Those of us involved in writing these arguments wish to express our thanks to everyone who reads them fully before voting. We put a lot of work into it and appreciate your time reading.
Thank you! ^_^
I'd like to add two other things.
The first is a discussion of Genesis results
The results were
1. Snake
2. MK
3. MK
4. MK
The key pro ban argument here is that this is exactly the overcentralization we talked about. Ally is the only one capable of beating the top MK players, and look at the results. Is 1. Snake 2. MK 3. MK 4. MK a healthy metagame? Certainly not, and Snake is in a much tougher position when MK isn't eliminating all of his counters.
The next pro ban argument here is really simply the elimination of the anti ban argument. It's been noted by many that there is a very regional issue going on- SoCal has a severe Metaknight problem, while the East Coast has virtually none. Many anti bans (primarily Inui) argued that East Coast has a better anti-MK metagame, and that many "metaknight slayers" including Atomsk, ADHD, CO18, and others.
Amusingly, the end result was the exact opposite. Ironically, the West Coast Metaknights only lost to other West Coast players, the majority of them Metaknight dittos or DEHF/SK92.
Fiction listed quite a few in his post, below:
Further, a massive issue arose near the end of the singles bracket, when Dojo abused Metaknight's ability to stall to air camp and ledge camp without hitting 50 edgegrabs and beat DEHF by running the timer out. (He hit 34 edgegrabs) This further demonstrated just how ridiculous Metaknight is, and anti-Metaknight sentiments were running high among the crowd.
Almost everything that happened in this tournament supported the pro ban argument, right up until grand finals. People have been overlooking all of the events due to the big (SNAKE) at the top of the bracket. But honestly, all of the pro ban members who were in attendance at Genesis felt their position was strengthened when they left the tournament.
The second is ChiboSempai's discussion of the anti ban argument, copied and pasted below.
My take on the Anti-Ban essay
Argument 1: MetaKnight is not broken
You (referring to Anti-Ban side collectively) mention that MetaKnight does not have the ability to bypass hit stun, DI, KOs, free movement, or other concepts familiar to smash game play while being bound by the rules - however MetaKnight does indeed have options to do so. A popular tactic for MetaKnight is the Infinite Dimensional Cape. This tactic, which makes MetaKnight both invincible and invisible (obviously making it so he is not effected by the normal aspects of the game) was promptly banned, but it has proven to not be enough. There has been video evidence of players using even just a little bit of IDC to escape certain situations, enough to where it would be tough to call out at the time of the match, but enough to make a judgement based on a video review. Despite the tactic being banned, players (including Mew2King) have managed to slip by with using it without any repercussion. Even if it is brought up that IDC is banned, there is the recently discovered EDC, which has different properties of the IDC, but is not bannable under the same criteria. It does however make MetaKnight both invisible and invulnerable for times he shouldn't be.
Argument 2: Metaknight does not dominate the metagame
You mention that Ally has defeated Mew2King to get first twice this season compared to Mew2King doing the same to him only once. While what you said is technically true, you are hiding a good amount of information that I hope people won't neglect to realize. The term season alone is a complete opinion in this situation. I seriously am not sure what you mean. In state power rankings in the regional zones, a season is determined by a ranking period generally, which does not apply here. In the case of the current weather-related season we are in - Summer - this is also not the case as the first day of Summer was June 21st, 2009.
(all x-x accounts are defined as Ally-M2k)
If you define season as Summer
Ally lost to Mew2King in Winners Finals at Genesis: 0-1 set count
Ally beat Mew2King in two sets in Grand Finals at Genesis: 2-1 set count; 1-0 tournament win
Mew2King beat Ally in Grand Finals at Evo 2k9: 2-2 set count; 1-1 tournament win
Obviously Summer isn't the season that was used, since neither set count, nor tournament wins match up to your 2-1 claim.
If you define season as starting before Apex
Ally beat Mew2King in Grand Finals at Apex: 1-0 set count; 1-0 tournament win
Ally lost to Mew2King in Winners Finals at Genesis: 1-1 set count
Ally beat Mew2King in two sets in Grand Finals at Genesis: 3-1 set count; 2-0 tournament win
Mew2King beat Ally in Grand Finals at Evo 2k9: 3-2 set count; 2-1 tournament win
This is what seems to be what you used in your analysis, with Ally winning two tournaments to M2k's one (when both were present) starting at Apex. It is quite ridiculous to define this time as "this season." There is no defined season starter in this situation, and it was simply used to cover up information. This is also without mentioning that the percent ratio Mew2King has on Ally is better in his set count than it is with his tournament count.
Players generally include CoT4 results in the whole Mew2King versus Ally debate, which when adding onto the last count with Apex in the mix:
Mew2king beat Ally in two sets in Winners and Grand Finals at CoT4: 3-4 set count; 2-2 tournament win
This places Mew2King above Ally in this respect. If you wish to go even further to Cataclysm 4, Mew2King and Ally's first meeting in a tournament, Mew2King beat Ally in winners finals and won the tournament with Ally taking home third place.
Argument #3: The game is still growing and evolving
Many compare this to the beginning of Melee, where players complained about Sheik and that this is a new game, we don't know as much. Times just aren't the same anymore. Super Smash Bros. Brawl has been a heavy target by homebrew developers, hacking the game to it's fullest. There are now versions such as Brawl-E, EXBrawl, and S-Brawl which have modified the game, but most importantly - Brawl+. Whether you favor it or not, you still have to appreciate what this project has given the community. The makers of Brawl+ have statistical information (with actual numbers and hard data to back it) of knockback, knockback gain, damage, and hitboxes of every single attack in the game, along with all data about characters such as frame data, weight, gravity, and much more. I'm willing to wager that we know more about this game at this point in time (approx 16 months after release) than any other fighting game ever created after 16 months of being released.
Even with players jumping on the bandwagon to be the best character, it has also had everyone who is not an MK main specifically look for tactics in their character to counter MetaKnight. Many players complain that even if they are MetaKnight, it's annoying as MetaKnight is one of the most known matchups for every other character in the game - however even with the combined knowledge of everyone, it is still debatable that MetaKnight does not have a single matchup he loses.
Argument #4: Implying that Metaknight breaks the counterpick system also implies that Brawl is a game based on counterpicking
The counterpicking system in Smash is very important and a staple to the game's success. It is essentially a tournament rule, no different than what stages are banned, if "planking" is banned, if stalling is banned, if IDC is banned, or if we have 3 stocks instead of 10. If you wish to discredit the counterpicking system, then you might as well also discredit banning IDC (a player-created rule), which if legal, would make MetaKnight a guaranteed make MetaKnight bannable.
You really can't compare Brawl and Smash 64 in the way that you did. A best character is a best character - agreed. Even when MetaKnight is banned, there will be a new best character. The difference between the games is that Brawl is an overly-defensive game in which characters trade hits, the player in control isn't always the defensive one. In Smash 64 however, just about ever character has some form of a 0-death combo, and with the insane amount of hitstun, shieldstun, and the Z-canceling of any aerial to eliminate all aerial lag, Smash 64 rewards on being offensive. Getting a single hit in on Pikachu isn't hard. It isn't hard getting a hit on MetaKnight either. The difference being that a single hit on Pikachu in Smash 64 can literally mean death for that character, which certainly is not the case in Brawl. A MetaKnight can make any number of mistakes in Brawl and still walk away with a safe win. Isai's quote ("Don't get hit") doesn't hold any weight in Brawl, for in Brawl "It's ok if you get hit."
Argument #5: Metaknight’s extraneous circumstances are already resolved
Everything here is essentially void. You bring up the use of player-created rules to keep MetaKnight in-line which you discredit in your 4th argument, which whether or not I agree with, is contradictory to your own essay. This is also without mentioning that the anti-planking rule is really based on
Overall
