Mk Ban

[RDK]

Hey Meta Kirby, try picking up MK, since he's obviously so ridiculously easy to play. In competitive gaming it's called "maximizing your chances".

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I really do wonder how the same game has both tripping and Meta Knight.

 

[SuSa]

Hey Meta Kirby, try picking up MK, since he's obviously so ridiculously easy to play. In competitive gaming it's called "maximizing your chances".

Ya' know. If everyone followed that logic, he would be over-centralizing.

Too bad not all of us are Overswarm.

 

[RDK]

Ya' know. If everyone followed that logic, he would be over-centralizing.

Too bad not all of us are Overswarm.

If pro-ban had half the brains they say they do they would all be out playing Metaknight; then they might actually have a point. Whining about getting him banned when he doesn't overcentralize yet is quite possibly the dumbest thing they could possibly do.

 

[Purple]

I said MetaKnight is. Sure, the gap between MetaKnight and Snake is shrinking, but that's only because of Ally. Again, the evidence persists.

Personally, the MK/Snake Matchup isn't shrinking in my opinion, it's the same, just because ally won genesis doesn't mean too much, it wasn't the biggest brawl tourney in history, that went to M2K.

Also, M2K won evo recently, destroying ally.

Remove MetaKnight, and the other living organisms in the environment will grow considerably in numbers, and since there's no top predator to help steady the population of other animals, they will excessively multiply and topple the cycle. So, Falco's, Snake's, Diddy's, Ice Climbers's, Dedede's, and the like will instead take over. And since I play Yoshi?

I'm having problems either way.

So? Let's say i main t.hawk in street fighter turbo, for those who don't know he's low tier, a grappler, his main purpose is to get in and grab, now let's also say hypothetically akuma's not banned. Akuma is absolutely broken, while he has flaws like low hp and things of that sort, he has something that no one else has, aerial projectiles, in a game where you punish mistakes, and you can do somethnig that cannot be punished (you can throw these projectiles while moving away) it makes it impossible to punish him.

So what you're saying Marik is that's like saying remove akuma in street fighter turbo and you'll just have a bunch of balrogs, ryus, deejays, and guiles and such (which we do), and as a low tier, i'll have problems anyway, that is true, but those problems are limited to things i can get around, which is what's important. there's always going to be a high tier character to go with incase a top tier character is banned, difference is, there's less work involved and they usually have a flaw that can greatly help your win against them.

Meta Knight, however, is not broken, believe it or not. A good example of what constitutes brokenness would be Mewtwo from Pokemon Red, Blue, and Yellow. Mewtwo's defenses were off the charts along with incredible HP, his speed was entirely unmatched by all but (maybe) Electrode, and his offense was God Tier. He knew almost every powerful attack in the game at that time, and even a 2-year old could win with him, so he was dubbed broken and banned from competitive play. People made strategies and 6 Pokemon teams solely to beat one Mewtwo, being the superman that he was.

Interesting that you say that. It really doesn't matter if everything he has is off the charts, the thing is, the things he has as flaws (low health, slow horizontal movement, worst jab in the game) is completely overpowered by the fact that brawl is a game of patience, and he just so happens to be the absolute BEST planker in the game ( 5 (?) jumps, ability to glide twice, best gimping character in the game u-air comes out extremely fast for people attacking from above i.e off the ledge, even worse he can down-b to get back to the ledge). If the character was played as a gimping/planking character, he would unbeatable in the terms of every character in the game (especially considering the next best character is snake, and he gets destroyed off the stage).

He has a powerful arsenal of tilts and smashes, all of which come out fast, infact, if you whiff a forward smash, you're still considered safe if you down-smash immediately afterwards (at least on block).

No character in all seriousness has even matchups against metaknights, just situational ways that would help take some stocks off in a rare situation.

 

[M.K]

Hey Meta Kirby, try picking up MK, since he's obviously so ridiculously easy to play. In competitive gaming it's called "maximizing your chances".

Look, I was only asking what they believed, not supporting the pro ban side or demeaning anti ban . You need to get a grip on your rudeness, because it only makes you look like the prime example of the elitist moron that is so widely hated.

 

[aeghrur]

If pro-ban had half the brains they say they do they would all be out playing Metaknight; then they might actually have a point. Whining about getting him banned when he doesn't overcentralize yet is quite possibly the dumbest thing they could possibly do.

Tell me this:
Does IDC overcentralize?
Isn't EDC a variation of IDC which technically can cause similar effects?
How do you enforcedly ban EDC when people can just add a clandestine tap here or there to lengthen the dimensional cape?
Are we really going to ban one of Metaknight's moves straight up?
Does planking overcentralize?
If not, why install the ledge grab rule?
If so, isn't Metaknight the main problem with planking?
If he can use a strategy well enough to overcentralize, then shouldn't he be banned?

Food for thought.

 

[cF=)]

prime example of the elitist moron that is so widely hated.

And we're down to ad hominem attacks because nobody refuted that playing competitively was the main point of entering a tournament. Thread should be closed by all means.

 

[adumbrodeus]

RDK, I'm hurt, you haven't cited my thread yet.


Anyway, the main problem with the entire debate is lack of evidence. As I've cited many times in the debate, there's far from enough evidence to make a final judgement on the issue because we lack a few important things.


1. Proper match-ups.
1a. A proper theoretical background for said match-ups.
1b. All the match-ups properly discussed in terms of that theoretical background.
1c. Empirical evidence to support those match-up numbers (Susa's working on that right now if I'm not mistaken).

2. A statistically valid way of determining current character power in the metagame (I'm working on that).


All we currently is a way of determining current centralization (thank you Ankoku), though people have a tendency to treat it like it measures character power in the metagame. It doesn't.



So that's the overall point, I'm anti-ban currently, because you need evidence to prove that something is banworthy, the status quo stands unless proven otherwise.

However, since this is an important issue, it is the responsibility of the community as a whole to figure it out, and a lot of the information would be useful overall anyway.



As far as the criteria goes, I discussed it in my community to-do list, and my blog .


Basically, if MK renders 50% +1 of the cast nonviable, he should be banned.


To detirmine if he makes a character non-viable, judge based on this:

1. A hard counter to that character at least (80-20 min would probably be more proper).

2. Has to be either:

a. Omni-present enough in the metagame that not being eliminated by this character is near impossible given the hard counter status (even if you're a superior player).

OR

b. the match-up is easy enough that an opponent can virtually pick up the character to beat you.


3. No other character fits these attributes.

4. This pattern has to be backed up by tournament data.


If this is shown to occur, then he overcentralizes, and therefore richly deserves a ban. If not, he shouldn't be banned.


Keep in mind the criteria itself is up for debate, but I posted extensive reasoning to back it up in both the posts that I mentioned, feel free to quote sections of them to disagree.

 

[RDK]

Adum, that's probably too complicated already for the pro-ban crowd. To simplify it I usually just say that unless it comes down to "play MK or lose", he doesn't constitute a ban. It's short, sweet, and it gets the point across.

Also, for the benefit of those who weren't present for the majority of the MK Ban debate, or for those reading who haven't seen your thread, you should go into detail about the theoretical background for the revamped matchup system.

 

[Reaver197]

I don't play Brawl, nor do I really keep up with tournament results and videos from it and such, so I don't have much in the way to offer on a direct opinion of MK and whether or not he deserves a ban, but the whole discussion reminded me of some articles and posts I read on David Sirlin's blog about the banning of characters/techniques.

It's split up into different areas and sections so I'll just post the articles and explain where you can find the relevant parts. Some of the information might repeat in some of the articles, but they each contain something new to consider.

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html (Read the "Boundaries of Playing to Win" section, then scroll down to the comments section, and read the blue comments from Sirlin)

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/cheating.html (the whole article)

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned.html (the whole article)

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-2-mailbag.html (read starting from the second quote in the "Objections" section through to the third quote, past the "Street Fighter Again" heading)

The gist of his argument is that for a character, or tactic, to be banned, it has to be something discrete and reasonably enforceable, and is a character or tactic that dominates the game to the exclusion of all other tactics or characters in the game. Like, with his example of Akuma in SFII. The discrete tactic was that Akuma could use his aerial fireballs to keep people stuck in block for, essentially, forever.

I don't know much about MK, but from the arguments that I've heard, I haven't seen anyone mention a particular, discrete tactic or strategy that MK could use that would work to the complete exclusion of all other characters or strategies in the game. But, on the other hand, I have heard about the Dimensional Cape stall on the ledge tactic. I don't know about the particularities of it, or how effective it is, but last I know, it was banned for either a certain amount of times or a certain time period. But maybe I'm mistaken.

In the end, I guess what I'm saying is that unless MK has a strategy or tactic that works to the exclusion of all characters and strategies, I don't think he warrants a ban. If his presence however makes the game unenjoyable for those that play it, or forces people to play certain strategies or characters they'd rather not, then maybe the issue is that the game doesn't do a very good job of being conducive to competitive play. If not either of those then, then it's really just up to the players to rise to the challenge.

 

[CRASHiC]

But, on the other hand, I have heard about the Dimensional Cape stall on the ledge tactic. I don't know about the particularities of it, or how effective it is, but last I know, it was banned for either a certain amount of times or a certain time period. But maybe I'm mistaken.

Its banned flat out, but has proven difficult to enforce a ban, as it can be done for short periods of time so that it is only noticeable on review.

 

[Reaver197]

Ah, ok. Thanks for the info. So, doing it even once is considered breaking the ban?

 

[CRASHiC]

Yes, because not only can it be used for stalling, but the spacing implications, as well as the recovery options it provides are astounding and have no counter what so ever.

 

[Reaver197]

So, the use of it at all to get to the ledge is banned? Not just from being already on the ledge and then using it?

 

[aeghrur]

Adum, that's probably too complicated already for the pro-ban crowd. To simplify it I usually just say that unless it comes down to "play MK or lose", he doesn't constitute a ban. It's short, sweet, and it gets the point across.

Also, for the benefit of those who weren't present for the majority of the MK Ban debate, or for those reading who haven't seen your thread, you should go into detail about the theoretical background for the revamped matchup system.

Please answer my questions before attacking the majority of smashboards.
I actually would like to see how you want to ban EDC.

 

[CRASHiC]

So, the use of it at all to get to the ledge is banned? Not just from being already on the ledge and then using it?

Using it anywhere, at any time is banned. Its the equivalent of making yourself invincible.

 

[aeghrur]

Using it anywhere, at any time is banned. Its the equivalent of making yourself invincible.

No it isn't cuz when I'm invincible from the power star thingy, I get to hear awesome music.

 

[RDK]

Using it anywhere, at any time is banned. Its the equivalent of making yourself invincible.

This is absolutely false. Infinite Dimensional Cape is banned; using the cape for excessive stalling is not allowed, anything besides that is fine, and it's up to the TO's to figure it out at their personal discretion. Stop spreading false information just to make your point seem reasonable.

And Aeghrur, I basically just answered your question, but if you really need me to spell out what the difference is between EDC and IDC is, then so be it:

Tell me this:
Does IDC overcentralize?

It would if it wasn't banned.

Isn't EDC a variation of IDC which technically can cause similar effects?

You can't use the IDC for stalling purposes. What exactly is so hard to understand about this?

How do you enforcedly ban EDC when people can just add a clandestine tap here or there to lengthen the dimensional cape?

It is at the TO's discretion to decide when excessive stalling comes into play, just like any other instance of stalling in any of the other Smash games, including Brawl. The fact that MK can do it has no relevance to the situation whatsoever.

Are we really going to ban one of Metaknight's moves straight up?

No, that's what you're not getting. The move isn't banned; use of the move for excessive stalling is.

Does planking overcentralize?

If used excessively.

If so, isn't Metaknight the main problem with planking?

No.

If he can use a strategy well enough to overcentralize, then shouldn't he be banned?

Yeah, you're right! Let's ban an entire character because he's good at planking instead of just employing excessive stall tactic rules that have been around since the dawn of Smash!

You guys are ********.

 

[Reaver197]

Alright, I'm going to have to ask what is meant by "EDC" and "overcentralize".

Also, shouldn't a tactic that warrants banning be more solidly defined when that tactic is being used in an "unfair" way, rather than having a more vague and subjective "eh, I guess up until now the tactic was alright to use, but now it's not"?

 

[Mewter]

You can't say IDC overcentralizes and then call EDC IDC. It's comparing apples to oranges.

Alright, I'm going to have to ask what is meant by "EDC" and "overcentralize".

Also, shouldn't a tactic that warrants banning be more solidly defined when that tactic is being used in an "unfair" way, rather than having a more vague and subjective "eh, I guess up until now the tactic was alright to use, but now it's not"?

IDC (Infinite Dimensional Cape): MK's DownB move, except extended for longer periods of time. Basicaly, Meta Knight teleports, and as long as you can rapidly tap the C-Stick up quickly enough, you don't have to reappear and can travel any distance you want before actually reappearing. It is definitely ban material.
EDC (Extended Dimensional Cape) is just like the normal DC, but just a little longer...
right?

I just have one question that I'd like answered. What I'm asking is, how much trouble is caused by EDC?

 

[CRASHiC]

This is absolutely false. Infinite Dimensional Cape is banned; using the cape for excessive stalling is not allowed, anything besides that is fine, and it's up to the TO's to figure it out at their personal discretion. Stop spreading false information just to make your point seem reasonable.

Wrong. Please reread the rules.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=230481

Metaknight's Infinite Cape glitch is banned.

Its banned outright.
We don't ban things 'because of obsesive stalling' because that's already stated in the 'no stalling' rule.

I just have one question that I'd like answered. What I'm asking is, how much trouble is caused by EDC?

I don't know if any trouble has been caused yet, but it allows the Metaknight, if I remember correctly, to move almost all the way across Final Destination. How much of a problem this becomes is yet to be seen.

 

[aeghrur]

And Aeghrur, I basically just answered your question, but if you really need me to spell out what the difference is between EDC and IDC is, then so be it:

Alright. Spell out the difference for me.

It would if it wasn't banned.

EDC isn't banned, and cannot be banned easily. Same effects are possible.

You can't use the IDC for stalling purposes. What exactly is so hard to understand about this?

I asked about EDC, which technically can be used for stalling purposes, but it is also hard to ban without simply saying MK cannot use Dimensional Cape. After all, how do you ban EDC? Can you notice every single tap? If it's not one tap, what's the arbitrary limit to this? 3 taps? 5 taps? 19837468 taps? Who gets to choose as well?

It is at the TO's discretion to decide when excessive stalling comes into play, just like any other instance of stalling in any of the other Smash games, including Brawl. The fact that MK can do it has no relevance to the situation whatsoever.

That didn't answer my question.
How do you spot EDC? How do you ban it? Or are we just going to have people screaming "Disqualify him" everytime they see Metaknight use Dimensional cape? Tell me HOW you ban EDC. HOW do you spot it? What's the limit? I did not ask "when does it become excessive stalling?"

No, that's what you're not getting. The move isn't banned; use of the move for excessive stalling is.

No, I'm pretty sure IDC is banned straight up for all of its effects, which is why the move as a whole over centralizes, as you admitted.

If used excessively.

What? So it doesn't overcentralize if it's just used for the last 3 minutes of a match, but anything past that point, it does??? O_O

No.

Who is?

Yeah, you're right! Let's ban an entire character because he's good at planking instead of just employing excessive stall tactic rules that have been around since the dawn of Smash!

lol, excessive. I love when you use that word. I do hope you know how subjective it sounds. Also, don't forget about EDC, which you STILL haven't told me HOW to ban when it could also cause over centralization should it not be banned due to it giving MK a safe way to get away from everything, and a move which can stall.

You guys are ********.

Awwww, <3

 

[RDK]

Alright. Spell out the difference for me.

IDC (Infinite Dimensional Cape): Dimensional Cape extended infinitely. Banned.

EDC (Extended Dimensional Cape): Dimensional Cape extended. Exactly when this turns into IDC is at the TO's discretion.

Want me to dumb it down for you even more?

EDC isn't banned, and cannot be banned easily. Same effects are possible.

So? Read my above statement.

I asked about EDC, which technically can be used for stalling purposes, but it is also hard to ban without simply saying MK cannot use Dimensional Cape. After all, how do you ban EDC?

You don't ban EDC, since it's not ban-worthy.

Can you notice every single tap? If it's not one tap, what's the arbitrary limit to this? 3 taps? 5 taps? 19837468 taps? Who gets to choose as well?

Whoever the TO is.

That didn't answer my question.
How do you spot EDC?

EDC is Dimensional Cape used for an extended period of time.

How do you ban it?

You don't.

Or are we just going to have people screaming "Disqualify him" everytime they see Metaknight use Dimensional cape? Tell me HOW you ban EDC. HOW do you spot it? What's the limit? I did not ask "when does it become excessive stalling?"

I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. Do you even know what you're talking about?

At no point in this conversation did anyone endorse banning EDC. Except for you maybe, but then again you've been so incoherent for the past few pages that I have no idea what your point to all this is.

No, I'm pretty sure IDC is banned straight up for all of its effects, which is why the move as a whole over centralizes, as you admitted.

Nope, I said the technique IDC would overcentralize if it wasn't banned. If you read my previous post I even said that the move itself didn't overcentralize, but IDC did.

What? So it doesn't overcentralize if it's just used for the last 3 minutes of a match, but anything past that point, it does??? O_O

When did I ever say anything about the last 3 minutes of the match? There you go, making stuff up again.

Who is?

Exactly what do you mean by "main problem"? You're assuming because Metaknight is really good at planking.......planking should be banned? How is that logical?

So I guess because Metaknight is really good at recovering, recovery should be banned.

lol, excessive. I love when you use that word.

Cool.

I do hope you know how subjective it sounds.

Don't yell at me; yell at the people who made the rules. I.E., the SBR.

Also, don't forget about EDC, which you STILL haven't told me HOW to ban when it could also cause over centralization should it not be banned due to it giving MK a safe way to get away from everything, and a move which can stall.

I never ever endorsed banning EDC, or even mentioned it, so I don't know why you're asking me how we would possibly ban it. How is this relevant to the conversation?

 

[CRASHiC]

Question: isn't EDC done a different method than IDC?
Not important to the ban discussion, I am simply unaware of this technique until very, very recently.

 

[Mewter]

Question: isn't EDC done a different method than IDC?
Not important to the ban discussion, I am simply unaware of this technique until very, very recently.

The C-Stick method described above is the way both are done.

DC---EDC--IDC​

Just depends how long you C-Stick it. ^
If I made the rules, 2 taps would be EDC, and45

Spoiler

No, just kidding, 4

taps would make IDC, but that's just me.
Besides, it's pretty hard to do. At least, for me, it is. It's pretty tiring, too.

 

[aeghrur]

IDC (Infinite Dimensional Cape): Dimensional Cape extended infinitely. Banned.

EDC (Extended Dimensional Cape): Dimensional Cape extended. Exactly when this turns into IDC is at the TO's discretion.

Want me to dumb it down for you even more?

Sure. I just love hearing you talk.
So you're basically saying that EDC is the same as IDC, except differing upon the length.
Okay, but I don't know where you get this. There isn't any talk of length when banning IDC. There's no such thing as "EDC becomes IDC" or that IDC is banned for stalling purposes.
IDC is flat out banned. http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=230481 Read it. It's not under the stalling section, it's not saying IDC is banned for excessive stalling, IDC is simply banned. So really, where do you get the idea that IDC becomes when EDC excessively stalls?

Silly me, I almost forgot something.
How are the TOs going to go through with this?
For example, let's take Mewters 2/4 taps rule.
Who's going to be there to enforce this? How will people count the 4 taps?
Or are we going to go by "feelings?" Where, if the TO FEELS it's too long, then the person gets DQed? But, what if the TO isn't watching the match? What if he feels a regular DC is suddenly too long? How would we fix this?

So? Read my above statement.

Okie. :D

You don't ban EDC, since it's not ban-worthy.

Well, you basically just said EDC=IDC but differing in length. However, the banning of IDC does not take length into account, thus IDC includes EDC which would make it banworthy, since IDC is. =/

EDC is Dimensional Cape used for an extended period of time.

No, it's an extension of the dimensional cape, anywhere between 1 tap to infinite taps.
How do we spot the 1 tap?

You don't.

Okay, goodie. Then do you agree EDC can't be banned?

I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. Do you even know what you're talking about?[color]

Yup. But I guess I'm really bad at getting my point across to you huh?

[color="red]At no point in this conversation did anyone endorse banning EDC. Except for you maybe, but then again you've been so incoherent for the past few pages that I have no idea what your point to all this is.[/COLOR][/quote]

Okay, this conversation was between you and me, so if I endorsed it, then someone endorsed it, lol. And if you want, I can sum up the points we've been arguing about:
EDC cannot be effectively banned without banning MK's Down-B
EDC cannot be banned, and has the same possible effects as IDC, so [b]I[/b] believe it should be banned.
If EDC cannot be banned, and MK can use this technique to stall and such, then it should make MK broken unless we decide to ban it.
You however, argue that EDC cannot have the same effects as IDC because EDC eventually becomes bannable as it becomes IDC.
In which, I rebut that IDC does not depend on length, so ideally, if you cannot ban EDC effectively, you cannot ban IDC effectively.
Oh, and check this: IDC actually is basically the same as EDC. Both are simply the extension of the Dimensional cape indefinitely (or until you want it to stop) [<--- definition credit of adumbrodeus] and thus, since IDC is banned without stalling into consideration, any extension of the dimensional cape would be banned. However, as we have established, one cannot ban EDC effectively, thus one cannot ban IDC effectively since they are one and the same.

[quote][COLOR="Red"]Nope, I said the technique IDC would overcentralize if it wasn't banned. If you read my previous post I even said that the move itself didn't overcentralize, but IDC did.

I think you misunderstood my poorly worded sentence, lol.
I meant IDC overcentralizes if it wasn't banned, which you admitted, so we're in agreement? I didn't mean that dimensional cape overcentralizes.
Now, the thing here is, you believe IDC is effectively banned, but I believe it cannot be for the simply reason that you cannot always tell when the DC is being extended. Thus, one can extend the DC secretly and get away with it, thus IDC cannot be banned effectively as IDC is an extension of the Dimensional cape. No, it is not the extension of the dimensional cape used for excessive stalling, it is simply the extension of the dimensional cape.

When did I ever say anything about the last 3 minutes of the match? There you go, making stuff up again.

Well, right now, with the ledgegrab rule, one can basically play regulary for most of the match, and then plank for the last three minutes or so, give or take depending on the amount of ledgegrabs as set by the TO.

Exactly what do you mean by "main problem"? You're assuming because Metaknight is really good at planking.......planking should be banned? How is that logical?

So I guess because Metaknight is really good at recovering, recovery should be banned.

No... what I was trying to get at was that Planking overcentralizes, MK is the best one at planking, causing these problems. This along with the fact that he can reach the ledge from anywhere with EDC/IDC, and we have ourselves a broken character.

Don't yell at me; yell at the people who made the rules. I.E., the SBR.

Well, I'm reading the rules, and they don't ever mention IDC being banned because of excessive stalling. They simply state IDC is banned, meaning any extension of the Dimensional Cape is banned. =/

I never ever endorsed banning EDC, or even mentioned it, so I don't know why you're asking me how we would possibly ban it. How is this relevant to the conversation?

Because you should realize by now that EDC is the same as IDC.

This is fun btw. I really did enjoy your responses.

 

[Reaver197]

The C-Stick method described above is the way both are done.

DC---EDC--IDC​

Just depends how long you C-Stick it. ^
If I made the rules, 2 taps would be EDC, and45

Spoiler

No, just kidding, 4

taps would make IDC, but that's just me.
Besides, it's pretty hard to do. At least, for me, it is. It's pretty tiring, too.

That makes it sound not only really vague and arbitrary at which point one becomes another, but just impossible to realistically enforce and keep an eye out for.

If they must ban it, it seems they should ban any extension of it.

 

[Riddle]

That makes it sound not only really vague and arbitrary at which point one becomes another, but just impossible to realistically enforce and keep an eye out for.

If they must ban it, it seems they should ban any extension of it.

But how are you suggesting we ban an extension of it? You don't need to tap the C-Stick all the way up and if you just do one or 2 taps to ge away it isn't really noticeable. I think a better way to ban the IDC is to ban the entire move, because that is actually observable. However, this is also a ridiculous option. Ban an entire move that is not broken, just to ban a method of stalling with it? I don't like that option either, but it is probably the only way to avoid people inconspicuously extending it for a spacing advantage.

 

[Reaver197]

Yeah, it seems to be an incredible mess. It really does seem that the only enforceable, discrete way to handle it is either ban the move entirely, or ban the character, both of which seem overkill, but other wise there is no other way to discretely determine when an extending of the move crosses the line between fair and unfair.

 

[CRASHiC]

The main trouble with banning a move in its entirety is doing it on accident. ICs wobbling is different because it must be done on purpose. Simply using a move though can indeed happen on top level play, as HRNut killed himself by accidentally hitting sideb instead of up when trying to recover, though it is very uncommon. Imagine being DQes out of a tournament for accidentally hitting down b when mashing out of DDDs inhale. This is the trouble with banning a move.

 

[Reaver197]

Then it seems we're either back to banning the character, or just allowing people to EDC/IDC (they pretty much seem one in the same to me), both of which are positions that are hard to allow to happen, for obvious reasons, but the least of the two seems to be banning MK.

However, it seems to me that this is just an really bad decision by the game makers, or a big oversight. It would seem that the best way to fix this issue would be to patch the game, but, clearly, with the way that Nintendo has set up their online component for the Wii, that's not really feasible.

 

[RDK]

This is the problem with people who know nothing about competitive fighting games making decisions that will adversely effect the game. You deal with it the same exact way you deal with excessive stalling tactics. It's been done since the first Smash game, and it's going to be done until the universe explodes. No need for banning a move or a character; the TO's enforce it to their own discretion.

 

[CRASHiC]

It has more uses than Stalling though. Zoning, evasion, spacing, recovery. All of these make the move beyond broken.
Also, again to discredit the idea that those who are or were ever in favor of a ban are scrubs and

know nothing about competitive fighting games

I play more than Smash competitively, such as Guilty Gear and when I get a PS3 Blazblue.

 

[Reaver197]

But, wouldn't you be a bit bothered by the subjectiveness and variability that might introduced in such a manner? Good competitive games operate under very strict and exacting rules (you can do certain moves when you're in such and such position, but you can't in others, etc) that are programmed into the game. There is no wiggling room, it's either allowed by the game, or it isn't. So, unless, it is determined by the community that a certain move or character essentially voids playing the game, you should be able to to do anything within the allowed confines of the game to win, because, in the end, that's all the game can distinguish between or care about; who won and who didn't.

Can you imagine playing a game where the particulars of the rules of what isn't allowed and is allowed can change from, essentially, game to game? At least, with the banning of a move or character, there is a definite, known rule that people can work around and still play the game. But with such a vague and subjective rule, how can anyone play the game confidently knowing they are playing within the bounds, especially when the discretion of the TO can change at, essentially, any time?

I'm just trying to argue for a rule set that is known and definite, so that people are free to explore to the best of their abilities whatever strategy they think is best to win the game. If it's not known when a rule is broken or not, then the competitive spirit of a game is compromised, in my eyes.

Either way, to me, it mostly smacks of an ill-made competitive game.

 

[Mewter]

I don't see a slightly extended DC doing any danger. It's just like any other AT. Banning the move altogether is a no-no, as Crash said, and banning Meta Knight altogether... well, that's the issue.

The entire technique is known as IDC, right (I'll just call a couple of taps EDC, and beyond that is IDC)?

Ban the Move:
Pros: Less stalling.
Cons: Accidents happen. Darn.

Keep the Move:
Pros: Meta Knight keeps a non broken move, and IDC only
Cons: Can't monitor all tourney matches with MK in them, so someone is bound to pull a long one.

Question Time!
Does it make a difference if someone pulls off a tiny extension from a regular DC to (Short) IDC (EDC)? Can this affect the outcome of a match? Do you ban the move? Has IDC effectively been used as a stalling technique in tourneys? Can something be done to eliminate one of the pros or cons of one of the choices above?

 

[CRASHiC]

IDC and EDC can not happen accidentally, so we should ban that, but not the cape all together.

Also, there was some bad information in this thread about how to do EDC

IDC=extend using the cstick pressing up over and over if i remember correctly, its the one that can be done infinitely either way.


EDC= Pressing up then down then up then down then up then down while holding one side, cannot be extended indefinitly, works because everytime MK touches the ground he goes a bit farther.

Also, how is EDC not broken? It allows the user the ability to move across the field completely, get rid of the opponents zoning game, avoid moves all together, and allow for extreme stalling. Its more than stalling, it bypasses the very essence of competitive smash brothers. The person who is having EDC used against him has no zoning option, no Yomi options, no way to counter the EDC, and no way to punish the EDC.

 

[Mewter]

Also, how is EDC not broken? It allows the user the ability to move across the field completely, get rid of the opponents zoning game, avoid moves all together, and allow for extreme stalling. Its more than stalling, it bypasses the very essence of competitive smash brothers. The person who is having EDC used against him has no zoning option, no Yomi options, no way to counter the EDC, and no way to punish the EDC.

EDC? Don't you mean IDC? EDC probably won't land you very much farther than a regular Down B will, but the line is very arbitrary.

Let's set something straight. A picture demonstrating the length of a normal DC on Final Destination. Credits to the YouTube video I cropped the pictures from:

Now, in comparison to the entire stage, along with a comparison to a (black) couple-taps EDC:

Anyways, does this look broken? I don't think I'm in a position to tell.

Edit:
And also, I might be a bit too generous when it comes to the length given by a couple of taps.

 

[CRASHiC]

Its the difference of an entire characters body, allowing you to move outside of a hitbox that would normally hit. If the MK saw an attack coming that he was unable to avoid, EDC would allow him to move far enough fast enough with invincibility to escape the move and the zoning and spacing trap the person had set up, how could, say a Snake punish this effectively? What risk does the MK make by doing it? None what so ever.

 

[RDK]

It has more uses than Stalling though. Zoning, evasion, spacing, recovery. All of these make the move beyond broken.

I realize that, and at this point I'm not even arguing for not banning the cape completely; I'm showing people the reasoning behind the SBR's decision.

Also, again to discredit the idea that those who are or were ever in favor of a ban are scrubs and I play more than Smash competitively, such as Guilty Gear and when I get a PS3 Blazblue.

Don't get a PS3! BlazBlue is out for 360 too.

Either way, to me, it mostly smacks of an ill-made competitive game.

I almost wish they would have just given us Melee online.