Just wanna throw something out there in regards to the whole ban stick thing

[Rkey]

Wavebouncing is taking MK off the top? Excuse me??

I said that wavebouncing is an advanced tech that applies to almost everyone but MK.

 

[Koopa64]

I said that wavebouncing is an advanced tech that applies to almost everyone but MK.

Yeah, but you're right. Noone actually cares yet. And the really only good ones are Lucas' and Lucario's.

 

[Zinc Elemental]

I said that wavebouncing is an advanced tech that applies to almost everyone but MK.

I realize. I thought you were implying that this might be the answer to MK. Honestly though, even if they can do it, very few people actually have useful ones.

 

[Natch]

If they banned Mk people would start complaining about snake

then Falco, then G&W, then Marth, DDD, etc.

Only Snake has been *****ed at seriously to be banned. That was before MK "came along", and people have *****ed about his banning more than any other character to date.

Also, those characters WON'T be in danger of being banned if MK goes, because they have more weaknesses. Snake has a very very gimpable recovery, Falco and DDD fall vicitm to combos like nobodies business, GW is the lighest character in the game and doesn't have nearly the same agility as MK, and people have been fighting Marth since Melee. He's nothing new, and he was never as bad as MK is now.

Yes... but a crappy player using Metaknight will still lose to a good player using some other character.

...okay, maybe the opponent has to be a little more significantly better than the Metaknight than in other match ups, but the point remains. We don't live in a world where every player (specifically the ones who pick up Metaknight) are at the complete meta-game level of play. There will always be crappy players, and for every crappy player, there will be a good one to beat him, and personally I think there's a higher chance of crappy players using Metaknight than any other character.

It's not like Metaknight is some kind of magic-god-character, where everyone who chooses him gets insta-skills, and knowledge of all his match ups and techniques.


Sure, Metaknight is a great character. Probably even the best. The point is that he's not so good that everyone insta-wins with him. Until it gets to the point where tournaments are reduced to MK vs. MK, (which I don't see happening), it's not a serious problem. If that does start happening, THEN we should start thinking about a ban. But like I said, I doubt that would happen.
I'm sure there are plenty of people like myself who refuse to use Metaknight.

I was going to cry "Skill argument, invalid!", but you came across more chill than others, so I'll oblige you.

MK is not super-broken, or anything like uber. He just greatly limits the metagame by being a reliable counterpick for almost every below top tier character in the game. It's his ability to actually pull off melee type combos while most everyone CAN'T that makes him so great. He's not broken by any means, but he's not fun to play against. All an MK has to know are the basics of his/her character, have some skill, and they can beat people with greater skill than themselves, while they themselves don't need such skill.

MK also has no hard-counters, or gimple recovery, or what have you. All he's got is the fact that he's light, and he's so quick and has such great recovery that's easily overcome.

I don't like MK not because he's broken, but because he defines the metagame so much. Regardless of whom I play, REGARDLESS, I must learn how to beat MK or I'm screwed. And it's that neccessity that makes him ban-worthy is many people's eyes. I personally don't give two ****s if he's banned or not, but I just want to guys to know just what you're doing to the Metagame by playing Metaknight.

 

[ADMJP]

Why is this post even here? Im pretty surprised that it hasnt been locked yet. Its basically some guy whining about how easy it is for MK's to win(at low level play) and then claiming that he isnt.
But if we're talking about high level play, then i think it would be beneficial to ban M2K from competition altogether since were trying to make things easier on people.

 

[pure_awesome]

Ooo! Can I play?

Also, you said we must use skill to beat him, essentially. Thus, your argument is moot and pointless, since the skill argument applies to everyone.

I love that you brought this point up, because really, it's the biggest argument against you. Therefore, I propose that:

IF, the skill argument does in fact apply to everyone, THEN, saying a good Falco can beat a good Toon Link would logically be no different than saying a good Falco can beat a good Metaknight. Since Toon Link should not be banned, we must logically assume that there is no reason to ban Metaknight either.

I love when people think they know how to debate just because they were on their high school team.

In fact, you've actually helped my points, by telling me there aren't any foolproof ways to beat MK.

Want to beat Snake? Knock him off the edge and gimp his recovery. That's a near-foolproof way to beat Snake. MK has none of those, and that's why people complain.

I notice that you didn't define foolproof. By your own argument, since you didn't provide criteria, I'll do it for you.

(Definition of Fool taken from The New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language; Library of Knowledge Edition)
A fool is defined as 'a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgement or sense'. Since you used the word 'near-foolproof' rather than entirely foolproof, we'll assume that we're talking about someone who lacks most judgement or sense. Therefore, smart enough to not suicide every stock.

Therefore, I put the burden of proof upon you to prove that someone, anyone, lacking almost entirely in proper judgement or sense, can beat a skilled Snake player by knocking him off the edge and gimping his recovery. Until you fulfill this burden, I declare this argument moot.

Also, I'm not jumping to conclusions. Two things can happen.

1. MK IS BANNED
2. MK IS NOT BANNED

Am I wrong? Is there some sort of state between Ban and Unbanned I was unaware of? All I stated was what could happen, further dividing that up by the criterion for it's happening, and the result of it's occurance. Nothing further.

Not that it's relevant to the argument, but he could be Soft-Banned. So yes, there would be a third possiblity. Or only banned at certain tournaments. Or only banned in Singles play. There are many possibilities outside of the two... simplistic ones you listed.

I came with this topic telling people the things that could happen. No points, no arguments, no attacks, no debate. People attacked me. I decided to debate in a return-fire post, setting up criterion for the method and structure of debate.

I should point out that, while I've no idea how your were taught to debate where you come from (though it may have something to do with the current state of your legal system), the ultimate burden of proof would still be on your shoulders to prove that he should be banned, since you are the one calling for change. Whether or not you initially said so in your first post is entirely irrelevant. You've since taken that stance, and if you intend to debate it, do it properly. I should also point out that the concepts of Soft-Banning, MK-free tournaments, etc. all indirectly destroy the premise of your opening post as well, so it's not like you can seek shelter in that any more anyway.

The "present" was to discount any arguments about "MK COULD end up sucking" or "Something COULD be found". I wanted people to give cold, hard, facts and logical arguments based upon them, not speculation and fantasy.

I find it exceptionally hard to believe that your teacher was a Federal Court Judge and he never taught you about precedent. I will be using Melee Sheik as my precedent. At the time when Melee Sheik dominated the Melee game, she had no bad matchups, a priori. Bad matchups came later when the metagames of other characters further developed, a priori. I propose that this is the same situation, and should therefore be treated as such.

Ignoring the fact that Falco has a beak, not a bill, I'll be waiting to see these Falcos.

"Fits the bill" is a common expression. He means he matches proper criteria for a task. If you need to eat a salad, a fork would fit the bill as the tool you should use.

BTW, when I said 25 players, I meant search tournies, and find me 25 repeating names of the same character. This character must've been higher than an MK in the top 8.

Propose that this is entirely a pressure tactic. First party knows that noone will sift through scores of data to provide exaggerated burden of proof for an argument that could easily be spun to improperly reflect the terms of the debate, and is using this knowledge to boost his side.

That's what I mean. If you aren't willing to do this, then shut up. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. You did not provide proof in your initial post, so now I get to decide what you need to do to prove your points.

Propose that the burden of proof was unreasonable.

It MAY help INSPIRE people to beat MK? It MAY lead to more proof that MAY OR MAY NOT even exist in the future? BREED more players? Posh. Speculation and fantasy. Give me now proof.

Proof unneeded. Logical deduction supports the idea that if we observe methods of defeating a character, we will learn more about defeating that character. Propose to disregard challenge.

Never MK will be banned. He could be banned, he could not be banned. I just divided that up by possible fulfillable criterion for each to occur, and effects of those respective criterion and their supposed fullfillment.

Propose that the critera was presented in a needlessly aggressive manner.

I was going to cry "Skill argument, invalid!", but you came across more chill than others, so I'll oblige you.

Subtle ad hominem. Second time, too. Good job, slick.

I don't like MK not because he's broken, but because he defines the metagame so much. Regardless of whom I play, REGARDLESS, I must learn how to beat MK or I'm screwed. And it's that neccessity that makes him ban-worthy is many people's eyes.

At high level play, this is true of all characters. You must learn how to beat DK, or you will be CSSed to death every stock. You must learn how to beat Falco, or you'll be chainspiked and gimped with lasers. You must learn how to beat GaW, or his turtle will eat you alive, and your sheild with it. This falls under the "He's exactly like every other character" argument.

I personally don't give two ****s if he's banned or not, but I just want to guys to know just what you're doing to the Metagame by playing Metaknight.

A few months ago, I had a rockclimbing tournament to attend. A week before the tournament, my girlfriend asked me to go with her to her little sister's dance recital. Since I think her sister is a great kid, I happily obliged. When I later found out that the two were the same day, I approached her with the topic. She said that she didn't actually care whether or not I went, but that her sister would be upset.

I didn't believe her, and I don't believe you.


Therefore, I submit to you, the public, that Metaknight is only another character. The tier list would exist without him, and Captain Falcon would not suddenly be made playable by his ommission. The idea that allowing Metaknight to remain unbanned will ultimately kill the competitive game of Smash is laughable, and there is absolutely no evidence to support this notion. I believe this because we experienced a similar event with Melee Sheik, and because we have plenty of instances of high level Metaknight players being routed by various other characters already, despite the fact that this is, so far, the peak of Metaknight's power. I submit that there are a multitude of options, including, but not restricted to, Soft-Banning, Metaknight-Free Tournaments, Low Tier Tournaments, Singles only bans, etc. that remain unfortunately unexplored by my opponent. It is this close-mindedness that, I believe, ultimately cripples his argument.

Thank you.

 

[Natch]

Why is this post even here? Im pretty surprised that it hasnt been locked yet. Its basically some guy whining about how easy it is for MK's to win(at low level play) and then claiming that he isnt.
But if we're talking about high level play, then i think it would be beneficial to ban M2K from competition altogether since were trying to make things easier on people.

Make an argument or leave. This adds next to nothing to the discussion, and making baseless claims without backing them up with proof makes you look like an ignorant.

 

[Quez256]

Make an argument or leave. This adds next to nothing to the discussion, and making baseless claims without backing them up with proof makes you look like an ignorant.

Excuse the bluntness, but you somewhat provoked a lot of these responses by starting this thread. If you're "Just throwing something out there in regards to the ban stick thing", the least you can expect is for the community to "throw something back", since despite having a rational viewpoint in the OP, you still sound slighted towards the character ban. <insert glass house/throwing stones analogy>

 

[Natch]

Ooo! Can I play?

No, you cannot. I am waiting for the other poster to respond and him alone. If you wish to respond, do so starting from the post where I advertised to everyone(the second post I made).* As soon as everyone started to take my speculations as hostile, I knew that people were gonna gang up on me.

I do not have a partner to support me in this debate, so when I present counter points to persons A, B, and C seperately, coming in here and sending a return-fire to each of those seperate counter points means that all those people now have a partner. I am fine juggling multiple arguments at the same time, but only if those arguments stay seperate. What you have done is the idea equivalent of me playing some scrub in a tournament, then halfway through the match Azen takes his controller. The change in skill is sudden, and throws me off balance because I was not fighting Azen, I was fighting Mr. Scrub.

NOTE:

For all intents and purposes, the idea we are debating is as follows. "As of this point in time, how ban-worthy is MK?"

All information must be hard, concrete, definate examples. Anytime there is an uncertaintly, a place where speculation could be applied, it is invalid. This is because I am tired of everyone saying "Just wait, something will happen." I want to analyze and delve into how MK is seen in the metagame right now.

*I will, in this post you are reading right, provide the exact clumps of text that are "seperate". The post in question has points where I am responding to other people, and those will stay seperate. I will clearly list everything I consider "Seperate", along with some rules to argue by. Basically what can and cannot be touched in the debate.

The following in quotes are what I consider "seperate". When I considering something "seperate", that means it is fair game. Everything in the first post is not considered "seperate."

I never once said Meta's broken. Guys, chill. The very virtue of the fact that ONE guy beat ANOTHER guy's MK, means nothing.

Have you heard about that guy who survivied plane crash X? Yeah, that means there's hope for other people in plane crashes because they CAN survive too.

It's not the norm, it's the exception. Also, if the metagame is such that, regardless of whom I main, I MUST learn how to fight ONE character, there's an issue.*

Again, MK is not impossible to beat, he's not broken, etc. It's just that there is no one character that slaughters him outright.

Quick, name 5 characters who slaughter Gannondorf!
Quick, name one character who slaughters Metanight in a similar fashion!
Quick, name 5 characters who Metaknight slaughters in a similar fashion!

See what I'm getting at? He's an uphill battle for ALMOST ALL of the cast. And he has no really bad matchups. I mean really bad, like Gdorf bad. More or less every character in the game has at least two matchups who're Gdorf bad or somewhere in that region.**

*There is an issue, in the sense that MK is reliable counterpick to almost every character in the game.

**When I say at least two, that number is subject to change. The point I am getting across is that most characters have an "Achillies Heel", a weakness that can be exploited to great effect. Even non-MK characters who don't have an "Achillies Heal" don't have MK's counterpicking status, ability to gimp, ability to recover, and ability to pull off combos at a level of noitcably greater magnitude than the rest of the cast.

To the rest of people who have to name specific characters, players, or matches, please don't. Unless those characters consistently **** MK,-as in every single MK main out there fears this match and has next to no chance at all to win-don't mention them otherwise.

-If you name players, just stop. Thousands of people play Brawl competitively, and that's prolly a low end estrimate.
-If you name characters, unless those characters **** MK and make every MK main crap their pants in fear, don't mention them.
-If you name specific matches that are in the top 8, you better be able to back it up with that same character beating MK(That character must be not MK himself), played by a wide variety of players. Anything less than 25 doesn't work. I'm dead serious. If you can't find 25 bloody players who beat MK with someone else who's not MK-in the top 8 as well-that's just ridiculous.

If you respond with "Just learn to overcome him, stop whining, he's not that good."?

Shut up. If it's to the point where all you can say is "Just overcome him", it's bad. If I'm playing Ike, for instance, and someone is saying he's too hard? "Just use Lucas and PK Fire." Because the skill argument applies to every character, regardless of standing in the tiers. Therefore, it is a pointless argument with a moot point, because every character, to some extent, has to overcome every single character in the game via skill. If skill+[One character who sorta counters MK or at least gives him a hard time] is the ONLY suggestion you can give me to beat MK, then it's pointless to give it.

People wouldn't "Whine" about MK if there was nothing to "Whine" about. You see people rallying to ban say, Snake, Marth, Falco, etc with the same gusto and vigor as they want to ban MK? No.

There's a reason for that.

Your claim must also represent how things are RIGHT NOW, not how things COULD BE. We're in the present, not the future.

Now, have fun. I have rendered your points moot, simply because I was not arguing against you, but suddenly an unannounced substitution occured that I was not notified of. You walked in another person's debate, and that is hardly a fair move.

 

[xiferp]

Forums are for discussions. You cannot say that pure awesome's points don't count. Everything was relevant, and as far as I remember, that's all that counts here. Leave if you can't argue with people who actually know how to.

Edit: Plus, you sorta ignored my first post.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I was going to cry "Skill argument, invalid!", but you came across more chill than others, so I'll oblige you.

MK is not super-broken, or anything like uber. He just greatly limits the metagame by being a reliable counterpick for almost every below top tier character in the game. It's his ability to actually pull off melee type combos while most everyone CAN'T that makes him so great. He's not broken by any means, but he's not fun to play against. All an MK has to know are the basics of his/her character, have some skill, and they can beat people with greater skill than themselves, while they themselves don't need such skill.

MK also has no hard-counters, or gimple recovery, or what have you. All he's got is the fact that he's light, and he's so quick and has such great recovery that's easily overcome.

I don't like MK not because he's broken, but because he defines the metagame so much. Regardless of whom I play, REGARDLESS, I must learn how to beat MK or I'm screwed. And it's that neccessity that makes him ban-worthy is many people's eyes. I personally don't give two ****s if he's banned or not, but I just want to guys to know just what you're doing to the Metagame by playing Metaknight.

I totally agree with you.
A Metaknight player can beat another player of higher skill, but only to an extent. If the opponent is significantly better, he will still more than likely win.

If you ask me, all that's going to happen is this (and it's already happening, actually):
Everyone will focus on how to fight Metaknight. As Metaknight become more and more popular, people will focus more on how to fight him until everyone has become the master of fighting Metaknight. There is already a thread displaying all attacks that break the tornado. So for a little while this will seem bad for the metagame, as it will lean a little more towards using Metaknight, and fighting Metaknight. But I believe that as more and more people know EXACTLY how to fight Metaknight under every condition, less and less people will want to play Metaknight, as they can be assured that their opponent knows exactly how to fight them.

Either that, or we'll just deal with the fact that Metaknight is the best character. Best, but not unbeatable.

 

[Finding Waldo]

Keep Meta Knight. He has the best voice (Except for Snake), and the best sound effects. Oh, and he wins.

 

[ChileNess]

Lol.....

yep i like him. nad his voice effects

 

[Zinc Elemental]

Keep Meta Knight. He has the best voice (Except for Snake), and the best sound

By this logic, Pit is a clear ban!

 

[ChileNess]

By this logic, Pit is a clear ban!

you are very right my friend

 

[Rkey]

you are very right my friend

HAHAHA XD Soooo true. "All troops, mou ouuu!". It's so ugly.

"You can't defeat me!" XD

 

[bulgarian_kid]

snip~

*claps*

worthy of your self given moniker.



As for Natch, rofl at him trying to dismiss your entire arguement of the basis that he wasn't argueing with you specifically to this point, thus you cannot reply to anything he has said that has not been directed at you.

This is false.

I'm sorry to break it to you Natch, but when debating in this setting, your points are open to criticism from any party at any time. By posting in an open, public message board you allow for anyone who is reading to respond to anything you say. If you make an arguement you must be prepared to defend it, not claim that you did not expect to be arguing against someone of greater intelligence (i.e. someone who could actually refute your points). Anything you say after your first post is then added to the body of your arguement, and is an extention thereof, thus is equally fair game for everyone.

If you can't respond to the points against you, and one might note that prior to pure_awesome's post you never objected to someone picking up a previous poster's arguement, but if you can't respond, don't try to come up with some ridiculous excuse for not doing so, but simply admit that you have been intellectually bested.


Furthermore, I object to you saying what people can and cannot do, with such pompous certainty, and then act outraged and launch a tirade against someone when they mimic you;

Who are you to say what we can and cannot argue about? Who are you to say that something isn't mature enough to argue about? Who are you to say what will or will not happen?

right back at you. One might say you have presented the audience with a false dichotomy, or variations thereof, on several occations, not the least of which is your premise that either metaknight must be banned or not banned, with no nuance and shades in between, as has already been demonstrated.



What else struck me as particularly obnoxious? Well, I suppose your condescending attitude, and then being so brash as to call out others for being hostile towards you. You reap what you sow, and nothing in your demeanor or method of responding welcomed civil discourse.



Oh, and I'd just like to point out that a big part of your arguement, as well as where you started, is that people complain about metaknight. So what? I put forth that popular opinion cannot be addmitted as fact or a viable arguement in regards to the issue at hand, and is utterly irrelevant.


Simply because people believe he should be banned does not mean there exists conclusive reasons for which he should be banned, as you attempt to claim in your first post. This is called arguementum ad numerum or ad populum, and is a logical fallacy.


Your other major point seems to be that MK has a significant effect on the metagame, unlike any other character, due to the fact that he has no counters (at this time) and yet is a counter for many characters. I feel that pure_awesome sufficently countered this, and no more needs be said.

 

[indianunit]

People will slowly leave Brawl, due to too many MK's around, and too much of "Captain Bland's Monotanous Adventure" going on. Brawl dies. Congratu-****ing-lations Metaknight, you killed the entire competitive scene for a very popular game.

Actually even though I'm seeing some people switch to metaknight I'm also seeing people trying to find ways in countering metaknight. I think you should just give it some time, wait it out and see what happens.....possibly within a year. I think that people are trying to practice defeating metaknight not maining him.

 

[AgentJGV]

MK in Brawl = Fox in Melee. Did the community die with fox? no. people found out ways to beat him. MK has weaknesses (such as low damage output, is wide open during recovery) and if people would stop complaining long enough to get to a Wii, they would figure out how to beat him. But of course, it much easier to ban him. But after you Ban him where do you stop? Is snake next? What about G&W? and lets not even cover Dedede.

I believe that this will happen: MK WON'T be banned, the community will move on, and we will find that someone will emerge that is better than MK (and i don't mean Snake).

 

[Zinc Elemental]

MK in Brawl = Fox in Melee. Did the community die with fox? no. people found out ways to beat him. MK has weaknesses (such as low damage output, is wide open during recovery) and if people would stop complaining long enough to get to a Wii, they would figure out how to beat him.

MK = wide open during recovery????

He's got probably one of if not the safest recoveries in the game. He's got multiple jumps to maneuver, and fast aerials, and in addition to that has 4 different ways to get back onto the stage. Recovering from up high? You can glide back. Someone trying to edgegaurd you off the stage? Shuttle-loop them. Someone waiting for you at the edge? Tornado right through them. Even if you get stuck UNDERNEATH FD you can still get back to the stage with a drill rush. The only even remotely succesful edgegaurding I see done against MKs off the stage is other MKs attacking them from below. Even that is risky, though.

I'd say more of that MK is the Shiek of Brawl. Right now is much closer to the "shiek is unbeatable" whining period of Melee. MK is improving, but he's got almost no ATs at all. It may very well be that someone else will pass him in the end, but then that's simply moving us from Shiek dominated Melee to Fox dominated Melee. It's still not good by any stretch, but its not worth quitting or banning over.

 

[AgentJGV]

MK = wide open during recovery????

Yes he does. He is wide open at certain points during his jumps. If an opponent times it right they can destroy you. Of course, though, if timed wrong, Meta Knight destorys back.

 

[Natch]

*claps*

worthy of your self given moniker.



As for Natch, rofl at him trying to dismiss your entire arguement of the basis that he wasn't argueing with you specifically to this point, thus you cannot reply to anything he has said that has not been directed at you.

This is false.

I'm sorry to break it to you Natch, but when debating in this setting, your points are open to criticism from any party at any time. By posting in an open, public message board you allow for anyone who is reading to respond to anything you say. If you make an arguement you must be prepared to defend it, not claim that you did not expect to be arguing against someone of greater intelligence (i.e. someone who could actually refute your points). Anything you say after your first post is then added to the body of your arguement, and is an extention thereof, thus is equally fair game for everyone.

If you can't respond to the points against you, and one might note that prior to pure_awesome's post you never objected to someone picking up a previous poster's arguement, but if you can't respond, don't try to come up with some ridiculous excuse for not doing so, but simply admit that you have been intellectually bested.


Furthermore, I object to you saying what people can and cannot do, with such pompous certainty, and then act outraged and launch a tirade against someone when they mimic you;



right back at you. One might say you have presented the audience with a false dichotomy, or variations thereof, on several occations, not the least of which is your premise that either metaknight must be banned or not banned, with no nuance and shades in between, as has already been demonstrated.



What else struck me as particularly obnoxious? Well, I suppose your condescending attitude, and then being so brash as to call out others for being hostile towards you. You reap what you sow, and nothing in your demeanor or method of responding welcomed civil discourse.



Oh, and I'd just like to point out that a big part of your arguement, as well as where you started, is that people complain about metaknight. So what? I put forth that popular opinion cannot be addmitted as fact or a viable arguement in regards to the issue at hand, and is utterly irrelevant.


Simply because people believe he should be banned does not mean there exists conclusive reasons for which he should be banned, as you attempt to claim in your first post. This is called arguementum ad numerum or ad populum, and is a logical fallacy.


Your other major point seems to be that MK has a significant effect on the metagame, unlike any other character, due to the fact that he has no counters (at this time) and yet is a counter for many characters. I feel that pure_awesome sufficently countered this, and no more needs be said.

Actually, I could've called it when any one person walked in on someone else's points, but I didn't.

See, I'm outnumbered here. One can hardly call this a fair argument if it's 1 person vs an entire board's worth of MK's. And if he's allowed to propose such things as "Pressure tactic" or "Invalid point, dismissed" that completly annialihate an argument with very little effort, should I not be entitled to the same? As well, he specifically asked for my permission if he could join that paticular debste or not. That gives me an obligation to answer, and for him to listen. By asking for permission, he invited himself to be turned down or accepted.

If you choose not to argue by my terms, I shall leave. Simple. I can handle multiple people who I can argue better than, but when they're backed up by 1(now 2) people of equal or greater skill than me, then one can hardly call this fair. I will skip out of this argument otherwise, safe in the knowledge that you people are ***** and deserve to have your precious MK ban-hammered.

Good day sir, I shan't be responding further. You people are all ***** and deserve to have your precious MK ban-hammered.

 

[shadowlink3]

lol at banning a char. just learn to beat mk. -.-

 

[Affinity]

“It’s Too Good!”

Only in the most extreme, rare cases should something be banned because it is “too good.” This will be the most common type of ban requested by players, and almost all of their requests will be foolish. Banning a tactic simply because it is “the best” isn’t even warranted. That only reduces the game to all the “second best” tactics, which isn’t necessarily any better of a game than the original game. In fact, it’s often worse!

The only reasonable case to ban something because it is “too good” is when that tactic completely dominates the entire game, to the exclusion of other tactics. It is possible, though very rare, that removing an element of the game that is not only “the best” but also “ten times better than anything else in the game” results in a better game. I emphasize that is extremely rare. The most common case is that the player requesting the ban doesn’t fully grasp that the game is, in fact, not all about that one tactic. He should win several tournaments using mainly this tactic to prove his point. Another, far rarer possibility is that he’s right. The game really is shallow and centered on one thing (whether that one thing is a bug or by design is irrelevant). In that case, the best course of action is usually to abandon the game and play one of the hundreds of other readily available good games in the world.

MK's not getting banned.

[/thread]

 

[Rh1thmz]

See, I'm outnumbered here. One can hardly call this a fair argument if it's 1 person vs an entire board's worth of MK's.

Posting on a character's board your opinions of that character invites all members of that board (and members of other boards, if they want) to respond to what you said. That's just how a forum works. You should have seen that one coming.

I can handle multiple people who I can argue better than, but when they're backed up by 1(now 2) people of equal or greater skill than me, then one can hardly call this fair.

See the first quote. You post on, basically, the world's largest Smash community, and you can expect the world's largest Smash community to respond back.

On another note, the purpose of these threads is to share/compare information to further benefit other Smashers. Of course, if one thinks that the information is not valid, then he or she will say why they believe so. The purpose of these boards, as I said, is to share helpful information to improve players, or, in this case, reveal the truth about a subject. It isn't about a "fair" argument; it's about learning and sharing information.

On another side note, sadly, this thread really hasn't done a whole lot of good for the Smash community. We've just been needlessly arguing about banning MK while we could have been discussing tactics for fighting MK.

 

[Quez256]

Actually, I could've called it when any one person walked in on someone else's points, but I didn't.

See, I'm outnumbered here. One can hardly call this a fair argument if it's 1 person vs an entire board's worth of MK's. And if he's allowed to propose such things as "Pressure tactic" or "Invalid point, dismissed" that completly annialihate an argument with very little effort, should I not be entitled to the same? As well, he specifically asked for my permission if he could join that paticular debste or not. That gives me an obligation to answer, and for him to listen. By asking for permission, he invited himself to be turned down or accepted.

If you choose not to argue by my terms, I shall leave. Simple. I can handle multiple people who I can argue better than, but when they're backed up by 1(now 2) people of equal or greater skill than me, then one can hardly call this fair. I will skip out of this argument otherwise, safe in the knowledge that you people are ***** and deserve to have your precious MK ban-hammered.

Good day sir, I shan't be responding further. You people are all ***** and deserve to have your precious MK ban-hammered.

Fairness aside, you're posting a controversial topic in a public forum. Don't open threads like this and not expect to be outnumbered. Again, this is a public forum, not a monitored debate, so quit whining about "fairness".

 

[bulgarian_kid]

As well, he specifically asked for my permission if he could join that paticular debste or not. That gives me an obligation to answer, and for him to listen. By asking for permission, he invited himself to be turned down or accepted.

you took what was very clearly a sarcastic comment literally. You, as well as everybody else here, knows very well that he asked in a joking manner, not seriously requesting your permission to join.

 

[Mr. Automatic]

I can handle multiple people who I can argue better than, but when they're backed up by 1(now 2) people of equal or greater skill than me, then one can hardly call this fair. I will skip out of this argument otherwise, safe in the knowledge that you people are ***** and deserve to have your precious MK ban-hammered.

Nice exit strategy.


This guy is kinda like the school bully who backs down quickly when someone stands up to him.

 

[Zinc Elemental]

Yes he does. He is wide open at certain points during his jumps. If an opponent times it right they can destroy you. Of course, though, if timed wrong, Meta Knight destorys back.

What points might those be? I mean, the animations not long and his aerials come out very fast.

 

[Airborne]

KK, Street Fighter IV anyone?

oh, hellz yeah, dude! that and SC IV!

 

[Sinz]

I hate my state

They are banning my characters one by one at our local tournaments. They banned MK on saturday, and now they said they are banning PT because i won with him. Next they are gonna ban Snake

Stupid play N trade tournies


All in all.

BANNING CHARACTERS IS STUPID.

 

[Gindler]

Banning MK I can understand in a whiney stupid state because people can't find a way to beat him or whatever idk they don't learn. But PT? he's like low tier on the "official tier list" that just came out. Your state just seems to hate you winning for some reason.

 

[Sinz]

One of the reasons they banned MK was because they saw this topic, or one of the ones like it. About banning MK.

 

[Rkey]

MK's not getting banned.

[/thread]

Thank you! I want to play vs. MK's BECAUSE he's good. Winning isn't fun if it isn't hard to do, right?

 

[xiferp]

Natch got pwnt.

 

[Oracle]

I think MK will get banned eventually, because so many broken tech's are found like IDC.

 

[Affinity]

I think MK will get banned eventually, because so many broken tech's are found like IDC.

 

[Ijuka]

If Metaknight wasn't in danger of being banned, he wouldn't be in danger of being banned.

If there was no reason to talk about his banning, no one would be talking about his banning.

Just letting you guys know, if MK had some flaw in him we could exploit, we'd've found it by now. Hell, people found something as obscure as a Grab-lock-release chain for Lucas and Ness. I still hope for MK to have some glaring weakness, but so far, there seems to be none.

Also, just letting you guys know, this is a lose-lose-how-can-you-****-that-up situation.

1. He gets banned, weather by SBR or by tourney hosts.

2. He doesn't get banned BECAUSE somebody found his "kryptonite".

3. No flaws are found, no bans are hammered. Flispide is that nobody's gonna like you for playing MK, and will ***** at every oppurtunity, just as they are now. People will slowly leave Brawl, due to too many MK's around, and too much of "Captain Bland's Monotanous Adventure" going on. Brawl dies. Congratu-****ing-lations Metaknight, you killed the entire competitive scene for a very popular game.


He's either banned, starts losing more, or nobody ends up liking you and brawl dies due to people who don't take **** and decide to leave.

I'm not arguing for his banning, his non-banning, or anything. I'm just telling one of 3 things that will happen, as they are the only 3 things that CAN happen.

If you can think of another possibility, please tell me.

Does Metaknight have 0-death comboes? No. Can Metaknight chainthrow 75% of the characters of the game from 0% to death? No. Sheik could in Melee, was she banned? No.

Metaknight has weaknesses, DK for example. -_- Gosh, you little children. In Melee you don't go Pikachu vs Sheik and then complain, just as you don't go Captain Falcon against MetaKnight. Most of his advantages in Match-ups are rather small anyway, and all the good characters can give a decent fight against MK, in fact his only really good match-ups are against extremely bad characters.

I don't get why people whine like this when Melee had a character who had 0-deaths on half of the cast -_-

 

[Zinc Elemental]

Does Metaknight have 0-death comboes? No. Can Metaknight chainthrow 75% of the characters of the game from 0% to death? No. Sheik could in Melee, was she banned? No.

Metaknight has weaknesses, DK for example. -_- Gosh, you little children. In Melee you don't go Pikachu vs Sheik and then complain, just as you don't go Captain Falcon against MetaKnight. Most of his advantages in Match-ups are rather small anyway, and all the good characters can give a decent fight against MK, in fact his only really good match-ups are against extremely bad characters.

I don't get why people whine like this when Melee had a character who had 0-deaths on half of the cast -_-

I'm willing to bet it's because they never played Melee (competetively, at least) and have no idea what the difference in brokeness is between being something to complain about somewhat legitamately and being ban-worthy.

 

[Ijuka]

I'm willing to bet it's because they never played Melee (competetively, at least) and have no idea what the difference in brokeness is between being something to complain about somewhat legitamately and being ban-worthy.

Exactly, and I also believe that the complainers really aren't good Brawl players either if they think a character should be banned for being the best. There will always be someone better than everyone else...

Even if MK's worst match-ups were 60-40 in his favor it still would not justify a ban. 60-40 is easily doable even if you both are equal skill level, it's so much more about the players' skill. The only reason to ban someone is if they had infinites or all the match-ups were roughly 90-10. That, however, is not the case. MetaKnight has some even match-ups, and arguably some weak ones as well. And comparing to Melee, he doesn't annihialate lower tiered characters nearly as bad as Sheik did in Melee.