Fourth and final community vote about Meta Knight.

[Clai]

I think everyone should be banned except ganon and falcon.
Why is no one forcing this point? it's obvious that they're the two best characters in the game.

I'd be uber-tier if this were the case. Tyrant and Dojo have nothing on my Ganon.

 

[Divinokage]

I face-palmed myself pretty ****ing hard at this part.

lol I don't think I'm too smart, I just have a view of how I look at things just like everyone else. I just possibly viewed more than others but that doesn't mean I'm better than them. Everyone has their own experience, I don't think anyone is better as a person than anyone else or less... to me that's incredible and I still want to figure that out truthfully.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Metaknight should not be banned.
Logically speaking of course. Pro-ban Arguments are usually subjective.
Show me a completely logical, rational, non subjective counterpoint to the former sentence. =D Plz?

*rolls up sleeves*

The primary issue with Metaknight's presence within the game comes from the fact that he does indeed cause harm to the counterpick system.

This game relies more heavily on a counterpicking system in order to ensure that there is no perfectly safe choice.

Mk has no disadvantages machup wise. At worst, it is an even matchup and those have tuned out to be considered somewhat debatable.
No stage hurts Metaknight, certainly they do benefit the other characters, but MK's capabilities more than allow him to keep up with the advantages provided by those characters.

Often we hear beatability is the issue, this is not necessarily true. Being beatable ==over centralizing.

You can have a character who is beatable like HD Akuma, but still be ban worthy based on the over centralizing issue.

Due to MK being the safest choice at all times (note i did not say best), the game over centralizes around him. Why choose DDD when you risk running into the IC's or Olimar?
Why use Snake when you have someone like Olimar awaiting you.
Why use Marth when there is DDD and Snake.
Why use DK when DDD ***** him?

Why use anyone right off the start of the match? Its much too risky and does not go along with the play to win ideal.

So you pick MK.
As a a result, your opponent also picks MK because he wants to remain safe.
As a result, win or lose, either side would lose.

For one, if you don't choose MK and your opponent does, and you do not happen to be a snake user, even though the match up is certainly beatable, you have to rely more heavily on your skill than your opponent.

If you win, the opponent can stay MK, and considering the amount of tools available, it becomes a more difficult fight. Even if you strike the worst stage for the character you are using, you will still be taken to a stage where you do not have as much of an advantage or is the next worst stage.

So while MK is necessarily broken and is certainly beatable his impact on the game centralizes around him, because he is so incredibly safe, he does not have to worry.

This cannot be compared to Yun who goes 6-4 and 5-5 with Ken.
Primarily because the stages do NOT have any effect on gameplay. You are not interacting with platforms and ledges or borders.
This only further complicates the issue in regards to facing MK, so you go MK, so that you do not lose to anyone else.

Now why is it people do not go MK more often? Simpl because there is a stigma attached. I personally HATE MK, i would NEVER use him, a character who is perfectly safe, without any reasonable weakness that can be exploited reasonably? It does not fit well with me.

Other's may be pressured into not using him, otherwise, we would see alot more MK's in tournaments and see a greater amount of dominance.

Now there are the examples of All and NL and Fiction who ahve beaten MK users like m2k. We cannot forget that these players are all human, subject to making errors, subject to all the variables that life offers. As such, the usage of these arguments cannot be used as direct evidence,it can be used to say it is possibly neutral, but cannot be used directly without also remembering the characters capabilities.


I tried. Go ahead an refute as you will, I won't defend since its really not something I am into right now.

 

[Boxob.]

Well, I care about both games, and I find it annoying when someone votes on what they want when the poll asks if MK should be banned.

Well, the brawl community can suck we E-weeny.

I'm not really defending anything, if he gets banned, cool, if not, it's the same as it's been, and it's been fine.

 

[POKE40]

Moar flame :/

Somebody needs to make a social group:
the peaceful coexistance b/w anti-banners and pro-banners

 

[Spelt]

I'd be uber-tier if this were the case. Tyrant and Dojo have nothing on my Ganon.

ironically i have no idea how to play either. xD i guess i've kind of screwed myself.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Can anyone tell me how much debate was put into Akuma's ban?

I don't know, I honestly don't think a ban should take place (on anything, really), unless it's obvious and unanimous.

lol I don't think I'm too smart, I just have a view of how I look at things just like everyone else. I just possibly viewed more than others but that doesn't mean I'm better than them. Everyone has their own experience, I don't think anyone is better as a person than anyone else or less... to me that's incredible and I still want to figure that out truthfully.

It was in response to the part after, sorry, haha. That's an awkward misunderstanding for me xD

 

[RDK]

I already stated that the burden of proof is an obstacle thrown in to make one side exert greater effort to justify why the status quo is off than the other side has to exert to establish that the status quo is perfectly fine. I mean it's not even like both sides are arguing speculative points, one has things AS THEY ARE to back up their statements and they won't even lift a pinky to state why they believe why the "world" (as it is) is justified.

You're actually not arguing with me anymore, you're arguing with the logical principle of burden of proof. You do know that, right? You're basically calling logic bull****.

the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges

The default - or "status quo", as you like to call it - is the null position in this case. Proving that Metaknight shouldn't be banned has already been done; he doesn't fit any of the ban criteria. It's the pro-ban's job, as the challenger to the status quo, to provide evidence that he does.

 

[Rykoshet]

Can anyone tell me how much debate was put into Akuma's ban?

About as much as they put into gouken's. He had an ability NO ONE ELSE IN THE GAME was capable of, so they took him out.

 

[Sosuke]

Moar flame :/

Somebody needs to make a social group:
the peaceful coexistance b/w anti-banners and pro-banners

Very few people would be in that group.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I already stated that the burden of proof is an obstacle thrown in to make one side exert greater effort to justify why the status quo is off than the other side has to exert to establish that the status quo is perfectly fine. I mean it's not even like both sides are arguing speculative points, one has things AS THEY ARE to back up their statements and they won't even lift a pinky to state why they believe why the "world" (as it is) is justified.

fundamentally I disagree with you, it's more an issue of basic scientific theory, because non-existence isn't provable in a finite system, but existence is, that's why falsifying the null hypothesis where the null hypothesis is non-existence came into being.

However, in this case, there's a need to fully understand the system before we finalize a conclusion.

Can anyone tell me how much debate was put into Akuma's ban?

I don't know, I honestly don't think a ban should take place (on anything, really), unless it's obvious and unanimous.

Super turbo or HD remix?


Super Turbo, almost known, he was found to have easy infinites and combos that were overpowering enough for 90-10 match-ups against the entire cast really early.


HD remix? Tons, the community is about as divided on it as we are.

Very few people would be in that group.

*Handraise*

 

[Spelt]

peaceful coexistence? Blasphemy!
although i do think you deserve some kudos for suggesting it, although it may not work out as well as you'd hope.
-takes my non-existant coexistant hat off to you-

 

[MarKO X]

People want to be really good at this game without having to worry about getting past the matchup against the best and most overused character in the game. Because if they worry too much it's overcentralizing and worthy of the ban-hammer.

lol
well, you'd obviously have to define overcentralizing.
in third strike, you have yun and chun, and to a lesser extent, ken and the fourth guy (i never remember if the 4th guy is dudley or makoto or someone else, i just watch a bunch of 3S)
in melee, you had marth, fox, shiek, and falco (tier list changed recently and wut not, so I used the word had)

but here, you have MK, and to a lesser extent, Snake.
is it overcentralizing because there are fewer characters and/or a lower percentage of characters to have to worry about?

 

[Rykoshet]

You're actually not arguing with me anymore, you're arguing with the logical principle of burden of proof. You do know that, right? You're basically calling logic bull****.

I am arguing with you, I'm just not arguing a point regarding the ban with you. But up to this point I never have actually argued a point regarding the ban with you, so to state that I'm not doing it "anymore" is incorrect, I was never arguing an actual point with you because you have, up to this point (and from the point we started exchanging dialogue), not presented an actual point. You've just nitpicked at my words while I keep pointing out that up to this point you've put in no effort whatsoever into doing the one thing the people without the burden of proof should be doing, reading.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Super turbo or HD remix?


Super Turbo, almost known, he was found to have easy infinites and combos that were overpowering enough for 90-10 match-ups against the entire cast really early.


HD remix? Tons, the community is about as divided on it as we are.

I suppose the original ban is more important. There are more factors going into the HD remix ban, since he was "balanced" (I guess not enough), and there had already been a ban.

 

[ETWIST51294]

Well, the brawl community can suck we E-weeny.

I'm not really defending anything, if he gets banned, cool, if not, it's the same as it's been, and it's been fine.

You do know this thread might blow the **** up cause you said that! Melee players are looking at this for entertainment, if one brawler says something in might turn into a flame fest.

 

[Frank West]

I'm gonna take you for a ride!

MvC2?
You win the internets!

 

[Divinokage]

The very fact that many other competitive communities including CARD game communities have al reached this conclusion BY themselves, is alone to support this, inf act, this can be determined by our selves.

The eventual conclusion brings you back to the argument of over centralization because it is the most objective and places a good status quo.

Stating that we just want to be right does NOTHING in banning MK or defending him from being banned. If all that can be said is "you guys are stubborn!" then don't bother arguing.

This is the status quo, this is what was determined from over a decade of gaming.
Prove us wrong.

I have a neutral position.. well because changing for me has gotten a bit easier and I don't mind it.. and I'm sure many people are scared of change because they do not know what to expect or they have to break some routines, fear of the unknown too. My Warrior position would be like: Why the hell would you ban MK? Stop being ******* and crush that noob. Something like that. =P So, let's go over the definition of an opinion... is it possible to have an opinion without choosing any sides in this case?

 

[RDK]

One thing to understand though, this is a necessary issue to resolve, because figuring out whether he's banworthy or not is an important community objective.

In that sense we need to work together to get the evidence (and I previously explained what was needed), and so the default position here is really, not "mk should not be banned", but "mk should not be banned yet".


We need to defer the issue until the community gets the data to come to a final conclusion with both eyes open.

I completely agree. The only thing I have a problem with is the very fact threads like this exist with zero evidence supporting the ban side.

I'd like to see some work done on revamping the matchup system, which was outlined in your thread earlier. If we could exert just half the energy put into this stupid thread towards that, we'd be well on our way towards something tangible.

 

[phi1ny3]

Out of interest, what character is it? I looks like a Negima character, but I honestly can't tell.

BTW, is there an easy way to type in a certain color, i.e. not having to put color tags on your post every time? or are people like you and RDK just insane enough to do that every time?

I think it's from Black Rock Shooter.

 

[MarKO X]

I suppose the original ban is more important. There are more factors going into the HD remix ban, since he was "balanced" (I guess not enough), and there had already been a ban.

Well, the original akuma ban was obvious. Air fireball and red fireball were ridiculous, as well as having some beast mode juggles that did beast mode damage. His original teleport had no lag ever, escaping situations with ease and without punishment (like, you know how you can usually punish a predicted teleport in fighting games? not with this guy) and you couldn't dizzy the guy.

HDRemix akuma is still ban worthy imo, but he's not nearly as devastating as the original. Evo had him banned though.

 

[RDK]

You've just nitpicked at my words while I keep pointing out that up to this point you've put in no effort whatsoever into doing the one thing the people without the burden of proof should be doing, reading.

I cut out the majority of your post because it was mostly nonsense.

As for the bottom part.....you admit that my side in fact doesn't 't have the burden of proof, but should be reading. Good job. Except we're doing that already, and we're waiting for evidence.

Honestly, every post you make without bringing forth evidence for pro-ban just displays how intellectually bankrupt your side actually is.

Oh, and by the way, yes you were arguing with me on an actual point. You stated blatantly that the principle of burden of proof was complete bull****. Would you like me to quote it again for everybody here?

 

[GA Peach]

i can't wait for metaknight to be banned. that way, all metaknight mains will cry about their main being gone, wet their diapers, and quit the game, thus making step 1 of the plan complete. all we need is for everyone else to leave the game...

 

[Spelt]

i can't wait for metaknight to be banned. that way, all metaknight mains will cry about their main being gone, wet their diapers, and quit the game, thus making step 1 of the plan complete. all we need is for everyone else to leave the game...

Mk mains wear diapers? No wonder why they're so good!

 

[Melomaniacal]

Well, the original akuma ban was obvious. Air fireball and red fireball were ridiculous, as well as having some beast mode juggles that did beast mode damage. His original teleport had no lag ever, escaping situations with ease and without punishment (like, you know how you can usually punish a predicted teleport in fighting games? not with this guy) and you couldn't dizzy the guy.

HDRemix akuma is still ban worthy imo, but he's not nearly as devastating as the original. Evo had him banned though.

Yup, I'm aware of his brokenness. I just wasn't around during when the ban was made, so I was curious about that.

Like I said before, I believe a character ban should be obvious.

 

[The 5th Horseman]

i can't wait for metaknight to be banned. that way, all metaknight mains will cry about their main being gone, wet their diapers, and quit the game, thus making step 1 of the plan complete. all we need is for everyone else to leave the game...

They will switch to snake....

 

[Divinokage]

They will switch to snake....

Then I can take Ike or Ganon and **** Snakes =)

 

[Spelt]

They will switch to snake....

except that's like going from riding a bicycle with training wheels to driving a semi-truck.

 

[Rykoshet]

I cut out the majority of your post because it was mostly nonsense.

Prove my point moreso if you feel so inclined. There wasn't nonsense, I was recapping our discussion up to this point. All of it was factual, even people who agree with your stance on the ban would agree with my take on you demeanor up to this point.

Except we're doing that already

You were not doing that, I refuse to go in circles with you on this ****.

As for the blog, this is why I don't like arguing with people who are sitting on a status quo and doing little to establish why it's fine other than 'well that's just how it is'.

Firstly, one should not ban based on low standards because in order to be consistent if you ban something, you need to ban something else which reaches that threshold. For example in MvC2, 4 characters basically dominated the metagame, however if they were banned, the next few would dominate the metagame, and so on, eventually resulting in you needing to ban everyone except the bottom 3, resulting in the same amount of tournament diversity.

This example is a poor one to make because MVC is as much a game about the assists and one's ability to eliminate them as a factor as it is a game about the ability of the single character to duke it out with another. If you took out sentinel, storm, magneto, and cable yes there would be another combination of characters that outdo the other combinations because the game is designed to work off of a strong combined effort. The most blatant example being that if the first 4 were banned, doom/strider would probably have been rocking face for a long *** time and that combination only works if both characters are in working order. If you remove meta knight it's not as if snake is going to be like "HEY GOOD LOOKIN OUT TIME TO TAKE MY THRONE". As it stands meta knight does more to protect snake than he does to hurt him. There's a far higher likelihood that the characters that stand a chance or have an advantage against snake (and spoilers, there is quite a number of them) will run into and lose to a meta knight based on SHEER NUMBERS than the chance that theyll ever run into the very few snakes that make up any tournament. With MK gone, a rise in falcos and dededes to put down the small rise in snakes would keep the character in check, and a 5 way stalemate would likely be established by snake, dedede, falco, marth, and diddy kong (rock paper scissors lizard spock).

 

[Masmasher@]

So is any one from the pro ban side gonna actually ****ing argue..or is there gonna be more of
"well you worded it wrong so i'm gonna call you out ont cause its a big deal and i need to feel like i have won something"
Cmon ****ing debate or flame ether way i wanna see.

 

[Pierce7d]

As for the bottom part.....you admit that my side in fact doesn't 't have the burden of proof, but should be reading. Good job. Except we're doing that already, and we're waiting for evidence.

IMO, saying "You admit . . ." and then twisting a persons words around to suit your argument is one of the scrubbiest ways to debate ever. That is all. I have really no need to argue for pro or anti ban at this point, though tbh I feel like the people posting in this thread are doing a very poor job of representing either.

 

[Clai]

ironically i have no idea how to play either. xD i guess i've kind of screwed myself.

Heh, I just happen to have picked up and used Ganon since the game's release. Ganon's so good at this game!

*rolls up sleeves*

The primary issue with Metaknight's presence within the game comes from the fact that he does indeed cause harm to the counterpick system.

This game relies more heavily on a counterpicking system in order to ensure that there is no perfectly safe choice.

Mk has no disadvantages machup wise. At worst, it is an even matchup and those have tuned out to be considered somewhat debatable.
No stage hurts Metaknight, certainly they do benefit the other characters, but MK's capabilities more than allow him to keep up with the advantages provided by those characters.

Often we hear beatability is the issue, this is not necessarily true. Being beatable ==over centralizing.

My response:

Ok, so Metaknight doesn't have matchups that hinder him (based on the character alone and having nothing to do with the skill of the player) or stages that limit his abilities. Counterpicking stages may be something new to the Smash series compared to other fighting games, but the Metaknight player can't pick any stages after he/she loses that completely destroys Snake, Diddy Kong, Wario or the other high-tier characters. This is mostly because one of the main requirements of being a high-tier character is to adapt to any stage without being completely neutralized. Honestly, if there were two stages that Diddy Kong absolutely cannot play on, Diddy Kong would be unable to win any tournament match where the opponent can counterpick and thus he wouldn't be a high-tier character.

Now for "Metaknight can't be counterpicked based on character." Are you beginning to understand what being the best character in the game means? Many of the best characters in other fighting games can't be counterpicked based on characters as well, and many of them aren't even close to bannable. That's not the reason this reason is invalid, though. The main reason is that Metaknight has enough 60:40 or 55:45 matchups that you can stick with your main and generally have a solid chance of winning.

With the high amount of characters that are completely viable against Metaknight, regardless of stages, the need to counterpick Metaknight is greatly diminished to the point where most top players aren't affected by the counterpicking system. Therefore, MK does not break the counterpicking system, by character or by stage, as there is nothing that separates Metagame to the cast of this game from the best characters in other fighting games and the rest of the cast in their respective games.

You can have a character who is beatable like HD Akuma, but still be ban worthy based on the over centralizing issue.

Due to MK being the safest choice at all times (note i did not say best), the game over centralizes around him. Why choose DDD when you risk running into the IC's or Olimar?
Why use Snake when you have someone like Olimar awaiting you.
Why use Marth when there is DDD and Snake.
Why use DK when DDD ***** him?

Why use anyone right off the start of the match? Its much too risky and does not go along with the play to win ideal.

So you pick MK.
As a a result, your opponent also picks MK because he wants to remain safe.
As a result, win or lose, either side would lose.

For one, if you don't choose MK and your opponent does, and you do not happen to be a snake user, even though the match up is certainly beatable, you have to rely more heavily on your skill than your opponent.

If you win, the opponent can stay MK, and considering the amount of tools available, it becomes a more difficult fight. Even if you strike the worst stage for the character you are using, you will still be taken to a stage where you do not have as much of an advantage or is the next worst stage.

So while MK is necessarily broken and is certainly beatable his impact on the game centralizes around him, because he is so incredibly safe, he does not have to worry.

I've said about this:

This is just not right. The reason people pick up secondaries is because they want to feel confortable fighting any character in the game even when they're fighting a character that would make them uncomfortable with their main. All these numbers and talk about matchups is way too objective; remember the player is the one counterpicking, not the game telling the player what to counterpick. If a certain player is comfortable fighting Metaknight with Jigglypuff, even when all sound logic says that player shouldn't, should he really stop him/her from picking who he/she wants? If someone is counterpicking Metaknight with another Metaknight for the sole reason that "it's the ideal universal option,' and yet the player is uncomfortable with using Metaknight, that player, more often than not, has already lost the match before it started.

This cannot be compared to Yun who goes 6-4 and 5-5 with Ken.
Primarily because the stages do NOT have any effect on gameplay. You are not interacting with platforms and ledges or borders.
This only further complicates the issue in regards to facing MK, so you go MK, so that you do not lose to anyone else.

How much does Snake lose when Metaknight counterpicks a stage? How about Wario? I bet you its not enough that the stage becomes a deciding factor when it comes to the match.

Now why is it people do not go MK more often? Simpl because there is a stigma attached. I personally HATE MK, i would NEVER use him, a character who is perfectly safe, without any reasonable weakness that can be exploited reasonably? It does not fit well with me.

Other's may be pressured into not using him, otherwise, we would see alot more MK's in tournaments and see a greater amount of dominance.

People should not be pressured to using/not using a character if they are comfortable/not comfortable using that character. Let them make the decisions they want to make; they know the implications to their decision.

Now there are the examples of All and NL and Fiction who ahve beaten MK users like m2k. We cannot forget that these players are all human, subject to making errors, subject to all the variables that life offers. As such, the usage of these arguments cannot be used as direct evidence,it can be used to say it is possibly neutral, but cannot be used directly without also remembering the characters capabilities.

When money's on the line, I think we can say, barring extreme circumstances, that both players were playing with the best of their abilities and using the characters to the best of their abilities. So saying that top players, using the best of their abilities, with other characters, can beat top players, using the best of their abilities, who used the best character, is a completely viable argument if we're trying to remove the best character from the game.

I tried. Go ahead an refute as you will, I won't defend since its really not something I am into right now.[/QUOTE]

I got all the info on my post here: Look here. Looks like I've already refuted most of your argument.

 

[The 5th Horseman]

except that's like going from riding a bicycle with training wheels to driving a semi-truck.

True, but people will adapt to it, lol.

 

[momochuu]

They will switch to snake....

I don't like slippery slope, but they're probably switch to Game and Watch or Dedede. Both are really easy to play. Game and Watch more than Dedede.

 

[thrillagorilla]

We believe that Metaknight should be banned from competitive play, for both the health of the game and of the community.

As such, this document has been written to outline several key points to explain the reasoning behind a ban. We will begin with the first point explaining ban criteria, and follow into what makes Metaknight "too good" of a character. The latter points delve into the effects of MK on the metagame as a whole and the community. We appreciate your taking the time to read our argument and make an informed decision.

Ok, here we go.

1. Metaknight is bannable.

Before we choose to ban or not to ban metaknight, a criteria must be set on what it takes to ban a character. We will write two criteria on what it takes to ban an aspect of the game. You may ask “where did you get this criteria, did you pull it out of your behind, like a Gordo or Stichface? No. Our ban criteria is derived from two sources: history/practice (past smash games, stuff we did ban in Brawl) and to a lesser extent, popular opinion.

Ok, here is the first problem. Ban criteria should NOT be based on popular opinion. There are far to many variances and reasons behind them. I could be of the opinion that the Ice-Climbers should be banned because they are in fact two characters in one, and I may make many logical statements as to why, but unless there is a string of overlining truth to my reasoning (AKA if they fit criteria that is universal to competitive gaming and not just this one situation) the ban criteria is invalid. Adumbrodeaus has put forth a nice to-do list for such criteria to be reached, I suggest people look at it and get to work.

To summarize our ban criteria and the reasoning behind it – before we go into the details to support it- here we are.

Criteria to ban something in the game

[1] That aspect of the game must be so different from everything else in the game that it is an alien to the rest of the game.
[2] That aspect of the game must decrease the quality of every aspect of Brawl.

OK, here we have another problem.

“Alien: 2: differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility”

Seeing as my home dictionary didn’t have this meaning for the word alien I will assume (and hopefully correctly considering that this is the only definition of alien that even remotely works with the way you are using it) that this is the definition for which you base your argument, found in the online Webster’s.

This definition can be construed as almost anything unique, be it Peach and Diddy’s ability to create items, Snake’s smash attacks being projectiles, the Ice-Climbers being multiple characters used at once, etc. should one persue the train of thought to its utmost extremes. This is why you put a qualifier on the second part of the criteria, but it falls under the same issue.

“Quality: 2 a: degree of excellence”

What quantifies excellence? What is the quality that you are hoping to preserve by banning something? The criteria is not universal, nor is it even well defined.

Now, why set these criteria? Is it arbitrary? No. The reason these are ban criteria is because:

A- Everything we have banned in Super Smash Brothers history has met both of these criteria, and
B – Besides Metaknight, there is nothing we have yet to ban that satisfied both of these criteria.

The issue is simple. Metaknight shares all the same aspects of Brawl that we have ALREADY BANNED – In Brawl, and to lesser extents, Melee and Smash 64. Thus, Metaknight should be banned as well.

Because of the above problems, I can’t say anything to this.

Before we go into some details, please realize that the ban criteria the anti ban side come up with are likely not in accordance with past smash games but more likely in accordance with other fighting games. Then ask yourself what is more important: to ban what we the smash community have decided has been banworth over our series’ 8-10 year history, or to ban what other communties have set as ban criteria? Obviouisly, because this is a Smash game, the ban criteria we have set in SMASH GAMES SHOULD OUTWEIGHT THE BAN CRITERIA SET IN OTHER FIGHTING GAMES. We are the smash community and we are our own entity. Our game is NOT Street Fighter. We choose as a community to follow our own path and, while we take guidance from other communities, our own history sets a better standard than the history of other games.

The criteria that most of anti-ban supports is not limited to other competitive games but competition in general. Overcentralization is a very good way of ferreting out most anything that is truly an issue in any competitive environment, and that is why they are using it. It is universal. The ban criteria that the pro-ban side is trying to promote with this argument is based on opinions, which again can not be used for aforementioned reasons. Most of the rest of this paragraph is well written as a motivational speech, but nothing more.

Now, we will show the ban criteria. Then in A, we will explain how everything we banned as a community fits the ban criteria. In B, we will show how Metaknight fits the criteria.

As far as I can think of (I’m certainly not perfect and am liable to miss things) I’ve already explained why the criteria presented doesn’t work. However, for the sake of thouroughness I will look at the rest of the argument.

[1] The aspect of the game must be so different than every aspect of the game that it is alien to the game.
A - What have we banned that follows this criteria?

Examples: Items, Crazy Stages, Stalling Techniques

The first thing people will say is that items are banned because they are random. That is not why they are banned. Otherwise, why do we set the first stage on random? Why do we allow King DDD to use forward b and Peach to use down B? Why is Halberd not banned (it has random hazards) Items are banned because winning based on a random event is foreign to all the other reasons you should win. As a community, we want winning to be based on overall skill set, not your ability to deal with a random event. You cannot disagree that if you are far better at dealing with food on very low than your opponent, you will likely win the items match. It has a very low effect on the outcome, yet food on very low is banned. The random factor is even smaller than the hazards on some legal stages. It’s just that as a community, the skill of being able to deal extremely will with a random event is ALIEN to the rest of the skills of the game – mind games, spacing, tech skill, and so on. This applies to crazy stages. We don’t want to see how good you are at teching. If you were perfect at teching, nobody would ever beat you on Hyrule Temple in Melee or Luigi’s Mansion in Brawl. You’d be unbeatable. But winning based on teching alone isn’t a skill you’d want to test. Same goes for stalling. It takes skill to stall. Both players can do it. So why not allow it? It’s because it’s alien to spacing, mind games, tech skill. It’s alien and we don’t care to measure this as valuable.

To your first assertion, items were banned due to the random factor. The game gives no warning when or where an item will spawn. Items like bob-ombs have the capacity to come out of no-where and change the end of a game due to it appearing on top of an attack already in progress. Items like final smashes may appear right next to a character that is about to get KO-ed and change the entire dynamic of the match. Randomly spawned items are beyond the player’s control. They hinder competition. Its would be the equivalent of players playing basket-ball where the score is down, it’s a few seconds to the final buzzer and the ball randomly gains the ability to home in on the basket when thrown from anywhere on the court with a 75% chance of accuracy. Its game changing, and it doesn’t reward players for anything, it just changes the outcome. It cheapens the competition as it were. As for the argument for Peach and DeDeDe (you forgot Game & Watch) it was decided that they didn’t destroy competitive viability due to the spawning being player controlled. The result may be random, but the occurance is not. The same argument can be extended to (some) stages with hazards. Most give warning signs before they happen well within the scope of human reaction time (10-15 frames if I remember correctly). Some stages don’t (Green Greens’ bombs off the top of the screen come to mind) and should therefore be banned. As to the reference to the random stage selection at the beginning of a match, it is already pre-determinded which stages are going to be played from it, meaning that it is somewhat player controlled (though tournament organizer controlled would be a bit more accurate).

The rest of the above quote has numerous fallacies due to the use of the word “alien” which I have already explained. Stalling is the premature ending of competition, which can be running away (the primary reason why Hyrule temple was banned), glitching the game (Infinate Dimentional Cape) among others, and doesn’t relate to the situation at hand.

B. Why Metaknight follows this Criteria

This point is supported by the rest of the pro ban argument. It’s all the stuff about MK having no bad matchups – its about MK’s unique ability to stall matches and break the planking ledge grab rules. It’s about MK’s over focus on the Metagame. Sure, it takes skill to win with MK. But guess what? It takes skill to stall too. It takes skill to deal with food on very low. It’s just that, these aspects are so foreign to the rest of the game that they should all be removed. With MK in, success in brawl is determined in your ability to beat one matchup, honestly. Notice that the best players in the world are those that are simply good against MK. This is the #1 far and above beyond aspect that makes or breaks you as a player, even if you are meh at every other matchup in the game. It’s foreign and fits the ban criteria. With MK removed, the game isn’t about defeating one matchup so much as it is about winning a massive load of matchups.

More emotionally charged rhetoric. I’ve already de-bunked the examples given as far as I can tell (again, I’m not perfect and could have missed something). There have also been no evidences to support the claims yet.

[2] That aspect of the game must decrease the quality of every aspect of Brawl.

A – Examples of things we banned that fit this – Crazy stages, Stalling, Items

Yup, the exact same examples. When you are playing on a crazy stage, every aspect of Brawl – counterpicks, excitement of watching the match, spacing, mind games are all minimized in favor of playing on the stage. Stalling. Stalling decreases the quality of watching matches, decreases viewing interest in the game, spacing, mind games and everything. It becomes a battle of who can avoid contact. Much like MK’s existence becomes about defeating MK and the ability to counterpick MK. Items. I’m not talking about bombs, and crazy things. we mean FOOD ON VERY LOW. Why is this banned? To be honest it’s because, bluntly, WE JUST DON”T LIKE IT. Can one seriously argue that food on very low is going to make a much more skilled player lose to a less skilled player? No. But, food’s EXISTENCE decreases the importance of every single other thing – mind games, spacing, tech skill. We just WANT to play a game where these qualities are the be all end all to test, not a game where food decreases the importance of these. Quite honestly food on very low is banned because it gets in the way of the game we want to play.

Yes, the argument boils down to “MK is not broken enough to be unbeatable, but MK is broken enough to ruin every quality and aspect of the game in the same way everything we have ever banned has been.” That is where we come up with the banned criteria. Things we’ve banned in Smash Brawl, Smash Melee, and Smash 64. If you are getting your ban criteria on PERSONAL DESIRE or OTHER FIGHTING GAMES, is it really as substantial as getting it from all the banned aspects of the series of games Super Smash Brothers Brawl? What we have banned as a community and the reasons we have banned them are ALIGNED with why the pro ban side wishes to ban Metaknight.

I see a lot of assertions made with no argument or evidences behind them here. I bolded/underlined/colored the most notable offense. It should also be noted that the pro-ban camp has openly admitted that they are attempting to ban a character due to their own personal preferences, which once again goes back to my original point of why that doesn’t work. As to food on low, I can attest to a few percentages meaning quite a bit as a player of a lighter character. Having those few less percents can be game changing, and again it has the random problem.

At this point I don’t have much of a reason to continue due it it being clear that the entire argument is based on a faulty premise. I can continue later if people want me to, but for the time being I’m done and wish to go back to lurking.

 

[Spelt]

Heh, I just happen to have picked up and used Ganon since the game's release. Ganon's so good at this game!

now you've got me wondering who i first played when i got brawl. D:
dang, this is going to be bugging me for hours...
-tries to think if i played subspace emissary first or an actual match-

 

[Clai]

lol
well, you'd obviously have to define overcentralizing.
in third strike, you have yun and chun, and to a lesser extent, ken and the fourth guy (i never remember if the 4th guy is dudley or makoto or someone else, i just watch a bunch of 3S)
in melee, you had marth, fox, shiek, and falco (tier list changed recently and wut not, so I used the word had)

but here, you have MK, and to a lesser extent, Snake.
is it overcentralizing because there are fewer characters and/or a lower percentage of characters to have to worry about?

No. People are just not used to having a fighting game where one character is the best instead of four or five, so they overreact and start looking for ways to remove that one character so that the other, not best, characters in the game can get a share of the placings pie.

 

[The 5th Horseman]

I don't like slippery slope, but they're probably switch to Game and Watch or Dedede. Both are really easy to play. Game and Watch more than Dedede.

Yea. People will bring a characters metagame up and people will *****. It's a pattern.

 

[fkacyan]

I don't like slippery slope, but they're probably switch to Game and Watch or Dedede. Both are really easy to play. Game and Watch more than Dedede.

I would argue that Snake, Falco, and GnW are the ones that would see a lot of increased use. D3 is actually a bit more difficult to use than people give him credit for.

 

[Rykoshet]

I don't like slippery slope, but they're probably switch to Game and Watch or Dedede.

...
...
...

Am I the only one who sees it?