Fourth and final community vote about Meta Knight.

[DanGR]

Metaknight gets chaingrabbed hard by Falco and he still dies to Snake's u-tilt at around 100%. He still gets sent to the blast zones a lot easier than most of the other characters.

Why does he get sent to the blast zones more easily than most other characters?

Btw, it's more around 120% on an average stage if they DI it correctly.

 

[swordgard]

Why does he get sent to the blast zones more easily than most other characters?

Btw, it's more around 120% on an average stage if they DI correctly.

Pretty sure MK dies at around 102% or so on FD, a bit more if perfectly DI-ed. Not that much though. Certainly not 120ish, your either hitting with weak part of uptilt or its stale, if not both >.<

 

[Boxob.]

****ty attempt at being cool on the internet.

You're right, but not entirely. See; people are actually continually working on getting better with MK, as good as he is on paper kinda good. You know, the broken kind?

It's what I do because it's what's happening, I'm stating nothing other than fact. People will get better, and if people get any better with MK, he will be absurdly brokededed. There are videos of people performing (but not consistently across the span of a whole match or anything) what will make MK bannable. His recovery, cancel-able specials and perfect zoning, yadayada. He's broken, people just aren't doing it right yet. We're close though.

 

[Masmasher@]

You realize that NOT banning is something, according to the OP, that we can't go back on as well.


And if pro ban loses and we keep MK and he maintains his dominance through the exploitation of the pseudo-rules set against his theoretically flawless techniques, would that be ok?

Banning should alyways be a last resort. Theres seems to be some belief that banning a character should be easy and fun!
this isnt the case more weight should fall upon you because you are trying to change the natural flow of the game (and its already warped as **** as it is). The 66% is there because having a victory by less then that shows that the community was truly spilt about it. also its to help regulate all the loose anomalies that are happening right now when people vote. Examples are alt accounts and what not. Pro ban always says "we as a community" well its pretty obvious from the poll that your "comunity" isnt as supportive of the banning as you think it is. You guys want him gone? get that 2/3 or 66% vote. Show that this is the trueface of the brawl community no matter how mistaken it may be.

 

[phi1ny3]

Metaknight gets chaingrabbed hard by Falco and he still dies to Snake's u-tilt at around 100%. He still gets sent to the blast zones a lot easier than most of the other characters.

Doesn't matter if you've got some pretty safe moves, almost negates that.
Just saying.

You're right, but not entirely. See; people are actually continually working on getting better with MK, as good as he is on paper kinda good. You know, the broken kind?

It's what I do because it's what's happening, I'm stating nothing other than fact. People will get better, and if people get any better with MK, he will be absurdly brokededed. There are videos of people performing (but not consistently across the span of a whole match or anything) what will make MK bannable. His recovery, cancel-able specials and perfect zoning, yadayada. He's broken, people just aren't doing it right yet. We're close though.

Agreed, which is why I don't like that this is the "final" vote.
I don't think he should be banned... yet.

 

[DanGR]

Pretty sure MK dies at around 102% or so on FD, a bit more if perfectly DI-ed. Not that much though. Certainly not 120ish, your either hitting with weak part of uptilt or its stale, if not both >.<

Weak part of uptilt? Oxymoron? >__>

Anyways, I specifically remember DIing an uptilt at around 120% (as MK) after the hit on Battlefield. I don't remember my opponent uptilting me before then, though, so I guess it's possible...

I've got a video of me surviving a Snake uptilt as Snake on the top platform of Battlefield at 130%. I think it was diminished twice though. (Doubles)

 

[ShadowLink84]

You do realize the moment we break the SDI technical barrier your theory falls appart? I can assume we get there myselft and tell you MK will dramatically fall on the tier list.


See what i did there?

I took theory and made it sound like fact. Thats what you do, without any argument behind your reasonning. Theory=/=practice.

*facepalm*
If it is within human possibility assume it done

 

[Master Knight DH]

AW competition is almost an oxymoron simply because of how few people even play it competitively like people play Smash. Are you sure you're not talking about wifi battles? Under that logic, Mario Kart Wii is competitive too...

Because Days of Ruin doesn't have ladder matches. Oh wait.

Except Caulder is banned by the game during wifi and wireless games because of how broken he is, he was intended to be that broken.

Hell the programmers and developers knew this when making him.

The point is that *NOBODY* is arguing that. Myself included, having abused him on a certain one of the Super Stupid Advance Wars Maps, and I note that he's the ONLY CO with a freaking weakness at all. Of course, it's an off-balance weakness, so the opponent won't be exploiting it any time soon. Meta Knight's lack of projectiles, however, is an on-balance weakness in a game where plenty of characters have minor or no on-balance weaknesses, which FAR MORE EASILY HITS HIM THAN CAULDER'S REPAIR COSTS HITS CAULDER IN THE DAYS OF RUIN ENVIRONMENT.

 

[swordgard]

*facepalm*
If it is within human possibility assume it done

He assumed that MK would become better, i just gave him another assumption which was higly ridiculous in order to show that assumptions must never be done >.<

 

[Boxob.]

He assumed that MK would become better, i just gave him another assumption which was higly ridiculous in order to show that assumptions must never be done >.<

Are you saying that the idea that people will get better as MK is highly ridiculous?

Because you definitely just said that.

 

[DanGR]

Are you saying that the idea that people will get better as MK is highly ridiculous?

Because you definitely just said that.

That's not what he said. He said he made "another assumption which was highly ridiculous," not another "highly ridiculous assumption."

Either way, it's a poor choice of words.

edit: wow. I'm correcting someone that's being picking about semantics.

I should go to bed. >___>

 

[Tristan_win]

I'm seeing a lot of debate about the polling being bad because those who have some say can be not informed, may use multiple accounts to vote, and or are not tournament goers then perhaps the best way to fix this would be groups.

Just make a group that require approved by a group leader all of which would be the tournament directors and moderators. The directors would obviously know a good number of tournament going players, moderators could moderate who is allowed in the group by removing those who look to be just on smashboards to vote under a different name while allowing in members as well. They could keep the group open for a month before closing it so that no one else could join then if needed a scan could take place before the poll.

This group would obviously have way more then 1000+ members but even so it would in a lot of ways be the cream of the crop compare to what we are dealing with now and each vote would hold much more weight.

This is my suggestion when the SBR has to deal with the 5th poll.

 

[swordgard]

That's not what he said. He said he made "another assumption which was highly ridiculous," not another "highly ridiculous assumption."

Either way, it's a poor choice of words.

edit: wow. I'm correcting someone that's being picking about semantics.

I should go to bed. >___>

Thanks for clearing it up to him for me.


Either way, assumptions and risk theories are never good. Just argue with what we have right now.

 

[link2702]

I'm seeing a lot of debate about the polling being bad because those who have some say can be not informed, may use multiple accounts to vote, and or are not tournament goers then perhaps the best way to fix this would be groups.

Just make a group that require approved by a group leader all of which would be the tournament directors and moderators. The directors would obviously know a good number of tournament going players, moderators could moderate who is allowed in the group by removing those who look to be just on smashboards to vote under a different name while allowing in members as well. They could keep the group open for a month before closing it so that no one else could join then if needed a scan could take place before the poll.

This group would obviously have way more then 1000+ members but even so it would in a lot of ways be the cream of the crop compare to what we are dealing with now and each vote would hold much more weight.

This is my suggestion when the SBR has to deal with the 5th poll.

there won't be a 5th poll on MK debate, maybe on another debate, but this is the 4th and FINAL verdict on mk. he's either gonna go or stay...

 

[GwJ]

there won't be a 5th poll on MK debate, maybe on another debate, but this is the 4th and FINAL verdict on mk. he's either gonna go or stay...

You can't say that. For all we know, if MK doesn't get banned, he might be even more "broken" in terms of his potential and we may need to do it again.

 

[swordgard]

You can't say that. For all we know, if MK doesn't get banned, he might be even more "broken" in terms of his potential and we may need to do it again.

Yeah.


You guys havent noticed though, it says final COMMUNITY vote. Hint from SBR maybe? Or maybe im just looking to far and lack of sleep is making me paranoid O.o.



Either way, i predict the final outcome to be within 48-52%, it will be really close either way.

 

[Melomaniacal]

As much as I would love to believe this is the last MK debate/vote, it isn't.

By the way, pro-banners:
This poll closes on my birthday, you've lost all hope.

 

[superkid]

This thread is uber failure, close posting and just let the voting open, btw if you have some ips from people creating multiple accounts, pm them to me so they will pay their fraud for their internet connection for a few days( i can't really go longer im sorry).

 

[ZxChrono]

^^
why dont you just check the votes that were cast with recently made accounts made within the last 2 weeks or so. people can just change their ip's if they are smart enough so i dont think that will help as much.

 

[Reizilla]

^^ some people made accounts just to cast votes and some people have one than one person in the same household that play...and isn't that illegalz? rule #7 global rulez or some crap...

 

[Watkins]

fkn MK and his 800 jumps and glides gimping me all day

It's no secret that I'd like him banned, but I wouldn't be too upset if he wasn't. I've had more problems with Falco and Snake than MK in the past due to my exclusive Ike playing in tournaments, which will hopefully change in the future.

Anywho, there's no way I'm reading 400 pages on this topic. It's not that I don't care, it's that I don't care enough to spend 3 hours doing that. But I'll voice my opinions anyway, no doubt they've all been said before, because the more educated opinions the better I say.


Well, I beat a kid across the street who used MK. He can't be that bad, you guys just need to l2p.

What annoys me about the whole thing is the way the debate is being resolved. It just seems incredibly flawed. The fate of Brawl depends on an open poll on Smashboards which is composed of uninformed scrubs and biased tier whores. Every vote has people similar to that though. How do you think Bush got elected twice? 8D

A big problem is that this game is played by a younger audience. A younger audience full of immature and uninformed brawlers that need their decisions made for them. I often see ******** statements like "I've never had trouble with MK, but on the other hand I've never played a good MK lol" or "I main MK and I get beat all the time, he can't be that bad." If you don't see a problem with those statements, you are the problem. I'm not explaining



Who can we even trust?

I think it would be wiser to instead have a chosen panel of intelligent unbiased brawl pros to make the decision, ones who probably don't main MK. Sadly, few of those exist and are unlikely to be looked to to make such an important decision.

The closest thing we have is the SBR, which I have to say I don't have complete faith in. I've seen quite a bit of dumb posts from some of their members. On the other hand, I've seen some great, well-written, and intelligent posts from what I'm glad to say is the majority of them as well. So I'd still be happier if the vote was all up to them instead of a community opinion though I suppose.




It's not that I hate my fellow brawlers. Just some of them. :D

The last huge problem in my eyes is the fact that the pro ban side needs 2/3rds majority to win. That seems pretty ridiculous, if the majority of the smash community or the SBR or whatever the decision is up to wants something banned, it should be banned. I don't think it should matter if it's 66% or 51%. I can see that the SBR might want a very strong majority to enforce such a dramatic decision and not cause an uproar, but if over half the community feels strongly enough about MK that they want him banned, I would think that important.

And yeah, not everyone is lucky enough to have played a really good MK and fully understand his power enough to make an unbiased vote to ban him, but the people that do understand make strong enough points to sway people.

I'm aware that the SBR is allowing the community to have a say in their vote and at the moment that will slightly help the pro-ban side, but I think the community just has too many stupid, biased, and unfounded decisions to have a say in such an important matter. Too many yes's voting for the wrong reasons and too many no's voting just to keep their mains/secondaries.

Yet, the problem I have is with the system, not what the system is saying. I'd still say the same things if the no-ban side was winning.

 

[SuSa]

Any Pro's that don't main MK are probably biased against MK (for the most part)

Also, this isn't a democracy and you don't have to do what the SBR says. Also the reason why it isn't 51% is simply because many non-competitive people vote "Ban him" and many people are voting based off of personal experiences of "I can/can't beat MK therefore he shouldn't/should be banned" which is plain out... stupid.

 

[mountain_tiger]

Well, I voted anti-ban because it's not like no character stands a chance against him. Yes, none counter him, but IMO any match-up 40:60 or better is winnable for the person on the receiving end. It just might not be very easy. And MK has a number of 55:45 and 60:40 matchups, and one or two 50:50 ones. Therefore, I don't think he's broken enough to be banned.

 

[Red Arremer]

While I know people like Supermodel from Paris and Fatmanonice will rip this text apart and say everything is wrong, or the majority will simply ignore it, I've made a little write up.

Long text is long:
Playing a game competitively - this means any game - means that you want to determine skill between several players, usually two or a team of equally amounted players facing each other. Determining skill needs an environment that is the most even and balanced as possible. That is the general concept of competitiveness. I'm sure you understand that concept, that generally, a competitive game seeks balance in between the players so actual skill is determined.

In video games, especially fighting games, game balance is very difficult to achieve. Due to characters having different movesets, traits and other things such as special mechanics (e.g. the Aura of Lucario is a perfect example for that), there will be characters that are advantaged over others. Characters so have strengths and weaknesses, and it's up to the player of a character to cover the character's weaknesses with their strengths, while their opponent tries to exploit the weaknesses of that character.

Perfect balance is literally impossible with a cast of more than 1 character. While it can be extremely close to be completely balanced to the point where every character's matchup to each other has only so small advantages/disadvantages against each other that they are neglectable and able to be called even.

However, most fighting games aren't that balanced as I said, especially with a cast that has more than a small handful of characters. There will be characters that have a major advantage over other characters. Some characters have so many strengths that they have no problem in covering their weaknesses, thus doing very well against most of their opponents, while some characters have so many weaknesses that they can't cover them anymore and are victims to huge exploits of them.

If you have understood these paragraphs explaining the concept of competitive fighting games so far, you might be able to conclude the next line of explanation - regarding Smash - yourself.

Due to the unusual nature of Smash (it not having health bars and the players having to ring-out their opponent in order to win, etc.) and the fact that stages influence the performance of players and characters in this game series, the system of "Counterpicking" (I'll add Stagestriking into it since it's kindasorta part of it) has been introduced.
Counterpicking and Stagestriking are options given to the player to put themselves into a favourable position. They are neither absolutely necessary nor does the player HAVE to use counterpicking or strike a stage. However, they can put themselves into a favourable position by doing so, covering some of their character's weaknesses and/or being able to exploit the opponent's more with the help of a stage, and removing a stage that exploits their character's weaknesses by striking it.
Just like Gimping, Edgehogging, Camping, Chaingrabbing, etc., Counterpicking is an option given to the players. They don't have to use it, but usually, it's not a bad idea to do so.

Now, the thing is following: A favourable position does not mean an advantage only. There is no need to put yourself into an advantage, because in order to determine skill, an even position is all you need. An advantage over your opponent is favourable, but not necessary in order to determine the skill between you and your opponent.
If you are in an even matchup and you lose, nothing is to blame but yourself, since especially in an even matchup, there's nothing that counts more than your own skill and knowledge.

Too many people are focussed on thinking that counterpicking has to do with disadvantaged matchups, but that's wrong, since an even matchup is the only thing you need.

Now, let's take the following scenario. You main Dedede. Your opponent mains Falco. You play the first round. You lose due to the matchup. Now you get to counterpick - your opponent will first choose a new character if they do, then you can change your character, and then pick a stage to additionally put your opponent into a disadvantage even further.
But you are given the chance to at least make it even!
If you win this match, your opponent is able to counterpick you now, including character picks. Sucks, right? Because he will put you into a disadvantage, but at the very least will try to make the match even.

Take another example. You main R.O.B.. Your opponent mains Meta Knight. The same scenario occurs. You lose due to your matchup. Now you get to counterpick with a character that goes even with him and can win the match because of your skill - should it be there. Yaddayadda. If you lose, noone is to blame but your own lack of skill.

Let's take a really different example, because this time it'll run different. You main Diddy, your opponent is Meta Knight again. Diddy goes even vs. Meta Knight on pretty much every Neutral (you still can strike out Yoshi's Island, which is the Neutral he doesn't perform that well on). If you lose in this even match with Meta Knight, then there is noone to blame but yourself. There's a reason that this matchup is even, after all.
Now, let's assume - You are the better player, you win.
Meta Knight will now either take you into a stage that's better for him, or counterpick you with a character, additionally, let's say Snake. Now he wins.

Now it's your chance. He either changes his character to someone else or stays Snake, then you can counterpick that character. If he switches to Meta Knight, you can counterpick him too, because you can put Meta Knight into an even matchup, which means that if you lose, nothing is to blame but yourself. You now can pick Diddy again and go to another Neutral, for instance. Or play another character Meta Knight goes even with. Or you take Meta Knight to a ditto. Whatever floats your boat.

If you now say "But why do I have to play a character that goes even with Meta Knight?", then you don't understand why the Counterpick argument is flawed.
If you play a character, this character will have bad matchups with other characters. If you play Diddy and your opponent counterpicks you with Snake, you will have to have a character in your armory that can deal with Snake. If you play Dedede and your opponent counterpicks you with Falco, you will have to have a character who can deal with Falco.
Meta Knight is not an exception. He's just really really good, and therefore has advantages over most of the cast. That means you will have to have a character that can deal with Meta Knight. Just like you will have to have a character that can deal with your main's other bad matchups.

Of course, Meta Knight is always a safe choice, since he goes even with others at worst. But that doesn't mean that he breaks the option of counterpicking, because you can counterpick him to make the match even. That just means that Meta Knight is a really really good character. You will always have to be aware of the fact that you could run into a Meta Knight, just like you have to be aware of the fact that you can run into Snake, Falco, Dedede and whomever else there is in the cast.

 

[Blatt Blvd]

melee fox has no bad matchups

melee fox dominated the tourney scene for like a year and a half.

ban fox in melee

 

[Brinzy]

Glad I decided to check this thread...

Good read, Spadefox.

 

[Greward]

Good read spadefox, but diddy v MK is not even, if MK air planks it can be 3-7 or worse... just look this match http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbmu8fGcWaw
And that's not banned.
I'm not for the ban anyways.

 

[Red Arremer]

Good read spadefox, but diddy v MK is not even, if MK air planks it can be 3-7 or worse... just look this match http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbmu8fGcWaw
And that's not banned.
I'm not for the ban anyways.

That's because it's DaPuffster.

 

[Sosuke]

diddy v MK
...
3-7 or worse

You've GOT to be kidding me.

 

[POKE40]

Spadefox, your post explains why you make me a happy anti ban person

 

[5ive]

melee fox has no bad matchups

melee fox dominated the tourney scene for like a year and a half.

ban fox in melee

lolwtf say hi to Marth.

 

[WheelOfFish]

Diddy is basically even with MK. Maybe a very slight disadvantage.

BUT I FIGURED IT OUT!!1 The solution to this problem right here! When I watch videos of M2K, he uses Metaknight creatively and in ways I would've never thought of before... nor did I think Brawl could look that interesting. He uses tornado minimally, makes uses of almost every move (including down-b, a move usually ignored by 'pros'), and avoids playing stupidly (heehee, Obama). He wins a lot, but it makes me feel like it's because he's good, not because Metaknight is broken. And I've seen other good Metaknights who don't play stupidly, so he's not the only one. But then I watch Plank play and win, and I am filled with a ****ing fury and I see why people want Metaknight is banned.

Would anyone like to argue that Plank is the most annoying Metaknight main around? I'm sure there's plenty. Ban stupid tactics, not characters.

You might want to believe that banning Metaknight will make more characters viable, but it's bull crap. Banning MK just makes Snake the best. Neither of those two have changed in any of the tiers. Snake doesn't have all good match-ups, but he's still easily second best. Banning stupid tactics would change the tier list more. No more chain-grabs (minus ICs, solo IC, and Yoshi because they take skill to master and are avoidable), no more locks, no more planking, and suddenly, the tier list is looking a lot different and a lot more... balanced. Sure, there are still crappy characters and broken characters, but it would help more than banning MK.

 

[Greward]

You've GOT to be kidding me.

If MK airplanks it can be horrible. Plz read all.
Neways there are no top diddy players playing an airplanker MK (plank) so idk.
@WheelofFish: We cant do a written rule to ban every way can MK use for plank/stall/everything u want to call it.
And lol u want to ban CGs? And u dont want to ban the cgs that are difficult to do? We are playing about top level play... and banning normal chaingrabs is stupid. About standing cgs it can be different.

 

[Sosuke]

There mere thought of MK Vs. Diddy being 70-30 (or WORSE) is ridiculous.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Greward, that match was a HORRIBLE example for the Diddy vs MK match-up. Aircamping doesn't help Meta Knight AT ALL against Diddy. Glide tossed bananas can beat that without any trouble and neither Puffster nor Plank are very good brawl players. Watch ADHD vs any top MK if you want to see how the match-up is played on a high level. It's no coincidence that ADHD thinks Diddy has a slight advantage vs MK on neutral stages. 7/3 is an absurd number based on a match with two mediocre players - not a good way to decide match-up ratios.

 

[Fatmanonice]

While I know people like Supermodel from Paris and Fatmanonice will rip this text apart and say everything is wrong, or the majority will simply ignore it, I've made a little write up.

Long text is long:
1.Playing a game competitively - this means any game - means that you want to determine skill between several players, usually two or a team of equally amounted players facing each other. Determining skill needs an environment that is the most even and balanced as possible. That is the general concept of competitiveness. I'm sure you understand that concept, that generally, a competitive game seeks balance in between the players so actual skill is determined.

2.In video games, especially fighting games, game balance is very difficult to achieve. Due to characters having different movesets, traits and other things such as special mechanics (e.g. the Aura of Lucario is a perfect example for that), there will be characters that are advantaged over others. Characters so have strengths and weaknesses, and it's up to the player of a character to cover the character's weaknesses with their strengths, while their opponent tries to exploit the weaknesses of that character.

3.Perfect balance is literally impossible with a cast of more than 1 character. While it can be extremely close to be completely balanced to the point where every character's matchup to each other has only so small advantages/disadvantages against each other that they are neglectable and able to be called even.

4.However, most fighting games aren't that balanced as I said, especially with a cast that has more than a small handful of characters. There will be characters that have a major advantage over other characters. Some characters have so many strengths that they have no problem in covering their weaknesses, thus doing very well against most of their opponents, while some characters have so many weaknesses that they can't cover them anymore and are victims to huge exploits of them.

5.If you have understood these paragraphs explaining the concept of competitive fighting games so far, you might be able to conclude the next line of explanation - regarding Smash - yourself.

6.Due to the unusual nature of Smash (it not having health bars and the players having to ring-out their opponent in order to win, etc.) and the fact that stages influence the performance of players and characters in this game series, the system of "Counterpicking" (I'll add Stagestriking into it since it's kindasorta part of it) has been introduced.
Counterpicking and Stagestriking are options given to the player to put themselves into a favourable position. They are neither absolutely necessary nor does the player HAVE to use counterpicking or strike a stage. However, they can put themselves into a favourable position by doing so, covering some of their character's weaknesses and/or being able to exploit the opponent's more with the help of a stage, and removing a stage that exploits their character's weaknesses by striking it.
Just like Gimping, Edgehogging, Camping, Chaingrabbing, etc., Counterpicking is an option given to the players. They don't have to use it, but usually, it's not a bad idea to do so.

7.Now, the thing is following: A favourable position does not mean an advantage only. There is no need to put yourself into an advantage, because in order to determine skill, an even position is all you need. An advantage over your opponent is favourable, but not necessary in order to determine the skill between you and your opponent.
If you are in an even matchup and you lose, nothing is to blame but yourself, since especially in an even matchup, there's nothing that counts more than your own skill and knowledge.

8.Too many people are focussed on thinking that counterpicking has to do with disadvantaged matchups, but that's wrong, since an even matchup is the only thing you need.

9.Now, let's take the following scenario. You main Dedede. Your opponent mains Falco. You play the first round. You lose due to the matchup. Now you get to counterpick - your opponent will first choose a new character if they do, then you can change your character, and then pick a stage to additionally put your opponent into a disadvantage even further.
But you are given the chance to at least make it even!
If you win this match, your opponent is able to counterpick you now, including character picks. Sucks, right? Because he will put you into a disadvantage, but at the very least will try to make the match even.

10.Take another example. You main R.O.B.. Your opponent mains Meta Knight. The same scenario occurs. You lose due to your matchup. Now you get to counterpick with a character that goes even with him and can win the match because of your skill - should it be there. Yaddayadda. If you lose, noone is to blame but your own lack of skill.

11.Let's take a really different example, because this time it'll run different. You main Diddy, your opponent is Meta Knight again. Diddy goes even vs. Meta Knight on pretty much every Neutral (you still can strike out Yoshi's Island, which is the Neutral he doesn't perform that well on). If you lose in this even match with Meta Knight, then there is noone to blame but yourself. There's a reason that this matchup is even, after all.
Now, let's assume - You are the better player, you win.
Meta Knight will now either take you into a stage that's better for him, or counterpick you with a character, additionally, let's say Snake. Now he wins.

12.Now it's your chance. He either changes his character to someone else or stays Snake, then you can counterpick that character. If he switches to Meta Knight, you can counterpick him too, because you can put Meta Knight into an even matchup, which means that if you lose, nothing is to blame but yourself. You now can pick Diddy again and go to another Neutral, for instance. Or play another character Meta Knight goes even with. Or you take Meta Knight to a ditto. Whatever floats your boat.

13.If you now say "But why do I have to play a character that goes even with Meta Knight?", then you don't understand why the Counterpick argument is flawed.
If you play a character, this character will have bad matchups with other characters. If you play Diddy and your opponent counterpicks you with Snake, you will have to have a character in your armory that can deal with Snake. If you play Dedede and your opponent counterpicks you with Falco, you will have to have a character who can deal with Falco.
Meta Knight is not an exception. He's just really really good, and therefore has advantages over most of the cast. That means you will have to have a character that can deal with Meta Knight. Just like you will have to have a character that can deal with your main's other bad matchups.

14.Of course, Meta Knight is always a safe choice, since he goes even with others at worst. But that doesn't mean that he breaks the option of counterpicking, because you can counterpick him to make the match even. That just means that Meta Knight is a really really good character. You will always have to be aware of the fact that you could run into a Meta Knight, just like you have to be aware of the fact that you can run into Snake, Falco, Dedede and whomever else there is in the cast.

1. Nobody's against this though. Now for the next paragraph...

2. Whoever said that goal was "perfect" balance? If anything, the goal here is to give Brawl at least some balance when it comes to the high tiers. Right now, it's woefully unbalanced. There really isn't all too much of a checks and balance system because Metaknight side steps it by a large margin.

3. See above. Basically the same arguement "Perfect balance is impossible."

4. As pointed out before, Brawl really isn't like other fighting games because you can't truly capitalize on mistakes in a big way. You can't combo your opponents to death if they mess up. You can back them up against the wall and then **** them with specials. The only things in Brawl that kind of resemble a counter system are shield grabs. Beyond that, you pretty much go off the priority of attacks (which Metaknight has in spades, I might add). In Melee, despite it being theorically possible for Fox to negate every attack in the game with a shine, it was still possible to 0-death him because of hitstun. Brawl doesn't have a punishment system like other fighting games do which is one of the reasons why Metaknight is as good as he is.

5. Alright then.

6. *knows all the stuff already but continues reading*

7. I hope this doesn't lead into a "get better" arguement... Also, in Brawl, an even match up is not always even except with dittos thanks to counterpicking stages. Everyone has counterpick stages that they are at a disadvantage on except Metaknight. He used to have three counterpick stages in the form of Yoshi's Island (Melee), Corneria, and Green Hill Zone but all three of those were banned fairly early on (YI and GH due to being walk-off stages and Corneria for a plethora of reasons). With this being said, Metaknight will always have the advantage in a set because, even if the player is ignorant to counterpicks, they will never be able to make a "wrong" choice when it comes to stages. As any experienced competitive gamer will tell you, relying on your opponent's ignorance is not a good strategy.

8. See above. There is no such thing as even matchups in a set with Metaknight thanks to counterpick stages. It also doesn't help that he excels in all the neutral stages too so, statistically, the other player will more often than not have to depend on a 2-1 victory in a standard set with a loss on the first stage (thanks to Metaknight excelling on the neutral stages and stage striking to take away particularly adventageous neutral stages for other characters), being able to win the second match thanks to a counterpick (which makes you slightly better, not make him worse), and then beating Metaknight on his chosen counterpick. Statisically, it will always be an uphill battle for the other player in a set against Metaknight.

9. We're not talking about other characters, we're talking about Metaknight. This example works because the counterpick system is actually in play here. Again, Metaknight kind of side steps it while everybody else follows it. As some other people have said in the past, due to the nature of Brawl, the counterpick system is probably its most important aspect, even moreso than Melee because, again, Brawl doesn't have as reliable of a "punishment" system that other fighting games have. What you basically have is a character that near perfectly trumps the most important aspect of competitive Brawl which is why this is even an issue.

10. So, in other words, everybody has to have a counterpick character just for Metaknight? Basically, you HAVE to play as certain characters in order to even survive against Metaknight? I don't know about you but that definately sounds like something that severally limits the metagame. You also have to consider that a smart Metaknight player isn't going to sit there and just let someone try to counterpick them if they are not completely confident in their skills in Metaknight. You want to try to take me on with the Ice Climbers? I'll go with ROB. Try to use Snake? I'll go with King Dedede. With that being said, the Metaknight player will always have the advantage. Unlike everyone else, the Metaknight player doesn't have to tolerate even match ups aside from dittos. Don't forget that Metaknight is easily the most reliable secondary the game has to offer because of this. If anything, this kind of reflects how the community has successfully been able to use him as a crutch with zero consequences and why he currently has five times the placings of the character who's in third. Too good? No. Too good for a game like Brawl in its current state? Definately.

11. See above. I like to call what you're saying "the boss arguement." In games like Zelda, the boss of the dungeon remains in one place and doesn't do anything until you reach them. You could show up with only half a heart remaining or full health, three bottles with a fairy in each, and a ****** cannon that will kill the boss in two hits and the boss will fight you the exact same way. Because of this, a smart player will easily prepare themselves for the boss and essentially improve themselves until the player's advantage is clear or at least to the point where they are sure they won't die. In the case that they do die, they can always go back and refight the boss and, of course, the boss will fight the exact same way. Players are not like this in real life. Players do not always stay the same especially when they are constantly in a competitive setting. Now, this may work against your cousin who doesn't own a Wii who comes over and plays Brawl with you every weekend but this is rarely the case in a true competitive setting. In this arguement, you ignore the possibility that the other player can get better too and that one thing that works against them a certain time is definately not guarenteed to work everytime you play them until you stop playing the game altogether. Unless you're playing the computer, the other person is more than capable of realizing and trying to improve upon their mistakes and learn more to help try to push things back in their favor.

12. See points 10 and 11.

13. See points 8, 9, and 10.

14. Who in turn can counterpick you both stage and character wise if he/she/potato doesn't want to deal with an even match up so, again, there really isn't such thing as an even match up in a set against Metaknight. Like I said in point 11, you can't assume that the Metaknight player will stand there with their finger in their nose and let you try to make the match up even unless you decide to play as Metaknight too and then we have an even bigger problem that I don't think I even have to explain.

 

[Greward]

Greward, that match was a HORRIBLE example for the Diddy vs MK match-up. Aircamping doesn't help Meta Knight AT ALL against Diddy. Glide tossed bananas can beat that without any trouble and neither Puffster nor Plank are very good brawl players. Watch ADHD vs any top MK if you want to see how the match-up is played on a high level. It's no coincidence that ADHD thinks Diddy has a slight advantage vs MK on neutral stages. 7/3 is an absurd number based on a match with two mediocre players - not a good way to decide match-up ratios.

I said if the MK airplanks can be a real problem, and "can", not "would be". Without airplanking i completely agree with being an evenish matchup. And yes, i ve seen matches like adhd vs m2k... But M2K doesnt airplank, no top MK players usually airplanks nowadays. For this reason i said if the top MKs start airplanking or another way to stall it CAN be a horrible matchup, but i dont have any proof at top level playing. Bananas can be picked on the air easily though.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Good read spadefox, but diddy v MK is not even, if MK air planks it can be 3-7 or worse... just look this match http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbmu8fGcWaw
And that's not banned.
I'm not for the ban anyways.

Lol, no. Diddy is one of the better characters that can get past MK's air-camping.

lolwtf say hi to Marth.

Only really disadvantageous on FD. Fox can counterpick.

Fox has no universal bad match-ups in Melee.

 

[Blatt Blvd]

puffster is trash.

that vid proved it.

what a horrible diddy

 

[xDD-Master]

good text

Or you just play MK and will never see yourself in a disadvantaged situation ... no need for 2 characters. If you play an ony-MK player and your MAIN is not Snake / Wario / Falco / Diddy, you have to use one of them as your SECONDARY to make it an even Match-Up. And in an even Match-Up the chance that you'll loose is higher than for your oppenant, because he has more Knowledge with his character than you (Because he can concentrate on train 1 not 2 characters). Even if you play Snake / Wario / Falco / Diddy you would have to worry about using a secondary (Snake vs. Olimar, Wario vs. Marth, Falco vs. IC, Diddy vs. Peach) or if you use your Main you will be in a disadvantaged position (If your oppenant mains that character). OR you just main MK...