In most stages there are hazards that can kill the player,
And follow set routines, meaning they're predictable and with a bit of practice on the stage, easily avoided.
the random item spawning can completely tip the match in one person's favor,
Turn items off, then
and a small handful of characters just have extremely spam-able moves (counter-able, yes, but only to really advanced players).
As does every other competitive game ever. You don't see people throwing tantrums when they get zerg rushed in Starcraft.
Heaven forbid a game reward skilled players over newbies.
In other news I think the idea of having competitive soccer/ football competitions is silly, because the Brazillian team is better than the Cook Islands' team, and it's just not fair that they win.
Regarding an earlier comment about stages and items: Certain stages give unfair advantage to certain characters , and certain stages are extremely random and not only do not follow a pattern but randomly reward players with invincibility or randomly attacking one player over another. That is why certain stages are banned. Problem solved.
For instance, no stage (other than transforming stages) where a character can walk off the edge is allowed because Dedede and other chain throwers can chain throw a character at 0% to his death with great ease. Warioware's stage randomly rewards players with invincibility — obviously broken. Other stages actually attack the players, which can affect one more than another. In tournaments there are a set of "neutral" stages players can pick, followed by a list of stages you can pick if you lost the previous round, followed by a list of stages not allowed ever. It is a system that works.
Items, likewise, are never used.
On topic: Metaknight's problematic because his moves are good at everything. Because five jumps weren't enough, all four of his special moves can be used to recover. He can also glide, and one of his specials grants him an extra glide. These moves aren't only excellent recoveries but they're also extremely high priority with some invulnerability, and some are excellent kill moves.
Not saying he should be banned, my opinion is irrelevant since I have never played in a Smash tournament since Melee, but just pointing out a few of the many reasons he is considered so good. Oh, and he has a glitch where he can use the invisible cape infinitely, or something. Fun.
Whatever the Smash powers that be think is good for the scene, I'm sure they know what's best, as they have the best players providing insight into the issue, as well as tons of tournament records showing how Metaknight has fared against every character on every stage. I'm not personally a fan of banning characters. I prefer shaming those who pick broken / borderline broken characters, but I don't think my method is quite as foolproof. Metaknight had a few years in the spotlight. He may not precisely be "broken," but if he is dominating tournaments so much, that is not healthy.
Most people don't really care about Brawl's tournament scene anyway, so it's not as big of news as it would have been if say Jigglypuff had been banned from Melee.
For you, the day LordJumpMad graced your threads, was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday. [url=http://www.backloggery.com/jumpmad]Unive...
Regarding an earlier comment about stages and items: Certain stages give unfair advantage to certain characters , and certain stages are extremely random and not only do not follow a pattern but randomly reward players with invincibility or randomly attacking one player over another. That is why certain stages are banned. Problem solved.
For instance, no stage (other than transforming stages) where a character can walk off the edge is allowed because Dedede and other chain throwers can chain throw a character at 0% to his death with great ease. Warioware's stage randomly rewards players with invincibility — obviously broken. Other stages actually attack the players, which can affect one more than another. In tournaments there are a set of "neutral" stages players can pick, followed by a list of stages you can pick if you lost the previous round, followed by a list of stages not allowed ever. It is a system that works.
Items, likewise, are never used.
On topic: Metaknight's problematic because his moves are good at everything. Because five jumps weren't enough, all four of his special moves can be used to recover. He can also glide, and one of his specials grants him an extra glide. These moves aren't only excellent recoveries but they're also extremely high priority with some invulnerability, and some are excellent kill moves.
Not saying he should be banned, my opinion is irrelevant since I have never played in a Smash tournament since Melee, but just pointing out a few of the many reasons he is considered so good. Oh, and he has a glitch where he can use the invisible cape infinitely, or something. Fun.
Whatever the Smash powers that be think is good for the scene, I'm sure they know what's best, as they have the best players providing insight into the issue, as well as tons of tournament records showing how Metaknight has fared against every character on every stage. I'm not personally a fan of banning characters. I prefer shaming those who pick broken / borderline broken characters, but I don't think my method is quite as foolproof. Metaknight had a few years in the spotlight. He may not precisely be "broken," but if he is dominating tournaments so much, that is not healthy.
Most people don't really care about Brawl's tournament scene anyway, so it's not as big of news as it would have been if say Jigglypuff had been banned from Melee.
And once again. Roger Federer should be banned from tennis tournaments, because he's overpowered.
Or the Ace of Hearts should be banned from playing cards, because it's more powerful than the 3 of spades.
Or the Queen should be banned from chess, because she's overpowered.
And while we're at it. Every time a 20 is rolled on a 20-sided-dice, it should be a forced reroll, because nothing can beat a 20.
The thing that really holds back these "nerd sports" (for want of a better term, but competitive Magic the Gathering - not a videogame - faces the same problem with good cards getting banned left, right and centre) is that the minute something is better than something else, a bunch of people whine until it gets banned.
Which, really, is more of a case of "wah, I didn't win, this is so not fair."
Nothing should be banned from any kind of genuine competitive environment. If the card, or character, or whatever really is so overpowered that no one else has a chance, then no one is going to play the game competitively. Problem solved. Worked for the Top Trumps games.
If Roger Federer is the best, it's best he trained to be the best, not because he was programmed to be the best; that would be more like banning the top Smash player than the top Smash character. Ace of Hearts and 20 are randomizers and intended to top other random results. Queen is available to both sides. None of these are at all analogous or relevant.
Most sports and card games are fairly simple in their rules, and even still many were updated over many, many years. Tennis today is probably not exactly like tennis when it was first played. A fighting game is immensely more complicated to create (not to play, to create) because there are tons of rules, tons of parameters, and all of this had to be done in a few years. Expecting it to be perfectly balanced is not fair to the designers, so of course the community will want to try and improve it with their own regulations. Other fighters would release a next version or a patch, but Nintendo doesn't do this, so the community has to moderate itself. Saying the game should simply not be played if it isn't balanced is silly. People want to play the game or else they wouldn't care enough to make such changes.
No one complains that tournaments disallow items. No one complains that you can't pick absurdly random stages like Warioware. Metaknight is just another aspect of the game soon to be disallowed in tournament play, a set of rules and code within the game (not an entity playing the game like Federer). Rules get changed in all competitive games. Smash is no exception.
I don't favor this particular rule, but I'm not against such rules being made. I personally think it is too late to make a significant change in the scene. Melee players won't be swayed because he was only part of the problem they had. All it will do is divide an already small scene. If it were up to me, we'd all just point and laugh and call the Metaknight players noobs. Then we might have on-sceen and off-screen fights to watch. Double the fun!
(Edited a few million times because I didn't have the sense to open a text editor first. Done now.)
If Roger Federer is the best, it's best he trained to be the best, not because he was programmed to be the best;
Ok, since this just became an interesting discussion, here we go:
Roger Federer works hard to be the best, yes. But so does everyone else in the top 100. It doesn't mean that skill levels are evenly dispersed. That is to say, if Roger Federer and I started at exactly the same point, and we both spent exactly the same amount of time training, with exactly the same coaches, we would still end up with vastly different skill levels, because things such as genetics comes in to play.
In effect nature (or God, if you're so disposed) gave Federer an ability above the norm, and that is how he was able to get to number 1. In effect, Federer actually is programmed to be superior.
Sports organisers don't go out there and say "you're genetically superior, therefore you're banned from the sport." For even more obvious examples: We don't ban the 7 foot tall basketballers, even though the 5 feet tall players (rightfully) think that's an "unfair" advantage. Genetic programming. We don't ban black people from the 100 meter sprint because white people are genetically programmed to be slower. And as nasty as this might sound - we don't ban smart people from playing chess because it means that stupid people end up with bad ELO ratings.
And yet, with training, a good five foot tall basketballer can run rings around a seven foot tall basketball player. And with training, a white man can almost keep up with the black men in sprinting.
If videogames want to be taken seriously as a legitimate, competitive activity, then banning stuff because it's "unfair" "unbalanced" or anything else needs to stop. "Levelling the playing field" is a flawed concept that has only popped up in a modern society that doesn't like to let people fail, and to puts a stop on any drive to excell. Meta Knight is winning too many competitions? Go and train harder with Jigglypuff. Don't blame the game, because with very, very few exceptions, unbalanaced is not unfair at all. It's just life, and part of the competitive process.
It's stuff like this that make me prefer the original Smash Bros over Brawl. Less is more, one might say.
And I agree with YellowChocobo. Look at Wilma Rudolph for example. She was born with infantile paralysis, but still won three Olympic gold metals. She had to work a lot harder than other runners, but she still came out on top.
Beethoven was right when he said it don't come easy. Currently Learning: Electric Guitar Bad Wolf
In my opinion, the problem with your line of reasoning is that real life is more dynamic, whereas the actors in a video game are static. In real life I might train harder, which might seem analogous to what a good game player should do, but while I can learn to perfect a combo move in the game I cannot change my character's parameters, by say becoming more muscular. Of course the real answer is that Nadal counters Federer, I'm not sure there is a Super Smash Bros: Brawl equivalent.
That would still be like banning the top player in Smash Bros, not the top character. Banning a character doesn't prohibit a player from participating. And even if Federer is genetically superior to all current rivals, new people are born and trained to play tennis. New characters are not being introduced to counter Metaknight.
And as our Lemming friend says, I can work out to improve my physical shape and conditioning to become the world's best tennis player despite being genetically equipped for nothing more physically demanding than frisbee, but I can't take the Puffster to the gym and improve his moves' priority, range, etc. If Federer were trapped in my body, he might have the skill of a world class tennis player, but he would have my body. I may be the greatest Jigglypuffster in the world, but I'm still not going to beat the best Metaknight player in the world. If you knew the game better, I think you'd understand.
Banning a character is just a rules change, because a character is just a set of rules, not a participant in the game himself. Rules get changed. This is not something radically modern. All classic games and sports we play today have had rule changes, not necessarily for precisely the same specific reasons but always for the same overall reason: to make the game more fun.
If Federer were trapped in my body, he might have the skill of a world class tennis player, but he would have my body. I may be the greatest Jigglypuffster in the world, but I'm still not going to beat the best Metaknight player in the world. If you knew the game better, I think you'd understand.
About 267 hours, according to my brother's Wii console - enough so that I know that Metaknight is not that great anyway.
Then again, I don't play competitive Smash Brothers and don't consider it a competitive game. What I do know is that the actual, genuine games that are considered "cybersports" games, the Call of Dutys, FIFAs and Starcrafts of the world, don't go around banning characters, weapons or teams just because of a percieved imbalance.
In short: you can't make everyone happy. Some nerd on the internet will find a way to complaint about it. You ban one character, soon they will ban another character, then another. Untill we have "Fox Only" matchies. If people keep complainting for silly little thing like this, I won't blame Nintendo if they never want to make another SmashBros. game again. You can thank these butt hurt fans for that.
For you, the day LordJumpMad graced your threads, was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday. [url=http://www.backloggery.com/jumpmad]Unive...
Nintendo probably couldn't care less what one overzealous segment of their audience does years and many software shipments after Brawl was released. While I'm in the camp that supports the Smash games as perhaps more nuanced than people give credit, I think we can expect the next release to again be targeted at a novice audience. I would be thrilled if proven wrong, but with the series' director remaining at the helm I feel more of the same is a safe bet.
About 267 hours, according to my brother's Wii console - enough so that I know that Metaknight is not that great anyway.
Playing 267 hours at home is not really competitive experience; they aren't banning him from your brother's house. I've got many hours over that, and if I had never played online against tournament players (not the random mode, but sought out specific players for friends matches) or been to Youtube, I would have thought Metaknight sucked.
As for other games, Call of Duty is not professionally played one-on-one to my knowledge, so any imbalances can be balanced out by team work or, in a free-for-all, waiting for someone overpowered to be distracted. Starcraft has three factions, so banning one will not increase diversity of play, and banning any one unit or whatever would disrupt the tech tree. And in sports games, characters are supposed to be realistic, and some people are better. Imbalance is intended. That's why teams usually have rankings.
It just doesn't serve any purpose to try to fit a competitive fighting game into a generic competitive game box. There are significant differences that prevent this from being in any way useful. The concept of team rankings is to a degree analogous to the tier list, however, though the tier list is community-made. Tournaments often have low-tier contests to see who can do the best with perceived crappy characters, so I'm sure there will now be god tier (Metaknight's tier that he occupies alone) tournaments alongside the main event, and those will play out much like tournaments of yesterday, where everyone picks Metaknight.
As cheap as he is, I actually like to see Metaknight played well. But on the other hand, it'll be nice to be able to look up tournament videos and see matches where neither player is Metaknight, at least for however long this ban lasts. I wonder if it'll stick.
@Waltz: I think something that is being ignored here is the fact that the other games you've mentioned (CoD and Starcraft in particular, but idk about FIFA off the top of my head) exist on other consoles/for the PC, where patching is allowed to happen. If some kind of cheap advantage exists with a particular character or weapon (someone above mentioned undodgeable attacks from Metaknight, i believe?), the devs can and do release patches to correct glitches and smooth over imbalances. Nintendo refuses to patch their retail games, so in this case it seems the players are stepping up and attempting to correct the imbalance on their own.
That said, I do think Adam is correct regarding what will eventually happen — the tournaments will split, and those who want to continue playing Metaknight will get their own little group going before or after the now-main tournament, everyone will watch the same character kick its own butt at the hands of players skilled in controlling him, and that'll be the end of it. it'll be just another event at a Smash Bros. tournament :3
BEST THREAD EVER future of NL >:3
[16:43] James: I should learn these site rules more clearly
[16:44] LztheBlehBird: James doesn't know the rules? For shame!!!
Forums
Topic: Meta Knight Banned from SSBB?
Posts 21 to 40 of 73
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.