A Guide To Arguing Intelligently About Meta Knight

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

All of the pro-ban arguments are subjective. None are definite. IMO, the best thing they have is arguing that he's "Too good" and actually managing to prove it using valid evidence.

Arguing BS like "people think" or "many MKs..." is highly flawed reasoning.

That I can agree on.

 

[Yuna]

That I can agree on.

The funny thing is that I've said this in the past, many, many, many times. But people choose to read only parts of my posts or rewrite them in their heads. At the end of the day, people often end up realizing they're disagreeing with things that I never said or things that are only similar to what I've said.

The most important rule of this Guide to Arguing Intelligently (About Meta Knight) should be to "Carefully read through posts before replying to them".

 

[salaboB]

Then I challenge the notion that the main argument for the anti-ban side is ""Meta Knight does not directly induce any major problems to the metagame beyond his own placings". AFAIK, it is not. The main argument is still "He's not 'too good'" (or any variations of it).

I very much appreciate how you rant about me not having facts, and then your idea of the anti-ban's strongest argument being sheer opinion (not "too" good).

So instead of saying: Popularity makes truth (when it doesn't), actually give something other than "MK is popular" as evidence for his ban. And preferrably do so not in this thread, but instead in Yuna's inbox.

Okay, I'll tell you what I was talking about: It wasn't "MK is popular". It was "If a competitive community focuses on one aspect of gameplay they can make it a core aspect for their community because they put that much emphasis on it.

Ergo, in certain situations popularity can in fact make truth -- situations where the rules are arbitrary and only set up by what people believe to be fair are particularily common for that, the facts of emphasis change based on how the community chooses to put its focus. That focus is opinion based.

Neither you nor Yuna have discredited this, Yuna's continued rants about me misinterpreting him notwithstanding.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

The funny thing is that I've said this in the past, many, many, many times. But people choose to read only parts of my posts or rewrite them in their heads. At the end of the day, people often end up realizing they're disagreeing with things that I never said or things that are only similar to what I've said.

The most important rule of this Guide to Arguing Intelligently (About Meta Knight) should be to "Carefully read through posts before replying to them".

I've noticed this when AlphaZ and Inui along with M2K(Yeah I know he isn't coherent with debate skills, but still) posted.

People seemed to have picked at certain points of the post, even ignoring the main points they posted.

The main person who has good arguments for the ban is Adumbrodeus, even then he says we need to be absolutely sure the ban is warranted, since getting it lifted will be near to impossible.

 

[salaboB]

I've noticed this when AlphaZ and Inui along with M2K(Yeah I know he isn't coherent with debate skills, but still) posted.

People seem to pick at certain points of the, even ignoring the main points they posted.

The main person who has good arguments for the ban is Adumbrodeus, even then he says we need to be absolutely sure the ban is warranted, since getting it lifted will be near to impossible.

If you think Yuna isn't guilty of this exact thing he accuses others of doing, you're not carefully reading the posts he's responding to.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

If you think Yuna isn't guilty of the exact thing he accuses everyone else of doing, you're not carefully reading the posts he's responding to.

I'm not saying either person isn't necessarily guilty of it at points.

I'm saying I've noticed this trend mostly with the three people I posted about.

 

[salaboB]

I'm not saying either person isn't necessarily guilty of it at points.

I'm saying I've noticed this trend mostly with the three people I posted about.

Fair enough. I noticed you hadn't stated a belief either way but by the time that sunk in the post was up and I had nothing better to edit it into >.>

It's mostly tiresome when one side points it out for the other without acknowledging they do it. I know I do it more often than I'd like, usually in response to someone misreading me and trying to stick to what I was originally saying (Though occasionally just from carelessness :/)

 

[brinboy789]

If you think Yuna isn't guilty of this exact thing he accuses others of doing, you're not carefully reading the posts he's responding to.

yuna doesnt deliberately insult people, from what ive seen, only when yuna gets extremely frustrated or irritatede at people is when he insults them for being ignorant. from what ive seen

 

[salaboB]

yuna doesnt deliberately insult people, from what ive seen, only when yuna gets extremely frustrated or irritatede at people is when he insults them for being ignorant. from what ive seen

The point was not taking the time to read posts thoroughly before responding, not insulting people...

I think you just demonstrated it though, apparently Red Ryu has another name for his list.

 

[Mortimer]

I'm not saying either person isn't necessarily guilty of it at points.

I'm saying I've noticed this trend mostly with the three people I posted about.

Confirmation Bias?

Anyways, yeah, it's a problem no matter which side does it. Part of the cause seems to be that everybody is saying so many things at once that it's hard to respond to everything. The ones that do respond to everything create big, long-winded posts that just don't seem worth reading, since that person can't (seem to) get to the point.

If you try to be concise, you're accused of ignoring arguments. If you try to answer everything, you're just being long-winded. You can't win!

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

The point was not taking the time to read posts thoroughly before responding, not insulting people...

I think you just demonstrated it though, apparently Red Ryu has another name for his list.

To be fair, I only posted people on the anti-ban side. Why? it stuck out more in my head. I know people have done it to you before in those threads, I just went with the main strawmanning that stuck out to me.

Confirmation Bias?

Anyways, yeah, it's a problem no matter which side does it. Part of the cause seems to be that everybody is saying so many things at once that it's hard to respond to everything. The ones that do respond to everything create big, long-winded posts that just don't seem worth reading, since that person can't (seem to) get to the point.

If you try to be concise, you're accused of ignoring arguments. If you try to answer everything, you're just being long-winded. You can't win!

Strawmanning is annoying in any debate.

I'd try to be understandable if someone can't answer everything, we're only human. As long as they answer a point somewhere along the road, I won't yell at them for ignoring mine or others valid points.

 

[Yuna]

I very much appreciate how you rant about me not having facts, and then your idea of the anti-ban's strongest argument being sheer opinion (not "too" good).

It's a subjective position which can be supported using facts.

Okay, I'll tell you what I was talking about: It wasn't "MK is popular". It was "If a competitive community focuses on one aspect of gameplay they can make it a core aspect for their community because they put that much emphasis on it.

That is "if it's popular". That's the very definition of it.

My argument is whether or not the programming of the game itself necessitates certain things. Not whether or not "our way of doing it" makes certain things important.

Ergo, in certain situations popularity can in fact make truth

It's not a "true fact" if it's easily refuted by simply playing the game a different way, especially not when the fact is "You cannot win tournaments without it":

-- situations where the rules are arbitrary and only set up by what people believe to be fair are particularily common for that, the facts of emphasis change based on how the community chooses to put its focus. That focus is opinion based.

This is why arbitrary rules are bad.

Neither you nor Yuna have discredited this, Yuna's continued rants about me misinterpreting him notwithstanding.

And yet you keep on doing it.

The main person who has good arguments for the ban is Adumbrodeus, even then he says we need to be absolutely sure the ban is warranted, since getting it lifted will be near to impossible.

I believe Adumbrodeus is of the "It's too early"-crowd. He's either playing Devil's Advocate or arguing that if things stay the same/escalate in a few months time, then we should ban him.

If you think Yuna isn't guilty of this exact thing he accuses others of doing, you're not carefully reading the posts he's responding to.

I carefully read through your posts every time.

 

[Mortimer]

Strawmanning is annoying in any debate.

I'd try to be understandable if someone can't answer everything, we're only human. As long as they answer a point somewhere along the road, I won't yell at them for ignoring mine or others valid points.

This is true. I've also been seeing a lot of calls of strawmanning that are just misunderstandings (or even misinterpretation of the response). People just need to relax and assume good intentions from the other side.

 

[Yuna]

Fair enough. I noticed you hadn't stated a belief either way but by the time that sunk in the post was up and I had nothing better to edit it into >.>

It's mostly tiresome when one side points it out for the other without acknowledging they do it. I know I do it more often than I'd like, usually in response to someone misreading me and trying to stick to what I was originally saying (Though occasionally just from carelessness :/)

Maybe the way you're saying it is wrong, have you thought about that? Maybe my interpretation of what you're saying is perfectly valid because what you say can reasonable be interpreted the way I interpret it. Or you're just expressing yourself wrong.

'Cause I have no idea what you're on about the whole "If the community thinks so, then it's true, but that doesn't equal popularity at all!"-thing.

The point was not taking the time to read posts thoroughly before responding, not insulting people...

I think you just demonstrated it though, apparently Red Ryu has another name for his list.

I carefully read through your posts every time. You don't read through mine. That or you misread them.

 

[salaboB]

Maybe the way you're saying it is wrong, have you thought about that? Maybe my interpretation of what you're saying is perfectly valid because what you say can reasonable be interpreted the way I interpret it. Or you're just expressing yourself wrong.

'Cause I have no idea what you're on about the whole "If the community thinks so, then it's true, but that doesn't equal popularity at all!"-thing.

If the community puts its energy into making Brawl a game about counterpicks, counterpicks become core to competitive Brawl.

If the community puts its energy into making Brawl a game where you stick with your main throughout a tournament, Brawl becomes a game about learning how to deal with every matchup with your preferred main.

If the community puts its energy into making Brawl a game where you fight as best you can on Final Destination, Brawl becomes a game about learning how to fight on Final Destination.

If the community puts its energy into making Brawl a game where items are allowed, Brawl becomes a game about learning to utilize random items in your gameplay.

The community's opinion and actions based on it are the entire basis for what is or is not a core aspect of the game, it can entirely add or remove aspects of gameplay as a core part of competitive play. It becomes a fact of the game for that community, and it is driven by how much energy people put into it. No energy? Well, we don't have a game all about how well you play on Final Destination, do we? Some energy? Well, we have groups of people putting together standards to play games with items and experimenting with those to find ways to make it as fair as possible. A fair amount of energy? Well, we do have a game that has rules designed specifically to allow counterpicking to provide the loser of the round an advantage in the next fight -- both stages and characters, if they do it well. We also have many people playing multiple characters at tournaments, making use of those rules. The debate over whether it's a core aspect is then how much energy the community is focusing on it, and you haven't demonstrated that it's not something the community focuses on -- In this case it is indeed if it's popular, it's important.

The flawed argument is that popularity has no impact on a community's focus. That's not a tenable position -- this isn't a question of facts of the game engine but of how people put it to use.

 

[zamz]

If the community puts its energy into making Brawl a game about counterpicks, counterpicks become core to competitive Brawl.

If the community puts its energy into making Brawl a game where you stick with your main throughout a tournament, Brawl becomes a game about learning how to deal with every matchup with your preferred main.

If the community puts its energy into making Brawl a game where you fight as best you can on Final Destination, Brawl becomes a game about learning how to fight on Final Destination.

If the community puts its energy into making Brawl a game where items are allowed, Brawl becomes a game about learning to utilize random items in your gameplay.

You still don't get it. The community has not made brawl a game of counterpicks. We have the available choice of counterpicking, but you can very well not-counterpick and win. A lot of people do in fact use -one- character in tournement. That is a viable option. If you think you're competent enough with your main, all the power to you. Metaknight might be able to win without counterpicking, but so can Marth and Game and Watch and a devoted rabid Yoshi fan. Banning a character for the sole reason that they break the counterpicking system is not enough if the counterpicking system is not a core element of smash. It's an viable option, but it's not necessary to win, or to even place. And in fact there's reason to believe a 4:6 match-up is close enough to even that the more apt, skilled player will still win. If Metaknight is merely a 5:5 to 4:6 against most of the cast, it's unnecessary to counterpick against Metaknight as you can still beat him with your main without a significant noticable disadvantage, following the rule that: "The more skilled player" will win.

The community's opinion and actions based on it are the entire basis for what is or is not a core aspect of the game, it can entirely add or remove aspects of gameplay as a core part of competitive play.

Counterpicking is an aspect of the game, nobody's denying that. But a core aspect of the game? Counterpicking would be a core aspect of the game rock/paper/scissors where you cannot win unless you predict and counterpick. In brawl...you can very well win without counterpicking. It's not necessary to counterpick, and one could ignore character counterpicking and still place well. It's not a core/essential part of Brawl at all.

It becomes a fact of the game for that community, and it is driven by how much energy people put into it. No energy? Well, we don't have a game all about how well you play on Final Destination, do we? Some energy? Well, we have groups of people putting together standards to play games with items and experimenting with those to find ways to make it as fair as possible. A fair amount of energy? Well, we do have a game that has rules designed specifically to allow counterpicking to provide the loser of the round an advantage in the next fight -- both stages and characters, if they do it well.

Yes, we have the option, but you're not expected or required to use that option. It's available to you, and people use it because it's available. But to say that counterpicking is an essential necessity and thus a "core" element of Smash is not possible. Expecially when people use only one character and place very well.

We also have many people playing multiple characters at tournaments, making use of those rules.

Using a rule does not mean that rule is essential. A lot of tournements use "Dave's stupid rule," but does that make Dave's stupid rule a necessity or essential or even a core element of smash? No.

The debate over whether it's a core aspect is then how much energy the community is focusing on it, and you haven't demonstrated that it's not something the community focuses on -- In this case it is indeed if it's popular, it's important.

...The focused energy of the community has nothing to do with this debate.

The flawed argument is that popularity has no impact on a community's focus. That's not a tenable position -- this isn't a question of facts of the game engine but of how people put it to use.

When did Yuna say "popularity has no impact on a community's focus" ?

 

[Yuna]

If the community puts its energy into making Brawl a game about counterpicks, counterpicks become core to competitive Brawl.

By choice, not by necessity. The game was not programmed (no, not programmer intent, but what was ultimately programmed) with counter-picking at its core. And my main argument was that counter-picking is not a necessity to stand a reasonable chance of winning tournaments.

Thus, even if the community has created, through choice, a metagame focused on counter-picking, it is not necessary to counter-pick in order to win. You can still win without it as long as you learn to win without it, and you can do it against people who do counter-pick.

Your argument in no way refutes anything I've said.

If the community puts its energy into making Brawl a game where you stick with your main throughout a tournament, Brawl becomes a game about learning how to deal with every matchup with your preferred main.

Popularity/Choice = Programmed data/Compulsory

If the community puts its energy into making Brawl a game where you fight as best you can on Final Destination, Brawl becomes a game about learning how to fight on Final Destination.

What I'm arguing that with the current ruleset for Competitive Brawl outside of Japan (whose whacky Nihonjins!), counter-picking is not a necessity. It's a choice. It's not at the core of Brawl by nature (programming), it's there by choice, i.e. popularity. And nobody cares about that.

We care about what the metagame is like when played at the highest level of play utilizing all the tools available to us (which includes not counter-picking).

The community's opinion and actions based on it are the entire basis for what is or is not a core aspect of the game

No, that's the core aspect of that community's metagame. The game does not get reprogrammed because of the choices we make (unless they include actually reprogramming the game). It's just the way we choose to play the game.

And I specifically used the word necessity.

In this case it is indeed if it's popular, it's important.

Important because we made it so, not because it is inherently so.

The flawed argument is that popularity has no impact on a community's focus.

Quote me where I argue this. Quote me. Hallucinogens are bad for you!

That's not a tenable position -- this isn't a question of facts of the game engine but of how people put it to use.

Funny, I've been arguing game engine the entire time. That is why I discredit popularity and choice in favour of it being so by nature.

 

[Mortimer]

Using a rule does not mean that rule is essential. A lot of tournements use "Dave's stupid rule," but does that make Dave's stupid rule a necessity or essential or even a core element of smash? No.

If all the competitive smash tournaments use Dave's stupid rule, then it's indistinguishable from a core element.

For example: Items are arguably a core element of smash. Dave's stupid rule is to play with items off, turning items off play into a core element of smash.

 

[Yuna]

If all the competitive smash tournaments use Dave's stupid rule, then it's indistinguishable from a core element.

For example: Items are arguably a core element of smash. Dave's stupid rule is to play with items off, turning items off play into a core element of smash.

Since when does Dave's Stupid Rule have anything to do with items? Also, Dave's Stupid Rule is a regulation we've inserted into the game by choice. The metagame evolves from that, not the programming itself.

 

[zamz]

If all the competitive smash tournaments use Dave's stupid rule, then it's indistinguishable from a core element.

For example: Items are arguably a core element of smash. Dave's stupid rule is to play with items off, turning items off play into a core element of smash.

I'd really wish you'd know what you're talking about before posting...

1) Not all competitive smash tournements use Dave's Stupid Rule, but many do.

2) Dave's Stupid Rule has absolutely nothing to do with items. It has to do with stage counterpicking.

3) This rule is distinguishable from a core element of smash because it's not necessary for brawl or melee to function. Many Brawl and Melee tournements go without Dave's Stupid Rule. I was providing an example of a tournement rule that is obviously not a core element of Brawl, to refute salaboB's statement that "making use of those rules" is evidence enough that character counterpicking is a "core element" of Smash. Just because a rule exists and people use it, is not enough evidence to prove it is "a core element of Smash."

4) Just for kicks, read: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=62907

 

[Kirby Magatsu]

Good job Thinkaman, let's see if "poor" arguments will still appear.

 

[Brinzy]

I knew this thread would turn out to be like this.

Do people even read posts anymore?

 

[UpTown]

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:


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.



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.


&


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.



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.



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.)



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...

**********



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.



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.")



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



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.

**********



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.



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.



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.

**********

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:



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.



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.

great thread thank you for presenting an un-biast look at both sides of the argument. it really puts things in perspective and i hope there are more smashers who can see the way you do instead of hopping on boards and johning mindlessly about losing to an mk.

 

[Brinzy]

Do not quote the whole first post. Jesus Christ.

 

[Tristan_win]

Wow....Honestly if this whole meta knight thing continues much longer I'm just going to stop coming to the tactical discussion forum.

 

[Brinzy]

You must not've paid close attention to the thread, because this thread's point isn't about debating Metaknight.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Wow....Honestly if this whole meta knight thing continues much longer I'm just going to stop coming to the tactical discussion forum.

if this whole Mk thing continues much longer im going to stop coming to tourneys...

 

[Brinzy]

Well you might as well go find something else to do, because this isn't going to stop until he's banned or until there's a verdict that rules otherwise... which isn't going to be for a while.

 

[DKKountry]

This is a good thread, however I believe all threads with MetaKnight as the subject should have a disclaimer for noobs letting them know that a "metagame" is not something that is exclusive to Metaknight.

lulz but seriously good thread.

Thinkaman's threads always seem to be well thought-out.... Dam I'm funni.

 

[OverLade]

I'm surprised you didn't bring up the whole "If MK is banned then Snake will become number 1 arguement".

Some people don't seem to realize that Snake gets ***** all the time by other high tiers. I just wanted to throw that out there. Good thread, so some points are redundant or dependent on opinion.

 

[Thinkaman]

Actually, I should have mentioned that. It does come up alot, and it *IS* a really bad argument that ignores what the Pro-Ban side is arguing in the first place.

EDIT: CRUNCH! I added it to the heap.

 

[OverLade]

Actually, I should have mentioned that. It does come up alot, and it *IS* a really bad argument that ignores what the Pro-Ban side is arguing in the first place.

Yeah, it's what I was looking for when I came into this thread.

All over youtube even top notch snakes get taken down by wide varieties of characters (Deva's Link takin DSF's Snake). Snake isn't even broken. Having two moves that do 28 damage doesn't mean they arent slow and easy to punish if you see them. People look at snakes statistics and assume he'll be second, but I honestly think the ONLY reason Snake is second for tourney wins is because Snake counters Metaknight, so people pick him up for that reason, therefore beating MK's in tourneys.

 

[OmegaXF]

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.


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 statement was tooooooooooo smexy.

 

[Yuna]

I knew this thread would turn out to be like this.

Do people even read posts anymore?

Did you hit your head and receive retrograde amnesia? People on Smashboards been "not reading" posts for years.

great thread thank you for presenting an un-biast look at both sides of the argument. it really puts things in perspective and i hope there are more smashers who can see the way you do instead of hopping on boards and johning mindlessly about losing to an mk.

Do not quote a 1-page post for a 2-line reply.

A thumb of rule is: If what you're quoting is twice as long as your reply or more, don't quote it.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up the whole "If MK is banned then Snake will become number 1 arguement".

Only idiots would argue that.

In fact, it's consensus that with Meta Knight gone, Snake's placings will get worse.

 

[Mortimer]

I'd really wish you'd know what you're talking about before posting...

1) Not all competitive smash tournements use Dave's Stupid Rule, but many do.

2) Dave's Stupid Rule has absolutely nothing to do with items. It has to do with stage counterpicking.

3) This rule is distinguishable from a core element of smash because it's not necessary for brawl or melee to function. Many Brawl and Melee tournements go without Dave's Stupid Rule. I was providing an example of a tournement rule that is obviously not a core element of Brawl, to refute salaboB's statement that "making use of those rules" is evidence enough that character counterpicking is a "core element" of Smash. Just because a rule exists and people use it, is not enough evidence to prove it is "a core element of Smash."

4) Just for kicks, read: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=62907

My apologies. I thought you were using "Dave's stupid rule" as a hypothetical to illustrate a point. Replace it with "Stupid rule X" in my original post, and my point still stands.

Items are a core element of Brawl, but they're disabled in most competitive play because it improves the game. This would be an example of a rule that exists that the majority uses, making it into a core element of Brawl.

 

[salaboB]

1) Not all competitive smash tournements use Dave's Stupid Rule, but many do.

2) Dave's Stupid Rule has absolutely nothing to do with items. It has to do with stage counterpicking.

3) This rule is distinguishable from a core element of smash because it's not necessary for brawl or melee to function. Many Brawl and Melee tournements go without Dave's Stupid Rule. I was providing an example of a tournement rule that is obviously not a core element of Brawl, to refute salaboB's statement that "making use of those rules" is evidence enough that character counterpicking is a "core element" of Smash. Just because a rule exists and people use it, is not enough evidence to prove it is "a core element of Smash."

Tell me, are Pikmin color differences a core aspect of playing at the top levels using Olimar? Are you equally effective if you utterly ignore them and just throw whatever you have handy, never caring that they function differently? Sure, you can play without ever paying attention to the pikmin colors, and you can win without it, but you'll never be quite as effective as someone who's figured it out because it is a core part of how Olimar is designed.

Also "many" tournaments aren't what I was referencing, I'm pretty sure that a large majority utilize rules that enable counterpicking. You're using something that shows up at some and trying to say because it's not core something that shows up at almost all isn't either, and the parallel doesn't extend that far.

 

[Swordplay]

Only idiots would argue that.

In fact, it's consensus that with Meta Knight gone, Snake's placings will get worse.

This is true, Snake is one of those characters that has a near neutral matchup to meta. Right now, I feel like the overall metagame is controlled by metaknight and not the counter pick system like it should be.

In fact a major factor of tourney results Which factors into the tier list is how well a character does against metaknight.

 

[brinboy789]

THinkaman, i would like for you to add for the anti-ban side of MK that:

MK is NOT hindering the metagame in any way except for his own metagame, which is the same for every char.

i dont think anybody can argue against that one. what, is MK being viable as a tourney char somehow making falcon worse as a character?

 

[salaboB]

THinkaman, i would like for you to add for the anti-ban side of MK that:

MK is NOT hindering the metagame in any way except for his own metagame, which is the same for every char.

i dont think anybody can argue against that one. what, is MK being viable as a tourney char somehow making falcon worse as a character?

That sounds suspiciously like the one he already has up as an example of the anti-ban's current best argument.

 

[Espy Rose]

Oh...

You gotta be ****ing KIDDING ME. SIX ****ing threads in Tactical Discussion...all about Meta Knight.

This **** dispute is making these boards more and more unbearable by the day...