Metaknight Officially Banned In Italy.

[Darky-Sama]

Personally, I don't agree with Meta Knight being banned. He is a character that has priority, speed, and recovery that tops most others, but even so, he still has flaws. VERY FEW OF THEM, but he still has a few that can be considered fatal.

Since Meta Knight is a light character, he is easily punished by characters like Ike and DK. Characters high KO potentials stand a good chance against Meta Knights. Where they do lack speed in most cases, Meta Knight has an advantage as well. That does not mean "EVERY SINGLE ATTACK WILL MISS. NO EXCEPTIONS!"

Meta Knight has a very big flaw with his specials, a very horrible ending lag. B/Side+B/Up+B/Down+B can leave a chance for a character to deal a good smash attack or begin a chain. Most Meta Knight players are smart and don't use specials unless they have a GOOD chance of hitting, but nonetheless, its punishable if missed.


I'm not saying Meta Knight is the fairest character in the game, but he didn't really deserve to be banned. Especially since Snake has that crazy dash cancel and utilt. If Meta is being banned, if not already, there should be a ban on Snake as well. But no character is invincible. :/

 

[Ray/Boshi]

first off. lmao at yall mk idiots panties getting twisted because some community decided to ban him tournament wise. who gives a ****. its not affecting you in any way, shape, or form. unless you go frequent the big tourneys that follow certain tournament rules andguidelines.


i personally wouldnt ban him, but thats me. its not right to the people that main him & enjoy playing as him. high level play is risky using mk i imagine. his moves are fairly obvious for being so **** quick.

now this is where i'l get good at. the hosting community is the deciding factor on the tourneys rules and conditions. i mean seriously, they ban certain stages, infinites, stalling, ect ect. in order to make it a as fair a skill wise envirement as possible for competition. the game itself wasnt designed for that. you made it that way. tournaments are no more then 3 rounds of choosing character counters on the flat staged/flat platforms anyway. you just restricted the roster moreso by eliminating the stage benefits for certain characters and random factors. but thats besides the point. merely my opinion on the matter.

Edit: thats one bad *** pika there anther. lmao

 

[SwastikaPyle]

I'm undecided on whether or not Metaknight should be banned, but it does make me laugh my *** off when a Metaknight main tells everyone, "Learn to play."

 

[Aldwyn McCloud]

I don't care.

I'm referring to the scene as a whole here, so anyone's personal preference isn't really applicable.

Since when objective thoughts exist about smash? What do you think Tier Lists or Match Ups are if nothing but mere opinions of the players?

I do recognize you have a point in claiming that everyone is switching to metaknight, but the "there is no situation in which picking him is bad" statement still doesn't make any sense to me. What if a player personally trained to fight against Metaknight and knew every single habit and weak point of MK mainers? Wouldn't picking MK start to be a bad choice at that point? Now, I'm expecting you to reply with "No one will bother learning how to fight them when they can simply join them". Whose fault is this? Is it because the game doesn't allow the players to properly counter Metaknight? Maybe. At least by now, it's too early to say that. Is it because players have become lazy? DEFINITELY. I'm pretty much convinced at this point that Metaknight risks to get a ban because people in general aren't willing to try and counter him. This isn't a good reason to ban him. After Metaknight's ban, people will eventually start to pick up snake since their mentality is to choose whoever dominates the scene and not trying to counter them. And if everyone kept playing Metaknight chances are eveyone would eventually figure out the way to beat him. Is he unbeatble? Prove it then. So far, as Yuna said, I've seen his popularity proven, not his invincibility.

I'd also like to know what M2K thinks about this. If anyone knows his 2 cents about the topic or could invite him in the debate, it'd be a good thing.

when they figure out an infinite grab combo with mk then ill agree to ban him.

Ban the infinite grab then. I'd also like to have you guys realize that banning the whole character is an EXTREME measure. Raising handicap, decreasing the number of MK's stocks, or whatever you want are measures that'd keep a lot of players from thinking MK is advantaged in any situation, therefore have them not choose him.

 

[-Mars-]

Personally, I don't agree with Meta Knight being banned. He is a character that has priority, speed, and recovery that tops most others, but even so, he still has flaws. VERY FEW OF THEM, but he still has a few that can be considered fatal.

Since Meta Knight is a light character, he is easily punished by characters like Ike and DK. Characters high KO potentials stand a good chance against Meta Knights. Where they do lack speed in most cases, Meta Knight has an advantage as well. That does not mean "EVERY SINGLE ATTACK WILL MISS. NO EXCEPTIONS!"

Meta Knight has a very big flaw with his specials, a very horrible ending lag. B/Side+B/Up+B/Down+B can leave a chance for a character to deal a good smash attack or begin a chain. Most Meta Knight players are smart and don't use specials unless they have a GOOD chance of hitting, but nonetheless, its punishable if missed.


I'm not saying Meta Knight is the fairest character in the game, but he didn't really deserve to be banned. Especially since Snake has that crazy dash cancel and utilt. If Meta is being banned, if not already, there should be a ban on Snake as well. But no character is invincible. :/

Snake is slow and you can camp him, Metaknight can easily get in your face no matter what you do.

 

[QUIVO]

MK isn't broken enough to be banned.

 

[Ginger_Warrior]

It wasn't out of context at all, you ranted on Tier Lists in a highly uneducated manner which shows that you obviously have no idea why Tier Lists are written and what they're for.

You make it sound as though tier lists are some complicated science only a select few people can interpret. How exactly can you be 'educated' on tier lists? It's not like there's a degree in it.

Explain to me what exactly is the purpose of a tier list if it isn't applied to anything? If no one applies it to tournaments, but instead they just ban individual characters, one has to question whether the tier list is being made just for sake of a tier list being made, hence, why one should even exist at all.

I summed up their arguments. And who said this was an intelligent debate? The people whose posts I mocked were not intelligent. At least not their posts. Hence the mocking.

I notice you removed your signature for this post, but most of us aren't idiots and can read your signature from all the other posts you've made.

The fact of the matter is you carry yourself in such a snobbish and élitist way, and wouldn't accept anyone else's opinion even if there was a proper reason for banning MK anyway.

 

[Lethe]

i bet this is all cause of how mk ***** the mario bros.

 

[ADHD]

I dont understand why we never banned Melee Sheik since she completely destroyed characters in every way possible, and had no bad match-ups. Most character's MK destroys already suck balls.

I've shot this argument to pieces a thousand times already, the fact even the MK boards cant see the truth themselves is ****ing ridiculous. He's the best, not broken.


BTW, LOL at all the bull**** around Snake. He's good, he's not the best. Campers **** his ****. :/

First off, falco can not camp snake the whole match. Snake will find a way around it, maybe rob can camp snake but not forever. Melee sheik actually had three bad matchups *gasp it's a godsend* fox, falco, and the ice climbers. Besides, she didn't have a ****ing gliding recovery or else it would just be ridiculous. She was eligible to be edgehogged (wow what a gift from heaven.)

 

[~ Gheb ~]

About all those (silly) Melee-Sheik / Fox / Whatever comparision

There IS an important differenece.

Metaknight is his own worst match-up.

If you want to have the best chances to defeat MK, you have to use him yourself. In Melee, this was never the case

 

[ChronoPenguin]

AHAHHAHAAHHAHHAAHAHHAHAHA

T_T there goes 1 of yoshi's good points.....in italy.

 

[Yuna]

iority

Here.
and here.
This was before you even really heard any arguments from italy.

Yes, because it is my genuine belief that only idiots and Scrubs would ban Meta-Knight at this writing moment, especially if they have not even had Brawl tournaments in their country yet (which the Italians haven't).

The point is that you can pick metaknight and cover all of your options. It's not so much about counterpicking as it is only metaknight can handle every matchup with an advantage (I still say there is not a single character that is 5-5 with MK. Every other character has at least one bad matchup. In melee, the top 4 could all at least beat each other viably. Not the case here.

When you say "Beat each other viably", you must mean that the Top Four had pretty much 5-4s against each other. That's not beating each other viably, that's having a small disadvantage. That's just one matchup with a tiny disadvantage!

The only difference is that Meta-Knight has no such matchups while some have one or so. The one-up here is not vast, it doesn't make Meta-Knight soooooooo much better than everyone else.

Never during those years was the large majority of tournaments won by solely one character. Characters went in and out of vogue, but there was a pretty vast distribution intially between fox, marth, sheik, and CF (Isai <_<) and then Peach a tiny tiny bit, and then you saw some Falco's, but never was it just "oh great another win by *character* People generally saw players. See, in melee, I remember Recipherus, Ken, Isai, Eddie, etc winning. In brawl its "wow some other metaknight player."

How many Meta-Knights are running around winning major tournaments right now, realy? Since he's apparently so good and auto-win even for bad players, name some bad players who've managed to snag a win at a major tournament undeservingly.

Metaknight doesnt need to give us the "Ban Me" Blow Job in order to warrant a ban. we should not have to wait until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Gouki had certain qualities that made it a pretty obvious ban. Super Turbo may have gone through excruciating months of gouki dominance before a ban, but why should we have to wait for that? Its been out for about 9 months, sometimes you dont need a whole lot of time to determine whether a character is broken or now. Day 1 of Soul Calibur IV, they find out Ivy has an infinite. What happened? Insta-ban. They didnt wait for tournaments to see if it really dominated, it was just obviously too good. Metaknight is obviously too good. Explanation below.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I have never said that we have to wait 'til it's proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I'm saying that it's not proven at all yet. It's like we're expecting him to commit a crime so we arrest him despite our evidence being only circumstancial and mostly speculation.

Gouki had blatant qualities that made it obvious to ban him. Why did people wait longer than 3 months (because that's around as long as Meta-Knight has been known to be the best character in the game)? Because it would be hasty to immediately ban him before having tried to develop the metagame, and this is with such a blatantly broken character as Meta-Knight.

Ivy's infinite is blatantly too good. One hit and you win the round. That's not the case with Meta-Knight, he's not blatantly "I pick Meta, I win". No, you have not proven it.

He has one move that does 15% and has high mobility plus priority to beat about 3/4ths of the games entire moveset. His up B can be done on reaction basically to cut through any approach. Glide attack is not beaten by any other movie, he has the best edge guard game, HE CAN FLY (twice), He has no bad matchups, no even matchups, everybody is starting to switch to metaknight because their character simply isnt worth playing because they lose badly to metaknight. He has no disadvantages in general. His only disadvantage is that he still has a hitbox, he can still be hit.

Oh wait, you can take that away too.

1) He has one move that does 15%? Oh, horrible. Ban everyone then because pretty much everyone has that. Why is this even a point to whine one?
2) He does not have magical priority that beats out 3/4ths of the game's entire moveset.
3) His Up B can be done in reaction? Too bad, this is Brawl. We have to camp, we cannot leave blatant holes while approaching. Many KO moves can be done on reaction for botched approaches.
4) Says you. Not everyone agrees he has no even matchups.
5) Most characters do not "lose badly" to Meta-Knight. They... do... not.
6) He is light and has no projectile, those are disadvantages.
7) Stop using the Infinity Cape as an argument. It is banned.

You can talk hypotheticals all you want, but you simply dont have the empirical evidence to support it. The metagame has evidence to support metaknight is too good because he is the most dominant force.

You're making the assumption that we will never find a way to beat Meta-Knight and that he'll become too good. You've actually used sentences like "We're seeing a trend that he'll one day become..." or something like that.

He's not yet too good. Banning him now is premature because he has yet to reach the state or even come close to reaching the stage where he has to be banned.

Well in a community that spawned directly out of the melee scene practically, we have to assume alot of these people dominating with him are good. He is dominating because he is good. Characters become popular because he is good.

Prove it instead of pointing towards him beind popular. Drop the popular argument. Prove that he's "too good".

Its still there. Snake, Falco, and D3 can all be beaten by ROB, Wario, Pit, Marth, game and watch, probably Luigi... and then you'd have other character that can still do somewhat well. Mario gets raaaaaped by metaknight, but can at least stand a chance of winning versus the rest. With Metaknight, game and watch, snake a little. and Reflex's wario, and thats about it for characters even worth spending time with.

Says you. How does Meta-Knight magically **** Mario, yet the others do not? And Meta-Knight does not 7-3 most of the game's characters. Stop acting like he does. With Meta-Knight around, everyone else besides 3 characters do not magically become unviable. They just have one more disadvantaged matchup.

My argument isnt that its because they are unwinnable, its that it becomes so much more fair. Get snake off the stage with metaknight and its over. Mario is actually completely unplayable really vs Metaknight. Bet Lucario would be doing alot better (Azen had to switch from Lucario against M2K's MK at a recent tournament... he went to metaknight)

Life isn't fair. We cannot maximize fairness. We can only ban things when things become way too unfair.

Snake gets gimped by several people's edgeguarding. But then again, Meta-Knight gets gimped by Snake's many high-damage high-knockback BS moves. Ooouh, Azen had to switch from Lucario. This must be unrefutable proof of that Lucario has a really bad matchup against Meta-Knight!

I already stated what I think the cost to gain ration is.

And I think you're wrong.

I will also say one general comment about popularity.

The reason why he is so popular is because he is the best. He has very little risk and absurdly high reward with little effort. His entire playstyle is bereft of mindgames. simply observation will give you the best strategy. This is a competitive fighter as it stands now, characters just dont miraculously become popular. In every fighting game, people gravitate towards certain characters because they are good. Brawl is no exception.

Prove that he's the best. You can't say "He's popular! Because he's the best! There's your proof!". High reward with little effort doesn't mean much if you're not winning by leaps and bounds. NTSC Sheik has tons more matchups that are horrendously in her favour in Melee than Meta-Knight and she's got, um, what Fox as a "counter" at 5-4? She wins with very little effort, very little risk and high reward on pretty much any move hitting.

Just because he plays differently and you have to play differently against him does not mean we have to ban him.

And stop saying "he's popular, ergo he must be too good"! Proof that he's "too good", not that he's popular with the assumption that popularity = "too good".

I don't care.

I'm referring to the scene as a whole here, so anyone's personal preference isn't really applicable.

The scene as a whole seems to agree on that Donkey, Snake and Diddy give Meta-Knight a run for his money with many considering them to be 5-5s.

I do not consider a neatural matchup a counter pick and if a character has no counterpicks then I agree he should be banned.

In Melee, the Top 4 pretty much only counterpicked each other with one matchup each where it was just a 5-4, which means very small disadvantage. It wasn't countering, it was just counterpicking. It was pretty much like in Brawl.

You make it sound as though tier lists are some complicated science only a select few people can interpret. How exactly can you be 'educated' on tier lists? It's not like there's a degree in it.

You don't seem to get it. You rambled on about not understand why Tier Lists exist, not how you make one. And you made BS assumptions and accusations and I mocked you for me.

Explain to me what exactly is the purpose of a tier list if it isn't applied to anything?

Explain to me the exact purpose of anything when not applied to anything?

If no one applies it to tournaments, but instead they just ban individual characters, one has to question whether the tier list is being made just for sake of a tier list being made, hence, why one should even exist at all.

So because it can be used for "stupid stuff", it must be bad? Ban cars.

I notice you removed your signature for this post, but most of us aren't idiots and can read your signature from all the other posts you've made.

I notice you haven't been around these boards much. When you "Quick Reply", the board automatically sets your sig to not show. You have to tick a box for that and I'll too lazy and forgetful to do it most of the time.

The fact of the matter is you carry yourself in such a snobbish and élitist way, and wouldn't accept anyone else's opinion even if there was a proper reason for banning MK anyway.

It's not snobbish and elitist to be against stupidity. Ignorance is fine, but stupidity is bad. The difference between ignorance and stupidity is:
Ignorance: I don't know why Tier Lists exist. Why do they exist?
Stupidity: I don't know why they exist, but I'll make BS assumptions about it and why they're used and use them to argue a stupid point!

 

[XIF]

I'm going to say this one more time Yuna because you seem to fail to understand that a fighting games metagame is quite similar to its own living entity.

Yes, it is a legitimate argument to say that he is popular because he is good. Maybe you don't understand how games evolve. Everyone at the top level is ****ed serious about being good at this game. As in any other scenes. The natural trend is that top players will gravitate towards top characters. You act as if Meta Knight became popular by chance. Its a silly "correlation, not causation" argument. It is causation. Metaknight is popular because he is too good.

You act like Brawl came out yesterday as well. I wont argue that we've learned everything, and for the first 4 months I argued til exaughstion to not jump the gun on anything. But after nine months, it seems like we've gotten to the point where we can make educated assumptions on the direction of the metagame. I dunno about you, but i've been playing Brawl since day one of japanese release. You cannot make the argument that we've only known metaknight to be the best for 3 months and thats how much experience we have. Its been 9 months, we've explored many other facets of the game aside from metaknight which can lead to an educated conclusion.

If you do not see the on paper and empirical aspects of metaknight that make him too good then we really have nothing further to discuss. You have to be aware of the multitude of players literally just dropping previous mains to pick up metaknight and starting out at least as well as they did after months of practice with other characters. I dont know how familiar you are the the US scene, but its just depressing to see this progression towards metaknight. 2 months ago everyone mocked me for wanting to ban metaknight, and now in the backroom the disucssion is a very serious one. Everyone back there seems to be in agreement that metaknight certainly doesnt have any even matchups (except mew2king, but he said marth wasnt that good in Melee <_<)

Another thing from my backroom posts:

It seems you want to compare the top tier dominance of melee with metaknight, But the difference here is that instead of 4 characters being top tier there is one. THE number 1 consideration when entering tournaments is brawl is how I will do against metaknight. In melee at the very least your consideration was always at the absolute very least Fox, Falco, Marth, Sheik. Even sometimes you had to worry about other characters (IC's could definitely take the top 4, but peach is almost impossible). There are always best characters in a game but it should never be to the point where its One character significantly better than everyone else. When you have just 1 or 2 characters far and away better it deserves a ban. Anything past that and I think we can just call it a tier list.

Your solution to the problem is the exact reason why I think it should be banned in the first place. The metagame shouldnt have to resort to a mad scramble to figure out metaknight. It's just not right to have our entire focus be on one character, and that is why it warrants a ban. While everyone is starting to focus more and more heavily on metaknight, it seems like the only solution we have is to simply concentrate more on one singular character. This is how fighting games die, when the entire focus is put into a very narrow scope of the game. It doesnt necessarily need to be a character. If a game boiled down to one absurdly overpowered tactic, it either be banned or it would die (wasnt that the case in Soul Calibur 3 with Guard Impacts?) Tactics that become the sole focus of the game if allowed should be banned, because all that happens is that it turns into a fight of that strong tactics versus itself and nothing more. This is the same with metaknight, you're grossly reducing the scope of a game that would otherwise have a much larger depth by keeping metaknight.

--------------------------

PS: Life isnt fair, but this is a fighting game, we have the power to make it at least somewhat fair. Banning isnt always just a last resort guys, sometimes you really need to just do it for the better of the community.

 

[Yuna]

I'm going to say this one more time Yuna because you seem to fail to understand that a fighting games metagame is quite similar to its own living entity.

Yes, it is a legitimate argument to say that he is popular because he is good. Maybe you don't understand how games evolve. Everyone at the top level is ****ed serious about being good at this game. As in any other scenes. The natural trend is that top players will gravitate towards top characters. You act as if Meta Knight became popular by chance. Its a silly "correlation, not causation" argument. It is causation. Metaknight is popular because he is too good.

I'm only going to say this one more time because you seem to fail at comprehending basic English (yes, I went there).

In order to ban Meta-Knight, you must prove that he's "too good". Proving that he's popular and then pointing at that fact and going "He must be popular because he's 'too good'!" is not proof of him being "too good"! While they are undoubtedly linked, why can't you simply just proof that he's "too good"? Why must you stoop to proving something else linking it to him being "too good"?

Prove that he's too good, not that he's popular. Prove why he's popular, not that he is just is and then saying "Well, it must be because he's 'too god''!".

You act like Brawl came out yesterday as well.

No, I do not.

I wont argue that we've learned everything, and for the first 4 months I argued til exaughstion to not jump the gun on anything. But after nine months, it seems like we've gotten to the point where we can make educated assumptions on the direction of the metagame.

Funny, 3-4 months ago, Snake was dominating the scene. People were making the same assumptions about him as they are making about Meta-Knight now. Oh, Snake is the best character in the game, oh, the meta-game will never evolve, oh, he's just too good, oh we'll never find a way to beat him and he'll just keep racking up win after win and his meta-game will evolve while everyone else's will be stagnated because people will flock to him.

And now, Meta-Knight has taken over, developed ways to beat Snake (although that is contested) and now Meta-Knight is heralded as the best character in the game. So you see, with your logic, we should've just banned Snake 4 months ago because, after all, we could've made educated assumptions in the direction of the metagame.

No, really, has the metagame really progressed so far within these last few months that we couldn't possibly have predicted it 3-4 months ago but we can now? This is why I say it's too early to ban Meta-Knight.

I dunno about you, but i've been playing Brawl since day one of japanese release.

Week one for me.

You cannot make the argument that we've only known metaknight to be the best for 3 months and thats how much experience we have. Its been 9 months, we've explored many other facets of the game aside from metaknight which can lead to an educated conclusion.

You seem to not be grasping what I'm arguing: The metagame is constantly evolving. 3-4 months ago, we didn't think Meta-Knight was the best. At that moment, the metagame was at a point where Meta-Knight was 2nd (or even 3rd best according to some) best with Snake heralded as the 2nd coming of Hello Kitty. For 5+ months, Snake remained at the top and we made educated conclusions.

Nevertheless, we never allowed our conclusions to be taken as facts and banned him because of them! Because in only a few short months, Snake has been knocked off his throne into 2nd place! Who knows what will happen in 3-4 more months? What if Meta-Knight is knocked down into 2nd place or at least has to face more even and possibly even disadvantaged matchups?

Because the metagame is constantly evolving. You argue that because Meta-Knight is so good, people will flock to him more, neglecting all other characters, thus their metagames won't develop. Well, if we ban Meta-Knight, no one will play him in a tournament setting, thus, no strategies will be developed to beat him, thus, he's practically banned for life.

This is why it's premature. Educated guesses at this point in time is not enough for banning him. At this writing moment, he shouldn't be banned (I am not nor have I ever, however, claimed that he will never be banned).

If you do not see the on paper and empirical aspects of metaknight that make him too good then we really have nothing further to discuss.

Yes, because since I disagree with you, I must be wrong.

You have to be aware of the multitude of players literally just dropping previous mains to pick up metaknight and starting out at least as well as they did after months of practice with other characters.

Yes, he's popular. Whoopity doo. Also, once you reach a certain level, practicing in Training Mode, reading on SWF and watching videos is actually enough to carry you to a certain level.

Overswarm has been a top player since Brawl's Japanese release. Then he picked up Meta-Knight and did quite well as Meta-Knight. What does this mean? Oh, can't it just mean that Overswarm already had extensive knowledge of Brawl, of the strengths and weaknesses of all characters so he applied that knowledge to his new main, which he'd practiced with and seen people play as?

Yes, Meta-Knight is easier to play technically than many characters and has an easier time winning. Yes, you can get him to the same level as, say, your Mario with much less prep time. But this doesn't automatically make him overpowered, it just makes him easier to use.

He has to be so "easy to win" that he's the only viable character. Him being "easy to use" and popular does not mean he's overpowered.

Stick to proving that he's overpowered instead of trying to strawman yourself to victory by proving similar things and going "See, proof of overpoweredness!".

I dont know how familiar you are the the US scene, but its just depressing to see this progression towards metaknight. 2 months ago everyone mocked me for wanting to ban metaknight, and now in the backroom the disucssion is a very serious one. Everyone back there seems to be in agreement that metaknight certainly doesnt have any even matchups (except mew2king, but he said marth wasnt that good in Melee <_<)

Serious discussion is warranted. Serious discussion is needed. Serious discussion on this particular subject is good. But at this writing moment, Meta-Knight has not yet tapped into the "too good"-well so far that he needs to be banned.

That's where we differ. You think (or so I gather from your post) that he should be banned now or at least A.S.A.P. I say that while he's good, he is yet "too good" unless we're just gonna guess the future of the meta-game and base our bans on that. He has not yet come even close to becoming "too good":

Thus, it's too early to ban him.

It seems you want to compare the top tier dominance of melee with metaknight, But the difference here is that instead of 4 characters being top tier there is one. THE number 1 consideration when entering tournaments is brawl is how I will do against metaknight. In melee at the very least your consideration was always at the absolute very least Fox, Falco, Marth, Sheik. Even sometimes you had to worry about other characters (IC's could definitely take the top 4, but peach is almost impossible). There are always best characters in a game but it should never be to the point where its One character significantly better than everyone else. When you have just 1 or 2 characters far and away better it deserves a ban. Anything past that and I think we can just call it a tier list.

Faulty logic. Plenty of characters have to worry about more than just Meta-Knight. Despite your claims otherwise, Snake, D3, Marth, Wario and R.O.B. present a significant threat to the majority of the cast. In fact, some of them are worse matchups for some characters than Meta-Knight.

When picking any characters who's not Meta or one of the aforementioned, one will most usually have to worry about at least half of them because one has disadvantaged matchups against them. It is not a question of worrying strictly about Meta-Knight. Removing Meta-Knight won't magically make otherwise unviable characters viable because they're unviable for a reason, they're just not that good.

There is no character (prove to me how Mario has a horrendous matchup against Meta and no one else) that is rendered unviable simply because of Meta-Knight.

Your solution to the problem is the exact reason why I think it should be banned in the first place. The metagame shouldnt have to resort to a mad scramble to figure out metaknight. It's just not right to have our entire focus be on one character, and that is why it warrants a ban.

It's not, it's just that since Meta-Knight is the best character, people ignore the fact that there are plenty of other characters which have very good matchups against the rest of the cast. So Snake has a few bad matchups, what about the ones where he just *****? Why are they gone? Why is it all about how well you can play against Meta when you still have to contend with the amount of Suprise Anal Sex Snake will present to you?

There's also G&W who distinctly lacks any really bad matchup AFAIK. Then follows Marth, who likewise doesn't have any horrendous matchups. Then follows D3 who chaingrabs a great part of the cast into infinity. And Robot is just... Robot. These are all characters which together render many others unviable.

It's about how well you can do against all of them, not just Meta-Knight. It's just that even if you have good matchups against all of those other characters (which is very, very rare), you will still only, at best, go 5-5 against Meta-Knight. But that's only true for a handful of characters.

The rest are unviable anyway because they still can't deal with the others in Top (and some Highs). And the fact remains that Meta-Knight 5-5s to 6-4s in most of his matchups and 6-4 isn't so horrendous a matchup!

While everyone is starting to focus more and more heavily on metaknight, it seems like the only solution we have is to simply concentrate more on one singular character. This is how fighting games die, when the entire focus is put into a very narrow scope of the game.

People are abandoning other characters because they want an easy win, thus they pick Meta-Knight. Yes, this is bad, but we can't ban him simply for being popular. He has to be "too good".

Now, let me explain this again:
* Meta-Knight is good.
* Meta-Knight is the best character in the game.
* Meta-Knight has no bad matchups
* Meta-Knight has a few even ones (though you, apparently, disagree)
* Meta-Knight does not hard-counter everyone, he just has an advantage most of the time

Now, none of these are reason enough to automatically ban him.
* People flock to Meta-Knight

If we add this, is it reason enough to ban him? So before people started flocking to him, he wasn't "too good", but since people are flocking to him, he's "forcing" people to abandon other characters, thus concentrating the metagame on him, thus he needs to be banned?

We cannot just go "He's too popular!" and ban him, we must first prove that he's "too good". Yes, people flock to him because they think "he's too good", but is he actually "too good"?

It doesnt necessarily need to be a character. If a game boiled down to one absurdly overpowered tactic, it either be banned or it would die (wasnt that the case in Soul Calibur 3 with Guard Impacts?)

Funny, Guard Impacts have existed since Sooru Caaribaa Uone (and possibly Sooru Braade) and with each successive game has become harder to do. GIs did not kill Sooru Caribaa Suree, Variable Cancels and horrendous balance did. The game was just unplayable because it was so thoroughly broken.

Tactics that become the sole focus of the game if allowed should be banned, because all that happens is that it turns into a fight of that strong tactics versus itself and nothing more. This is the same with metaknight, you're grossly reducing the scope of a game that would otherwise have a much larger depth by keeping metaknight.

Because he's popular. Seriously, the only reason why the game is being limited is because of player choice. People are flocking to Meta-Knight, yay for him. Boo, we have to face more Meta-Knights in tournaments.

But we must look to why he's popular, not that he just is. Why is he popular? Is it because he's "too good"? Simply being popular and thus reducing the metagame to revolve around him through sheer player choice is not enough to ban him.

Again I ask, if everyone started maining, say, Lucario tomorrow, would you advocate a ban on him?

PS: Life isnt fair, but this is a fighting game, we have the power to make it at least somewhat fair. Banning isnt always just a last resort guys, sometimes you really need to just do it for the better of the community.

What I mean is that life isn't completely fair and neither are fighting games. And IMO, Meta-Knight does not "unfair" the game so much he has to be banned. Banning entire characters should always be the last resort.

Banning him just for convenience would be idiotic.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Now, let me explain this again:
* Meta-Knight is good.
* Meta-Knight is the best character in the game.
* Meta-Knight has no bad matchups
* Meta-Knight has a few even ones (though you, apparently, disagree)
* Meta-Knight does not hard-counter everyone, he just has an advantage most of the time

MK having even ones is highly debatable. The characters, who have "neutral" match-ups are still at a slight disadvantage, like 45:55. The only one, who might have a truly neutral match-up is Yoshi with his release grab stuff...

MK does indeed not hard counter everybody. But he does hard counter everyone except Falco (who has only 1 hard counter - GaW), King Dedede (who still has a 40:60 disadvantage), maybe Mr GaW (MK is his 3rd worst match-up after Marth an TL) and Reflex' Wario (has has no disadvantage at all...).

MK either IS a hard counter or among the 3 worst match-ups of every character.

 

[Yuna]

MK having even ones is highly debatable. The characters, who have "neutral" match-ups are still at a slight disadvantage, like 45:55. The only one, who might have a truly neutral match-up is Yoshi with his release grab stuff...

MK does indeed not hard counter everybody. But he does hard counter everyone except Falco (who has only 1 hard counter - GaW), King Dedede (who still has a 40:60 disadvantage), maybe Mr GaW (MK is his 3rd worst match-up after Marth an TL) and Reflex' Wario (has has no disadvantage at all...).

MK either IS a hard counter or among the 3 worst match-ups of every character.

Many disagree on the matchups being 45:55s instead of 50:50s. Also, many consider 45:55 to be "Neutral". I fall into the first category.

MK hard countesr everyone except for the aforementioned now, you say? What do you count as a hardcounter?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

By my own definition: A hard counter is everything, that has more than a 60:40 adv. Yes that means that MK does have a 65:36 adv over Snake and DK imo. Feel free to disagree with me. I don't have as much experience on match-up's as others do but I'm sure, that these advantages become apparent soon enough - especially in tournaments

 

[Master Raven]

There is NO WAY MK has a 65:35 advantage over Snake. No way; like I said, Snake's only disadvantage of the matchup is his gimpable recovery, and most of the cast can easily gimp Snake to death. DK I also do not believe is 65:35 but I don't have a final opinion on that matchup yet, although at the moment I think it's 50:50.

 

[Yuna]

By my own definition: A hard counter is everything, that has more than a 60:40 adv. Yes that means that MK does have a 65:36 adv over Snake and DK imo. Feel free to disagree with me. I don't have as much experience on match-up's as others do but I'm sure, that these advantages become apparent soon enough - especially in tournaments

Is disagree. A lot.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Feel free to do so...

 

[Aldwyn McCloud]

I'm going to say this one more time Yuna because you seem to fail to understand that a fighting games metagame is quite similar to its own living entity.

Yes, it is a legitimate argument to say that he is popular because he is good. Maybe you don't understand how games evolve. Everyone at the top level is ****ed serious about being good at this game. As in any other scenes. The natural trend is that top players will gravitate towards top characters. You act as if Meta Knight became popular by chance. Its a silly "correlation, not causation" argument. It is causation. Metaknight is popular because he is too good.

You act like Brawl came out yesterday as well. I wont argue that we've learned everything, and for the first 4 months I argued til exaughstion to not jump the gun on anything. But after nine months, it seems like we've gotten to the point where we can make educated assumptions on the direction of the metagame. I dunno about you, but i've been playing Brawl since day one of japanese release. You cannot make the argument that we've only known metaknight to be the best for 3 months and thats how much experience we have. Its been 9 months, we've explored many other facets of the game aside from metaknight which can lead to an educated conclusion.

If you do not see the on paper and empirical aspects of metaknight that make him too good then we really have nothing further to discuss. You have to be aware of the multitude of players literally just dropping previous mains to pick up metaknight and starting out at least as well as they did after months of practice with other characters. I dont know how familiar you are the the US scene, but its just depressing to see this progression towards metaknight. 2 months ago everyone mocked me for wanting to ban metaknight, and now in the backroom the disucssion is a very serious one. Everyone back there seems to be in agreement that metaknight certainly doesnt have any even matchups (except mew2king, but he said marth wasnt that good in Melee <_<)

Another thing from my backroom posts:

It seems you want to compare the top tier dominance of melee with metaknight, But the difference here is that instead of 4 characters being top tier there is one. THE number 1 consideration when entering tournaments is brawl is how I will do against metaknight. In melee at the very least your consideration was always at the absolute very least Fox, Falco, Marth, Sheik. Even sometimes you had to worry about other characters (IC's could definitely take the top 4, but peach is almost impossible). There are always best characters in a game but it should never be to the point where its One character significantly better than everyone else. When you have just 1 or 2 characters far and away better it deserves a ban. Anything past that and I think we can just call it a tier list.

Your solution to the problem is the exact reason why I think it should be banned in the first place. The metagame shouldnt have to resort to a mad scramble to figure out metaknight. It's just not right to have our entire focus be on one character, and that is why it warrants a ban. While everyone is starting to focus more and more heavily on metaknight, it seems like the only solution we have is to simply concentrate more on one singular character. This is how fighting games die, when the entire focus is put into a very narrow scope of the game. It doesnt necessarily need to be a character. If a game boiled down to one absurdly overpowered tactic, it either be banned or it would die (wasnt that the case in Soul Calibur 3 with Guard Impacts?) Tactics that become the sole focus of the game if allowed should be banned, because all that happens is that it turns into a fight of that strong tactics versus itself and nothing more. This is the same with metaknight, you're grossly reducing the scope of a game that would otherwise have a much larger depth by keeping metaknight.

--------------------------

PS: Life isnt fair, but this is a fighting game, we have the power to make it at least somewhat fair. Banning isnt always just a last resort guys, sometimes you really need to just do it for the better of the community.

at this point I pretty much figured out what I needed to know.. and I care about only one thing else. M2K's opinion (or any other TOP pro players'). If you (as a BRoomer) can provide us with posts from those players, it'd be nice.

 

[The Slayer]

Well, that's a shame for Italy's Smash community. Their development of the meta-game is going to be uncreditable & slow once they host their next tourney.

 

[HRNUT (Honey Roasted)]

i played alot of mks with my snake and the match up is 55:45 in favor of snake because his only weakness is being in the air, if snake stays grounded then he's able to **** mk for the most part...

 

[Master Raven]

I think a 55:45 advantage over MK is arguable, but for now I definitely think it's even.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Nono. That's an old story. That only happens to MKs, who "jump into the ****"

 

[.Marik]

Italy barely has Tournaments anyways, so it's not that big of a deal. :\

 

[Chis]

Seriously though, you know Metaknight WILL get banned right? Even though I don't want him to but after reading this whole thread I'm pretty sure he'll be gone. Let's hope I wrong.

Also stop taking the p*** out of Italy!

 

[M@v]

*appluades yuma's posts*


Mks "Worst" matchups are DK, Snake, marth, MK ditto(yeah, a ditto match is probably one of his worst fights, go figure)and possibly lucario and falco(b/c of the cg).

After that though, having a slight disadvantage against mk is a good thing. Characters like
G&W, fox, toon link, and diddy kong, do better than most, but are STILL at a disadvantage.

I'm not going to lie. When I go to tournies, I use fox, but guess who my second is? MK. He can take on any of fox's counter picks with no major issues, except maybe marth, g&w, and falco. I play DDD and Lucario as well, but I never need them between the matchups im good with fox on, and all the other ones that MK takes care of....

I think it bogus that MK can take out everyone without any SERIOUS problems(3:7 matchups), but when you go to a serious tournament, you play to WIN. And that is what MK does, win.

Mk doesn't deserve a ban....yet. If brawl was out for a year, year and a half, and this was still the case, then maybe. But its way too early to tell. People thought snake was broken for the 1st couple months of brawl and needed banned, until they discovered how good mk was.

 

[Affinity]

Seriously though, you know Metaknight WILL get banned right?

No, no he won't.

 

[XIF]

i played alot of mks with my snake and the match up is 55:45 in favor of snake because his only weakness is being in the air, if snake stays grounded then he's able to **** mk for the most part...

because its just that simple to stay on the ground vs MK <_<;

 

[Draconian]

Bwah... that's so rediculous I can't see straight. MetaKnight is great, and I don't play as him, but banning him from tournaments? People living in Italy must be freaking.

 

[BacklashMarth]

*appluades yuma's posts*


Mks "Worst" matchups are DK, Snake, marth, MK ditto(yeah, a ditto match is probably one of his worst fights, go figure)and possibly lucario and falco(b/c of the cg).

After that though, having a slight disadvantage against mk is a good thing. Characters like
G&W, fox, toon link, and diddy kong, do better than most, but are STILL at a disadvantage.

I'm not going to lie. When I go to tournies, I use fox, but guess who my second is? MK. He can take on any of fox's counter picks with no major issues, except maybe marth, g&w, and falco. I play DDD and Lucario as well, but I never need them between the matchups im good with fox on, and all the other ones MK that takes care of....

I think it bogus that MK can take out everyone without any SERIOUS problems(3:7 matchups), but when you go to a serious tournament, you play to WIN. And that is what MK does, win.

Mk doesn't deserve a ban....yet. If brawl was out for a year, year and a half, and this was still the case, then maybe. But its way too early to tell. People thought snake was broken for the 1st couple months of brawl and needed banned, until they discovered how good mk was.

Well having MK as ur 2nd is a good strategy to go in and win a tournament, but that raises a laughable and failing scenario in my head. If everyone who entered a tournament used MK as their alternate then wouldnt it just become a touney of MKs?

Ficticious scenario:

Falco Main: Aww man i gotta face M2K next round. Hey, I know! I will switch to MK and that'll show em.

M2K: Oh s***, i gotta face that Falco Main next round. I'm definetly using MK.

(the match starts and both M2k and Falco Main choose MK)
<end scene>

This may seem ridiculous to you but it could happen. I sorta do like the idea of using MK as a trump card, but in a way by "becoming my enemy to defeat my enemy" i have already failed.

 

[Aran]

HOBO 10 results:

1: Stiltz (olimar/meta)=over 800$
2: D4vA (meta/snake)=over 200$
3: Dojo (Meta)=over 100$
4: DMG (wario)
5: Gnes (kirby)
5: Hylian (Gw)
7: Sandtrap (meta)
7: PowerNap (ddd)
9: Xyro (SAMUS!!!!!!!)
9: RoyR (marth)
9: Infinity (meta)

For those of you that don't get it, allow me to elaborate.
Meta
Meta
Meta
____
____
____
Meta
____
____
Meta

Oh no, Meta is of course not in an advantageous position to win this tournament.


However, that being said, I will not call judgment on whether or not Meta should be banned until this forum finishes the matchup thread. If they do and they find that there are zero matchups that drop below 50-50, we have a problem. A really big problem. That means that theoretically speaking there'd be no better counter to meta than meta. Plus it gives time for possible counter-Meta strategies to appear. However, if this does end up happening, then I'd support a ban.

 

[AME2]

Italy is going to get so wrecked outside their own country.

 

[dawgbowl]

I'm curious to see how this works out, if its good for the game we'll clearly know within a couple months.

 

[Yuna]

However, that being said, I will not call judgment on whether or not Meta should be banned until this forum finishes the matchup thread. If they do and they find that there are zero matchups that drop below 50-50, we have a problem. A really big problem. That means that theoretically speaking there'd be no better counter to meta than meta. Plus it gives time for possible counter-Meta strategies to appear. However, if this does end up happening, then I'd support a ban.

But if he had a 5-4 or 6-4, then it'd suddenly be OK? Seriously, in Melee, several characters had at worst 5-5s except for maybe one or two matchups where they had a 5-4. They weren't magically a lot less viable than Meta-Knight because of it! And you're still forcing people to play as that one character or their 1-2 counterpicks, same as with Meta.

 

[Master Raven]

However, that being said, I will not call judgment on whether or not Meta should be banned until this forum finishes the matchup thread. If they do and they find that there are zero matchups that drop below 50-50, we have a problem. A really big problem. That means that theoretically speaking there'd be no better counter to meta than meta. Plus it gives time for possible counter-Meta strategies to appear. However, if this does end up happening, then I'd support a ban.

I really don't see the big deal if he has no below-neutral matchups. IIRC it would certainly NOT be the first time we've dealt with a character in a fighting game who's worst matchups are neutral.

 

[HRNUT (Honey Roasted)]

because its just that simple to stay on the ground vs MK <_<;

i don't have any problems staying grounded, just protect the air with grenades and many other things at your disposal, its really not that bad...ask m2k , he had problems with me and afro because he couldn't really keep us in the air, so it was a hard fight for both sides...so i guess i could say that is a 50:50 match up if every mk plays like him lol

 

[Aran]

It's not magically 5-4 or 6-4. If metaknight's worst matchup is metaknight, then that means that logically, to win a tournament, that the best shot would be for everyone to play a metaknight. While that'll never happen because people WANT to play their own characters, the fact that that happens certainly means that metaknight has an advantage that is unfair. Like I said, I don't think we've reached that point, and I don't think we will, but if it does, I think THAT should be the point where he is considered too unfair and not wait for someone to come along and prove that he is completely and utterly unbeatable, as it APPEARS that that is what you're waiting for. That will never happen, flat out. People aren't perfect, so metaknight will never take every single top prize in every single tournament.

 

[Kiwikomix]

But if he had a 5-4 or 6-4, then it'd suddenly be OK? Seriously, in Melee, several characters had at worst 5-5s except for maybe one or two matchups where they had a 5-4. They weren't magically a lot less viable than Meta-Knight because of it! And you're still forcing people to play as that one character or their 1-2 counterpicks, same as with Meta.

Not that I support banning, but I just noticed this...
So if there's several better characters in Melee, then it's entirely possible for you to simply choose one of those better characters to fight the other better character, correct? This isn't possible in Brawl, because there's really no one at MK's level yet.