Niko_K
Smash Master
Oh, just one more thing. Top 2 at Winter Games fest.
Wario and Falco.
Wario and Falco.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
New Rule To Help With MetaKnight
- Thread starter CT Chia
- Start date
CT Chia
Smash Obsessed
Knock it off niko. what happened to u being cool? i posted this idea to ppl to get opinions and you go crazy in this thread bashin the hell outta me attacking my integrity, and you still wont drop it, just a lil thread in the tactical discussion.
and you still wont stop, making sure ppl know a wario and a falco just outplaced a MK and the latest big tourney. who cares.
and perhaps what angered me the most is when you kept posting a link to this thread in the live chat. what r u trying to do? point this out to as many ppl as possible to try and make me look like a joke? the sad thing is out of any of the responses i saw about it in the chat was dannykat saying it was a good idea.
and you still wont stop, making sure ppl know a wario and a falco just outplaced a MK and the latest big tourney. who cares.
and perhaps what angered me the most is when you kept posting a link to this thread in the live chat. what r u trying to do? point this out to as many ppl as possible to try and make me look like a joke? the sad thing is out of any of the responses i saw about it in the chat was dannykat saying it was a good idea.
Niko_K
Smash Master
If it makes you feel better, I drank tonight. I'm honestly just trying to get you to yknow, justify your opinions, which are very empty at the moment. You just say something and point it out as factual and then don't back it up. I NEVER went crazy bashing you in this thread at all. I simply stated I believed this was a dumb idea and proceeded to provide you with valid points as to why it is a bad idea.
I was nothing but neutral with you. As an SBR member, I expected you to actually defend your position on why you believe there is OBVIOUSLY logic behind this rule. You did nothing at all except try to stray away from any discussion about this rule.
I don't have a problem with you at all, I just hate it when people try and have an opinion without backing it up.
I was nothing but neutral with you. As an SBR member, I expected you to actually defend your position on why you believe there is OBVIOUSLY logic behind this rule. You did nothing at all except try to stray away from any discussion about this rule.
I don't have a problem with you at all, I just hate it when people try and have an opinion without backing it up.
lol i was jk. its not like i really care about MK anyways. He isn't really that much of a threat IMO. People rant and everything about MK being gay and stuff...yeah he really doesn't have a bad match up...but still can be beaten.
Flowbeat
Smash Cadet
well these ideas should defiinatly be given a chance before a ban
nah, this wouldn't work.
if player 1 wins the first match with some random character that isn't MK, bans a stage and loses on the opponent's CP, does that mean player 1 cannot use MK on the third match? limiting player choice like that seems a little silly. when you limit player choice, it has to be like a clear and definitive ban...not something like this where complications can arise, etc.
if you want to argue this from the perspective that it's the player's responsibility to be prepared for MK, players can just learn the neutral matchups and take the MK to the stage they don't ban with the correct corresponding character. ya, it's kind of gay learning 2 characters for one opponent, but that's MK for ya. MK's not unbeatable. just quite difficult.
if player 1 wins the first match with some random character that isn't MK, bans a stage and loses on the opponent's CP, does that mean player 1 cannot use MK on the third match? limiting player choice like that seems a little silly. when you limit player choice, it has to be like a clear and definitive ban...not something like this where complications can arise, etc.
if you want to argue this from the perspective that it's the player's responsibility to be prepared for MK, players can just learn the neutral matchups and take the MK to the stage they don't ban with the correct corresponding character. ya, it's kind of gay learning 2 characters for one opponent, but that's MK for ya. MK's not unbeatable. just quite difficult.
Rapid_Assassin
Smash Master
Not unless we can go into my secret time machine, and not allow people with top tiers in Melee to ban whatever ultra-gay stage I want to pick just to piss them off.. 
Learn to deal with MK, like Melee players learned to deal with Sheik.
Learn to deal with MK, like Melee players learned to deal with Sheik.
illinialex24
Smash Hero
And Marth and Fox and Falco and JigglypuffNot unless we can go into my secret time machine, and not allow people with top tiers in Melee to ban whatever ultra-gay stage I want to pick just to piss them off..
Learn to deal with MK, like Melee players learned to deal with Sheik.
My melee mains. I was a bad top tier *****...
ShinTwist ScreamPaste
Prime Evil
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 780
the problem with learning an extra character just to fight MK is that character will probably BE Mk makign the game even MORE MK centric. Then you realise winning with MK is easier, so you play him a little more often when you're not confident in your main, then MK becomes your main.
U r borg. G.G.
U r borg. G.G.
brinboy789
Smash Champion
<3 noobs and scrubs
PND
Smash Champion
No, because then people will start picking up characters who counter those who go even with MK's counters. Guess what happens?
Diversity.
But do you know what else you can do without switching characters? Learn how to fight MK as your main. MK has advantages on most of the cast, but only outright ***** a small portion of them. MK is fallible. He can be beaten.
I don't think I need to be babied in a tournament. I want to fight against MKs. I want to fight against MKs with their full strength. Give me the challenge.
Master Raven
Smash Master
I don't agree with this idea. I don't think there's any need for setting arbitrary limitations for MK.
ShinTwist ScreamPaste
Prime Evil
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 780
<3 unneccasary flames.
Lol, people are already making assumptions based on my post. Carry on, but name a character who can counter MK. Even 55:45. Just one. Check the tournament rankings thread, check the tier list. MK's ****** up the scene, and the game is becoming MK centric.
did I say "OMG BANZOR HEM RITE NAO"? Nope. Lol. I do think some people need to stop beign so stubborn and accept there -is- a problem. It's not AIDS but it's a problem.
I'm not sure why our community functions this way. You'd figure after enough attempts at logical debate anyone with an opinion wouldn't get flamed.
@ K 2 I never switch out my main anyway, but I'm not talking about me. Alot of people do.
Good stuff AZ. If only everyone who has chosen to play this game competitively liked a challenge.
Blackshadow
Smash Ace
All this new "rule" will do is make the Smash Community look like a joke. We're hardly treated seriously as it is, we don't need to be babysat when playing against MK just because "waaaaah he's too hard to beat". Accept that MK is broken already, it's not like we haven't dealt with broken characters in the past.
I sometimes feel that Brawl has broken away the competitive spirit that the Smash Community once had. Oh well, too late now.
I sometimes feel that Brawl has broken away the competitive spirit that the Smash Community once had. Oh well, too late now.
Ulevo
Smash Master
I'm open to the opinion of others or the discussion of Smash related topics of any area, provided it is constructive and has reason. That said, why is it necessary to rediscuss the topic of Meta Knight and his limitations in Tournament play when it has already reached a conclusion? Seriously?
Falconv1.0
Smash Master
Falco, DK, Snake.
Done, go to the ****ing MK boards for confirmation. Now shut the hell up because you dont have any match up debating skills, if you did you wouldn't be making up this bull****.
Ulevo
Smash Master
Since when did you need "match up debating skills" to openly state an opinion? Quite frankly, that's all they are. Match up ratios are commonly decided by the opinions of the communities top players or intelligent contributers. That doesn't make them fact.
That being said, the Meta Knight boards are the last location you would refer to for anything even remotely reliable with regards to match ups.
I'm not agreeing with his statement. I believe Meta Knight can be put to a disadvantage. However, trying to disprove him by using the credibility of a board is absurd and rather silly.
Here we go:
The reason that this is a logical proposal to balance the use of MK competitively without making things too unfair for those using him or otherwise breaking the game is because of the way he damages the cp system by having very few good options against him when he's allowed to ban a stage.
For instance, when people say Snake is 55:45 MK, if pressed you can almost always get them to admit that's only on a certain stage (Snake may have a couple, certain characters do only gain a decent match on one stage though). The rest of the time, it's even or MK's advantage.
What blocking the stage striking does is prevents the MK player from causing this problem of no good stages for their opponent to play against them on. The risk for the MK player is that they may not choose to play as MK -- but all they'll have given up was one stage ban, so they'll have to decide if they can handle the full set of tourney stages with their other characters, or can make do without MK and take one off the list. That makes the use of MK slightly more strategic, but the decision shouldn't be that hard in most situations. Presumably in tournaments where you're allowed to ban two stages (Do those happen?) MK use would restrict you to only one -- removing both would be noticably more than MK's strength deserves, imo.
Unlike other proposals for how to limit MK (No B moves, only X tornadoes, only used once in a match, and other such ideas) this does not restrict in any way what the MK user can select when it's their choice for what's going to happen next. It adds one more stage that their opponent can select, but nothing else changes. After the first round, if the MK user loses they may counterpick any unbanned stage and any character that they want. After the second round, they may continue to play as MK if they want. The only thing that changes is that MK picks up a couple worse counterpick matchups, due to not being able to ban the stage that would give his opponent that edge. The reason that's not terribly unfair is because it's not MK performing poorly on that stage though, it's just his opponent performing better -- so again, the MK player's abilities aren't being restricted.
Whether it's a good (Or necessary) idea or not is certainly up for debate, but there are logical reasons supporting it.
The reason that this is a logical proposal to balance the use of MK competitively without making things too unfair for those using him or otherwise breaking the game is because of the way he damages the cp system by having very few good options against him when he's allowed to ban a stage.
For instance, when people say Snake is 55:45 MK, if pressed you can almost always get them to admit that's only on a certain stage (Snake may have a couple, certain characters do only gain a decent match on one stage though). The rest of the time, it's even or MK's advantage.
What blocking the stage striking does is prevents the MK player from causing this problem of no good stages for their opponent to play against them on. The risk for the MK player is that they may not choose to play as MK -- but all they'll have given up was one stage ban, so they'll have to decide if they can handle the full set of tourney stages with their other characters, or can make do without MK and take one off the list. That makes the use of MK slightly more strategic, but the decision shouldn't be that hard in most situations. Presumably in tournaments where you're allowed to ban two stages (Do those happen?) MK use would restrict you to only one -- removing both would be noticably more than MK's strength deserves, imo.
Unlike other proposals for how to limit MK (No B moves, only X tornadoes, only used once in a match, and other such ideas) this does not restrict in any way what the MK user can select when it's their choice for what's going to happen next. It adds one more stage that their opponent can select, but nothing else changes. After the first round, if the MK user loses they may counterpick any unbanned stage and any character that they want. After the second round, they may continue to play as MK if they want. The only thing that changes is that MK picks up a couple worse counterpick matchups, due to not being able to ban the stage that would give his opponent that edge. The reason that's not terribly unfair is because it's not MK performing poorly on that stage though, it's just his opponent performing better -- so again, the MK player's abilities aren't being restricted.
Whether it's a good (Or necessary) idea or not is certainly up for debate, but there are logical reasons supporting it.
Niko_K
Smash Master
First of all, the purposed rule was to take away the MK players ability to stage ban, not stage strike.
The entire point is, MK is not on a level so far above the entire game to the point where we should need to put restrictions on the rule set exclusively due to the fact that you are playing MK. M2K now sees MK vs Snake as an even match up and many character boards feel that if they play their character competently, there is a fair chance they can beat MK.
There is just way too much negativity revolving around MK, instead of people trying to learn ways around his "broken design."
You just have to accept the fact that MK is the best character in the game, just not entirely broken. This is a fighting game, and there is going to be a character better than all the other characters. It's been that way forever. Why should someone be punished for choosing to play the best character in the game to it's fullest potential.
So by playing MK, you are not allowed to ban a stage you feel uncomfortable fighting on, or just flat out do not like the stage? Meanwhile, your opponent is allowed to counterpick you on a stage that takes advantage of MK's lightweight(Halberd), or lets characters camp MK (FD) and you aren't allowed to ban them because you chose to main MK?
That's what I would like to call an enforced handicap and it is just wrong to do so in a competitive fighter, before a full year of the game even being played.
The entire point is, MK is not on a level so far above the entire game to the point where we should need to put restrictions on the rule set exclusively due to the fact that you are playing MK. M2K now sees MK vs Snake as an even match up and many character boards feel that if they play their character competently, there is a fair chance they can beat MK.
There is just way too much negativity revolving around MK, instead of people trying to learn ways around his "broken design."
You just have to accept the fact that MK is the best character in the game, just not entirely broken. This is a fighting game, and there is going to be a character better than all the other characters. It's been that way forever. Why should someone be punished for choosing to play the best character in the game to it's fullest potential.
So by playing MK, you are not allowed to ban a stage you feel uncomfortable fighting on, or just flat out do not like the stage? Meanwhile, your opponent is allowed to counterpick you on a stage that takes advantage of MK's lightweight(Halberd), or lets characters camp MK (FD) and you aren't allowed to ban them because you chose to main MK?
That's what I would like to call an enforced handicap and it is just wrong to do so in a competitive fighter, before a full year of the game even being played.
ExCeL 52
Smash Lord
Gah... I hate Metaknight...
What's the difference, again?
"It's not time yet" is a silly reason to call an idea stupid because of. If the situation changes in the future, the rules can also change. In this case in particular, MK players won't be losing any development time so if the situation would change as things stand now, they'd also change with this rule in place.
I'd also point out all I did was provide logical support for it, and you didn't do anything but say "It's unfair to the MK player and he doesn't deserve it" in response. Did you really want the reasoning behind it, or were you just hoping there was none?
Niko_K
Smash Master
Stage striking is done at the beginning of the set to determine which neutral stage will be played first as a better alternative than random stage, giving the most neutral stage played based off what both players want. While stage banning is the act of taking away your opponents option to choose X stage.
I also never said it isn't time yet. I was implying that the metagame is no where near fully developed and thus Anti-MK strategies and ways to get around some of MK's aspects aren't fully concrete.
You're telling me that I didn't provide points as to why I believe your "logical support" is wrong? Did you read my post?
I also never said it isn't time yet. I was implying that the metagame is no where near fully developed and thus Anti-MK strategies and ways to get around some of MK's aspects aren't fully concrete.
You're telling me that I didn't provide points as to why I believe your "logical support" is wrong? Did you read my post?
Fortunately I was thinking of banning, so I have editted out the two mislabelled "strikes" in my post.
So you're saying it's not time yet. Read carefully what you just wrote, I don't see any other interpretation of "the metagame is no where near fully developed" and "Anti-MK strategies and [ways to beat him] aren't fully concrete" other than "We need to wait longer." How else do you see it translating?
The only point you brought up specifically against it is that you feel it's unfair the MK player can't ban a stage they're uncomfortable on. However, MK as a character in Brawl is unique in that he has no tournament legal stages that he doesn't perform well on, so player comfort is not something we must cater to in this -- their character can do fine on any tourney legal stage, if they can't do well on some of them they need to practice more because the potential is there. Thus if MK is felt to be almost but not quite ban worthy and a penalty is desired for utilizing him, this is one that hits him only lightly while still having an impact on overall performance.
Ilucamy
Smash Journeyman
This is stupid. I'm going to compare this idea to cheating in school.
By cheating, you're wasting your time trying to find a way to make your life easier in one way or another while at the same time you could be studying to do the same thing except without the risk.
So by spending all this time trying to put limitations on MK to make him easier for you, you should just go figure out your matchup. I mean seriously, you can win at 40:60, as long as you know the matchup it's not that hard. If your main has terrible matchup, go find a secondary.
Basically, go spend time making yourself better instead of making MK worse.
Just my opinion, but seriously, think about it.
By cheating, you're wasting your time trying to find a way to make your life easier in one way or another while at the same time you could be studying to do the same thing except without the risk.
So by spending all this time trying to put limitations on MK to make him easier for you, you should just go figure out your matchup. I mean seriously, you can win at 40:60, as long as you know the matchup it's not that hard. If your main has terrible matchup, go find a secondary.
Basically, go spend time making yourself better instead of making MK worse.
Just my opinion, but seriously, think about it.
Crizthakidd
Smash Champion
chibo you will never learn to fight certain things on certain stages if u just ban oh its too hard bah bah
it sounds like a good idea when u first think about like oh hey they cant ban fd on me anymore i can win with diddy now. but then that sucks for the mk player if he wants to change or its not gonna make anything better. dont try to get rid of it away forever try to deal and get better from it. ggs tho at least your thinking.
as for niko k bashing you lolz he was drunk so dont let it get to you
it sounds like a good idea when u first think about like oh hey they cant ban fd on me anymore i can win with diddy now. but then that sucks for the mk player if he wants to change or its not gonna make anything better. dont try to get rid of it away forever try to deal and get better from it. ggs tho at least your thinking.
as for niko k bashing you lolz he was drunk so dont let it get to you
Because the time most people have to be posting on the forums is the same time they have to be playing Brawl...
This is still a way to limit a players choices- it doesnt affect how well they will play on other levels. honestly this is more attacking the people playing MK, than changing MK. If you want a solution to limiting MK, just limit MK! everyone who plays ssbb seriously has a good if not great 2nd- say MK in only 1 round. But dont limit someones choice on levels, thats a little redic. there are much better solutions to this problem, imo.
Titanium Dragon
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2004
- Messages
- 247
Can we please ban people who think this is a viable idea?
Seriously, no. Quit being a scrub, scrub. If he's unfairly good, ban him. If he's not, nothing needs to be done.
The end. No random inconsistent imaginary rules.
Seriously, no. Quit being a scrub, scrub. If he's unfairly good, ban him. If he's not, nothing needs to be done.
The end. No random inconsistent imaginary rules.
Niko_K
Smash Master
Titanium wins. I hope everyone agrees with him and I...
Don't ban anything. The fact that we have to ban a character is simply pathetic, just because a character is easier to use in a quicker amount of time doesn't mean we should ban him. Just like the banning of the Ice climbers chaingrabs is ridiculous. All characters should be able to participate without any hinderings due to exceptional rules.
I hate Meta Knight, I really do. I main Marth, Kirby, Bowser, Ice climbers, Zelda/Shiek, and Toon link.
They get F**king ***** by Meta Knight, but I still disagree with any bannings.
XxBlackxX
Smash Ace
since when do marth and bowser get "*****" by MK?
well either way, this idea is horrible. why do you need to make up random, arbitrary "limits" to make MK worse than he is?
we should either recognize that he is a broken and character and over-centralizes the metagame, so we ban him, or we realize that he doesn't fit those criteria, so we don't ban him. any random rule "in between" is stupid and pointless. in this case, he is not broken at all, so need to do anything.
Jigglymaster
Smash Hero
Lets just make it so any character can't ban a neutral stage. Therefore MK can't ban FD against most characters while every other characters are just as even with MK in not being able to ban neutral stages. Yet counterpicks can still be banned because they aren't neutral.
Basically what i said is that the anti mk ban people are getting pissy about this because it isn't even. So if every character has the same handicap as MK then it would be alright. However it hurt MK more than others cause then MK can't ban FD so characters like Diddy have a chance of winning. However Diddy kong would also have trouble because he wouldn't be able to ban BF of Lylat.
Basically what i said is that the anti mk ban people are getting pissy about this because it isn't even. So if every character has the same handicap as MK then it would be alright. However it hurt MK more than others cause then MK can't ban FD so characters like Diddy have a chance of winning. However Diddy kong would also have trouble because he wouldn't be able to ban BF of Lylat.
XxBlackxX
Smash Ace
so.....make ANOTHER random, arbitrary, unneeded rule to justify this random, arbitrary, and unneeded rule sounds like a good idea to you?
Jigglymaster
Smash Hero
I'm sorry, but this extra rule dosn't make any character uneven then it is now.
Why do we ban neutral stages anyways? They're neutral and should be even to everyone (or very little differences). CP's on the other hand can make big differences for characters meaning people should be able to ban CP's but not Neutrals.
Not being able to ban a neutral would be able to solve the MK problem while technically not putting any handicap on any character.
btw maybe you should put some reason behind your arguement since you can't seem to use the same words 2 times in the same sentance.
XxBlackxX
Smash Ace
first, if you believe neutral stages are neutral for everyone.......*facepalm*
the thing is, why SHOULD we use this rule? what's wrong with the system we have right now? staging banning worked without problems to this point, why change it? anyways, we don't have a MK problem. he isn't too broken and doesn't over-centralize, so no need to ban him. like i said, anything in between is random and arbitrary....not to mention...UNNEEDED.
Jigglymaster
Smash Hero
So we DON'T have a MK problem?
You tell me whats been going on for the past 8 months?
A simple rule such as this that isn't even that hard to approve would stop the MK conversation once and for all. Obviously neither side is going to give up until a descion is made. I'm making a descision that hardly even handicaps MK at all.