Meta Knight Officially Banned!

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Oh yeah, there's no doubt that X and Espy are amazing players.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Nah, not really.



Did we even play in singles? I thought it was just doubles, where I was stuck teaming with probably the second most free person at the tournament because someone told me he was good... Either way, does it matter? I lost to you. Boo hoo. Germany has a total sonic count of 1, and that one sonic is beyond free. I did not know the matchup. But you know what? Sonic is still a crappy character, who is far enough down the tier list that players who are geniunely amazing losing with him is not a big deal–he's just got some ****ty matchups, some real weaknesses as a character. It doesn't matter if I'm good at fighting him; what matters for this argument is that he is either partially or completely unviable as a character. Just like most of the rest I mentioned.

I 2stocked you shortly after your MM with seibrik. It was actually so fast i was planning to save it on an unhacked wii. but then the first power outage happened ans screwed me over.

My point is, if that if you dont know the character well enough to beat him with metaknight, how can you really have the knowledge necessary to judge him completely as a character. Honestly everything you said in this quote was just blanket statements that could apply to every non-high tier character, and probably some of them too.

I could john all day (hell, I'm not even sure we played 1v1), but I'll just say that I should've known the matchup better and didn't, and leave it at that.

I should have made it more clear exactly who I was, but I remember the matches quite well. But when you enter tournaments as KIDGoggles, and youre the only dude that comes into the venue wearing goggles, I guess at this point I just assume everyone can put 68 and 32 together.

 

[Orion*]

My point is, if that if you dont know the character well enough to beat him with metaknight, how can you really have the knowledge necessary to judge him completely as a character.

-judgementday-

 

[Life]

I guess at this point I just assume everyone can put 68 and 32 together.

100!!!!

Point? What point? Must have missed it.

KID at his best in this thread tho

 

[NAKAT]

I haven't played tyrant, best mk I beat was nairo.

 

[z00ted]

At WHOBO 3 Zeton beat Tyrant, then I beat Zeton.

WAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[BlueXenon]

I just realized something. If brinstar and RC are banned to help with the MK problem, what would happen to jigglypuff?

 

[Ripple]

she goes down to the HFIL tier

 

[Kuro~]

...Just no. They're on the higher end of super high level play. But they are NOT the same level as Tyrant, M2K, Ally, DEHF, Gnes, Razer, etc.

I'm not ****ing comparing them to them. They are top players though. Anyone who denies that is just dumb.

Those guys are the the best players along with tkd imo.
Top players can beat the best. Which i honestly believe nakat/trevonte would have a decent chance at beating several of those names.

 

[Judo777]

I read something somewhere that I thought was funny. There is definitely something wrong with the angle SL hits you. It may not be as detrimental as people think but it is still a really stupid angle.

I am fairly certain I read somewhere that as far as hitting the blastzones are concerned you will actually live longer if you DI MK's SL downward, than you will upward because the angle it naturally hits is more downward than upward lol. Don't quote me on that.

 

[z00ted]

Sounds about right.

 

[Eddie G]

You never know what can happen as far as that janky *** move is concerned, lol.

 

[Ripple]

it hits at the same angle as G&W's sourspot d-smash. so yes, DIing it down technically makes you live longer....which makes 0 sense because he's skyrocketting

 

[Conviction]

Well that makes sense because MK doesn't make sense

 

[Ussi]

Well you gotta DI into the corner... now the bottom corner no one can recover from..

 

[Ripple]

Well that makes sense because MK doesn't make sense

MK doesn't make sense, He makes DOLLARS




yeah, I went there

 

[Judo777]

MK doesn't make sense, He makes DOLLARS




yeah, I went there

Made me chuckle

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I haven't played tyrant, best mk I beat was nairo.

Another one added to the list

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I just realized something. If brinstar and RC are banned to help with the MK problem, what would happen to jigglypuff?

She... loses her two best counterpicks...

What do you think happens? xD

 

[Eddie G]

Another one added to the list

Yeah because the hyper aggressive MK player Nairo is the ideal player to beat a top Fox. Think about that for a second.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Im going to end up trying to do that against some MK in tournament, since sonic might actually be able to recover from that.

 

[DMG]

What are you talking about you gotta be aggressive vs Fox otherwise he beats MK with laser camping.

Right?

 

[_Kain_]

Nairo beat him last -_-. Man you guys need to do homework when you want to just bring something up like throwing out who beat who when you don't even know the history

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Nairo beat him last -_-. Man you guys need to do homework when you want to just bring something up like throwing out who beat who when you don't even know the history

Both characters are supposed to take sets off each other in an even match up

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Both characters are supposed to take sets off each other in an even match up

...

Are you serious?!

Smooth Criminal

 

[Gnes]

Why did you even ask him that? lmao

Trevonte is godly. Almost beat Larry @ Genesis 2. Super impressive to watch

 

[SaveMeJebus]

...

Are you serious?!

Smooth Criminal

Are you or do you think one character is supposed to take all the sets in an even match up?

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Jebus, not every set is played by one character vs one character. Characters are changed out, making the match-up not possible.

You have to play it by each individual fight. A set doesn't matter unless neither player is ever allowed to switch characters, which rarely happens thanks to the counterpicking system.

Because the counterpicking system occurs, there is a different match-up nearly every time. You cannot compare them by sets because they don't always exist as sets. It'd be fine if it always did, but that isn't the case. You need to compare them one-by-one. Throughout multiple matches do we consider who's the best character. Not a few, but it takes a really huge amount. Flukes happen, sometimes people have a bad day. That's why it requires a ton.

Whether or not you like the counterpicking system, it exists, which makes sets unmeasurable for data. That's what Smooth Criminal is basically saying, and why your theories aren't working.

You're basing your theory upon something that almost never happens. No one character is going to be kept the entire time most of the time. People change out characters. Many sets go to 3 matches, with different characters. I do get what you're going for, but not everybody plays one single character. Yes, there's a lot of Pocket MK's, not denying that. But the fact of the matter is, if the reason they're winning is because of one character, who is taking sets more often, then even by your own definition, MK doesn't go even with anyone completely. And even so, that's only after he's being nerfed.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Jebus, not every set is played by one character vs one character. Characters are changed out, making the match-up not possible.

You have to play it by each individual fight. A set doesn't matter unless neither player is ever allowed to switch characters, which rarely happens thanks to the counterpicking system.

Because the counterpicking system occurs, there is a different match-up nearly every time. You cannot compare them by sets because they don't always exist as sets. It'd be fine if it always did, but that isn't the case. You need to compare them one-by-one. Throughout multiple matches do we consider who's the best character. Not a few, but it takes a really huge amount. Flukes happen, sometimes people have a bad day. That's why it requires a ton.

Whether or not you like the counterpicking system, it exists, which makes sets unmeasurable for data. That's what Smooth Criminal is basically saying, and why your theories aren't working.

I'm not sure if these players switched characters but I am like 95% sure that they didn't. I can always ask them though. I also know I have seen at least one set of TKD going all Fox against Tyrant.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I'm not sure if these players switched characters but I am like 95% sure that they didn't. I can always ask them though. I also know I have seen at least one set of TKD going all Fox against Tyrant.

I said they RARELY happened, not that they ever didn't.

And so far, how often do people change if they're not playing MK the whole time? Rarely. As I edited in, you're only making MK sound worse now, not better. Nobody has ever had to switch out from him as is, but everybody else has been switched out.

And I'm not talking about a select few players who only play one character. A good majority of players have secondaries and choose new characters for better match-ups. As I said before, counterpicks happen way too often to only take sets into account. They're extremely common, and would skew the results if we only used sets with no change outs. That's why we use either the overall winner and character(which isn't good either), or look at each individual match(which is the most accurate).

Sets don't cut it unless they're all that's played or the majority(which they're the minority instead). Do you understand why "sets" aren't a good indicator now?

 

[Espy Rose]

Tag and BPC make me never want to visit Meta-Game discussion ever again.
I want DMG back in here. And Hippie. And KID. And Gnes. KB, and Ripple. Illmatic.

You know, the people with heavy experience and meaningful, justifiable insight.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I said they RARELY happened, not that they ever didn't.

And so far, how often do people change if they're not playing MK the whole time? Rarely. As I edited in, you're only making MK sound worse now, not better. Nobody has ever had to switch out from him as is, but everybody else has been switched out.

And I'm not talking about a select few players who only play one character. A good majority of players have secondaries and choose new characters for better match-ups. As I said before, counterpicks happen way too often to only take sets into account. They're extremely common, and would skew the results if we only used sets with no change outs. That's why we use either the overall winner and character(which isn't good either), or look at each individual match(which is the most accurate).

Sets don't cut it unless they're all that's played or the majority(which they're the minority instead). Do you understand why "sets" aren't a good indicator now?

It's 4+ sets of a match up that is rarely played and it's 4 different Foxes playing 4 different MKs. I'm almost 100% sure that these players didn't switch their characters (except for TKD, but there are sets of him going all Fox against MK)

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

It's 4+ sets of a match up that is rarely played and it's 4 different Foxes playing 4 different MKs. I'm almost 100% sure that these players didn't switch their characters (except for TKD, but there are sets of him going all Fox against MK)

So do other players never switch their characters? Please confirm this before you say anymore on that specific point. It's not that I don't believe you, but you said yourself that you might be wrong.

The problem is, it's great there's a reasonable amount of sets. But there won't always be a set when it comes to every match-up. Likewise, many people switch to Fox to fight MK, which means it wasn't their first character. That means that the entire set was not Fox VS MK, which, by what you said, means Fox and MK should only get credit, which is illogical.

The point I'm getting at is that we should look at each individual match to determine it, not just the final win(which is what you seem to have suggested all the matters), or that only pure sets count.(which they really can't, as at the highest level, not everybody plays one character anyway, although only playing MK is the one that does happen the most, admittably, but that's not important in this case since we know he's overused anyway)

 

[SaveMeJebus]

So do other players never switch their characters? Please confirm this before you say anymore on that specific point. It's not that I don't believe you, but you said yourself that you might be wrong.

The problem is, it's great there's a reasonable amount of sets. But there won't always be a set when it comes to every match-up. Likewise, many people switch to Fox to fight MK, which means it wasn't their first character. That means that the entire set was not Fox VS MK, which, by what you said, means Fox and MK should only get credit, which is illogical.

The point I'm getting at is that we should look at each individual match to determine it, not just the final win(which is what you seem to have suggested all the matters), or that only pure sets count.(which they really can't, as at the highest level, not everybody plays one character anyway, although only playing MK is the one that does happen the most, admittably, but that's not important in this case since we know he's overused anyway)

I never said players don't switch characters. Matches can be used to determine MUs but they are not as accurate because you can get matches like ICs vs. G&W on Brinstar and other stuff like that. In a set where but players don't switch characters, you get to see the players fight on their best stages at least once (with the current rule set)

 

[Ripple]

Tag and BPC make me never want to visit Meta-Game discussion ever again.
I want DMG back in here. And Hippie. And KID. And Gnes. KB, and Ripple. Illmatic.

You know, the people with heavy experience and meaningful, justifiable insight.

Sorry espy, after my last post

MK doesn't make sense, he makes DOLLARS

I'm done forever


Edit: vvvvv done with the debate

 

[Juushichi]

... But you just posted.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I never said players don't switch characters. Matches can be used to determine MUs but they are not as accurate because you can get matches like ICs vs. G&W on Brinstar and other stuff like that. In a set where but players don't switch characters, you get to see the players fight on their best stages at least once (with the current rule set)

How is that not accurate? The point is the character VS the character who play at their best regardless of stages. We're not testing the stages in the match-ups. They don't heavily skew the results because we're still knowing the exact winner.

Also, the best stages is 100% subjective. Given the choice, I would only use Battlefield, but that doesn't work out too well due to characters having different playstyles and such.

Your way isn't accurate either, though. You need to judge all the matches. If the stage is actually a problem, it'll show often enough. That's when it can be banned. However, Brinstar was never really that much of a problem. It doesn't have degenerate gameplay. The lava is fairly easy to dodge, too. The stage itself will not kill you super easily like it can with the Ice Climbers Stage(meh, can't remember name), or have degenerate stalling(as in ones that can't be reasonably stopped) like New Pork City or Hyrule Temple. Brinstar doesn't really fit any of the criteria.

Unless every match was played on one stage, you can't get as accurate as you wish. Having a set where nobody changes characters being the only one we ever care about would mean we would barely have a tier list or a match-up list in general. Why? There's not enough results like that to determine anything. Counterpicking is just that common. It's what we do.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

All that a certain match up played on a certain stage tells is is that the match up is better, even or worse for a certain character on that specific stage. In a set (most of the time), players are going to play on their best stages.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

That wasn't my point, though.

There is no true neutral stages as is.

And that's why there's multiple matches on multiple stages to determine that. We really don't take a look at a few matches and determine a match up strictly from those.

It takes a lot, man.

Likewise, your way does not do it better either. It ignores every other match that still exists. The only thing the stage does is make the match-up slightly better for one person most of the time. Anytime that a character is clearly winning on one stage most of the time is when the stage is a problem. Until then, that's not a problem whatsoever.

By your logic, every match should be one stage no matter what. If we had a truly neutral one, don't you think we would have tested that by now?

 

[DMG]

I'm not dipping my toes in this til I have to.


Sharks reside in these waters.