Meta Knight Officially Banned!

[Cassio]

oh cool, another appeal to common sense and popularity. Also that poll is about as reliable as polling the neighborhood video game club.

itt: people redifining the word broken and tossing it around loosely -_-

 

[DMG]

MK being popular does not inherently mean he's broken.

MK being the best character in the game does not inherently make him broken.

However, MK being a character that's capable of scrooging planking having incredible attacks frame data MU spread etc THAT would make him broken.

So, can we talk about the character now? I'm ready to talk about the character.

 

[Ripple]

MK is 2.5x more popular than the 2nd most popular.

that seems kinda ridiculous to me. pretty sure no other fighting game character comes close to that.

 

[Eddie G]

oh cool, another appeal to common sense and popularity. Also that poll is about as reliable as polling the neighborhood video game club.

itt: people redifining the word broken and tossing it around loosely -_-

Hey...it is what it is buddy.

 

[Cassio]

thats fine, and Im not saying all of pro-ban is making those arguments over better ones. But the last two-three pages had me groaning.

 

[Eddie G]

thats fine, and Im not saying all of pro-ban is making those arguments over better ones. But the last two-three pages had me groaning.

And ironically, more real talk came out of those than most of the previous pages combined.

 

[John12346]

oh cool, another appeal to common sense and popularity. Also that poll is about as reliable as polling the neighborhood video game club.

You keep saying that, but I'd like to see what makes it true in your eyes...

Show your haaaaand already.

 

[Cassio]

@KB Thats like comparing dirt to poop .

Really though this thread just gets so bad from a single bad argument. It leads to about 10-20 people calling it wrong and then coming up with something ridiculous to counter it, when all it takes is one simple logical response or simply ignoring it. Actually thats about half the threads in MDRD

John I'll get into that later, lol. Ive gone into it a bit before, but for now Ill back that by saying that stating its illigitmacy is as valid as stating its utility.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's also possible that MK already weeds out many of those "possible" bad MU's in tournament or many of those characters that have potential. You wonder why you don't see Peach ROB G&W etc more in tournament and even TL in tournament? It's not simply because "people are lazy". I mean telling someone to become a national level TL player, to develop his metagame, and then have most of it all in vain because MK still wins? That's just cold man. "Hey, devote your life to this character. You may go even with MK players or even beat them!" *Some guy takes a few days to learn the MK vs X character MU* "Man I wish I didn't spend 3 years maining this character when I could play him instead" Asking someone to not only accept playing a worse character, but take MORE time playing this worse character than other people in the offchance that they might find a guaranteed even or positive MU on MK is simply crazy. How about you go play ROB 3x as much as Holy or Peach longer than Illmatic or DK longer than Will, and you tell me how well you do vs MK. Hell, try playing Wario for as long as I have and as GAY as I have and see what the other side looks like.

It's not simply because "people are lazy". I mean, telling someone to become a national level Zangief player, to develop his metagame, and then have most of it all in vain because Akuma/Sagat still wins? That's just cold, man.

Oh wait. People still played Zangief in SF4.

Again, this isn't a new problem. We've had issues like this for ages. It's called tiers. They exist. If you chose to play a character who is lousy, and effectively shut out by the metagame, it's your own damn fault. I don't get to ***** and moan about "Wall of Denial" because I brought RB Goblin Rogues to the table in a meta absolutely full of UW control. I don't get to ***** about X-12 because I main Tager. I don't get to complain about Sheik because I decided to main DK in melee.

But you know what? You're also strawmanning my argument beyond belief. In case you didn't notice, there's a reason I bring up characters like Olimar, Fox, ZSS, and Marth as possible MK counters: they aren't obviously stomped on by MK. If we were having this discussion about Sagat in SF4, and I brought up Akuma as a possible counter, you wouldn't act like I was expecting Zangief to somehow come out and win the matchup, would you? **** no, that would be stupid! So why the hell are you bringing up TL, Peach, and ROB? We know–they suck against MK. They're not really that viable in this metagame because of it, just like Zangief is hardly viable in a meta that's full of Akuma and Sagat in SF4.

It's a lot easier to say get better, or advance other characters metagames when you're on the sidelines than someone who plays a non MK character, doesn't fold under the pressure to simply say **** it and main him, people who shape the metagame of their own characters and define how MU's are played. If it's not easy to pick up MK and start winning, imagine how hard it is trying to do that with other characters. If it takes a lifetime of analysis and M2K like players pushing your metagame is what it takes for MK to reach that high, do you even THINK another character can reach that high regardless of the effort you put into them? Have you considered that maybe it's not worth it piling in a bunch of effort into a character who's "mountain peak" will always be a lot shorter than what MK can reach?

And this is what we refer to as "stop having fun, play to win". "Why bother using anyone other than the best character in the game, all that's gonna happen is that the best will beat me anyways." Not bad logic, but boy does it suck the life out of fighting games. Again, what you seem to be missing is that this can and often does happen in every game, not just Brawl. Why play Balrog or Ryu when Sagat is so much better and so much easier? Why bother with Rachael when X-12 is almost as good and way, way easier? Why master Testament's traps when you can just steamroller them easily with Slayer? Why bother learning how to use TBlade's difficult mobility or Karas's awesome spacing when Zero is the best in the game anyways, and very easy to use to boot?

THIS PROBLEM DOES NOT INDICATE BROKENNESS. It indicates characters that are both good and easy. SF3S Chun. SF4 Sagat. TvC Zero. SSF4AE Yun. And yet, for some strange reason, people still use other characters. Huh. Go figure. For some reason, games don't instantly centralize around the character at the top of the tier list. Games that aren't Brawl, anyways. Never mind that the possibility for it to happen is not just present in Brawl, but in many, many other games. For some reason, I think that says more about our community than the game itself.

Glide can be cancelled, and naners can only be thrown in a

L​

Or an "i". Which is kinda what I was referring to.

First, if mk does play like that, and gets the lead, diddy doesn't win. Simple enough to understand.

I'm surprised that you and ADHD still place, to be honest. If the matchup really is as bad as you say... Furthermore, why isn't Pit just as bad on SV? Pretty much the same problems, really, but trades a few jumps for a far faster, harder to catch glide.

Second, don't make assumptions about a characters AND matchups you obviously no nothing about. Theorycraft doesn't lead to practicality. People don't seem to realize that the argument about planking/scrooging isn't about beating it, but because the risk reward is INCREDIBLY stacked in mks favor. Why would I risk 15% on him at the potential cost of my stock?

Never mind then. I just find it curious how rarely this happens. That no "randoms" are beating top Diddies on SV like this. Maybe they just don't play to win.

Personally, I find this the be incredibly disingenuous and highly disrespectful to people like fatal, and razer, coney, shugo, kain, will, espy, san, and plenty others.

It's simple fact*– most of them are simply not as good as M2K with their characters. Fatal and Razer are amazing players, but they're not M2K, nor are they Ally. Coney I mentioned as one of the few that really pushed their character to the limlt – and DDD belongs to the category of characters who get **** on by MK, supposedly. He still did pretty damn well. Shugo... Should be obvious that if it's possible that DEHF reached the peak of what falco could do, then it's not likely that Shugo has. Kain uses Wolf, Espy uses Sonic, and San uses Ike. Excuse me for grouping those together, and then grouping them together with Xyro's Samus, Pink Fresh's Lucas, and Boss's Luigi; see if you can catch the pattern. Will places extremely well with DK, a character who just flat-out sucks against MK.

The fact that you believe that there isnt a single person out of the hundreds, possibly thousands of smashers out there that is as intelligent as m2k at the game seems ludicrous.

Important nitpick: I said "mastery of the character" for a reason.

Your basically admitting that you wont believe the metagame is at its peak until somebody has a positive matchup on MK, and if that never happens then the game wont have fully progressed.

Oh for ****'s sake, this is getting ridiculous. I'll be blunt: name me one American ZSS who has done half the **** Salem has, from a purely technical standpoint. Yes, his results aren't amazing, but the **** he pulled off is. If you can't see from this that the metagame is not at its peak, then you're a moron. There are some incredibly underrated, underrepresented characters in this game still, even in and around top tier. And yet we're supposed to believe that MK is this unstoppable behemoth that nobody can handle, and that we've searched long and hard enough? Even though there's damn good reason to believe that nobody has a degree of mastery over their character similar to M2K's?

 

[Eddie G]

He's an unstoppable behemoth when it comes to not having any incentive to move the character select cursor in any other direction. Just saying.

 

[Cassio]

Personally, I find this the be incredibly disingenuous and highly disrespectful to people like fatal, and razer, coney, shugo, kain, will, espy, san, and plenty others.

Ok Im just going to nip this now since this is where it started. The argument here is a pro-ban one, and it basically states that if these other talented players had chosen MK instead of their respective character they might be on M2Ks level.

Taking into account that
-M2K has literally made smash his job and has experience paralleled by no-one
-M2K has the ability to focus unlike extremely few in the community
-M2K is literally able to sit and play CPUs for hours.
-M2k never plays anyone but MK
-Other talented Metaknights havent come close to the level of dominance M2K has had. Not even close.

No one is on M2K's level. No one will ever be on M2K's level now that MK is banned. And even if it were the least bit possible, which I admit there is a least a teeny chance there is, its completely pointless to speculate how good MK might be if anyone else were.

Other players beat M2K because theyre smart, not because theyve had near the same dedication hes had.

 

[megabbaut]

Oh come on, MK isn't that broken. He would lose to someone like Ike due to the accuracy of his Fair when MK in in the air. And, he is easily edgehogged.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Thank you Cassio. Your last sentence is why I'm so particular about the point that he's pushed the character to new heights: there may be other characters who are better at brawl's basics, but nobody is even close to as good at using Metaknight.

He's an unstoppable behemoth when it comes to not having any incentive to move the character select cursor in any other direction. Just saying.

In the USA. This one I'll give ya.

 

[z00ted]

Metaknight is the best character in the game. This does not make him broken.

Honestly, you should really try to become the best player of a certain character, put in an insane amount of time of a matchup, do everything right... up to that ONE point.. where you slip, to ultimately lose the match.

On neutrals, it's barely manageable for any character in the game, when Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise get thrown into the mix there is literally no point trying if you lose match one.

Just because a matchup is +1 for "Metaknight", it doesn't mean it's that easy to beat him.

Tell me what I could have done here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmQGt7wRmvU#t=1m54s

Now tell me any other character that could outright limit every single option I had in the game in the speed and efficiency in which Metaknight did.

Let's skip to Peach's next hardest matchup - Snake:

http://youtu.be/iYF6T0GBqaU

Look at the difference when you compare the two videos... and both are at top level of play. I have to admit, I have lost time and time again to this particular Snake.. but I've never imagined it as an unwinnable matchup. In fact, I've beaten plenty of others because I've learned from playing it so much. I also have to admit that I have played better versus Metaknight in the past, and have won a few here and there at top level... but just compare the videos. Almost every character in the game, save a few (like 6 or so) go through this at top level almost every time they enter a tournament. He limits so many options it is utterly ridiculous, offstage it is almost helpless for every single character in the cast.

I'm damn sure it's possible to beat all my -2 matchups, and some of them are even considered to be -3. I've seen ROBs beat DDDs, DKs beat DDDs, hell.. even a Fox beat a Pikachu.. and those matchups are considered almost unwinnable. But I've never heard of a top level ROB beating a top level MK, a top level DK beating a top level MK, or even a top level DDD beating a top level MK (and he's considered high tier). All Metaknight does is limit our knowledge of the game by filtering out anything that doesn't have a -1 matchup against him. He is the sole reason why matchups are not explored, and it's only getting worse. The Concentrate series, as well as the Midwest PROVES this time and time again.

If anything, Metaknight against 75% of the cast is at top level is almost unwinnable with our current ruleset. Think of the amount of them in our current metagame.. then try to imagine a time where a mid tier or lower half of high tier character has beaten one. The chances are like less then 4%.

 

[Cassio]

King Beef that could be said for any character thats the best in a game.

Illmatic, honestly its entirely about mindset. The point of saying a character isnt broken is that we as people are capable of overcoming the disadvantage. Yes its hard, yes it takes effort and can even be depressing.

tbqh thats exactly why im anti-ban. In spite of any disadvantage or difficulty, the chance to face that challenge and improve and get better is a driving force. Its competitive, its exciting, its thrilling, its fun. Unfortunately its the truth that a lot of people faced with challenges will give up. Im not saying thats a train about MK pro-ban its just sort of people in general. If MK were really unbeatable Id have no issue with his ban. In fact I even have sympathy for the people who have given up and didnt mind having both types of tournaments, because I know its hard and in a different way fun to see diverse results.

Whats depressing is that any chance at having fun and that ultimate challenge was taken away. The real chance at being competitive was outright eliminated.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

There's a reason Mexico, Japan, Europe, parts of the USA, and a few others all have RC and Brinstar banned.

Furthermore... Yeah. We get it. Peach sucks against MK. You have the option to deal with it, or to pick a different character. You don't have the option to ***** and moan and demand that the character get banned because of it.

 

[Cassio]

What Ive never understood is why people even care that they win by their skill as a player as opposed to their character. The fact that that's possible is enough to keep playing and keep trying.

 

[Marc]

Illmatic: No one is saying that MK isn't a hard matchup for Peach, but him being a counter to a single character isn't that relevant. On top of that, Peach simply is only borderline viable. It's unreasonable to expect (high) mid tiers to be viable as a solo main and it's a dangerous slippery slope to ban characters in favour of overall cast viability. I really don't get the low tier main entitlement to placings, there are very few fighting games where lower tiered characters make any sort of splash after a few years into the metagame. Consider Melee: outside of the established top tier you only ever see low tiers do well in particular matchups or in the hands of less than a handful of extremely good players. Even the high tiers never actually win a major tournament, because the reality is that they will most likely be at at least a minor disadvantage with every bracket round they play and thus more likely to lose at some point than a character with no bad matchups. This is rather black and white and I'm not telling you to switch mains if you're happy with always fighting uphill, but this sort of thing really shouldn't be motivation to ban a character.

 

[z00ted]

This game is different.

With Metaknight gone, characters outside of high tier (especially Mid tier) actually CAN make a splash in the game. And it's been proven countless amount of times. That's why it is so god damn frustrating. Literally every matchup for a mid tier character and up is winnable.

The only matchup that isn't winnable is
Every tournament it boils down to him knocking most of mid tier players (and down) out.

So what I'm trying to get across is... why do people want to literally cut the lifespan of a game in half.. for the sake of one character?

 

[Cassio]

That can only be said with Metaknight as the best character in the game. I think what you say will be true for a little while, but once the new metagame develops I think that will be a lot less true.

 

[Marc]

This game is different.

With Metaknight gone, characters outside of high tier (especially Mid tier) actually CAN make a splash in the game. That's why it is so god damn frustrating. Literally every matchup for a mid tier character and up is winnable.

The only thing that is stopping us is
Every tournament it boils down to him knocking most of mid tier players (and down) out.

Because in your metagame he's the most common character and he has favourable matchups against most of the cast. The same can be said about other top tiers, but if you choose to flock to one character he'll obviously be doing the dirty work. Peach still loses convincingly to the second most common character in the US (Snake) and slightly loses to several other top tiers. I also heavily disagree that every matchup for a mid tier character and up is winnable, Fox and Wolf for example have extremely lopsided matchups I wouldn't expect them to win in a tournament setting. By removing your worst matchup, you're actually removing a matchup they do well at and a check to some of their worst matchups at the same time. How is that fair?

 

[z00ted]

That can only be said with Metaknight as the best character in the game. I think what you say will be true for a little while, but once the new metagame develops I think that will be a lot less true.

This has already been disapproved.

Think of it this way, anywhere at anytime .. under circumstances Metaknight has the advantage. Smash has ALWAYS been a counterpicking type game. So if at top level no character has (even high tiers) has any outright advantage at any time, how can we even take mid tiers into consideration.

Lets look at the next FIVE best characters in the game. With Brinstar or even Rainbow Cruise both legal, they ALL lose against plenty of characters on certain stages.

Diddy against ROB on Brinstar? ROB's Favor
Diddy against Peach on Brinstar? Peach's Favor
Diddy against Fox on Rainbow? Fox's Favor

Olimar against ROB on Brinstar? ROB's Favor
Olimar against Peach on Brinstar? Peach's Favor
Olimar against Fox on Rainbow? Fox's Favor

the list goes on.....

Peach sucks against MK. You have the option to deal with it, or to pick a different character. You don't have the option to ***** and moan and demand that the character get banned because of it.

I'm glad you brought this up.

After putting three years into this game, why would I choose the option to deal with a character outright countering mine (and every other one in the game) by picking a character that I have absolutely no experience with... especially after I've already proven to do well against every other character besides the one I'm currently having a problem with?

If anything, that is the definition of discouraging the growth of Smash.
People can only put up with something for so long.

 

[Marc]

Smash has ALWAYS been a counterpicking type game.

Pikachu has no bad or even matchups in SSB64, Fox has no bad matchups in Melee (arguably Jigglypuff too, depending on PAL/NTSC also).

 

[Ripple]

Fox gets destroyed on FD against ICs and against Jiggs on brinstar

 

[z00ted]

Pikachu has no bad or even matchups in SSB64, Fox has no bad matchups in Melee (arguably Jigglypuff too, depending on PAL/NTSC also).

Fox has no tournament dominance ANYWHERE in the world. Fox is definitely beatable and is not over-centralizing Melee's metagame. In theory, Fox is the best character, not through results at all.

I know nothing about SSB64, so I won't argue over it.

Because in your metagame he's the most common character and he has favourable matchups against most of the cast. The same can be said about other top tiers, but if you choose to flock to one character he'll obviously be doing the dirty work. Peach still loses convincingly to the second most common character in the US (Snake) and slightly loses to several other top tiers. I also heavily disagree that every matchup for a mid tier character and up is winnable, Fox and Wolf for example have extremely lopsided matchups I wouldn't expect them to win in a tournament setting. By removing your worst matchup, you're actually removing a matchup they do well at and a check to some of their worst matchups at the same time. How is that fair?

Sure, it's not fair.

Do you want to know what is fair? Picking a character that beats Wario or Pikachu (there are plenty, btw) or better yet even a STAGE that beats them.

You can't do that against Metaknight.

Furthermore, I would like to state that I actually have seen Fox beat Pikachus or Wolf beat DDDs, Warios, or Pikachus because these three mentioned characters do not carry the options nor a broken ruleset that caters to them.

 

[Conviction]

Ignore this.

 

[Cassio]

I've also seen peach beat great Metaknights

I understand why MK upsets you, but the issues you mentioned are likely to be around without MK as well.

Yeah mid-tiers are going to make some noise against high-tiers and one or two might make a break through, but for the most part theyre still going to have those common bad MUs that will make it just as difficult for them to place much better than where they currently do.

In regards to your personal statement, yeah it sucks. But other characters have the same issue even without MK. The only difference is that MK is a popular character. Meaning its mostly an argument about him being too-popular.

 

[Eddie G]

@Marc- Yet Fox's top level accessibility in Melee is nowhere near MK's. Fox could be reasonably gimped, Fox could be chaingrabbed by more than a character or two, the list goes on. It doesn't matter what his matchups are on paper, the differences between him and MK are easily distinguishable.

 

[ElDominio]

Pikachu has no bad or even matchups in SSB64, Fox has no bad matchups in Melee (arguably Jigglypuff too, depending on PAL/NTSC also).

And since S64 tournaments are so common yknow, this has been widely proven.
Although his brokeness is also sort of apparent, the type of game Smash64 is has shown that mostly everyone is viable anyways...

And well you said it yourself about Melee.

 

[DMG]

No there is no difference. MK and Fox are top tier.

Hue?

Lol.

I'm done with this for the most part. All I can say is that some of your expectations for non MK characters and players are not only unrealistic but practically on an insulting level to their skill. I'll let the rest of you duke it out with bad arguments, irrelevant points, and a big load of "get better" piled on top impossible mountain where MK flocks because HE CAN FLYYYYYY.

 

[Eddie G]

DMG, remind me to brofist if we ever meet.

 

[Cassio]

Btw in regards to Marcs post I think most of you missed is point...

You cant counterpick Fox. Even if he has a single bad stage against one character...he can just ban it.

 

[z00ted]

I'm done with this for the most part. All I can say is that some of your expectations for non MK characters and players are not only unrealistic but practically on an insulting level to their skill. I'll let the rest of you duke it out with bad arguments, irrelevant points, and a big load of "get better" piled on top impossible mountain where MK flocks because HE CAN FLYYYYYY.

Perfectly put.

I've also seen peach beat great Metaknights

I understand why MK upsets you, but the issues you mentioned are likely to be around without MK as well.

Yeah mid-tiers are going to make some noise against high-tiers and one or two might make a break through, but for the most part theyre still going to have those common bad MUs that will make it just as difficult for them to place much better than where they currently do.

In regards to your personal statement, yeah it sucks. But other characters have the same issue even without MK. The only difference is that MK is a popular character. Meaning its mostly an argument about him being too-popular.

I understand what you are trying to say, but my argument is not because of what character I main, rather for the health of the metagame. You may want to re-read all my posts, to be honest. The point I'm trying to get across is that Metaknight is only hurting character diversity, strictly because he can not be beaten anywhere at any time. I would much rather face the odds of having a matchup which at some point (on my counterpick) I am able to have the advantage. In almost every matchup in the game, you have an advantage out of one game in a set. If you win this one, you are offered two chances to redeem yourself as the better or smarter player when it pertains to whatever matchup.

Against Metaknight, you aren't offered any chances and you never have a advantage ever.

Edit: I'm not sure why people are even bringing Melee, Smash 64, or any other various games into this debate. What we are currently discussing is BRAWL in the Metaknight Is Officially Banned subforums. Who cares what other games do? For one, you probably lack tons of knowledge when it comes to the game or you would be playing it (I know I do). If anything, we shouldn't base our decisions off of our past but instead try to shape better decisions off of what we feel as though is wrong for a better future.

 

[Ripple]

Btw in regards to Marcs post I think most of you missed is point...

You cant counterpick Fox. Even if he has a single bad stage against one character...he can just ban it.

I think you missed my post saying he can be CP.

if he bans FD, take him to brinstar

if he bans brinstar, take him to FD

 

[Marc]

Fox gets destroyed on FD against ICs and against Jiggs on brinstar

You talking Melee? :S Fox can always just ban FD (not so sure if he loses to ICs anywhere though) and Brinstar hasn't been legal for a while now because Jigglypuff was indeed extremely dominant on there. So no, you can't outright counterpick Fox.

Fox has no tournament dominance ANYWHERE in the world. Fox is definitely beatable and is not over-centralizing Melee's metagame. In theory, Fox is the best character, not through results at all.

Doesn't negate the fact that it's not a character you can just counterpick against, I was responding to your own statement. You're bringing in other things now.

Furthermore, I would like to state that I actually have seen Fox beat Pikachus or Wolf beat DDDs, Warios, or Pikachus because these three mentioned characters do not carry the options nor a broken ruleset that caters to them.

?? I've also seen MK lose to characters he has a good matchup against (including Peach), but what is your point here? If the ruleset is broken, fix it.

And since S64 tournaments are so common yknow, this has been widely proven.
Although his brokeness is also sort of apparent, the type of game Smash64 is has shown that mostly everyone is viable anyways...

And well you said it yourself about Melee.

I'm not the one who made a blanket statement about all smash games being about counterpicking. They're just not, especially with the very limited stage lists SSB64 and Melee run.

 

[Ripple]

You talking Melee? :S Fox can always just ban FD (not so sure if he loses to ICs anywhere though) and Brinstar hasn't been legal for a while now because Jigglypuff was indeed extremely dominant on there. So no, you can't outright counterpick Fox.

maybe in EU, but then, you have PAL, which means fox got nerfed hard

brinstar, was just banned here but that isn't "official" yet.

 

[Marc]

Pound 5 was like a year ago.

 

[Ripple]

nationals always do that to attract other counties since they more often than not, have it banned

 

[Cassio]

Illmatic you brought up the other games...

As for your argument I understood what you were saying, I just highly doubt the game will change as much as you think it will. Its not just brawl or smash, its how fighting games are in general. Biggest difference is MK wont be there, which I guess is enough for most people

 

[z00ted]

Doesn't negate the fact that it's not a character you can just counterpick against, I was responding to your own statement. You're bringing in other things now.

?? I've also seen MK lose to characters he has a good matchup against (including Peach), but what is your point here? If the ruleset is broken, fix it.

I may be bringing in other things, but we're discussing Metaknight, and his tournament dominance is outright ludicrous compared to Fox's. So, do you have anything to bring in against that?

My point has always been every character in the game besides Metaknight has a counter. It seems as if you're just nitpicking out my poor arguments and not reading everything I've said. Also.. if we fix the ruleset, Metaknight will still have no disadvantages anywhere. The recent Lone Star Championships just proved this, and so will Apex.