Meta Knight Officially Banned!

[DMG]

Someone said my name?

**** YEAH SEAKING

What NEO know about frame data? Just cause he made a song bout MK doesn't mean he know when Shuttle Loop turns invincible or first frame Nair hits. (He probably does, ****)

 

[Circle_Breaker]

I'm just posting to say that the idea of perfect play is probably nonexistent in the first place. Every choice you make carries risk/reward and at higher levels of play (in almost any game) there will be times it is advantageous to make an apparently weaker choice specifically to counter the strong choice you are predicting your opponent will make. (then obviously knowing this, the first player might make another choice and that's the essence of playing competitively lol).

It might be possible for a character with as much pure frame advantage and speed as MK to be played perfectly safely against some characters by a computer, though.

I also think that trying to argue for MK's ban factually is ********. There's no set in stone point at which something becomes banworthy. There are no laws or rules governing it. It's basically an opinion. Either way, I think that if Nintendo was a better company and saw the potential competitive market they could tap with smash they would have released Brawl Ultra a few years ago and nerfed MK to **** themselves and just embraced this side of the community.

I personally know a lot of people who just don't really play Smash because of MK and whatever you think of that, they're otherwise potential tourney-goers and Brawl is a scene that needs more attendees. I actually know three guys who heard that MK was banned and got ready for tournaments but then lost interest again when they learned that BC tournaments won't have him banned. Scrubs? Sure, but there's nothing forcing them to play Smash, so they don't. MK makes the game boring.

I was finally turned to the pro ban side on a day I walked in on a day of brawl friendlies at a local game store. The first kid I played was one of the better brawl players I'd seen play for a while, but when we played I chose MK and he chose Snake and I won. I felt almost cheated because he was clearly better than any of my friends and I wanted to learn something about the game. Then basically everybody in the store beat me when I chose characters other than MK. Afterwards they referred me back to this site and I remembered that my account exists etc. but it really made playing MK feel shallow. I had to learn a new main. He might be at his worst in mid level play, but guess what - that's where the majority of your community is. From basically a business standpoint, MK should be banned. Plus, when you question individual players about why they don't want MK in Brawl, their answers will vary but their arguments almost always carry some degree of validity.

and lastly you guys have forced a bunch of unintuitive rules into competitive play just to keep a character that, by all evidence, is actually reducing the variety of the game. just seems silly from a logical viewpoint. it's a lot easier to say "don't choose that one" than "choose that one, don't grab the ledge more than 30 times, don't use his cape glitch, etc."

 

[SaveMeJebus]

http://allisbrawl.com/blog.aspx?id=35297

I know it's been posted before but still. Even without Brinstar and RC? Wow

 

[Flayl]

Apex 2012 ruleset is the same as Europe's pretty much. If Melee showed anything, is that Europe will probably end up with a japanese stagelist.

edit: damnit, I posted in this thread haha

 

[Judo777]

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

But the number of characters in a tier matters, ALOT. What if there was a game with 40 characters, 20 of them are in S tier, and the other 20 are in A tier, but the difference in tiers is humongous so the people in A tier can't be played. Should we say "well the number whole game centralizes around S tier so we should ban all 20 of them." No we shouldn't. Now before you throw in some majority argument to counter this, take the same argument and twist it 15 in S tier and 25 in A tier. Well now the whole game still revolves around S tier but there are more characters in A tier so its a safer bet to ban 15 character right? No its not. Having 4 character in S tier is not an issue at all because playing a game where you only play about 4 characters isn't abnormal at all, In FACT its pretty common actually.

ST was mostly played with 4 characters, O Sagat, Claw, Boxer, Dhalsim
MVC2 required you to play either Storm, Sentinel, Magneto or Cable
Third Strike saw mostly, Chun, Ken, Yun, and a little Makoto/Dudely thrown into the mix.

the game revolving around 4 or 5 characters in pretty standard to be honest.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

The same thing goes for brawl. You have MK at the top, then you have the characters that do the best against him and have very few bad match ups. It's not like Brawl's list of tournament viable characters ends at MK

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

He has no bad match-ups, Jebus. It's only a few stages that hurt him. Likewise, the Tier problem is not because they're on the arguably same level since they're both Top Tier, it's the variety.

In a top Tier with more than one character, there is variety. It does NOT work that way if the Top Tier is a single Character. That's when it literally starts to cross the line. If anybody is good enough to be in their own Tier, then something's wrong. If MK was still a part of the A Tier, do you honestly think most would think he's a problem Tier-wise? Answer: No. Because he would've been tolerable.

It does not go for Brawl, and until you understand why it works differently, we'll keep telling you why it does: Variety. And actually, yeah, there's no reason to practice someone other than MK because nobody is better or even almost close to him overall. The only way for them to even be viable in tournaments is when there's no MK. Nobody else clearly is able to win on is level, making them weak in comparison. No matter how you slice it, MK's not just at the top, he's miles above the cast.

As I said before: You ban Bosses because they are beyond the rest of the case. Not only is MK canonically a boss in the Kirby series, he's pretty much as good as one in Brawl too.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

He has no bad match-ups, Jebus. It's only a few stages that hurt him. Likewise, the Tier problem is not because they're on the arguably same level since they're both Top Tier, it's the variety.

In a top Tier with more than one character, there is variety. It does NOT work that way if the Top Tier is a single Character. That's when it literally starts to cross the line. If anybody is good enough to be in their own Tier, then something's wrong. If MK was still a part of the A Tier, do you honestly think most would think he's a problem Tier-wise? Answer: No. Because he would've been tolerable.

It does not go for Brawl, and until you understand why it works differently, we'll keep telling you why it does: Variety. And actually, yeah, there's no reason to practice someone other than MK because nobody is better or even almost close to him overall. The only way for them to even be viable in tournaments is when there's no MK. Nobody else clearly is able to win on is level, making them weak in comparison. No matter how you slice it, MK's not just at the top, he's miles above the cast.

As I said before: You ban Bosses because they are beyond the rest of the case. Not only is MK canonically a boss in the Kirby series, he's pretty much as good as one in Brawl too.

Then can you explain to me why no solo MK player has ever taken an Apex tournament? He's not the only tournament viable character in the game. As long as there is character viability, MK should not be banned

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Then can you explain to me why no solo MK player has ever taken an Apex tournament? He's not the only tournament viable character in the game. As long as there is character viability, MK should not be banned

Viability is already a poor excuse. If they were viable, we would see very few MK's, and he would not be winning most tourneys. And that means the players wouldn't as good with MK, or the rules were different.

Likewise, one type of tournament does not prove anything. MK has already won most tourneys in general. Congrats that he yet to win in ONE place. This really doesn't prove anything except that it's possible for him to lose, just not likely whatsoever.

Cite the rules, then.

Also, we want character variety, not just viability. There's over 30 more characters, but only a handful are picked, because of dealing with MK. In fact, a lot of match-ups are different because MK kills the weakest characters before others Tiers often have a chance to really test against them. That is the major problem with believing he makes anyone truly viable. He doesn't. And whether you say it or not, he still does not suggest diversity, which is the even bigger issue.

Explain to me one good reason not to practice solely with MK that isn't "because I want to try characters that require me to work for my win." Maybe a bit harsh, but MK really does get wins much easier than any other character.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

The reason there are more MKs winning is because there are more top level MKs then there are top level mains for any other character.

Also, Apex was the first international tournament and had some of the best MKs there.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I asked for you to cite the rules. I'm still waiting for that.

And yeah, that's because he's overused. If he wasn't, we wouldn't have much of an issue, now would we? It goes back to my earlier point: Variety. It's what is wanted. That's why some rules are changed around, to try something different. It's not different when the same character is still the same one winning most of the time. Likewise, if we want to prevent it, we have two options: Nerf him via rules/hacks(the latter not being a feasible option, which you know why anyway), or ban him. Nerfing him admits he's a problem and needs to be toned down. Banning him solves the problem from the core.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

What rules?

Banning a character because you want variety is not a really good reason. If it was, then pretty much everyone would ban all the top characters in their game.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

The Apex Rules. Defend your point. If MK is not winning there, then you should be able to tell the rules. They may be part of the reason too, since they make it harder for him to win.

And variety is a pretty damn good reason, actually. It's why most stuff is banned in any card game. Many cards are not broken whatsoever. They're still banned because everybody used them. They're called staples, and are key to any deck.

The analogy is that anything overused is the opposite of variety. No matter how you slice it, MK does not invite variety. Frankly, we've been over how many people are sick of MK Dittos. And there's no way to tell that any other Dittos will be prevalent either, so that hypothetical situation is out.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Apex 2 rules were exactly the same rules we always use. I'm pretty sure the first one was the same too.

You are also not going to get much more variety from banning MK since pretty much everyone he destroys, gets destroyed by someone else

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Were all of the rules the same as our current ones? I want you to list them. This is your point you're defending. Give full information here. Rulesets DO affect games and match-ups afterall. It could be stages, it could be lack of counterpicks, and so on.

Nope. Nobody gets destroyed by everybody else. The metagame was completely focused on MK, thus, new strategies are not brought up against other characters. Which means match-ups are easily prone to change. Status Quo is not guaranteed whatsoever. Most characters may only win because their best counters are taken out... mostly by MK. Thus, it's just MK they have to worry about and not their own counters. Nice try, though.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I can't find the rules but they allowed both brinstar and RC

Also, what are you talking about? Most characters that lose to MK, still lose to DDD or Falco.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Then your point doesn't hold up here. We need more information to determine why he never won.

So let's ignore the Apex part since it's impossible to actually prove why he didn't win.

This is actually a key note, since the reason MK doesn't win much in Japan is simply because of their ruleset.

Brinstar and RC are Legal anyway. So I don't know why you bothered to say only that.

Most? That does not mean ALL. That means that other characters will win. You just admitted it would be different with variety. Thank you for proving my point. Removing MK, that means less characters will lose and the status quo will be changed up.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I can only think of one character that will go up (Toon Link) and if you are going to ban one character so that one character becomes tournament viable, then that's just stupid

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

You do not know that he's the only character will be affected.

That's still variety either way. And if you think variety is the only reason, you clearly haven't read the entire topic, or are ignoring the rest. It's one of many reasons. Alone, it's not a big deal, but when there's atleast 10 reasons to remove him from the game, yeah, something's up. What's stupid is how poorly designed the character was. See that? I can do it too.

Match-ups are more likely to change due to having a different metagame. That's how the game evolves, with differences. It was stale with MK as is. In fact, the only thing that really would've changed is every Tier but MK. Thus, MK will always be the problem. And perhaps the Tiers may never changed either. You don't know that. No matter what, more characters will be winning more tournaments, and one won't be winning the most. Your refusal to even wait to see if indeed, say, Snake will win the most just shows you aren't giving it a fair chance anyway.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

You do not know that he's the only character will be affected.

That's still variety either way. And if you think variety is the only reason, you clearly haven't read the entire topic, or are ignoring the rest. It's one of many reasons. Alone, it's not a big deal, but when there's atleast 10 reasons to remove him from the game, yeah, something's up. What's stupid is how poorly designed the character was. See that? I can do it too.

Match-ups are more likely to change due to having a different metagame. That's how the game evolves, with differences. It was stale with MK as is. In fact, the only thing that really would've changed is every Tier but MK. Thus, MK will always be the problem. And perhaps the Tiers may never changed either. You don't know that. No matter what, more characters will be winning more tournaments, and one won't be winning the most. Your refusal to even wait to see if indeed, say, Snake will win the most just shows you aren't giving it a fair chance anyway.

Of course things are going to change if you remove a character from a game. If you remove Snake, the game will also change. Is it the right thing to do? hell no

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Of course things are going to change if you remove a character from a game. If you remove Snake, the game will also change. Is it the right thing to do? hell no

Snake is not an actual problem in the game or wins the most at all. He also does not have tons of safe options. They're not comparable either.

And yeah, banning is always a good option. It's always been an option in any fighting game, and always will be. We ban characters that cause indefinite problems. Snake has caused none. He's not even the second best character in the game. He's maybe third best. MK is the best beyond any character. Once again, not comparable.

Also, this isn't about the "right" thing to do. It's the best of the community, according to their own opinion. The community matters, not a single individual, but them as a whole. It's best for the community, not best for one person. So in reality, it's the smart option. If we get more tournament people, we're getting a better community. It does not hurt the community as a whole either. 76% widely agree he needs to leave. That means the majority finds the game better for whatever reason without him.

And that only helped make the decision easier.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

If you look at the money wins then yes. How much better is he then the next best character when it comes to match ups?

 

[Mono.]

This thread is the most hilarious thread on the site.

 

[da K.I.D.]

i just want to quickly point out, that Japanese tournament where they use Apex rules so they could practice for when they come over here.

The top 6 were all MK.

Jussaiyan

 

[Gnes]

If you look at the money wins then yes. How much better is he then the next best character when it comes to match ups?

You better not be referring to diddy.

I will destroy you.


inb4outofcontextthreats

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Is Snake the top of A Tier? No.

Also, John# specifically said that he made a set amount of money(as in, each chart only shows it as if the money was the same at each tournament, due to it being impossible to find out perfect data). Technically speaking, the data just shows that Snake is still one of the best characters in the game. This isn't the problem. The problem is, he isn't the second best at all, despite making the second most money. Money itself is not the same as winning tournaments the most.

To clarify, the flaw in his charts is that the more players there are, the more money should be shown. But because the exact money is the same at the start no matter what(due to using a specific number), the amount of direct money isn't the issue.

It's that Snake does make the money percentage of money. Not the literal money. Besides MK who makes almost 3 times as much anyway. Now note something: The two characters in A Tier make more percentage combined money-wise than Snake does. That means that he is definitely not beyond the best in the money department either. That's two to make more than 1. That's not "extreme". I agree he's top of the money chart, but not match-ups or winning, since that's not true at all. Likewise, it takes atleast two Tiers to get above MK's. It takes 8 characters to even get close to being above MK. Notice the problem here? If it takes 8 guys to beat 1 character, then the 1 character is already OP by default.

Likewise, MK has no real counters, so it's not surprised that he is winning the most anyway.

@KID: I actually am not sure what you're getting at at this moment. That MK is most likely to take Apex?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

You better not be referring to diddy.

I will destroy you.


inb4outofcontextthreats

next best character in match ups

 

[da K.I.D.]

The problem is, he isn't the second best at all, despite making the second most money.

I disagree completely.

@KID: I actually am not sure what you're getting at at this moment. That MK is most likely to take Apex?

Jebus asked why MK has never won apex (which was only 2 tournaments btw.) and I figured Id bring that up. thats all.

 

[Gnes]

next best character in match ups

Uh, and pretty far away at that. Last I checked mk doesn't have questionable matchups with a plethora of midtiers. Diddy doesn't even dominate most of the high/other top tiers(falco/snake/wario/marth). 2 of the aforementioned being disadvantageous matchups. Don't even try to compare mk's matchup prowess to diddy's. There not even close. And this is without bringing in cp'ing.

Please keep using your fox argument

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I disagree completely.

Likewise. But eh. Either way, I do not believe Snake will actually win the most by an extremely large margin.

Jebus asked why MK has never won apex (which was only 2 tournaments btw.) and I figured Id bring that up. thats all.

Ah, okay. I wouldn't mind if you took over on this issue. I have limited knowledge.

...Wait, two tournaments? I'm sorry, but that's not enough to make a full decision. Jebus, it requires tons of tournaments to make an informed decision. Losing two tourneys is NOT enough. Regardless of the rules. If he won 60 tourneys, but lost 2, would you say that the fact that he lost twice means he should go lower on the tier list?

 

[Cassio]

You better not be referring to diddy.

I will destroy you.


inb4outofcontextthreats

out of curiosity then, what do you believe to be diddys real MU spread? Are we honestly expected to believe characters like kirby and luigi go even or beat diddy?

 

[Gnes]

out of curiosity then, what do you believe to be diddys real MU spread? Are we honestly expected to believe characters like kirby and luigi go even or beat diddy?

Honestly, your expected to believe whatever you want to believe. If mk hadn't killed the midtier population, there could be more evidence to defend statements like those. But yes, Luigi, and Kirby, when playing the matchup right to go even. You can look to me/adhd's last sets with chu for kirby(both last game last hits).

I don't really want to far into detail about diddy's matchups though, because this isn't a diddy matchup thread.

 

[DMG]

So it sounds crazy for Diddy to have even MU's, but MK is supposed to go even with Fox Pika IC's Diddy Snake Boss's Luigi etc?

I'd trust the opinion of a Diddy main that's done the MU than Jebus spouting some Fox vs MK stuff. Real talk.

I don't think Luigi goes even personally, but I can see how it would be "possible" given his mechanics.

 

[Gnes]

I think if a luigi plays like Biglou used to play(never beaten him in a friendly, but we've never played in tourney either lol), its definitely even.

 

[Cassio]

You trust the opinions of the diddy mains but not the MK's? I think theres a lot unintentional irony in Gnes's post, but thatll be tested later.

I didnt say anything about MKs MUs.

 

[Gnes]

No the statement was intentional. Where you carry it to is your own business. My point was mk's matchup spread is by far superior to diddy's. I'd love to see someone who would argue otherwise.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Enough for the character to be banned? is he that much better than Diddy?

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

No the statement was intentional. Where you carry it to is your own business. My point was mk's matchup thread is by far superior to diddy's. I'd love to see someone who would argue otherwise.

Besides Jebus? Or people believing that MK is actually reasonably beatable?

It'd be funny, I admit.

Anyway, I guess people think that if a character has no bad match-ups, they're still A-Okay apparently. Sounds like a boss to me. Amirite?

 

[IhaveSonar]

This discussion is still going on?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Besides Jebus? Or people believing that MK is actually reasonably beatable?

It'd be funny, I admit.

Anyway, I guess people think that if a character has no bad match-ups, they're still A-Okay apparently. Sounds like a boss to me. Amirite?

@Jebus: YES. Seriously, man. MK is the best beyond a doubt. Diddy Kong already has minus match-ups. That makes him already better. Just how many tourneys has Diddy won compared to MK?

How many top level Diddys are there compered to top level MKs?