Official Metaknight Discussion

[Chuee]

G&W can now time out the entire cast. This calls for a ban.

 

[RDK]

He obviously overcentralizes and will no doubt dominate tournaments.

 

[_Keno_]

Replace "idiot" with "jerk" and you've described my strategy for the past few years.

You are my inspiration.


Really, you are.

 

[Overswarm]

OS I'd better see a reply to all that **** I typed up lol.

I generally do the longer posts at work, I just look at smashboards and post snippits when at home randomly. I got ish to doooooooooo.

But not really. I'm bored a lot.

 

[RDK]

I generally do the longer posts at work, I just look at smashboards and post snippits when at home randomly. I got ish to doooooooooo.

But not really. I'm bored a lot.

IIRC you still owe me a money match from that ridiculous Indiana tourney I ended up going to. The one where someone randomly won as Bowser?

Anyway I'm saving up for the next big tourney, I expect an MK ditto.

 

[Kaffei]

He obviously overcentralizes and will no doubt dominate tournaments.

But why is that bad?

 

[Espy Rose]

First, the meta game.
Then, our food:

 

[Kaffei]

First, the meta game.
Then, our food:

What the..................

 

[Overswarm]

IIRC you still owe me a money match from that ridiculous Indiana tourney I ended up going to. The one where someone randomly won as Bowser?

Anyway I'm saving up for the next big tourney, I expect an MK ditto.

Have noooooooo idea what yer talkin' about.

The only bowser that would have ever won would have been kishsquared, but he didn't stop playing until I mained MK and he never beat my ROB in the finals.... so I dunno what you're referencing XD



As a placeholder, I give you this:

Metaknight can go into another dimension. Top that.

 

[etecoon]

First, the meta game.
Then, our food:

OS did promise a meta knight cake if he was banned

...

THE CAKE IS A LIE

 

[HeroMystic]

That actually looks pretty freaken awesome.

 

[Overswarm]

He hasn't been banned yet.

I think I promised one individual that I'd write a song if MK was banned. I promised many things.

 

[etecoon]

He hasn't been banned yet.

I was referencing portal -_-

btw meta knight broken ban him</attempt at staying on topic>

 

[Turbo Ether]

Questions for anti-ban:

The best way to combat MK, is obviously by picking MK. If 50% of national/regional tournament sets degenerated into MK dittos, would you be completely fine with that?

If you're fine with that, at what point do you say, "you know what, the metagame is too MK centric, and something needs to be done"? Or, would you also be fine with 100% of national/regional tournament sets being MK dittos?

 

[Overswarm]

I was referencing portal -_-

btw meta knight broken ban him</attempt at staying on topic>

I wasn't, I actually did promise a cake >_>

 

[etecoon]

I was aware, the cake is a lie is a portal reference

on topic: idk exactly with what frequency meta knight dittos would have to occur to make me think he needed to be banned more, but I will say that it's a really boring, stupid matchup that no one should want to see lol. I think the most solid reasoning for banning him is that a ledge grab limit does stop other characters from planking/stalling, meta knight can always evade these kinds of rules short of judges discretion on every game which is obviously impractical

 

[Spelt]

turbo ether makes a good point.
i think anti-banners should come up with a situation where it'll actually be okay to ban MK, so they can stop beating around the bush, otherwise nothing will ever be good (or bad) enough to ban him.

 

[Sorto]

Again, define broken.

Our defintions of broken may not be equal. I actually don't assume them to be. To be honest, I do not care if they are or not. I don't care what your definition is. I just wish to know, using your definition of broken, if MK in YOUR mind is broken. I want you opinion. Trust me, I know your opinion isn't fact. I was not asking for fact. I was asking for opinion. Why can't you answer it?

Ask me if I think MK is broken, and using my own personal opinion and definition of broken, I can easily tell you, that no I do not think he is broken. Ask any antiban person if they believe MK is broken and you can trust me, that they will answer no just like myself.

It is a simple question. Because as I have restated many times, I do not want a fact. When it comes to facts, I truly wouldn't trust you anyways. I am just asking for opinion. Which I assume you should have. Why do I want your opinion, because I have noticed that probanners reasons for wanting MK banned differ greatly, from one player to the next. Some truly believe he is BROKEN. My question again, is do you believe that? Or will you once again, cut out only a segment of my text and say "define broken". Because I have to tell you, no matter how many times you do it, it will never answer the question, it will never be witty, and it will never pretain to your opinion (key word being YOUR opinion)...

 

[ShadowLink84]

Sonic's bad. He's just not held down by his more difficult match ups, Meta Knight being the only exception.
Anywhatsits, this isn't the place to discuss it.

No you wormy little *******, get back here.

Your argument was that across the board Sonic has bad matchups.
If the only "good" matchups stem from those lower on the tierlist, then you have a hell of a time supporting your argument.
Why?
You state that his neutral/advantaged matchups are only from those below midtier level. With roughly a handful of "good matchups (read your post).
If this is true, then the 25+ disadvantaged matchups that you claim for him to have, would be enough to hold him down.
MK is the most popular yes, but even without him, the amount of matchups you claim are disadvantaged, would have been enough to suppress him ANYWAY.

This however, is contradicted by your second claim that MK is the only exception to his bad matchups that is popular.
This can only mean, his matchups are not as bad as you claim.
'


On topic: I hate MK. Ban him. *nods*

 

[CHOMPY]

How do we decide whos going to ban Metaknight?

 

[Palpi]

I Will Do It!!!!!!

 

[etecoon]

How do we decide whos going to ban Metaknight?

I'll rock paper scissors you for it this is about how useful this topic is lol, as I said before, it's a judgement call that most people aren't changing their minds on now

 

[wiitubeaccount]

Why Would Sakurai Make A Beastly Competitor In This Game And Also Introduce Noncompetitive Elements And Take Competitive Elements Away!!!!

 

[Dekar173]

Our defintions of broken may not be equal. I actually don't assume them to be. To be honest, I do not care if they are or not. I don't care what your definition is. I just wish to know, using your definition of broken, if MK in YOUR mind is broken. I want you opinion. Trust me, I know your opinion isn't fact. I was not asking for fact. I was asking for opinion. Why can't you answer it?

Ask me if I think MK is broken, and using my own personal opinion and definition of broken, I can easily tell you, that no I do not think he is broken. Ask any antiban person if they believe MK is broken and you can trust me, that they will answer no just like myself.

It is a simple question. Because as I have restated many times, I do not want a fact. When it comes to facts, I truly wouldn't trust you anyways. I am just asking for opinion. Which I assume you should have. Why do I want your opinion, because I have noticed that probanners reasons for wanting MK banned differ greatly, from one player to the next. Some truly believe he is BROKEN. My question again, is do you believe that? Or will you once again, cut out only a segment of my text and say "define broken". Because I have to tell you, no matter how many times you do it, it will never answer the question, it will never be witty, and it will never pretain to your opinion (key word being YOUR opinion)...

1) pretain =/= pertain

2) It is CLEAR that every proban person finds MK to either be broken or borderline broken, just as was stated by you, the opposite can be said about people with the opposing opinion.



What THEY are asking YOU is when you draw the line. Would you care if tourneys turned into 50% MK entrants, and if not would you care if it turned into 100% MK entrants?

When would it be alright in YOUR mind to ban MK? Clearly you're alright with items being banned, so when is it ok to ban MK as well?

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm reposting this from one of the earlier MK threads, slightly edited, since I didn't get a response last time.

Why is it this hard to define criteria for a ban? Do our criteria need to get approved by a ****ing panel of fighting game experts or something? This is our game. We can do whatever the hell we want with it. As soon as we went from time matches to stock matches, we proved that. We are a community of a couple thousand people who all play the same game competitively. Our "ban criteria" should be "if banning X overall benefits the community more than it hurts, then ban X." I don't see why it has to be more complicated than that.

This:

Probably 'cause pro-ban'll make criteria that fits MK exactly and anti-ban'll make criteria that's impossible for any character to match.

Give the man a medal, when people know what the result will be they will fit the criteria to their agenda.


That said, I've proposed basing one's proof exclusively on information that we don't already know (which is surprisingly easy since we know surprisingly little), that should alleviate the issue a lot, but it's not as good as going in fresh.

Just a quick question. Would dividing the number of tournament points received by the number of results create some sort of concentration? Like, average amount of points earned at at tourney? Which would give much heavier weight to larger tournies while at the same time accounting for number of results received. And that could lead to clearer conclusions on concentration.

Just a guess. Someone who knows what they're doing better than I do correct me if I'm wrong.

Too many players too low in the metagame, and practical concerns of actually reporting everyone.

turbo ether makes a good point.
i think anti-banners should come up with a situation where it'll actually be okay to ban MK, so they can stop beating around the bush, otherwise nothing will ever be good (or bad) enough to ban him.

Did you miss the entire criteria section. I've given mine, and several other anti-banners have, but it's been ignored.

 

[Sorto]

1) pretain =/= pertain

2) It is CLEAR that every proban person finds MK to either be broken or borderline broken, just as was stated by you, the opposite can be said about people with the opposing opinion.

What you said is not necessarily true. Just because anti banners believe MK to not be broken, does not guarentee that probanners believe him to be broken. Overcentralization is often a reason they feel he should be banned and thats all OS data has ever shown. Perhaps overcentralization to some means broken, idk. In an earlier post OS even stated that this argument is not about brokeness, its about banning. So thats why I asked him how he felt about MKs brokeness. So it is not CLEAR, how he feels! I never stated that a, "proban person finds MK to either be broken or borderline broken", you came to that conclusion incorrectly.

Here is a logic lesson:
Just because every shape with more than 4 sides WILL NEVER be a square, doesnt mean that every shapes with 4 or less sides will ALWAYS be a square. Please learn to understand logic my frend, b/c what you said is not logically true.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Did you miss the entire criteria section. I've given mine, and several other anti-banners have, but it's been ignored.

I actually did miss this.

 

[Dekar173]

What you said is not necessarily true. Just because anti banners believe MK to not be broken, does not guarentee that probanners believe him to be broken. Overcentralization is often a reason they feel he should be banned and thats all OS data has ever shown. Perhaps overcentralization to some means broken, idk. In an earlier post OS even stated that this argument is not about brokeness, its about banning. So thats why I asked him how he felt about MKs brokeness. So it is not CLEAR, how he feels! I never stated that a, "proban person finds MK to either be broken or borderline broken", you came to that conclusion incorrectly.

Here is a logic lesson:
Just because every shape with more than 4 sides WILL NEVER be a square, doesnt mean that every shapes with 4 or less sides will ALWAYS be a square. Please learn to understand logic my frend, b/c what you said is not logically true.

You made a blanket statement, which I replied to with my own. Everyone knows that when one makes a statement that's black or white, they're making a logical fallacy! Hell, even a kid I tutor was going over logical fallacies in seventh grade.

Now instead of sitting here attacking the argument rather than the issues themselves, how about an answer-

what scenario (no matter how ridiculously unrealistic) would make you change your mind and sway you to the pro-ban side?

If that scenario does not exist, I'm gonna go ahead and tell you right now- you're about as logical as a bible thumper my friend.

Why, if new discoveries were to change the metagame (and I don't mean buff MK ridiculously,) I would most certainly be on the fence once again about the ban debate.

 

[Spelt]

Did you miss the entire criteria section. I've given mine, and several other anti-banners have, but it's been ignored.

how about one that the majority agree upon.
i'd also like to hear some of the previous ones people were talking about when the last poll was done about a year ago.
i bet there's a couple we're getting close to/have already crossed.

you're about as logical as a bible thumper my friend.

lol, btw.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I feel like writing criteria, you guys can judge if MK fits it or not I;m just going to state criteria I've used for multiple games. It's pretty much very simular to things Sirlin has said and it's a bunch of points I wholly agree with.

To ban something it has to fit any of these three points.

1. It overcentralizes the game around itself. Centralization would be just be something that needs to be considered in many decisions when playing competitively. The game isn't entirely around it, but to ignore it is silly.

Think of it like top tiers in many games, you have to consider them because they are good, the game will be more focused around them but not to a degree where it is all that matters. overcentralization is the game is nothing but trying to play the said character and it's counters, and when I mean nothing I mean nothing else matters. Skullclamp did this for MTG, TeleDad did this in Yugioh, just for some examples. The percentage of overcentralization to ban the character can be anywhere from 50%-70%, depends on the tolerance of the community, any farther should have action taken immediately to stop it.

2. The character forces unhealthy gameplay. Normally these kinds of characters leads into point number 1, but sometimes there are multiple characters that can do these kinds of tactics. Lets say the game had 7 characters that were viable out of 20 only because all of these characters has infinites that they could do on the whole cast. Now this can create a good metagame, but many people find the gameplay of first hit wins to be rather ridiculous even more so when it cuts down diversity. You can balance these kinds of tactics, like having IC use an infinite but still allowing the entire cast the ability to play around the infinite.

3. The game is astronomically better without the character(s). The game needs to be able to improve greatly from the removal of one character. Will removing it allow many more characters to be more viable? If it does it to a high enough degree than yes. This is done more so to improve diversity to something that may not be broken, but the way it cuts diversity to huge levels may be a good reason for a ban.

I need to improve it, but this is what I think of ban criteria.

 

[Overswarm]

Doesn't MK already fit all that critera? XD

 

[Kuraudo]

Pretty much. lmao

 

[Crow!]

Yeah, all those criteria are satisfied. My emphasis is on "The game is astronomically better without the character." My favorite pro-ban argument is actually not whether MK is too good (which OS and Flayl (former anti-ban, no less) have conclusively shown he is) but that MK, and MK alone, makes the early Brawl vs. Melee arguments which claimed that Brawl was a bad competitive game, true.

Look up the whole "there's only one level of yomi" argument that claimed that Brawl was no better than a repeated game of rock, paper, scissors. Then look at each character's current metagame. The ONLY character for which this is the case is Metaknight; every other character's game changes a lot depending on the game's exact conditions.

Heck, even Jiggles has more stuff going on strategically than he does - at least she has up and down airs that are in some way different from her other A attacks, so approaching from different directions changes the game a little bit, and her general power level changes whether she's in the air or on the ground.

 

[rathy Aro]

True dat. This past weekend Alpha Zealot and I taught M2K what an instant throw was and how to do it. We also told him if you press "z" in the air you can catch items without air dodging, and you can hit "a" on the ground to catch bananas thrown at you. He was quite surprised. I'm sure it'll help his game.

how does m2k win at this game? lol

Then I suppose why should be playing master hand in melee?

I'm sorry, but if a character is "broken" there has to be some sort of reasoning to it, characters don't have the attribute "broken", they have a set of attributes that work together to identify them, and it's comparative to the metagame.


Criteria is to keep the community consistent so bans don't become a popularity contest and we only ban legitimately broken things while at the same time, not banning things that aren't broken.

True as that may be, it's not an issue now and has nothing to do with the metaknight ban, because mk is clearly not broken. No one could seriously make an arguement for that even if we had a set criteria. As I keep saying, anyone who wants to ban mk is going to have to find reasons we should ban things aside from brokenness.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Doesn't MK already fit all that critera? XD

I don't think MK fits criteria 1, alrhtough he is close to breaking it.

He may fit criteria 2.

Criteria 3 needs proof that more characters would see play.

 

[Airborne]

Wait, what's the problem with getting better? I mean, like you said, Ally and ADHD got better and can beat Meta Knight players. Are you saying that people like Ally and ADHD won't happen again? Is it because not all of our names start with A?

It appears that there's always something that starts with the letter A is an obvious counter to something that appears invincible. Tim Tebow? Alabama. Metaknight, Tim Tebow's younger brother? ADHD and Ally. Too bad ADHD and Ally aren't playable characters...

Edit: And for that matter, the brawl alphabet starts with BUHBUHBUHBOWSER.

 

[rathy Aro]

MK doesn't do 1 or 3 of the above mentioned criteria... well not to an unbearable extent. Every good character does 1 and 3 a little.

 

[Sorto]

You made a blanket statement, which I replied to with my own. Everyone knows that when one makes a statement that's black or white, they're making a logical fallacy! Hell, even a kid I tutor was going over logical fallacies in seventh grade. Now instead of sitting here attacking the argument rather than the issues themselves, how about an answer- what scenario (no matter how ridiculously unrealistic) would make you change your mind and sway you to the pro-ban side? If that scenario does not exist, I'm gonna go ahead and tell you right now- you're about as logical as a bible thumper my friend. Why, if new discoveries were to change the metagame (and I don't mean buff MK ridiculously,) I would most certainly be on the fence once again about the ban debate.

my stament stated a truth based off antiban, while you said my statement made a statment clear for proban that was untrue, that is where my argument lies with you. But i will ignore the argument as i believe it will become cyclic and prove nothing and instead answer your question. I have always heard one criteria to make a character banworthy, is that he make a majority of the cast unplayable. An unwinnable matchup in my mind is 66.66:33.33 or worse. Since it states that in a set of 3, you are likely to win 2 while your opponent wins 1 and in a best of five, even with the best of luck your possiblities become staggering. A majority of the cast would be more then half of them, and there 37 correct. 19 is one more then half, so that would be the majority. That is only one main criteria. Another i have heard may be that there are no even matchups or counters to the character, rule 1 still applies mind you, and current metagame shows no characters with even the possiblity to become even or in the advantage, so likely a 60:40 matchup or worse for the entire cast

 

[Delvro]

I honestly don't see 50% of the players EVER playing Meta-Knight because of metaknight's reputation. Metaknight is a cop out and everybody will make fun of you for playing him.

However, if in a tournament of 60 you have 5 Metaknights and 4 of them place top 8, and this happens often.... it usually means something is up!

Also, that example of Ally winning with CF reminded me one time where Overswarm went to a tiny local "Dink's" tournament in Lexington and 6 stocked all of us with rob with his pal Kel.

 

[rathy Aro]

That is not how matchup ratios work.... If two players are playing at equal skill at a high level then the one with the 60/40 advantage should ALWAYS win (and if not always WAY more than 60 percent of the time). Matchups only become unmanageable at a high level when its around 70:30 or worse.

How badly can someone make fun of you when you're beating him? lol