Meta Knight Officially Banned!

[z00ted]

I'd rather us argue about them.
Seems like something you enjoy doing endlessly.

loooooool get himmm

 

[SaveMeJebus]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=294133

Wow!!! I really like this!!!!

 

[Grim Tuesday]

........
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.

Fox is difficult to use, k.
Fox has bad match-ups, k.
Fox, according to Jebus, is the only character that has an even MU against MK other than MK himself.

Yet very, very few players secondary Fox.

Those numbers don't add up, no matter which way you look at it.

What about Fox? No bad MUs.

Fox loses to Falco overall.

IMO CHART FOR JEBUS' CONVENIENCE:

||||||||
|=|-|+|+|=|+|+|+
|+|=|=|=|=|=|+|+
|-|=|=|+|=|+|+|-
|-|=|-|=|+|+|+|-
|=|=|=|-|=|+|=|+
|-|=|-|-|-|=|-|+
|-|-|-|-|=|+|-|=
|-|-|+|+|-|-|=|=

That is the top three tiers, and you know the funniest thing? I could probably find someone who disagrees with every single one of those MUs (and I didn't even give ratios), that is how good Melee's balance is.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Why would you pick up a character who basically just goes even with MK (the only reason you are really picking him up), when you could pick up a character that goes even with MK and does better against every other character than fox (MK)?

 

[z00ted]

I'm still trying to figure out why people are bringing Melee, or any other game for that matter into Brawl's Metaknight ban discussion.

Jebus, you DO realize that Falco in three days, after TEN YEARS of development in Melee's metagame has become the best character in the game? He never used to be, and there still is much discussion over who actually is. That's the beauty of Melee. Some days it may be Puff, the other days Marth, it has almost ALWAYS been Fox. Right now, it's Falco.

Falco also has five (5) even matchups, and many stages he LOSES on.

At the WORST Metaknight has two even matchups (I believe he actually wins every single one).
He doesn't lose on ANY stages.

Another thing... when was the last time you saw Falco win consecutive regionals or even nationals in a row? When is the last time in Melee, you've seen a ditto of a character in both Loser's Finals and Grand Finals?

There's a character in Brawl who does both quite frequently.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I'm still trying to figure out why people are bringing Melee, or any other game for that matter into Brawl's Metaknight ban discussion.

Jebus, you DO realize that Falco in three days, Falco.. after TEN YEARS of development in Melee's metagame has become the best character in the game?

He also has five (5) even matchups, and many stages he LOSES on.

At the WORST Metaknight has two even matchups (I believe he actually wins every single one).
He doesn't lose on ANY stages.

Another thing... when was the last time you saw Falco win two nationals/regionals in a row? Three? Four? FIVE?

Metaknight has.

When was the last time you saw as many Falcos enter a tournament as there were MKs? That's the real problem. The fact that we don't have as many players playing those other charatcers

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Why would you pick up a character who basically just goes even with MK (the only reason you are really picking him up), when you could pick up a character that goes even with MK and does better against every other character than fox (MK)?

I dunno, why would you pick a character other than MK in any situation?

Why do mid tier mains exist?

People don't base their mains off of the tier list.

When was the last time you saw as many Falcos enter a tournament as there were MKs. That's the real problem. The fact that we don't have as many players playing those other charatcers

There is an obvious reason for the number of MK players.

 

[z00ted]

When was the last time you saw as many Falcos enter a tournament as there were MKs? That's the real problem. The fact that we don't have as many players playing those other charatcers

Why would they?
The character doesn't LOSE.

Lmao, Jebus... that's what we're trying to FIX.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I dunno, why would you pick a character other than MK in any situation?

Why do mid tier mains exist?

People don't base their mains off of the tier list.



There is an obvious reason for the number of MK players.

We are talking about secondaries and people sometimes choose them based on how well they do on certain stages or certain MUs.

We shouldn't ban a character because players want to play that character more than any other character. We should only ban a character when he is broken or degenerates gameplay. MK isn't broken and doesn't degenerate gameplay (with our current rule set)

 

[John12346]

We shouldn't ban a character because players want to play that character more than any other character. We should only ban a character when he is broken or degenerates gameplay. MK isn't broken and doesn't degenerate gameplay (with our current rule set)

Yeah, that explains how MK is winning more money from Brawl than all of A Tier.

Or better yet, that, plus the fact he has no bad matchups, plus the fact he *usually* automatically wins on his counterpick, plus the fact we had to surgically nerf him in our ruleset and people are STILL trying to nerf him in order to make him acceptable for gameplay, plus the fact people are considering banning SMASHVILLE because of him definitely doesn't = broken/degenerate.

///sarcasm

Anyway... I believe DMG said something about changing the topic to actually discuss MK's moveset a while back? Whatever happened to that one?

 

[Cassio]

I'd rather us argue about them.
Seems like something you enjoy doing endlessly.

Arguing is not the same as personal attacks. Anywho, if you still have an issue you know how to contact me.

loooooool get himmm

et tu Illmatic...et tu....

 

[link2702]

watching jebus post is hilarious....

i'd post some random generic popcorn eating gif but i'm too lazy atm.


long story short, at the end of the day, meta is gone, the majority of the community is fine with it (75% based on the last poll) many people are already willing to come back to brawl now to see something other then metaknight dittos in finals, and the counterpick system can actuallly work now. The bats gone now, deal with it and move on with your lives.

 

[z00ted]

et tu Illmatic...et tu....

You know I <3 you lol.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Stop talking about games that are not brawl

 

[Govikings07]

I would like a challenge and get better with mid and low tiers rather than playing it safe and making it easier with an s tier.

 

[Flayl]

Why would you pick up a character who basically just goes even with MK (the only reason you are really picking him up), when you could pick up a character that goes even with MK and does better against every other character than fox (MK)?

I don't get it, is this supposed to be an anti-ban question?

 

[Judo777]

Why would you pick up a character who basically just goes even with MK (the only reason you are really picking him up), when you could pick up a character that goes even with MK and does better against every other character than fox (MK)?

Because everyone in the whole freaking world doesn't know how to fight fox. Heck the top MK's don't even know how to fight against Fox. There might be like 2 MK's in the nation that might be able to say they know the MU well.

Probably the primary reason there aren't as many Falcos as MK's is because...... Falco isn't as good as MK........

Falco wasn't the only character in his (top) tier placement for 4 of the 6 tier lists he was on....... (don't know how many melee had but he probably wasn't one 1 of his tier lists).

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Shuttle Loop = Air Fireball

I don't get it, is this supposed to be an anti-ban question?

LOOOL

"Of course MK wins the most money guys, he's used the most. And the only reason he's used the most is because no one wants to play other characters. And no one wants to play anyone else because they have nothing to offer next to what MK offers. But that doesn't mean we should ban him."

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Why would they?
The players doesn't LOSE.

Here we go again... Are M2K, Ally, Tyrant, Anti, Nairo, and Dojo some of the best players in the country, yes or no?

EDIT: Also, **** all of you.

 

[Govikings07]

Well at least for the first time ever a hispanic character in a video game is being banned for being too good

 

[tekkie]

Super Mario (Kaizo World 2)

stepping it up, i see

 

[Thino]

Thino: That's actually the point. Who is to say it's unacceptable to remove something harmful from the game? There are guidelines on what to remove and what to leave in, and the only "general" test for determining whether to remove something or not is simply if it hurts the game. Now, reasonably you should expect something to be MORE than just harmful to the game to want to ban it. That criteria or "sand in the line" is not set in stone and each community can rightfully chose where to draw it. How dominant, how broken, what impact it has on the scene, what impact it has on the metagame, etc.

Planking is not good for the game. This is easy to establish, regardless of what degree of harmful. It could be super duper broken harmful, or "not good for some characters" harmful. Either way, it passes the general check. After that point, it's just a matter of what you feel is too much or what you feel is best for the game. You can make a reasonable case for either side of wanting to limit/ban planking or wanting a freer game.

I agree with you until the "each community can rightfully chose where to draw it".

Choosing where to draw the line doesn't necessarily mean the way to decide it has to be done by popularity vote.

One can have an opinion on the subject, no matter how arbitrary it is, and be required to explain it, especially for a community that claims to be competitive, before taking a decision, kinda like stage bans for example.

But what is done is done and the ban already passed.

The reason I'm still posting here is that despite the fact that the ban passed BECAUSE "it passed the general check", some pro-bans are still trying to prove that MK is actually broken, but when they do, they never try to explain their argument further and quickly draw the "76% voted for it so be it." card or assume their reason is clear, normal or obvious when it's not.

this quote that is from last page is a good example :

Yeah, that explains how MK is winning more money from Brawl than all of A Tier.

Or better yet, that, plus the fact he has no bad matchups, plus the fact he *usually* automatically wins on his counterpick, plus the fact we had to surgically nerf him in our ruleset and people are STILL trying to nerf him in order to make him acceptable for gameplay, plus the fact people are considering banning SMASHVILLE because of him definitely doesn't = broken/degenerate.

///sarcasm

Anyway... I believe DMG said something about changing the topic to actually discuss MK's moveset a while back? Whatever happened to that one?

This person tries to make points assuming everyone knows that a S-tier character winning more and making more money than A-tier characters means the S-tier character is broken, but without explaining why it's not normal that a S-tier character does so.

Nor does he explain what is considered "acceptable for gameplay"

Nor does he explain why considering banning Smashville degenerates the gameplay and talks about it in a sarcastic way instead.

When this is the details that, as anti-ban, I'm interested to know about.

 

[John12346]

This person tries to make points assuming everyone knows that a S-tier character winning more and making more money than A-tier characters means the S-tier character is broken, but without explaining why it's not normal that a S-tier character does so.

We don't really have a point of reference to use, so... the best I can say is that, given the fact MK singlehandedly makes 44.99% of all tournament money; 3-5x more money than any one given character in A Tier... MK "crosses the line," as it were.

It all comes down to how much you think is too much. For me, that is, for sure.

Nor does he explain what is considered "acceptable for gameplay"

I guess "acceptable for gameplay" would constitute whatever we believe actually tests the skills we wish to test while playing Brawl. Of course, since it's a case by case basis, those beliefs are obviously going to vary from person to person.

It's at that point the 76% poll comes in; it's the only indicator we've got that shows how many people believe that MK usage does not fall within the skills we want to test, I guess.

Nor does he explain why considering banning Smashville degenerates the gameplay and talks about it in a sarcastic way instead.

Uh, last I checked, Smashville is, by far, the most popular stage in the game and argued to be the "most legal" out of the bunch, next to Battlefield.

Some people are tossing around ideas of BANNING the stage because MK completely breaks it in half with his scrooging bull****(which circumvents the LGL, of course). In my eyes, I feel that it means that MK is the bannable offense in this scenario, because he's being an OP ****** on what is otherwise one of the most legitimate stages in the game.

But like I said, this is all subjective, there are those who would try to justify keeping MK legal and just getting rid of Smashville, but this is how I see things.
.
.
.
.
.
The problem here is that, all of the points argued by pro-ban and anti-ban... they're all completely subjective, because it's important to realize that everyone has different thresholds for what they see as a broken/bannable offense in Brawl. It's up to us to argue as much as we can, and show how MK has/has not crossed as many lines as we possibly can, it's as simple as that.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Yeah, that explains how MK is winning more money from Brawl than all of A Tier.

Or better yet, that, plus the fact he has no bad matchups, plus the fact he *usually* automatically wins on his counterpick, plus the fact we had to surgically nerf him in our ruleset and people are STILL trying to nerf him in order to make him acceptable for gameplay, plus the fact people are considering banning SMASHVILLE because of him definitely doesn't = broken/degenerate.

///sarcasm

Anyway... I believe DMG said something about changing the topic to actually discuss MK's moveset a while back? Whatever happened to that one?

A-tier makes more than B-tier and B-tier has two more characters than A-tier.

Melee Fox also has no bad match ups.

If he usually wins on his counterpick, then remove those stages first or learn how to fight on those stages. You guys also never increased the timer

What surgical nerfs?

 

[da K.I.D.]

A-tier makes more than B-tier and B-tier has two more characters than A-tier.

Melee Fox also has no bad match ups.

If he usually wins on his counterpick, then remove those stages first or learn how to fight on those stages. You guys also never increased the timer

What surgical nerfs?

Stop talking about games that are not brawl.

I will tell you this every single time you bring this up from now on.

 

[Zankoku]

A-tier makes more than B-tier and B-tier has two more characters than A-tier.

Uh, a 3:5 character ratio means that A tier is roughly 166.67% as efficient as B tier in winning cash. That's still pretty severely outclassed by the S-A 1:3 character ratio, indicating a 300% efficiency.

Oddly enough I feel like your arguments work better if you don't try to use charts, graphs, or lists because you use them all in strange and unconvincing ways.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Stop talking about games that are not brawl.

I will tell you this every single time you bring this up from now on.

It's an example of how you can't ban a character just because he doesn't have any bad match ups

@愛sight, that's why I wanted to see how much the next tier made.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Why do you keep bringing up Melee Fox? For a character that "has no bad match ups" he almost never wins tournaments, and characters like Falco, Marth, Jigglypuff, and even Peach have more impressive wins over the course of Melee then Fox - so stop bringing Fox up since the character is not even remotely similar to MK.

Here:
Brawl: Meta Knight

• MK has no bad match ups
• MK has won practically every national (and regional) tournament since the first year of the game, for three years
• Every single year (3 years) MK has the most nationals wins compared to every other character

Melee: Fox

• Fox has no bad match ups
• Fox has won practically no national tournaments and few regional tournaments in the 10 year history of the Melee community.
• No single year (10) did Fox have the most national wins compared to every other character

Sidebar: I'd say it is actually arguable and, given the statistics of Fox's relative lack of success in comparison to his hype, that he does in fact have bad matchups (Jigglypuff comes to mind). A lot of the "no bad match ups" thought came back from like 2005/2006 when people were using AR to show what Fox can do, the problem was: no human will ever even come remotely close to playing Fox at that level.

It seems like anti-bans points at this junction are simply attacking a specific argument when it is really the holistic argument. It isn't "OMG POPULAR OPINION IS WHY YOU BANNED MK" it is "MK was banned because he has no bad match ups, wins practically everything, is the most used character by far, wins the most money by far, requires specific and multiple rules to keep him legal and he still dominates a crazy amount, the entire game is getting bent to keep him legal and that still doesn't work, and on top of all of that, 75% of the community wants his *** gone."

No one has said MK should be banned just because the community wanted it. That in itself would not be a reason to ban something, but taken in conjunction with about 500 other reasons to ban MK, yes, that is an important aspect of making a decision.

 

[John12346]

A-tier makes more than B-tier and B-tier has two more characters than A-tier.

S tier has 33.33% of the amount of characters A tier does, and makes about 1.33% of the money A tier does.
A tier has 60% of the amount of characters B tier does, and also makes about 1.33% of the money B tier does.

**** it, Aisight beat me to it, no reason to finish the calculations.

Melee Fox also has no bad match ups.

I'm missing the part where he's the dominant force in tournaments.
Face it, when was the last time you've seen Fox dittos in the Grand Finals of Melee regionals/nationals 5 or 6 times in a row?

Oh damn, get double ninja'd, me. -___ -;

If he usually wins on his counterpick, then remove those stages first or learn how to fight on those stages. You guys also never increased the timer

What surgical nerfs?

The reduced ledge grab limit of 35. I don't care what excuses you have for it, the fact remains that the ruleset is purposely targeting MK, and is definitely suggesting that he is INDEED too powerful under a *normal* ruleset.

The fact that you, and other anti-ban users are trying to argue to further nerf him, via removing all the stages in the universe, with a scrooging limit, with an even LOWER LGL, with a freaking air time limit, etc etc etc, suggests to me that even you guys admit that, under an unrestricted ruleset, MK is just... unbeatable.

Also Jebus, respond to Alpha.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Why do you keep bringing up Melee Fox? For a character that "has no bad match ups" he almost never wins tournaments, and characters like Falco, Marth, Jigglypuff, and even Peach have more impressive wins over the course of Melee then Fox - so stop bringing Fox up since the character is not even remotely similar to MK.

Here:
Brawl: Meta Knight

• MK has no bad match ups
• MK has won practically every national (and regional) tournament since the first year of the game, for three years
• Every single year (3 years) MK has the most nationals wins compared to every other character

Melee: Fox

• Fox has no bad match ups
• Fox has won practically no national tournaments and few regional tournaments in the 10 year history of the Melee community.
• No single year (10) did Fox have the most national wins compared to every other character

Sidebar: I'd say it is actually arguable and, given the statistics of Fox's relative lack of success in comparison to his hype, that he does in fact have bad matchups (Jigglypuff comes to mind). A lot of the "no bad match ups" thought came back from like 2005/2006 when people were using AR to show what Fox can do, the problem was: no human will ever even come remotely close to playing Fox at that level.

It seems like anti-bans points at this junction are simply attacking a specific argument when it is really the holistic argument. It isn't "OMG POPULAR OPINION IS WHY YOU BANNED MK" it is "MK was banned because he has no bad match ups, wins practically everything, is the most used character by far, wins the most money by far, requires specific and multiple rules to keep him legal and he still dominates a crazy amount, the entire game is getting bent to keep him legal and that still doesn't work, and on top of all of that, 75% of the community wants his *** gone."

No one has said MK should be banned just because the community wanted it. That in itself would not be a reason to ban something, but taken in conjunction with about 500 other reasons to ban MK, yes, that is an important aspect of making a decision.

Melee has 4 S-tier characters so it's different. You can't argue that it's not usually one of those 4 characters that take most of the money in tournament. Those characters have just as much a reason to get banned as MK does, yet Melee doesn't ban those characters.

 

[Thino]

We don't really have a point of reference to use, so... the best I can say is that, given the fact MK singlehandedly makes 44.99% of all tournament money; 3-5x more money than any one given character in A Tier... MK "crosses the line," as it were.

It all comes down to how much you think is too much. For me, that is, for sure.


I guess "acceptable for gameplay" would constitute whatever we believe actually tests the skills we wish to test while playing Brawl. Of course, since it's a case by case basis, those beliefs are obviously going to vary from person to person.

It's at that point the 76% poll comes in; it's the only indicator we've got that shows how many people believe that MK usage does not fall within the skills we want to test, I guess.


Uh, last I checked, Smashville is, by far, the most popular stage in the game and argued to be the "most legal" out of the bunch, next to Battlefield.

Some people are tossing around ideas of BANNING the stage because MK completely breaks it in half with his scrooging bull****(which circumvents the LGL, of course). In my eyes, I feel that it means that MK is the bannable offense in this scenario, because he's being an OP ****** on what is otherwise one of the most legitimate stages in the game.

But like I said, this is all subjective, there are those who would try to justify keeping MK legal and just getting rid of Smashville, but this is how I see things.
.
.
.
.
.
The problem here is that, all of the points argued by pro-ban and anti-ban... they're all completely subjective, because it's important to realize that everyone has different thresholds for what they see as a broken/bannable offense in Brawl. It's up to us to argue as much as we can, and show how MK has/has not crossed as many lines as we possibly can, it's as simple as that.

So in the end you (guys) agree that the popularity vote was the best solution, because there's no way either side could have argued about the situation since it's subjective and arbitrary, right?

Not because anyone can prove that he's actually broken or not, but because 76% THINK so.

What are we still arguing about or trying to prove if that is the case?

It seems like anti-bans points at this junction are simply attacking a specific argument when it is really the holistic argument. It isn't "OMG POPULAR OPINION IS WHY YOU BANNED MK" it is "MK was banned because he has no bad match ups, wins practically everything, is the most used character by far, wins the most money by far, requires specific and multiple rules to keep him legal and he still dominates a crazy amount, the entire game is getting bent to keep him legal and that still doesn't work, and on top of all of that, 75% of the community wants his *** gone."

No one has said MK should be banned just because the community wanted it. That in itself would not be a reason to ban something, but taken in conjunction with about 500 other reasons to ban MK, yes, that is an important aspect of making a decision.

The reason why I'm attacking the holistic argument is because so far the pro-bans I've discussed with have proven me that the specific ones are too subjective to be discussed.

"What's the amount of wins a character has to have over the rest of the cast before he can be considered broken?"
"It's subjective"

"What's the amount of money a character has to earn more than the other before being considered broken?"
"It's arbitrary"

etc..

then suddenly

"Well, all this means he has been banned because 75% want him gone"
"NOES THERE ARE 500 OTHER REASONS WHY HE HAS BEEN BANNED"

So maybe you (or anyone else) can answer the questions from from dissecting your sentence between quotes above :

-Does no bad matchups means MK is unbeatable?
-How is a character winning everything effects negatively on competitive play?
-How does character usage affects competitive play in a bad way that requires nerfs or a ban?
-How is a character earning the most money bad for competitive play?
-How do you determine what keeps a character "legal" BEFORE deciding to nerf him?
-How is domination by one character bad?
-If by "doesn't work" you mean MK still winning, what exactly do you mean by "working"? Why do you not want MK winning in the first place?

Arbitrariness and subjectivity aside.

 

[Life]

A top tier of four characters is never a problem. Each of those characters have different B-tier matchups and each one holds the other down.

A top tier of one character, however, can be problematic.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

A top tier of four characters is never a problem. Each of those characters have different B-tier matchups and each one holds the other down.

A top tier of one character, however, can be problematic.

I could give you examples of games where 4 or more top characters are still a problem even when some get countered by the tier below them so you are wrong

 

[san.]

You could try, but what would that do other than make you argue in circles? That doesn't really have an effect on the current situation for this game.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

You could try, but what would that do other than make you argue in circles? That doesn't really have an effect on the current situation for this game.

That's why I didn't bring up the actual game.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Melee has 4 S-tier characters so it's different. You can't argue that it's not one of those 4 characters that take most of the money in tournament. Those characters have just as much a reason to get banned as MK does, yet Melee doesn't ban those characters.

If four characters are viable and in the same tier, by definition none of them can be broken.

How are you seriously comparing 4 characters succeeding to 1 character? Enhance your argument please. Make more sense. I don't know, just do something that doesn't make your argument look entirely silly.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

If four characters are viable and in the same tier, by definition none of them can be broken.

How are you seriously comparing 4 characters succeeding to 1 character? Enhance your argument please. Make more sense.

Melee is pretty much as centralized around S tier as Brawl is (maybe even more). Removing those characters adds more character diversity to the game. Characters that get destroyed by Shieks chain grab now have less things to worry about. Most of mid tier only really has trouble with S tier. Is it the right thing to do though? I don't think so

 

[Ripple]

everyone below pika gets DESTROYED by either falcon, peach or ICs

removing S tier wouldn't change anything

 

[Life]

Tiers (at least the vertical part; as in, "Is Sonic C or D tier" as opposed to "Is Sonic better or worse than [for example] DK") are pretty much defined by centralization IMO. The core of the meta is S tier. Potentially threatening characters make up the rest of high tier. Characters that won't win the biggest tournaments but that can be regional threats in the right hands are mid tiers. Characters that are unviable to win tournaments with, but that are threats in the first few rounds of bracket, are low tiers. Characters that should never win a match are garbz tier (only Hyrule tier even comes close in Brawl).

 

[SaveMeJebus]

everyone below pika gets DESTROYED by either falcon, peach or ICs

removing S tier wouldn't change anything

One bad match instead of five? Most characters below Pika are still viable. Viability would probably end at Yoshi