Meta Knight Officially Banned!

[tekkie]

the MK banned thread is a pool and everyone's peeing in it

 

[Ripple]

the MK banned thread is a pool and everyone's peeing in it

Can't forget that some are drinking from it too

 

[♡ⓛⓞⓥⓔ♡]

Finland banned Metaknight before it became mainstream

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Finland banned Metaknight before it became mainstream

Finland also legalized Luigi's Mansion before it became mainstream.

 

[Espy Rose]

Ripple's post murderlized me.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

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?

Even then, there are still a lot of matches of top Foxes beating top MKs especially when you consider that often TKD switches characters when he is taken to certain bad stages

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Even then, there are still a lot of matches of top Foxes beating top MKs especially when you consider that often TKD switches characters when he is taken to certain bad stages

Okay. Let's pretend for a moment Fox goes even with MK.

MK still pretty much owns most of the cast, and has no character weaknesses. Correct?

Now, Fox also has characters weaknesses. He doesn't win or go even against everyone, right?

Now tell me, who's the overall better and stronger character?

Also, the set results aren't perfect either. Since the course still gives someone an advantage, we can't say those are better. I'd like you to prove that they are actually the only results that should count. It's all on you, Jebus.

 

[Zankoku]

I think Fox's match-ups against Ice Climbers, Sheik, and Pikachu make using him as a main already rather risky, and using him as a pocket counterpick against Meta Knight to achieve an even match-up at best a rather dubious plan.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Okay. Let's pretend for a moment Fox goes even with MK.

MK still pretty much owns most of the cast, and has no character weaknesses. Correct?

Now, Fox also has characters weaknesses. He doesn't win or go even against everyone, right?

Now tell me, who's the overall better and stronger character?

Also, the set results aren't perfect either. Since the course still gives someone an advantage, we can't say those are better. I'd like you to prove that they are actually the only results that should count. It's all on you, Jebus.

The point I was trying to make is that players can't use the argument that no one goes even with MK. I never once said that Fox was a better character than MK

 

[Grim Tuesday]

As I've said before: If there was a character (Fox) who went even with MK, people would actually use him.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

The point I was trying to make is that players can't use the argument that no one goes even with MK. I never once said that Fox was a better character than MK

I'd like to remind you that he only goes even because of a nerf that MK has.

Technically speaking, he does not outside of the restrictions put on MK.

But in our current rules, I do agree here on that statement. Mostly.

Although I don't think he goes completely even either way.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

As I've said before: If there was a character (Fox) who went even with MK, people would actually use him.

Maybe the reason players don't use him is because that's all he can really be used for. Why pick up a character that goes even with MK when you can pick up a character that goes even or better against every other character in the game?

@Hyperfalcon, what nerfs? IDC is stalling and the LGL is enforced on every character. Also, this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Joyf8KKdg4

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Now you can see another reason why we'd rather have him banned. So people would do more than just pick MK. That means more variety, or maybe a change in match-ups, which just aren't evolving with him around.

It's really a matter of this: Pick the OP/Broken character? Or pick a character that's still good? What would you pick?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Now you can see another reason why we'd rather have him banned. So people would do more than just pick MK. That means more variety, or maybe a change in match-ups, which just aren't evolving with him around.

It's really a matter of this: Pick the OP/Broken character? Or pick a character that's still good? What would you pick?

But you don't ban a character just because he is the best.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Maybe the reason players don't use him is because that's all he can really be used for. Why pick up a character that goes even with MK when you can pick up a character that goes even or better against every other character in the game?

Not everyone picks MK, it stands to reason that any character that goes even with MK and has decent other match-ups should be one of the most popular mains and/or secondaries.

@Hyperfalcon, what nerfs? IDC is stalling and the LGL is enforced on every character. Also, this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Joyf8KKdg4

LGL is lower for MK.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Not everyone picks MK, it stands to reason that any character that goes even with MK and has decent other match-ups should be one of the most popular mains and/or secondaries.



LGL is lower for MK.

But fox gets beaten by ICs, Pika and Shiek and doesn't really have better match ups than Falco. He's not really a great character but he does have an even match up against MK.

MK shouldn't have a lower LGL than every other character and the LGL shouldn't be higher than 35 for all characters. Socal has always had a LGL of 35 (before the URC) and we never had a problem with it

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

As I've said before: If there was a character (Fox) who went even with MK, people would actually use him.

This is bad logic. It just doesn't work that way. Especially not for a mid-tier character with several ridiculously hard matchups.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Why is he not used as a secondary, then?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Why is he not used as a secondary, then?

Because MK is the better secondary. No true counters and only a few bad character specific CP stages

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

But you don't ban a character just because he is the best.

You do when he's overcentralizing the game and nobody is actually winning consistently. There's a difference between being the best, and going beyond that. He's already beyond that. We've shown multiple reasons. It's not just "the best". I have no problem with "the best" whatsoever. It's the other factors that matter. Let me put it this way: Is there a reason to ever choose anyone else?

I do agree that he should not have a seperate LGL, but there should not be one in the first place.

Because MK is the better secondary. No true counters and only a few bad character specific CP stages

Which no one else has. How long will it take you to admit that MK just isn't beatable feasibly? Even the best character in games can be reasonably beaten once in a while. This doesn't exactly happen.

 

[Chuee]

Why is he not used as a secondary, then?

........
What point is there to use Fox as a secondary. Falco does just as good or better than Fox in most high/top tier MUs and is much safer. Not to mention Fox is actually somewhat difficult to use.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

You do when he's overcentralizing the game and nobody is actually winning consistently. There's a difference between being the best, and going beyond that. He's already beyond that. We've shown multiple reasons. It's not just "the best". I have no problem with "the best" whatsoever. It's the other factors that matter. Let me put it this way: Is there a reason to ever choose anyone else?

I do agree that he should not have a seperate LGL, but there should be one in the first place.

He's not doing that much better. He's doing as well as he should for his tier placement (one above A tier)

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

He's not doing that much better. He's doing as well as he should for his tier placement (one above A tier)

Shouldn't the fact that he has his own Tier, called God Tier tell you something by now? He's the best at nearly everything, has absolutely no real counters, nobody actually can beat him consistently either.

There's a time when you have to admit there's a problem.

And he actually is doing the best still.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Shouldn't the fact that he has his own Tier, called God Tier tell you something by now? He's the best at nearly everything, has absolutely no real counters, nobody actually can beat him consistently either.

There's a time when you have to admit there's a problem.

And he actually is doing the best still.

It's not god tier, it's S tier and even Melee has an S tier. Except in that game, you have 4 great characters instead of one but, by your logic, every one of those characters deserves to be banned.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Different game, different rules. Likewise, when a Tier has more than one character, they're not worth banning by default. Why? There's immediately counters to that character, so he cannot be the overall best.

When a person is on the highest Tier by himself, which whether you call S Tier or God Tier(both are really correct in this case), then there's a problem. He should be among atleast another character.

Likewise, don't bring in Melee here since it has no bearing and does not help your argument either. It only hurts it.

 

[Eddie G]

@ Jebus - By his logic? The simple fact that Melee even has more than one character in S tier completely negates the point you're trying to make. Those four characters, reasonably speaking, are expected to all beat each other evenly. And while Snake, Diddy, Falco, etc. all have good matchups against MK...who's the one that is still winning events (and in turn, defeating all of the aforementioned) consistently?

One character.

One.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Those characters still overcentralize the metagame and it would be healthier for the metagame to remove them. More character diversity. Is it the best thing to do? Hell no

 

[Eddie G]

Those characters still overcentralize the metagame and it would be healthier for the metagame to remove them. More character diversity. Is it the best thing to do? Hell no

Last I checked, 4 characters are still > 1 in terms of diversity. What's your point?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Last I checked, 4 characters still > 1 in terms of diversity. What's your point?

It doesn't matter. It's still overcentralization.

 

[Eddie G]

It doesn't matter. It's still overcentralization.

According to you.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Overcentralization isn't a good argument when there's more than one character. Want to know why? It still has variety.

BTW, they're still not the only characters winning anyway.

Let me ask you something: Is the entire metagame based around only beating those four like it is with beating MK? Are they the only four winning atleast 20% of every overall match?(not just sets, as they aren't only counted)

 

[SaveMeJebus]

According to you.

Then according to who is MK overcentralizing the metagame?

@Hyperfalcon, MK also isn't the only one winning tournaments. Mike won a recent tournament and Vinnie has been winning tournaments.

Also, fist tournament on the list http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=314110

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Read that more carefully again.

Who wins the overall most tournaments in percentage? MK. Yes, he's overcentralized. 20%

Now, tell me once again, do all four characters in Melee win the most tournaments by percentage? Give me exact numbers for each individual one. Don't dodge this point. I will not stop asking till you do.

There's 26 characters, right? They each have to have a very high number.(Let's not go over the fact they all have viable counters too)

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Read that more carefully again.

Who wins the overall most tournaments in percentage? MK. Yes, he's overcentralized. 20%

Now, tell me once again, do all four characters in Melee win the most tournaments by percentage? Give me exact numbers. Don't dodge this point. I will not stop asking till you do.

There is no data for those tournaments because different players have a different idea of what overcentralization is. Why would anyone want to collect data for something they don't even consider overcentralizing? I don't think 20% is overcentralizing and neither do a bunch of other players

 

[Zankoku]

I think Melee's "overcentralization" of multiple characters is not quite comparable to Brawl's supposed "overcentralization" of a single character.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I think Melee's "overcentralization" of multiple characters is not quite comparable to Brawl's supposed "overcentralization" of a single character.

Why not????????

 

[Eddie G]

There is no data for those tournaments because different players have a different idea of what overcentralization is. Why would anyone want to collect data for something they don't even consider overcentralizing? I don't think 20% is overcentralizing and neither do a bunch of other players

You mean the 25% of players who don't, as opposed to the 75% who do?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

You mean the 25% of players, as opposed to the 75% who do?

Not all of the players who voted for the ban voted for that reason.

 

[Eddie G]

Not all of the players who voted for the ban voted for that reason.

Do you have any means of proving that claim?

 

[da K.I.D.]

Ok, Jebus.

Let me make this simple for you

The melee metagame is Centralised around the top 4-7 characters.

The brawl metagame is OVERLY Centralised around ONE character.