A URC members thoughts on the Metaknight Ban

[Player-1]

You're welcome. Now wanna actually answer the question with an explanation so I can shut you down?

not really no, CJ already did.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Not in the least like P-1 said. I have no idea why that misconception is still around.

Walkoffs are banned because gameplay is likely to degenerate into walkoff camping. Walkoff camping, while it is a skill, it is not a skill we particularly care to test and takes away from other skill sets that we do want to test.

This is the reason why there should always be a ledge grab limit. because gameplay is likely to degenerate into planking

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[C.J.]

The problem with this is that it doesn't matter what kind of skills we want to test, since the whole fundamental purpose of tournaments are to test who is better at the game.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=271219

Yes, who is better at the game within the confine of the skillset that we desire to test.

Or, is it that we want to see who is the best at the game as a whole? If that's your argument, MK legal, all stages legal, items on.

This is the reason why there should always be a ledge grab limit. because gameplay is likely to degenerate into planking

Except it's slightly different; not by a lot, but, slightly. All characters' planking can beaten by many many characters with little to no risk by them. Walkoff camping is high risk/high reward. Planking (other than MK's) is medium risk/medium reward.

 

[Player-1]

don't forget IDC.


First one to get a hit wins!

 

[SaveMeJebus]

don't forget IDC.


First one to get a hit wins!

What about ICs? They could use one grab to stall. Anyone with an infinite could

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[C.J.]

Yes. We are running Brawl tournaments, not Smashboards tournaments.

While a bit... out there, it's a fair viewpoint to have. However, you can't cherrypick it like you did when you quoted me

MK legal, all stages legal, all items on.

Don't forget the stalling rule. Which makes the IDC rule completely pointless and redundant.

But... the stalling rule is a "smashboards" addition. You can't cherrypick here. Pick a side and stick to it.

 

[Player-1]

Well I mean according to you it doesn't matter what kind of skills we want to test as long as they show who is better at the game. So by your logic, stalling rule shouldn't even exist. IDC 4life.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[C.J.]

Neat, that would be his personal opinion and one that you share; you're entitled to that opinion.

However, you are in the VAST minority here as most people agree that there is a specific skillset we want to test.

Stage striking/CPing aren't necessary at all; random every time.

Either way though, you are using your personal standard as to what is "acceptable." It's all subjective at this point.

 

[Player-1]

and who are you to say what is necessary what isn't?

I did see that link. A brawl tournament should be as close to brawl says possible? Okay, there is no stalling rule in the actual game of brawl so there shouldn't be one in tournaments. You can't say keep walk offs legal because it's in the actual game of brawl and then not the same for a stalling rule, that contradicts itself.

 

[C.J.]

and who are you to say what is necessary what isn't?

I did see that link. A brawl tournament should be as close to brawl says possible? Okay, there is no stalling rule in the actual game of brawl so there shouldn't be one in tournaments. You can't say keep walk offs legal because it's in the actual game of brawl and then not the same for a stalling rule, that contradicts itself.

To be completely fair, he can. It's his personal, subjective opinion. What he CAN'T do however is state that his subjective opinion is objectively superior to someone else's subjective opinion.

The fact that he is touting his opinion as better is the problem, not the opinion itself. (imo)

 

[Player-1]

what I meant to say is that he can't do it without contradicting his own logic.

 

[C.J.]

Even then, he might be able to. His logic may be multifaceted and be structured specifically to allow it to happen. He might just find the stalling rule to be, since he enjoys quoting that thread so much, "an acceptable breach of respect." Either way, his opinion is definitely not able to be shown to be superior to our standard. As such, his opinion shouldn't be adopted. Burden of proof, which he fails to meet, would be required to change the status quo.

tl;dr his argument isn't going to do anything and I'm done talking about it since it's a waste of time.

 

[Player-1]

yeah it could follow his logic, but he didn't state that. His logic that he presented to us was at this point in time is:

"The problem with this is that it doesn't matter what kind of skills we want to test, since the whole fundamental purpose of tournaments are to test who is better at the game."

and he contradicts his logic with his own argument.


but yeah,i'm done arguing semantics.

 

[C.J.]

Especially since we pretty much agree, lol.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[C.J.]

"Items randomize wins much too much to ever allow consistent results."

But that's just plain NOT true... at all. There are SPECIFIC items that will cause inconsistencies, just as there are specific stages. There are many items that won't cause inconsistencies at all though.

Read up on ISP.

 

[Player-1]

okay, and that's your opinion. I think that brawl is not competitive on its own because of the existence of stages like 75m, rumble falls, and bridge of eldin. Your opinion doesn't mater any more than mine.

 

[B.A.M.]

@ C.J: banning MK was done not due to the character brokeness but "MK dittos not being fun and the character is gay and theres not enough variety." Thats what I was referring to. You and I are saying the same thing. Read after I made the "mocking" statement.

@Judo: A ton of top players pick up characters fairly easily. Not to mention hes a Chun Li esque top tier due to a few defensive options that havent become too popular yet. Im still going to say there are some options people just dont know how to punish properly with MK yet. I know you do not believe that, and I know you believe everyones best MU is MK. However, Tyrant, Mike and I go through vids every now and then, and theres still a ton of issues with how ppl deal with some MK tactics. Again like I said top players who dominate their region can usually pick up any top tier for a bit and start dominating. Smart play just goes a long way. Its also a ton easier when you have the best player base by far constantly improving the characters metagame. Makes it easier for you to find in depth details on how to use the character, strong tactics, and converse with other top players to get your MK in solid condition. I really believe a ton of people underestimate that fact.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

okay, and that's your opinion. I think that brawl is not competitive on its own because of the existence of stages like 75m, rumble falls, and bridge of eldin. Your opinion doesn't mater any more than mine.

...and yet it was your opinion and the opinion of several hundred others that lead to MK being banned.

I think you're kinda downplaying ****.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[Player-1]

...and yet it was your opinion and the opinion of several hundred others that lead to MK being banned.

I think you're kinda downplaying ****.

Smooth Criminal

don't really see how, but okay.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

don't really see how, but okay.

Not my fault that you can't understand English...?

(To paraphrase something you told Frotaz at one time.)

Smooth Criminal

 

[Player-1]

don't really see how that applies here either, but okay.

 

[C.J.]

They spawn randomly in random locations. Random. Plus if you enable any items at all doesn't that create exploding capsules/crates and give King Dedede smash balls/exploding capsules?

But that's not the point. The point I'm trying to make is that there should only be a minimum of rules which allow for competitive play and set necessary standards such as stock/timer settings, since we're trying to see who is the best at Brawl at these tournaments and not Super SmashBoards Brothers. I guess if items actually were not random and somehow did not create inconsistent results (which they do), then they should be allowed.

Items spawn psuedo-randomly positional wise- items spawn in very specific zones though. Just like SV's starting platform position, which side frigate spends most of the time, etc etc. ISP has proven that items- done intelligently- do NOT randomize results.

@ the enabling exploding capsules and the like, no. That was a melee thing and has been changed.
Misread it, not entirely sure.

Fun Fact: Mario Bros. doesn't randomize results. Legalize that stage?

Spoiler

grim tuesday grimtuesday

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[Ghostbone]

Alright. There SHOULD be some debate on what is necessary or not necessary to specify in the ruleset, and what the bare minimum of rules are that we need to make Brawl competitive.

My point is that we should always be aiming for an absolute minimum and try to stick as close to the builtin Brawl metagame as possible, as opposed to banning things because we want to shape the metagame in a certain way (which may backfire) or because we don't like certain things.

You support Mario Bros' legality then?

 

[John12346]

Or, as a better example, circle campable stages like Temple and Summit, or walkoff stages like Mario Circuit and Bridge of Eldin?

On all 4 stages, there is no randomness to be had(outside of BoE's King Bulbin which appears at random times, but can be reliably reacted to).

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[Ghostbone]

If Mario Bros allows for competitive play then it should be allowed. If not then no it should be banned. IDK enough about the stage to have an opinion since I don't think I've ever played a serious match there.

It definitely allows for 'competitive play'

 

[Player-1]

Alright. There SHOULD be some debate on what is necessary or not necessary to specify in the ruleset, and what the bare minimum of rules are that we need to make Brawl competitive.

My point is that we should always be aiming for an absolute minimum and try to stick as close to the builtin Brawl metagame as possible, as opposed to banning things because we want to shape the metagame in a certain way (which may backfire) or because we don't like certain things.

This just goes into a whole mess of arguments though. What is competitive? Whose to say stalling isn't competitive? First one to get a hit isn't competitive? Do you want to make something the bare minimum to meet the status of competitiveness or do you want to make it as competitive as possible? Banning MK was in the intent to make the game more competitive. Whose to say that with MK that the game can't be competitive? Etc. Again, this is a very vague statement.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[Player-1]

okay and walk offs are pretty imbalanced in risk/reward which goes back to your original argument that walk off stages are banned because of D3 CGs when they're not.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[John12346]

Well, if you want to put it like that, then the criteria, plain and simply, needs to fall under TWO categories; both "competitive" and "skills we wish to test."

In the context of stages, Mario Bros. doesn't exactly satisfy the latter criteria, although it does satisfy the former.

In the context of MK, well, that's where all of the trouble comes in. It's hard to tell whether or not MK actually satisfies those criteria, considering all of the problems he's caused up until now. Raking in half of all tournament money, needing a surgical rule in order to stay legal, and flat out just being deemed bannable by a very large popular demand... some would argue all of that makes MK ban material, while others would argue otherwise.

Of course, if we're trying to make as few rules as possible, then we need to determine whether or not a MK ban is absolutely necessary/warranted. Pro-ban would argue "yes" for the sake of the points in the previous paragraph, and anti-ban would argue "no" for some other points that I can't remember off the top of my head(It's 4am here...).

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

And on that note, I'd just like to leave this here, because I didn't exactly get a proper response to it.

I'm not getting into this argument, but Sorto, only 11.69% of Brawl players use MK in tournament play. A mere 7.94% actually main him.

This is what pisses me off. None of these numbers were ever brought up and people had to find it themselves. This ish is so stupid. Community gauged everything on a bunch of numbers they probably didnt even attempt to read, let alone understand.

This community pisses me off. How freakin sketchy is this. And the whole damn URC claimed they banned MK cuz he was over-centralized. THIS is why people mock our community. Because instead of getting together and learning about this game, instead of attempting to learn tactics even though tech skill is needed, instead of knowing MUs in a fighting game, everyone sits and complains. People write idiotic blogs about furries, male players assault women in the community, and everyone is so damn conceited about being good at the game that they flat out reject the effort top MK players have put into this game. People flat out reject the discussions M2K, Ally, Anti, Tyrant have in order to better the character. This is seriously freakin stupid. Wake up Brawl community; you have what could be a decent game going to **** because you made it so. Dont blame MK; blame yourselves.

Okay, if you guys REALLY want to say MK isn't overcentralizing, then you're going to have to explain where MK got almost half of all of 2011's tournament money from.

- The original reasoning was that "Everyone uses MK, of course he's going to get all of the money!" AKA overcentralization.
- The alternative reasoning was that "Mew2King wins like a billion million percent of all of MK's money!" which is wrong because I showed how he's not even making a significant proportion of MK's money(17% or something, where Snake's and Diddy's top players are winning something like 25%-35% for their characters).

If it's neither of the above two factors, then it's character dominance; the point pro-ban MOST wants to prove.

 

[Masky]

..........

 

[John12346]

Of course, but we still need a ruleset to solidify what skills we are trying to test. They go hand in hand, y'know?

Also, keep in mind that, even though Meno's words are well thought out and well written, the point remains that that too really is just another opinion on how the game should be run. If the skills we want to test require a few more rules to be instated than usual, what's the problem here? Playing the game with no alterations whatsoever, or instating a billion and seven rules to the game are both equally dumb moves.

The idea is to just make sure we have what is absolutely necessary on our rulesets, or something.

Edit: Wow, I spent 10 whole minutes typing that when it was already said for me. -___ -;

Basically, remove the **** you have to remove, then play the rest of the **** game.

 

[deepseadiva]

Also, keep in mind that, even though Meno's words are well thought out and well written, the point remains that that too really is just another opinion on how the game should be run.

Man, that was such a good thread. It might be a little dated, and I've advanced my thinking a little further. I don't consider it an opinion though.

I'll lay out my logic here, if you care to follow along. A ruleset should be the specific objective answer to this question: "How can we make this game competitive?" So, to start, how do we mean "competitive"? We mean competitive in that the player on the win screen is the winner and the better player, while the other player is the loser, and thus worse.

Competition is the process by which we filter and rank these players, most easily and realistically done through a tournament. This introduces physical limitations, like time and attendance management, but as they are unavoidable, they are accepted as "part of the game".

My theory on where the stock and the timer rules are born from.

Now, as Brawl is quite the silly game, we learn that the "better" player that wins most of the time, does not win all of the time. We investigate, and we start to encounter in Brawl a variety of elements that take wins from otherwise better players. Random occurrences, like tripping and items are inherently anti-competitive, and so we disable those as we can, and we live what we can't.

Now here, I think, is the original divergence. We can turn items off, but why turn them all off? At the start of Brawl, items were assumed off as a whole, but theoretically the game could function with select items on. We choose not to.

Looking back, I see how we handled stages as a reflection of how we could have tested items - had we gone in that direction. Starter stages (food, sandbag, smokeball, etc.), counterpick stages (bananas, Mr. Saturn, Frankling Badge, etc.), and banned stages (Final Smashes, Assist Trophies, etc.).

We choose to disable them all in one swoop. That's at least one very obvious example of the community taking ahold of the game, rather than the other way around. We wanted a game about spacing and zoning. We wanted something pure and traditional, and so we choose and molded Brawl's ruleset to live up to our vision.

Is that wrong? Of course not. But was it incorrect? In a way, technically.

As I've said before though, it's Super Smash Bros. It's entirely a casual fighter, and I think it's only in that spirit that we attempt to play it "competitively".

Brawl at the highest competitive capacity is: choose Meta Knight, camp/do Meta Knight things for the lead, and plank. Select items on, select stages on, stocks and timer.

I think we got fairly close to that. And I think that's really close enough. But I would disagree and say it doesn't hold Brawl's complete competitive integrity.

We dropped that goal awhile ago.