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!
If you're talking about Temple, Metaknight is THE optimal choice for that stage, just ahead of Sonic. Sonic is overall faster, but MK can laglessly traverse the middle circle, which lets him save time and make up for his speed. Also, his 5 jumps and fast glide allow him to be versatile on the other two hard circles in the stage.
This is an interesting dilemma. The issue with open MK ban threads is every time they have occurred they have always ended in the same outcome. I'm not referring to the outcome of the debate, but instead the degradation of the thread. While yes, the BBR-RC might very well talk about it at some point, the conversation would likely be contained with the small (<20) group of TOs and things are unlikely to get out of hand. At current I believe it is general staff policy for the open-forums not to allow MK ban discussion because the thread ends up being a moderation nightmare, requiring 24/7 moderation watch and typically by multiple moderators. I wasn't one of the moderators who dealt directly with the creation of this policy so it is possible I'm missing something here, but I do believe the current stance is not to allow the debate in the open. The debate, in all 4 instances lead to: -Fake account creations/multiple account creations, ban dodging, excessive flaming, excessive derailment of the topic, excessive new threads on the same forum that were just really the same discussion veiled slightly differently than the main discussion, and finally the near shut-down of all other topics since 95% of attention was paid only to the MK discussion.
That's the popular choice right now. I don't think the community is ready for 9 or full stage starter lists, if it's even a good idea in the first place (theory wise it seems to be, though).
A member of the main ruleset governing body in smash just said that full legal stage list striking was sound in theory, and you are calling it a pipe dream? If we quit advocating for 9 stages, and actually argue for the thing that is best we could see it happen.
I think that the peoples ability to adapt to full legal stage striking is being exaggerated. I think that FLSS is different enough from regular striking that people would view it as an entirely new system of stage selection and would be less inclined to view it as they do typical starter lists.
I will make a larger post about this topic later. Full legal stage list striking can be proven to take you to the true neutral of the match-up.
No. It can't. No more then entire-40ish-stage-list striking would take you to the "true neutral" of the match up. It most especially can't be proven since it has never been used on a widescale (or even a single tournament?) and to propose that such a thing would somehow become the standard country-wide is preposterous.
My guess on this is you would need to convince someone to bring up the policy in the staffer shack, and then hope enough people on the staff would be willing to accommodate another MK ban debate/thread. Personally speaking I no longer care much about the debate either way and wouldn't touch it with a 20-foot pole (not saying I don't have an opinion/preference on it, I'm just tired of the debate). I use to be a "leader" on the anti-ban side awhile back but it is simply to time consuming, so if you are looking for answers or someone to step up it will have to come from someone who has the type of disposable time an MK debate will inevitably take. My personal stance now would probably be closer classified as leaning-pro-ban, but at the same time like I said I simply want to stay away from it.
Depends on your definition of "accepted." It was widely disapproved by many. With 7 stages, those have already been used at major tourneys, and a recent national, with far less problems.
A much smoother discussion than total chaos still isn't very appealing. You're also underestimating the level of reaction, immaturity, and ignorance of the community to MK ban topics.
No, problem not solved. If the goal of an MK Ban discussion thread is to help push the BBR-RC for an MK ban, then locking/deleting the thread would not solve anything, especially if it's locked/deleted before most smarter players get their chance for input.
I agree, the community should be aware of such a major poll. You also underestimate the amount of bias the general community would have on such a poll.
A post count filter would encourage spamming for the new users who want to vote, even if it's an alternate account. Voting itself is pretty flawed for a subject like this, since you cannot separate the joke votes from the serious votes, and then there's the issue of which votes are from users who actually believe they're right? I could easily link a friend to the poll and say "hey vote to ban MK, every vote counts!" even if my friend doesn't believe it. You will NEVER get a true percentage for this if you involve the entire community.
That still wouldn't really solve the above issues.
Exactly. If 7 goes over fine and 9 seems like a better step up, then that can be discussed after 7 is implemented. Going from a 5 stage starter to full list would be pretty ridiculous to try to do, considering our community has never done more than a 9 stage starter list, and going from regions who had 5 starters to 9 starters (MLG) received a great amount of negative feedback.
It's one extra strike per player. 3-4-1 vs. 2-3-1. How is that "much quicker and cleaner"?
As opposed to a stage where one party has a sizeable advantage? Yeah, that sounds fair. The only way you'll end up on a bad stage for your character is if you have more bad stages than good ones. Unless both players prefer to play on the same stage, striking will ALWAYS be better.
While partially true, the important thing is that the Median of Bias is more accurate as a result of striking those stages. Just because you'll always strike RC and Brinstar against MK doesn't mean he SHOULDN'T get the advantage of forcing two strikes because he's really good there.
Not sure how you figure this, given that the entire premise is based around removing what the players consider NOT neutral in that particular matchup.
That's a pretty shabby excuse, and certainly doesn't hold up for increasing to 9 starters.
Good character is good. Why does this surprise anyone? Don't make the system unfair just to limit a character.
what is wrong with 1-1
![[FBC] ESAM](/data/avatars/l/92/92614.jpg?1365783210){kind=avatar}
Join date + number of posts would be much better. People would spam their alt accounts in order to be able to vote multiple times, which just makes SWF more messy.
There is nothing wrong with players playing on the stage they have a "meh" reaction to if the stage is fair.
Those stages may not be used but by removing them entirely you will be causing a skew in the natural match-up between two characters and arbitrarily causing match-ups to change.
Read the argument above. If your intention of a starter list is to represent a match in the most fair way possible then FLSS is in fact the most effective manor.
Telling players to alternate stage strikes is really not that complicated.
Metaknight is only intolerable on his two best stages, and is a nuisance on his less powerful counterpicks. The stage he will be taking to like you said will be his 6th or 7th best stage which in the majority of situations will be something already present on a 7 stage starter list.
Every character is viable if they don't lose the lead, just like planking.
Thats the thing. I think fox would beat MK, how the hell would he catch him? lasers = auto lead // force approach
Be happy when/if you can even get 7 then if it works and the community likes it consider going to 9 but complaining already is just pointless because I know plenty of people willing to go to 3 before that.
I mostly agree with all of this
I don't get it. The Numbers define the Player not the number of strikes
Wait, what? I don't think Orion's addressed anything I've said so far throughout this whole ordeal... what're you talking about?
Orion didn't out logic anything, he simply explained why temple has competitive viability to it and he is right. All stages, all games, everything really, has some competitive viability to it.
You probably wouldn't see many extremely polar stages, but you would likely still see a decent variety due to how much different characters prefer different stages even within the same general layout. Within a matchup you might not see much stage variety, but across all matchups you might see more than now. That is, if people actually decided to strike all of those stages instead of just saying "SV?"
A. There's no 100-0 statistic ever
I'm pretty sure that's players' fault, and most importantly, it can be corrected simply by learning.
Oh **** off Thio, that's a monumental task to ask ANYONE to do, don't act like we have some sort of responsibility to do it.
You're going to tell me you can represent all of your own character's matchups 100% accurately on every stage?
