A Guide To Arguing Intelligently About Meta Knight

[Thinkaman]

Because if you are going to do it, you might as well not look like an idiot.

I really don't need an introduction. Meta Knight is a potent foe indeed. You don't need to look far for proof: He managed to defeat Melee vs. Brawl as the debate-of-choice for Smashboards! (He won the set 3-1, even on tough Counter-Picks!) However, as much as I love discussing and arguing about Smash, the Meta Knight arguments that are overflowing into a ton of different sub-forums and threads end up repeating the same thing over and over, with arguments quickly losing coherency and decending into pure emotion.

When you examine emotionally charged debates, you are generally find one theme: Both sides are fixated some some relatively simple or obvious principle that they are convinced the other side doesn't "get". Look at the abortion debate: One side thinks the other has no idea that the fetus at the middle of all this is a living homo sapien. The other side meanwhile thinks that the other is clueless as to the negative impact that raising an unwanted child often has on the mother, child, and everyone else involved. You end up with one side thinking the other is a bunch of baby killers, who themselves think the first side is just out to punish people for having sex.

Randall Monroe of xkcd had a fantastic example of this in his write-up of the Airplane/Treadmill problem:

"So, people who go with interpretation #3 notice immediately that the plane cannot move and keep trying to condescendingly explain to the #2 crowd that nothing they say changes the basic facts of the problem. The #2 crowd is busy explaining to the #3 crowd that planes aren’t driven by their wheels."

We even see this when it comes are new players arguing about the tiers. The vetrans are busy trying to explain that the idea of a game that is balanced perfectly is absurd and straight out of a 90s self-esteem course, while the new players keep trying to say that player skill can overcome tiers. In the end, both are correct, and the only villain is the ignorance of the new players when it comes to the abilities of the characters.

I'm going to keep this thread as agnostic as I can, free from my own thoughts and opinions on the matter. The point of this thread is not to discuss what should be done about Meta Knight or change anyone's views. The point of this thread is to make people on both sides stop repeating stupid arguments.

**********

First, let's go through some arguments that both sides are guilty of.

"Look at this state where Meta Knight has won every major tourney!"
"Well, look at this region, where Meta Knight has hardly ever placed that well!"
"At this tourney, 7 of the top 8 played Meta Knight!"
"Well, at this tourney no one in the top eight played him!"

Listen, guys. We don't care about your ancedotal evidence. We aren't stupid people here, we are all more than capable of cherry-picking selective tourney results that back up our point. And no, having more ancedotal evidence than someone else does not prove your point.

My roommate plays a mean Olimar. Meta Knight is the only character I can't consistently beat him with, and I 3-stocked him with Falcon the other day. You know what that means? Nothing.

"Look at this local tourney where all the scrubs used Meta Knight!"
"Local tourneys don't matter! Higher level players can beat Meta Knight!"

&

"Look at this local tourney where only one person used Meta Knight and he didn't even make it out of pools!"
"...I don't care about your random local tourney where some Yoshi won."

These lines of thought are similar to the previous point, but need addressing themselves.

-Bringing up local tournies in a discussion about the competitive meta-game is stupid.
-Dismissing local tournies in a discussion about the Smash community is also stupid.

Smaller scale events are not indicative of the entire meta-game, but they are an important part of the Smash community at large. That is where we introduce new players to the competitive game, as well as come home with easy prizes. If Meta Knight is a problem at the local level but not the higher level, then he is still a problem.

If you took results based on local tournies in the area around me, people would want to ban Jigglypuff and Link. Luckily, I don't see that happening.

"Meta Knight completely dominates tourney results overall!"
"No, plenty of other characters are winning too!"

Ah, exaggeration. Everyone is guilty of this quite often. Luckily, we have a pretty good idea of how much Meta Knight dominates the tourney scene by large if we choose to admit it thanks to threads like Ankoku's. Simply put, Meta Knight has the most placings and the most wins by a substancial, but not absolute, amount. Trying to argue that Meta Knight winnings *are* absolute or non-substancial... either way you look very foolish.

Every time someone compares Meta Knight to a character in Melee, God kills a kitten.

"We need more time to let the meta-game develop; Meta Knight counters could develop at any time."
"What? People have been looking for Meta Knight counters, and they have found nothing."

I'm not sure which is more naive: pretending that the magical hard counter to Meta Knight is going to fall from the sky tomorrow, or the attitude that no strategies against Meta Knight will develop in the future. The truth is, Meta Knight is still going to be top of the tier list when the sun rises tomorrow, and that everyone actually *is* getting better at their Meta Knight matchups. (How long either of those will continue is another matter.)

"Meta Knight's metagame is going to advance much more rapidly than anyone else's since more people play him."
"No, there's limit to how good people can get with Meta Knight."

The Pro-Ban side ignores that there are diminishing returns, since there is a limit to how much any character can develop relative to the rest of the cast. The Anti-Ban side ignores the exponential impact that the community has on the meta-game.

Pokemon Trainer has decent potential, but since no one plays him...

**********

"Lots of other characters would be able to enter the competitive scene if Meta Knight was removed."

This argument is pure balony, and makes the Pro-Ban side look ignorant of the meta-game. The problem with Meta Knight isn't that he has a few extremely good matchups that makes those characters unplayable; the problem is that he has consistent ~60:40 matchups against the entire cast. He beats everyone a little, not few characters a lot.

Meta-Knight is the worst matchup for very few characters, and most the characters that he does best against (like Mario or Luigi) have even worse matchups against the likes of DDD. Claiming that these characters will become magically more viable if Meta Knight is removed while DDD, G&W, and Falco remain is ridiculous. It would be like claiming that removing Fox from Melee but leaving Shiek would make it's low tiers suddenly viable.

"No one can even go even with Meta Knight."

Pro-Ban advocates can frequently be caught down-playing decent matchups against Meta Knight. This typically includes Snake and Diddy, but often extends to oddball matchups like DK, Yoshi, and Jigglypuff. (Usually this involves assumptions like "I'm not going to walk into a pivot grab, so Meta Knight instantly beats Yoshi.")

"Meta Knight has too shallow a learning curve and is easy to learn."

...and? This is like the flawed "metagame advancement" argument.

"The tornado is broken!"

So is that blasted turtle. We don't ban characters because one particular move is "overpowered", we ban them because the entire character is "overpowered". We have entire threads about the tornado and how to counter it, stop brining it up.

**********

"Meta Knight can be beaten, you know."

Captain Obvious is even lower tier than Captain Falcon, since his only move is "give the opponent headaches". Listen, no one thinks Meta-Knight is Akuma. The fundamental problem on the table is not that Meta-Knight is unbeatable, it's that unlike every other character in the game, he has no counters.

"Yoshi (or other random character) actually does very well against Meta Knight!"

Previously I argued that Meta Knight's worst matchups cannot be dismissed as trivial. However, that does not mean that the solution to Meta Knight involves everyone switching to your main. I'm glad you guys are advancing the Meta Knight matchups for your individual characters, but do try and be rational and realistic. (It's actually kind of funny that a lot of the Anti-Ban posters have underused mains.)

Besides, we all know the true solution to Meta Knight is Jigglypuff.

"The best players would still win even if Meta Knight was banned."

What did I say about Captain Obvious? No one has a problem with the best players winning. In fact, we'd be having a problem if the best players DIDN'T win.

"If you ban Meta Knight, then that would only make Snake the best character. Are you then jsut gonna ban Snake? OMG SLIPPERY SLOPE!"

People don't want to ban Meta Knight just because he's #1 on the tier list... at least they shouldn't. Snake has counters and bad stages, which is what the Ban-MK debate is largely centered around.

Plus, I believe that if MK was banned, DDD would become the new top character, and G&W would rise above Snake easily. (Some think he already has.)

**********

Good arguments do exist, that intelligent members have been putting forth and promoting. If you want to debate this matter in other threads, you need to confront these good arguments and not use the previous stupid examples as a straw-man. If you must, here are the current main arguments for each side:

"Since Meta Knight breaks the counter-pick system at the core of Smash by having no counters, eventually a very disproportionate amount of players will switch to him as their main or secondary, stagnating the metagame."

Argue that a significant number of competitive players will eventually play Meta Knight almost exclusively, effecting a metagame that is less interesting and has less variety.

"Meta Knight does not directly induce any major problems to the metagame beyond his own placings."

Argue that it really doesn't matter if one character or set of characters is better than the others overall, as that didn't stop the development of any other game, including Melee.

Now, stop making nonsense arguments, and go debate Meta Knight intelligently.

BUT NOT IN THIS THREAD.

 

[Sosuke]

It's sad that this was needed, but it probably was.

Good job.

 

[M.K]

So...do what now? You refute both sides. Are you telling us that we are both wrong? That we should just stop debating?

Duh.

 

[brinboy789]

i love you. you shouldve posted this 470+ pages before the MK thread.
but...there still will be trolls
amazing thread

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I don't like the stuff you wrote...

I'm not sure which is more naive: pretending that the magical hard counter to Meta Knight is going to fall from the sky tomorrow, or the attitude that no strategies against Meta Knight will develop in the future. The truth is, Meta Knight is still going to be top of the tier list when the sun rises tomorrow, and that everyone actually *is* getting better at their Meta Knight matchups. (How long either of those will continue is another matter.)

Nobody's looking for a hard counter. Nobody cares whether he's the best or not (at least nobody reasonable).

inb4samuraipanda

 

[Nitrix]

It was a matter of time before a thread like this was made.

 

[Mmac]

I find this thread offencive to Yoshi's!

 

[deepseadiva]

Thinkaman, I highly enjoy all of your threads.

 

[Thinkaman]

So...do what now? You refute both sides. Are you telling us that we are both wrong? That we should just stop debating?

Did you even read it? I only "refuted" poor arguments made by "both sides". At the end I even listed the real, underlying point of both sides that needs to be examined and debated... just not here.

Nobody's looking for a hard counter. Nobody cares whether he's the best or not (at least nobody reasonable).

You might be surprised just how many people believe that happy days of crushing Meta Knights are just around the corner.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

You might be surprised just how many people believe that happy days of crushing Meta Knights are just around the corner.

I'd be very surprised indeed. Care to bring up any names?

 

[salaboB]

Just one issue with your example -- Meta Knight has an unprecedented number of options available to him. It's not even a case of them not being known though, because the better MK players are aware of them. But it's a case of them not having to be applied yet. This causes issues for your "Never bring this up" point:

I'm not sure which is more naive: pretending that the magical hard counter to Meta Knight is going to fall from the sky tomorrow, or the attitude that no strategies against Meta Knight will develop in the future. The truth is, Meta Knight is still going to be top of the tier list when the sun rises tomorrow, and that everyone actually *is* getting better at their Meta Knight matchups. (How long either of those will continue is another matter.)

because all you can really say right now is "Everyone actually is getting better at dealing with the current Meta Knight strategies". You can't say anything about whether MK has the sheer versatility available to still smash them back after they figure out how to get around one of his approaches. That's not through new options becoming available that need to be figured out for him, it's just him being forced to actually utilize more of the versatility that already makes him so hard to fight.

It's very possible that MK will end up with 3 answers in any given situation, so you're going to get a 1/3 chance at best to predict what he'll do and counter it -- the rest of the time, you'll lose.

I like what you're trying to do, but you've not quite nailed everything down for each "please don't use these." Until you do, I believe they can be used.

I'd be very surprised indeed. Care to bring up any names?

I believe brinboy feels that if we just look a bit harder we'll soon be crushing MK. He's just one of the louder supporters of it though, you don't have to look hard in the MK threads to see "You guys need to try harder and then you can beat him" and "There's many characters that can beat MK" -- those are all demonstrating that attitude, too. Even M2K in his quest to defend MK from being too broken often implies such a thing.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I believe brinboy feels that if we just look a bit harder we'll soon be crushing MK.

I'm sorry. I should have said: "Somebody who - at least - appears to have something like sanity"

 

[salaboB]

I'm sorry. I should have said: "Somebody who - at least - appears to have something like sanity"

There are still many of them. Like I editted again (Probably after you were writing this) M2K implies it constantly that you can crush MK if you just learn the matchup. Other people are all citing their tournament results and saying since the best players in their area can beat good MKs obviously he can be defeated as well. The idea is very common that all it takes is being good and knowing what MK can do and suddenly you can get around the problem of an equally skilled MK opponent having a ton of ways he can approach you. That's the basic idea of "MK will soon be able to be crushed by X".

Basically, anytime someone says that "Soandso has an advantage" or even often "goes even" with MK when they disagree with all matchup charts in doing so, they're stating they believe this.

 

[Thinkaman]

Sorry, but I'm not going to dig through the Might Knight argument cesspools to find the names of people I didn't want to remember in the first place. You'll find them almost always giving wavedashing as an example of something that might be discovered to fight MK, since thye don't know what they are talking about.

salaboB, your point is pretty separate from the statement you are trying to defend, and is based heavily on speculation. Yes, Meta Knight will develop too. Yes, other characters will continue to develop around new Meta Knight strategies. You aren't really asserting much here, and the flaws in the original statement stand. If you want to go out and argue that Meta Knight is by design superior to other characters due to having more viable options in any given situation, you could probably make a good case for it.

EDIT: Also, I think you are giving M2K too little credit. His topic is actually helpful to the metagame, not some pointless defense of the character.

 

[salaboB]

salaboB, your point is pretty separate from the statement you are trying to defend, and is based heavily on speculation. Yes, Meta Knight will develop too. Yes, other characters will continue to develop around new Meta Knight strategies. You aren't really asserting much here, and the flaws in the original statement stand. If you want to go out and argue that Meta Knight is by design superior to other characters due to having more viable options in any given situation, you could probably make a good case for it.

The point is that you can't simply say "You can't say MK will stay ahead" because you are also heavily speculating when you do. We know MK is extremely versatile, by design. Moreso than almost anyone else in the cast (From what I've seen, good Sonic players can appear to have as many options -- unfortunately for Sonic, he lacks the priority and range to really utilize that for really good matchups the way MK can) in fact. So you can't say that other characters will develop better matchups against MK, because there's a good possibility that the only thing that will happen is MK will learn how to deal with every possible tactic that gets found against him -- and the matchups all slowly shifting even more in his favor.

That's all I'm saying, both ways are just theory.

Edit: I wasn't actually talking about M2K's tips against MK topic (Though I've got a post there waiting some actual thoughtful response) but against his posts into the "Should MK be banned" threads.

 

[Thinkaman]

I never said that other characters are bound to get better matchups against MK over time; it's just that right now, most players are focusing on improving their matchups against MK. I even questioned how long this will yield results...

 

[∫unk]

So I'm curious... where do you stand thinkaman?

Are you just an armchair quarterback or someone that has intelligent arguments of their own?

You forget another valid point from the "pro-ban" side which is... this doesn't have to be a permanent move.

If the metagame still sucks with someone like Snake just ending up completely wrecking everyone then we can let Metaknight back in. If the metagame flourishes then RIP Metaknight.

 

[salaboB]

I never said that other characters are bound to get better matchups against MK over time; it's just that right now, most players are focusing on improving their matchups against MK. I even questioned how long this will yield results...

I'm uncertain quite how else to read "everyone actually *is* getting better at their Meta Knight matchups." than that other characters will get better matchups over time.

I guess if you mean they'll draw closer to the actual theory-based matchups rather than the even heavier disadvantages that seem to be the norm in many cases, I have no problem with that. It just didn't sound like that's what you were saying, but anything else is getting into prediction for how adaptable MK truly will end up being when he's really pushed.

You forget another valid point from the "pro-ban" side which is... this doesn't have to be a permanent move.

He didn't forget it, he just didn't have a "You can't use this" for it. So we can continue to use that one in the threads debating MK.

This one is to debate what can be debated >.>

 

[GrayPlague]

This thread was a good idea. I wish I could say that it should stop the trolls running rampant, but I can't. :l

And just for the record, MK's Shuttle Loop kills G&W's Turtle, so you could argue Tornado>Turtle for that.

 

[Thinkaman]

I still don't understand your point, salaboB. Are you saying that I shouldn't tell people to speculate, because it might turn out to be true? I'm assuming that you misunderstand my point:

-Assuming that MK will have no significant strategies develop against him is ridiculous.
-Assuming that MK certainly will have significant strategies against him is ridiculous.

That's all I'm saying, calling both sides out on their attempts to predict the future with certainty. You can't base a real argument on such speculation.

So I'm curious... where do you stand thinkaman?
Are you just an armchair quarterback or someone that has intelligent arguments of their own?

Heh, giving that away would ruin the fun and discredit my authority of being seen as an independent, no?

You forget another valid point from the "pro-ban" side which is... this doesn't have to be a permanent move. If the metagame still sucks with someone like Snake just ending up completely wrecking everyone then we can let Metaknight back in. If the metagame flourishes then RIP Metaknight.

Yep, this is a valid point, which is why I had no reason nor ability to shoot it down.

I'd like to point out though, that we can still test letting Meta Knight back in even if the game flourishes. Turning our backs on something banned, including stages, is a bad perspective.

 

[salaboB]

I still don't understand your point, salaboB. Are you saying that I shouldn't tell people to speculate, because it might turn out to be true? I'm assuming that you misunderstand my point:

-Assuming that MK will have no significant strategies develop against him is ridiculous.
-Assuming that MK certainly will have significant strategies against him is ridiculous.

That's all I'm saying, calling both sides out on their attempts to predict the future with certainty. You can't base a real argument on such speculation.

Fair enough. As I said your wording implied the matchups would be improving given time, and I was objecting to that suggestion coming through there.

 

[Brinzy]

So...do what now? You refute both sides. Are you telling us that we are both wrong? That we should just stop debating?

Duh.

*facepalm*

 

[Yuna]

What people aren't getting is that the counter-picking system isn't "at the very core" of Smash at all. Because in Melee, the game was less about counter-picking that just playing a Top or High Tier (or Mid if you felt like it) that didn't have a cataclysmic counter.

There were plenty of characters who basically had no really bad stages or bad character counter-picks.

Just because some people do counterpick does not mean that it's necessary to win. Counter-picking is arguably at the core of all Competitive fighting games, it's not Smash exclusive. And plenty of said games have characters that are just as good as Meta Knight if not better who aren't banned (they also break the CP-system).

You can argue that Brawl is all about CP:ing since there are so many characters with cataclysmic counters. But we still have characters with very few counters if any and/or bad matchups so it's still the same as with Melee.

CP:ing is not "at the core" of Smash. We do it because we want to. It's not necessary. The Japanese don't CP each other (stages, that is). And, hey, their metagame is still flourishing.

You forget another valid point from the "pro-ban" side which is... this doesn't have to be a permanent move.

Why don't you try going to jail for 6 months because people just don't like you and think you're guilty of murder? I mean, it's not permanent since we eventually let you go. No harm done, right?

 

[salaboB]

What people aren't getting is that the counter-picking system isn't "at the very core" of Smash at all. Because in Melee, the game was less about counter-picking that just playing a Top or High Tier (or Mid if you felt like it) that didn't have a cataclysmic counter.

So you're saying you'd like to debate whether MK should be banned or not in a thread specifically about what topics simply can't be debated?

That's great.

 

[Yuna]

So you're saying you'd like to debate whether MK should be banned or not in a thread specifically about what topics simply can't be debated?

That's great.

Maybe you should try reading the OP, where is specifically says that the following argument is one of the most substance-filled arguments on the pro-ban side:
"Since Meta Knight breaks the counter-pick system at the core of Smash by having no counters, eventually a very disproportionate amount of players will switch to him as their main or secondary, stagnating the metagame."

 

[fkacyan]

Maybe people will stop with the falacious argument about dominance now, and I can stop responding to it with the equally fallacious argument about top players that counters fallacy with fallacy!

@ Yuna: Each smash is a different game. Brawl is all about CPs.

 

[Tien2500]

Why don't you try going to jail for 6 months because people just don't like you and think you're guilty of murder? I mean, it's not permanent since we eventually let you go. No harm done, right?

Ummmm... so are you saying that taking away 6 months of a man's life and sending him to a place where he may suffer severe violations of human rights is equivalent to banning a character in a videogame for a period of time?

 

[Thinkaman]

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a fixation on counters. Some people talk as if they play a different character for every opponent they face, when in reality it's rare that people don't just play their main. Lots of people seem to live in a fantasy world where Marth was trivialized in Melee because people just went Shiek whenever they wanted to instantly beat him.

Yuna, the point of this topic is not to advance arguments that I might not even agree with. Those are just the current state of things on the table, and I invite people to go to the Meta Knight discussion topic(s) and argue there. Your post is a prime example of a good one, because it addresses what the intelligent Pro-Ban advocates are actually saying rather than the trivial arguments that have been refuted tiem and time again.

The point of this thread is to bury those dead arguments which have been proven flawed, not assert that all other arguments have no flaws.

@ Yuna: Each smash is a different game. Brawl is all about CPs.

How often do you change characters based on the opponent's character? Do you do it even 25% of the time?

Ummmm... so are you saying that taking away 6 months of a man's life and sending him to a place where he may suffer severe violations of human rights is equivalent to banning a character in a videogame for a period of time?

C'mon, it's an analogy and you know it. Don't be obtuse.

 

[salaboB]

Maybe you should try reading the OP, where is specifically says that the following argument is one of the most substance-filled arguments on the pro-ban side:
"Since Meta Knight breaks the counter-pick system at the core of Smash by having no counters, eventually a very disproportionate amount of players will switch to him as their main or secondary, stagnating the metagame."

Considering that I don't really feel the one he picked for the anti-ban side has much merit either...I think they're best left as examples that haven't been completely proven to be fallacies, and argued if they actually show up in a discussion about banning MK.

You didn't manage to completely disprove it, you referenced Melee, other games, not "having" to counterpick, and Japan. None of that shows whether counterpicking is in reality a significant aspect of competitive Brawl in our region or not. If you can't completely disprove the point so it can be listed as one of the fallacies, then it is in fact a valid one up for debate in support of banning MK.

About all I'll give you is you showed it's not the "core" of the game. I won't give you that it's anything less than "significant" though, and that it still matters to the longevity and overall health of competitive Brawl unless you get a far stronger point than you had against it -- so we're just arguing semantics, until you can show why it's completely irrelevent.

 

[Thinkaman]

None of that shows whether counterpicking is in reality a significant aspect of competitive Brawl in our region or not.

If our region grows to have a stagnated metagame and others do not, then perhaps we would be best advised to look at the other regions and see what the differences are before we leap to conclusions? The problem, in this hypothetical future, could be with them, or it could be with us.

 

[fkacyan]

How often do you change characters based on the opponent's character? Do you do it even 25% of the time?

CPs does not only involve characters.

Knowing how good each character is on each stage is pretty crucial to winning certain matchups.

 

[Tien2500]

How often do you change characters based on the opponent's character? Do you do it even 25% of the time?



C'mon, it's an analogy and you know it. Don't be obtuse.

I know its an analogy. But its a really bad one. To expand upon that I guess MKs metagame isn't really going to be too effected by 6 months of absence. His Metagame has evolved quicker because of the amount of players he has so he has a bit of a head start. And besides as the metagame gets further the advances begin to slow down significantly and MK will be able to catch up before too much time if he was banned and then reinstated. It wouldn't do any significant harm to him.

 

[Yuna]

Maybe people will stop with the falacious argument about dominance now, and I can stop responding to it with the equally fallacious argument about top players that counters fallacy with fallacy!

@ Yuna: Each smash is a different game. Brawl is all about CPs.

The argument I was refuting was "Smash is all about CP:ing".

Among the Tops and Highs in Brawl, CPs are barely "important". The edge you get is small. 55:45 to 60:40 most of the time. This is perfectly doable. It doesn't require counter-picking, we just do it because we want to. The point is not if people are doing it, it's whether or not it's necessary to stand reasonable chances of winning a major tournament.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I know its an analogy. But its a really bad one.

How is it bad?

It's signifying why premature bans are bad, they ban when it wasn't warranted, in that case it isn't fair to those who could play the character for the time of which was was gone.

If he wasn't banworthy, it wasn't fair to those who couldn't used him but wanted to.

 

[fkacyan]

The argument I was refuting was "Smash is all about CP:ing".

Among the Tops and Highs in Brawl, CPs are barely "important". The edge you get is small. 55:45 to 60:40 most of the time. This is perfectly doable. It doesn't require counter-picking, we just do it because we want to. The point is not if people are doing it, it's whether or not it's necessary to stand reasonable chances of winning a major tournament.

Fair enough.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Why don't you try going to jail for 6 months because people just don't like you and think you're guilty of murder? I mean, it's not permanent since we eventually let you go. No harm done, right?

That's a pretty bad analogy, you're going to have to come up with a better one than that if you want to disprove that argument.

 

[Thinkaman]

CPs does not only involve characters.

Knowing how good each character is on each stage is pretty crucial to winning certain matchups.

I consider myself extremely knowledgeable on stage CPs, and will be the first to stress their significance or enter any discussion about stage legality or selection. But in this case, we aren't talking about stages... we are talking about overall character balance.

You can CP stages against Meta Knight, believe it or not. No stages absolutely cripple him, but normally taking him somewhere like FD makes him do worse than he typically would.

Face it, if someone DID have a consistent 60:40 matchup against MK, you probably wouldn't bother learning them as a secondary, especially since MKs would have practice against it. You would just keep playing your main as always. Everything would be the exact same, except you wouldn't be arguing about it on the Internet.

 

[Tien2500]

How is it bad?

It's signifying why premature bans are bad, they ban when it wasn't warranted, in that case it isn't fair to those who could play the character for the time of which was was gone.

If he wasn't banworthy, it wasn't fair to those who couldn't used him but wanted to.

I edited the above post to expand upon that. I thought you meant it would be detrimental to MK's metagame but I guess you meant something different. But anyway I think the value in seeing exactly how MKs absence would effect the metagame is worth having MK players use their secondaries for a period of time.

 

[salaboB]

If our region grows to have a stagnated metagame and others do not, then perhaps we would be best advised to look at the other regions and see what the differences are before we leap to conclusions? The problem, in this hypothetical future, could be with them, or it could be with us.

Certainly. But we know for a fact that Japan has a different culture, including a willingness to soft ban earlier than people here are willing to ban. Unless we figure out exactly what they've done differently, it's going to be pretty hard to use them for anything relevant in comparison to where we are.

And I was simply defending the point being not entirely a fallacy and thus one you can't just say "You're stupid for ever mentioning it". It may be exaggerated in its wording, but if a debater can't actually take down the core of the issue (That something is significant) then they're only going after semantics and have failed to disprove the root point -- which will come back as soon as someone figures out what was really being said and rewords it properly.

That's something we could desperately use here: When people see a point that's been exaggerated, stop disproving the extreme case and calling yourself the winner (I'm guilty of it too, so must work on this as well now that it's occurred to me). Ask your opponents to reword it to be realistic or do it yourself (Accurately. Ask your opponents to reword it if you can't trust yourself to be unbiased), and then refute the realistic example if you still can. Many points on both sides only get refuted because they're worded too absolutely.

How is it bad?

It's signifying why premature bans are bad, they ban when it wasn't warranted, in that case it isn't fair to those who could play the character for the time of which was was gone.

Because quite simply you're taking things to an extreme when you say this. Those people can still play MK in friendlies and can still play the game that is Brawl at tournaments. They just are no longer allowed to play one character, so the analogy was far more extreme than the reality it's supposed to reflect.

This is exactly what I was talking about just above, just from the other side -- trying to make things sound worse by applying an extreme case to them. That's not even close to representing this situation, which is why it's a bad debating tactic for actually figuring anything out and why it's a bad analogy.

 

[Wafles]

This topic wont change much, lol.

It is very smart and well written, though.. Shame really.