGLs but with a rule against unstoppable planking, MK could just hang out on the ledge all day and wreck the **** out of the spacies, among others-the falco MU would be almost unwinnable for falco), why not go the next step that is necessary?

Nobody wants to ban RC or Brinstar. They're fair, non-random stages that heavily favor aerial combat, and favorites of chars like G&W, Wario, and Kirby. Almost every stagelist has both of these stages. However, with both of them intact, the cliche that MK automatically wins on his counterpick is, sadly, fairly accurate against most characters who do decently against him (Falco, Diddy, Snake, ICs). Can't ban both RC and Brinstar, after all.
But even if you did remove those two from the stagelist, look at what MK still has:

Norfair (region-dependent, VERY good for MK in most high tier matchups)
PS2 (region-dependent, great for MK in general)
GG (region-dependent, I hear it's really great for MK)
Frigate (all-around good for MK, and if we ban this stage, then we have officially become SSFB. Seriously, this is like a stereotypical counterpick as much as Brinstar or Japes is, and I personally would put it at "starter")
Halberd (yes, I'll shark the platform a lot. And this is a starter!)
Delfino (walls, sharking, sometimes starter, almost never banned).

Just look at this ****! No other character has either the same number of stages that they can go to to throw a match off balance, nor the same level of stupidity on those stages. Almost all of these stages are fine with, you know, any other character.

So this is why I propose that on MK's counterpick, he be given an extremely limited list of stages to choose from (think something like the typical 7-stage starter list, where the best stages are Halberd and Lylat, and you can ban Halberd, leaving MK with a mediocre stage at best). It does the following:

Nerfs MK in the area people john about him most-his ability to virtually automatically win round 2 (or round 3, provided he wins round 1)
Allows for a much more free stage list-you don't have to worry about "Okay, so MK has RC, and then Brinstar, and then Norfair...", but can go ahead and put in stages that MK might throw off balance but are otherwise fine.
Makes for more game balance.

Thoughts?

MetalMusicMan · Jul 10, 2010

Arbitrary and surgical. This is a bad idea. If Metaknight really needed such a rule, he would be ban-worthy.

demonictoonlink · Jul 10, 2010

I'm actually completely for this.

Almo · Jul 10, 2010

MetalMusicMan said:
Arbitrary and surgical. This is a bad idea. If Metaknight really needed such a rule, he would be ban-worthy.

This. If the LGL rule is in effect because of MK, and then this happened, I would be confused as to why he wasn't banned.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Jul 10, 2010

MetalMusicMan said:
Arbitrary and surgical. This is a bad idea. If Metaknight really needed such a rule, he would be ban-worthy.

Well, isn't sculpting the stagelist to fit his needs also arbitrary and surgical? I mean, if we're going to consider banning a stage because MK does too well on it, or not widen out the starter list because it "makes MK too good", the we are doing something very similar-except instead of addressing the problem directly, we're just avoiding it. For the record, I do support banning MK, and I do believe he is ban-worthy, but he just isn't bannable, from how our community works.

Plus, what's better-a system where stages are just gone, or a system where those stages are there, but the person who breaks the system and those stages just can't use them?

Almo said:
This. If the LGL rule is in effect because of MK, and then this happened, I would be confused as to why he wasn't banned.

No reason to be confused; the reason MK is not banned is financial, mostly–Pro-ban doesn't have a leg to stand on when most nationals are going anti-ban, and like what, 40% of the scene mains MK? MK will never be banned, no matter what happens-that's why I'm maining him lol.

Extra bonus: with this rule in place, MK has actual counters-Falco, Diddy, Snake and ICs don't get ***** anywhere near as hard on MK's counterpicks, and I think MK might actually have a few even or bad matchups. And with that, that whole "Ban MK" ghost goes right away-why ban him when he's got counters, weaknesses, etc.?

Luxor · Jul 10, 2010

It doesn't satisfy idealists on either side, but this is a practical solution both sides could compromise on.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Jul 10, 2010

Indeed. And think of the possibilities it opens. It means we don't have to do things like ban RC and Brinstar, which nobody really wants.

T-block · Jul 10, 2010

We always try to stay away from banning a stage because MK is too good on it. I'm not sure where you get that idea. Didn't Xyro implement something like this at HOBO?

Norfair, PS2 and GG have all been argued to be not so great for MK btw.

z00ted · Jul 10, 2010

It's a good idea but I'm pro-ban so.... :/
And T-Block yes he did.

Crow! · Jul 10, 2010

Ban Meta Knight's ability to use a controller setting which features the "special" button. That will actually prevent him from using the dimensional cape's advanced techniques, unlike our present rule on the matter.

And it's no less fair to MK mains than this suggestion is.

ErikG · Jul 10, 2010

This would be fine depending on the stage list.

If it is the MLG stage list, than I am okay with this.
I disagree with it if it is using the standard EC stagelist, where our starters are only Final Destination, Smashville, Lylat Cruise, Yoshi's Island, and Battlefield.

6Mizu · Jul 10, 2010

MetalMusicMan said:
Arbitrary and surgical. This is a bad idea. If Metaknight really needed such a rule, he would be ban-worthy.

Wow, it's like you stole my words and spoke them for me.
I didn't say I wasn't up for it, I just think that if MK needs such nerfs than he's ban-worthy.

Limeee · Jul 10, 2010

i like it.

but a temp ban would be much more logical.

but no one would do that...

derp

TheMike · Jul 10, 2010

MMM said it all.

Surgical changes are bad.

Meta-K · Jul 10, 2010

The main problem I see is secondaries. If someone goes MK first round and loses, and they want to pick RC and switch to G&W, would this be allowed? Or what if they started as Kirby, and picked RC, would the opponent be allowed to switch to MK? And if the winner switches to MK on the loser's counterpick, the loser can't counter with MK anymore, because they picked a stage that MK can't counter... and so on. The actually rule would have to be super-specific to cover every possible scenario, it seems like too much effort.

AvaricePanda · Jul 10, 2010

No. Mike, MMM, and Meta-K explained why this is a bad idea. This is just a random change to the game because some amount of people think MK is "too good" on his counterpick stages. Whereas something like MK's planking is actually an issue (and IMO a direct ban on his planking would be warranted or at least could be argued for) because it's unable to be beaten if it's done frame-perfectly, this is just an issue of loose opinion that MK is too good on an arbitrary scale of how good characters should be on stages.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Jul 10, 2010

T-block said:
We always try to stay away from banning a stage because MK is too good on it. I'm not sure where you get that idea. Didn't Xyro implement something like this at HOBO?

Norfair, PS2 and GG have all been argued to be not so great for MK btw.

We avoid banning stages because MK is too good on them because he's too good everywhere. It's just that he pretty much automatically wins on some counterpicks.

ErikG said:
This would be fine depending on the stage list.

If it is the MLG stage list, than I am okay with this.
I disagree with it if it is using the standard EC stagelist, where our starters are only Final Destination, Smashville, Lylat Cruise, Yoshi's Island, and Battlefield.

The EC stagelist is ****ing whacked dude. Try to get TOs to implement the MLG stagelist, it's actually half decent.

Meta-K said:
The main problem I see is secondaries. If someone goes MK first round and loses, and they want to pick RC and switch to G&W, would this be allowed? Or what if they started as Kirby, and picked RC, would the opponent be allowed to switch to MK? And if the winner switches to MK on the loser's counterpick, the loser can't counter with MK anymore, because they picked a stage that MK can't counter... and so on. The actually rule would have to be super-specific to cover every possible scenario, it seems like too much effort.

Seeing as I have a weak concept of the order of counterpicking (still), I'll leave this point as "I will address this later".

AvaricePanda said:
No. Mike, MMM, and Meta-K explained why this is a bad idea. This is just a random change to the game because some amount of people think MK is "too good" on his counterpick stages. Whereas something like MK's planking is actually an issue (and IMO a direct ban on his planking would be warranted or at least could be argued for) because it's unable to be beaten if it's done frame-perfectly, this is just an issue of loose opinion that MK is too good on an arbitrary scale of how good characters should be on stages.

Does the term "MK automatically wins on his counterpick" mean anything to you? Tournaments in places like EC are sometimes even going as far as banning RC and Brinstar.

Before we actually have TOs banning stages because MK is way too good on them, this is a ridiculously favorable rule.

Metal Reeper · Jul 10, 2010

MK is overrated.

Rickerdy-doo-da-day · Jul 10, 2010

Limits MK's options on stage choice and makes him more manageable with certain characters that are arguably unviable against him with the current stage/rule set but if such drastic surgical handicaps are needed for just one specific character, he really deserves to be banned rather than arse about making niggly rule changes for him

Basically, whats already been said

You'd also need to decide what stages are definite starter stages and make it clear that the person who isn't MK can choose the 'MK Banned' CP stages

We could also do with some solid evidence that this would actually work. If MK is still going to have an advantage on neutrals, this rule would be pointless

All these handicaps and stuff really make me question MK's legallity though...meh

rPSIvysaur · Jul 10, 2010

Metal Reeper said:
MK is overrated.

MK is not overrated.

O c wut I did thar?

AvaricePanda · Jul 10, 2010

Budget Player Cadet_ said:
Does the term "MK automatically wins on his counterpick" mean anything to you?

No, because he doesn't automatically win on his counterpick and the statement is just an overexaggerated opinion.

I don't know how else to say that.

He does really well on his counterpick, and I disagree with stagelists banning RC and Brinstar, but there is no guaranteed win for him. This rule isn't necessary and is just a random nerf to MK because some people feel like he's "too good" on his counterpicks.

and I don't know what the big deal with banning stages because of a character is lol. IIRC there were multiple, or at least some stages banned in Melee because of Fox, and we've already banned some stages because of tactics/characters in this game (Onett comes to mind). Other than the TOs that ban Brinstar or RC, I don't know what stages are even banned specifically because of MK.

but tl;dr, there is a huge difference between a guaranteed win and a good advantage.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Jul 10, 2010

AvaricePanda said:
No, because he doesn't automatically win on his counterpick and the statement is just an overexaggerated opinion.

I don't know how else to say that.

He does really well on his counterpick, and I disagree with stagelists banning RC and Brinstar, but there is no guaranteed win for him. This rule isn't necessary and is just a random nerf to MK because some people feel like he's "too good" on his counterpicks.

Fair enough... I'm just saying that matchups like Snake/MK or Diddy/MK go from manageable to ****ing obscene on stages like Brinstar and RC.

and I don't know what the big deal with banning stages because of a character is lol. IIRC there were multiple, or at least some stages banned in Melee because of Fox, and we've already banned some stages because of tactics/characters in this game (Onett comes to mind). Other than the TOs that ban Brinstar or RC, I don't know what stages are even banned specifically because of MK.

but tl;dr, there is a huge difference between a guaranteed win and a good advantage.

Well, first you have to understand the impact having stages legal has on the game.

[collapse=copypasta from my other thread]

To make this more clear to some of you.
The movement for stages like PS2 or GG inside the SWF stage discussion forum is, AFAIK, less of a movement to unban stages X, Y, and Z, but rather to change the way of thinking about stages-something that we ban once we see that there is a real reason to ban them, as opposed to something that we ban to have the least interesting game possible, something resembling street fighter at best.

As to why this concept matters, you really only have to look at what they add, competitively. Let's say we work backwards (everything is banned, stages are unbanned one by one). When I add FD, I have a game where, when I main a character, I have to learn 38 matchups on one stage.
Now we throw Battlefield into the mix. All of a sudden, I still have those 38 matchups, but some of them play drastically differently on battlefield than they do on Final Destination!

Now we really throw everyone for a loop and add Norfair to the mix. Now I still have these 38 matchups, but now I need to not only learn how to play them on Battlefield, Final Destination, and Norfair, but I also have to learn how to play on Norfair at all! Once I've done that, I find that trapping my opponent with the lava if he is inexperienced becomes a very potent strategy, forcing him to learn how to play the stage or to die (imagine it, if you will, like a character matchup-if I run into the ICs and never have played against them before, I won't know that one grab = death until I've already suffered it. If I run into norfair without ever having seen it before, I won't know how to deal with the lava). I also have to, in turn, find ways around this strategy.

Now we add PS2 to the mix. Now I still have the 38 MUs, but not only do I have to know them on these 4 stages, have to know how to play on Norfair, but now I also need to know how to deal with PS2's transformations, know how to take advantage of the changes to the best of my ability, and how to get around things like MK's uair on the air segment. This is a RIDICULOUS amount of things you have to learn to play the game competitively at a high level. In other words: it adds to the competitive merit of the game.

So in short, by adding more stages, we are almost always making the game more competitive by giving it a longer learning curve. If you only have to learn 38 matchups on FD... oh well. If you have to learn 38 matchups on FD, Battlefield, Norfair, RC, Halberd... It's a lot to learn, and a lot more chance for someone to shine who is good at many facets of the game, instead of just one particular part.

The only cases where this doesn't apply are when the stage itself is drastically anticompetitive. To continue the pattern above:

Now we add Warioware. I have 38 matchups and 5 stages, but now I also have to learn how to deal with drastically unfair randomness. I am the best in the country, and some random scrub beats me on this stage about half the time because whenever I win a minigame I go giant or get nothing, and whenever he wins, he gets a star.

This is anticompetitive. The stage gives far less in than it gives back. I don't think I have to explain it that much.

[/collapse]

Banning a stage because of one character is, maybe sometimes necessary. It really doesn't seem to happen often though, except, well... in MK's case. If you have to ban multiple stages to accommodate one character, then maybe it's time to look into just limiting his ability to using those stages, to increase the competitiveness of the game overall.

-Ran · Jul 10, 2010

T-block said:
We always try to stay away from banning a stage because MK is too good on it. I'm not sure where you get that idea. Didn't Xyro implement something like this at HOBO?

Norfair, PS2 and GG have all been argued to be not so great for MK btw.

He does, but no one takes advantage of the rule. People at this point want all or nothing when it comes to Meta Knight. You shouldn't ban an integral part of the game so that a character can be 'slightly less broken.'

Supermodel From Paris · Jul 10, 2010

Remove Metaknight

Could have stopped here

Budget Player Cadet_ · Jul 10, 2010

Supermodel From Paris said:
Could have stopped here

It's not gonna happen. Like, ever.

demonictoonlink · Jul 10, 2010

Weeeeeeeellllllllllllll...............

MK isn't banned, and I'm for that.

MK isn't banned, and a lot of people are against that.

MK isn't banned, and he's winning a lot of tournaments I hear.

MK isn't banned, and this suggestion might help balance him out a bit.

MK isn't banned, and this at least nerfs him, so I feel like pro-ban should take what they can get and just go for this.

And that gay little temp-ban group isn't doing anything. If anything, this makes much more sense then a temp ban and has a significantly higher chance of happening...

Eternal Yoshi · Jul 10, 2010

Melee Fox has had way more stages banned because of him than Meta Knight.

Why not just prohibit MK from going under the stage for any reason?

I know it's sound scrubbish, but it's sadly a more feasible venture than banning him.

-Ran · Jul 10, 2010

demonictoonlink said:
And that gay little temp-ban group isn't doing anything. If anything, this makes much more sense then a temp ban and has a significantly higher chance of happening...

Actually, we are doing things. Well, mostly myself. I've been compiling information, but there's only so much I can do when they staff has told us not to make any new topics about Meta Knight. I'm sure this one will be closed soon enough. MK won't be a discussable topic until September.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Jul 10, 2010

Eternal Yoshi said:
Melee Fox has had way more stages banned because of him than Meta Knight.

Really? Why, might I ask?

Also, to anyone against surgical rules, you had better be against LGLs, as it is a scrubby rule that bans legitimate tactics, and for a targeted, subjective rule against "unbeatable" planking.

cutter · Jul 10, 2010

Let's see here:

- We've banned IDC.
- We've placed ledge-grab limits on games.
- We've banned Scrooging.
- Some regions have banned counterpick stages simply because of MK (i.e. Brinstar).
- There's also the thread that says the one who spends the most time in the air loses.

Now we're seriously contemplating limiting MK even further by keeping him from counterpicking non-starter stages? It's already ******** enough that there are three rules in place solely for one character.

Eternal Yoshi · Jul 10, 2010

You banned Scrooging? When???

Melee Fox abused low ceilings, walk off edges, and walls via shine infinites among other things. Here's a list of stages banned mostly because of Fox:

Kongo Jungle
Onett
Yoshi's Island(Pipes)
Great Bay
Mushroom Kingdom
Mushroom Kingdom 2
Fourside
Peach's Castle

There are other reasons why the stages are banned, but some for of abuse by Fox is the most cited and strongest reasons.

For Pipes, there are 2 clips that sum up why the stage is banned in Shined Blind.

Sails · Jul 11, 2010

Eternal Yoshi said:
You banned Scrooging? When???

sweet bro and hella jeff to the rescue!

A long time ago is the answer.

Xebenkeck · Jul 11, 2010

Just for the record if this were to be implimented, it wouldn't be the first time the community made a character specific stage rule. In smash 64 all stages were legal IIRC, the only thing not allowed was to counter-pick ness to saffron city because of the huge hamperance it had on him and his recovery.

To ban MK from using specific stages because it gives him to much of an advantage isn't a unreasonable notion.

solecalibur · Jul 11, 2010

Don't you have to win the neutral to win the set?

This isn't solving anything

demonictoonlink said:
Weeeeeeeellllllllllllll...............

MK isn't banned, and I'm for that.

MK isn't banned, and a lot of people are against that.

MK isn't banned, and he's winning a lot of tournaments I hear.

MK isn't banned, and this suggestion might help balance him out a bit.

MK isn't banned, and this at least nerfs him, so I feel like pro-ban should take what they can get and just go for this.

And that gay little temp-ban group isn't doing anything. If anything, this makes much more sense then a temp ban and has a significantly higher chance of happening...

and I know your still

for not being able to use toonlink so you went MK. dont even give me that crap lol

.AC. · Jul 11, 2010

just eliminate the unreasonable stages, there is no reason for brinstar or rc to be cp stages at all.

Mew2King · Jul 11, 2010

i wouldn't mind this altho i think it is unnecessary

ShadowLink84 · Jul 11, 2010

.AC. said:
just eliminate the unreasonable stages, there is no reason for brinstar or rc to be cp stages at all.

^^^
Someone who didn't read on why this is bad.

ADHD · Jul 11, 2010

Or just ban brinstar and have an EC counterpick stagelist.

Kaffei · Jul 11, 2010

Ban Norfair, Brinstar &/or RC for MK only

BBR: "loloo y we need 2 do dis lez jus ban mk cus its easier n im lazy"
inb4 bbr member reiterates some thing i already know

sunshade · Jul 11, 2010

Whatever happened to competitive integrity?

Remove Metaknight's ability to counterpick non-starter stages

Smash Hero

Sleepwalk our lives away.

Smash Master

Smash Ace

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

B2B TST

The Assault of Laughter ﷼

Smash Lord

Smash Ace

Smash Champion

Smash Champion

Smash Lord

Smash Rookie

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Smash Master

[ɑɹsaɪ]

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Master

I've covered ban wars, you know

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

I've covered ban wars, you know

Smash Ace

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Smash Lord

King of the Mews

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Ace

Information

Network