Official Metaknight Discussion

[RDK]

Well statistically speaking there are 37 characters in Brawl and in Pound 4 MK appeared 6 times in the top 8. My math might be a little wrong but there seems to be only a [3.9x10^-8]% chance of that occurring. Without there being a strong influence, other then he's cool then everyone present at Pound4 witnessed an honest to goodness miracle.

All I can say is.....LOL @ creationist statistics.

Also, I think some people here don't actually know what "statistical significance" means.

This should shed some light:

In statistics, a result is called statistically significant if it is unlikely to have occurred by chance. The phrase test of significance was coined by Ronald Fisher.[1]

The use of the word significance in statistics is different from the standard one, which suggests that something is important or meaningful. For example, a study that included tens of thousands of participants might be able to say with very great confidence that people of one state are more intelligent than people of another state by 1/20th of an IQ point. This result would be statistically significant, but the difference is small enough to be utterly unimportant. Many researchers urge that tests of significance should always be accompanied by effect size statistics, which approximate the size and thus the practical importance of the difference.

 

[WillLi]

It's that same reasoning that makes the rest of the community look like total morons for not picking Meta Knight, and all Meta Knight players look incompetent by not taking first place. >_>

Well statistically speaking, there honestly isn't a reason to not pick MK until you add human preference.

 

[Omni]

I love how you're giving me more fuel. Again what are the chances of those people maining MK well enough to be the top 8? Obviously there's a reason so many people can get far with MK ?

And yes that is the reason, he's undisputedly the best. Which in it self is a problem. It's kind of like sending armature boxers to fight world rankers. If people think the odds of you winning go up simply because you pick a specific character. Then that's a sure clue that said character is probably OPed. Honestly is there a reason to be anything except for MK? Barring the fact that some people might not be good with him. If I was say proficient with every character, what need would I have ot main anyone aside from MK?

Yes he is the most popular, but then against guns are popular for war. Cause it's easy to kill people with, not cause it's cool.

You know what's cool? Not dying AKA winning.

Your question is as if you're new to the competitive arena, Will. You don't seem to be familiar with a best character being in any general video game. You can easily portray characters as weapons. There would be no reason to pick up a knife (Ganondorf) when you could pick up a rocket launcher (Metaknight), however, players do not always choose their characters based on if they will win or not. Some choose characters because they like them, for pride, for fun, etc. If you are playing to win in any video game then choosing the best character is hands down the best way to win (IF you are proficient in using that character).

So what you effectively disagree with is there being a best character. You distinguish this as being a problem and not simply a character trait of the game.

News Flash: Best characters are not new to the fighting game community. It's not even new to Smash. See Pikachu in Smash 64.

 

[Inaphyt]

Can mk plank against diddy? If not as i thought this could explain alot. : )

 

[MarKO X]

I have an idea...

how about we pretend this ban MK thing never started?

 

[Zankoku]

Well statistically speaking, there honestly isn't a reason to not pick MK until you add human preference.

Statistically speaking, there isn't a reason for any fighter game to have a variety of over three characters in any given tournament. And having three makes it a really impressively balanced fighter, at that.

 

[Chuee]

I have an idea...

how about we pretend this ban MK thing never started?

Good idea.

 

[RDK]

You know what's cool? Not dying AKA winning.

Your question is as if you're new to the competitive arena, Will. You don't seem to be familiar with a best character being in any general video game. You can easily portray characters as weapons. There would no reason to pick up a knife (Ganondorf) when you could pick up a rocket launcher (Metaknight)

Moral of the story......don't come to a rocket launcher fight with a knife.

 

[HeroMystic]

Reminds me of the Gun(Metaknight) vs Saltshaker(Ike) quote.

 

[WillLi]

You know what's cool? Not dying AKA winning.

Your question is as if you're new to the competitive arena, Will. You don't seem to be familiar with a best character being in any general video game. You can easily portray characters as weapons. There would no reason to pick up a knife (Ganondorf) when you could pick up a rocket launcher (Metaknight), however, players do not always choose their characters based on if they will win or not. Some choose characters because they like them, for pride, for fun, etc. If you are playing to win in any video game then choosing the best character is hands down the best way to win (IF you are proficient in using that character).

So what you effectively disagree with is there being a best character. You distinguish this as being a problem and not simply a character trait of the game.

News Flash: Best characters are not new to the fighting game community. It's not even new to Smash. See Pikachu in Smash 64.

Ok well if winning doesn't matter in picking a character then it shouldn't matter if MK was only allowed in friendlies, cause winning doesn't matter there either. The problem here is that as a competition, having a character is unmistakably superior is a grave error on the side of the host. If you had a horse race where all the hoses had only 3 legs, except 1 with 4, yeah some people would bet on the 3 leggers at the start, but eventually everyone would bet on the 4 legger if given the chance.

Statistically speaking, there isn't a reason for any fighter game to have a variety of over three characters in any given tournament. And having three makes it a really impressively balanced fighter, at that.

If I'm not mistaken an impressively balanced fighter game is what we're striving for. So why not remove the obvious hiccup in the balance?

 

[Omni]

Here, I have a question for you guys.

Do you think Metaknight "fits" as a character in the game? That is, given Brawl and all of the characters and their attributes, do you think Metaknight somehow resides outside of their dimension? If so, why?

 

[Chuee]

That was a pretty bad comparison.......................

 

[Inaphyt]

You know what's cool? Not dying AKA winning.

Your question is as if you're new to the competitive arena, Will. You don't seem to be familiar with a best character being in any general video game. You can easily portray characters as weapons. There would no reason to pick up a knife (Ganondorf) when you could pick up a rocket launcher (Metaknight), however, players do not always choose their characters based on if they will win or not. Some choose characters because they like them, for pride, for fun, etc. If you are playing to win in any video game then choosing the best character is hands down the best way to win (IF you are proficient in using that character).

So what you effectively disagree with is there being a best character. You distinguish this as being a problem and not simply a character trait of the game.

News Flash: Best characters are not new to the fighting game community. It's not even new to Smash. See Pikachu in Smash 64.

Yes but HOW much better? Way way way too much. Infact i think every matchup discussion is wrong, maybe if you took 10 away from every character on smashboards it would be more accurate this is how broken this character is.

People can say counterpick dk with Dedede, Mk is more deadly than an infinite chain grab dk should never win this matchup ever that said the dk match for mk is probably LOL on the same level as d3. However mk get's this "chaingrab" on every single character in the game.

Ban this nuisance already the amount of controversy over this character should be reason enough for a ban, consider that.

 

[Zankoku]

Ok well if winning doesn't matter in picking a character then it shouldn't matter if MK was only allowed in friendlies, cause winning doesn't matter there either. The problem here is that as a competition, having a character is unmistakably superior is a grave error on the side of the host. If you had a horse race where all the hoses had only 3 legs, except 1 with 4, yeah some people would bet on the 3 leggers at the start, but eventually everyone would bet on the 4 legger if given the chance.

Every competitively viable fighter game disagrees with you.

 

[RDK]

Ok well if winning doesn't matter in picking a character then it shouldn't matter if MK was only allowed in friendlies, cause winning doesn't matter there either. The problem here is that as a competition, having a character is unmistakably superior is a grave error on the side of the host. If you had a horse race where all the hoses had only 3 legs, except 1 with 4, yeah some people would bet on the 3 leggers at the start, but eventually everyone would bet on the 4 legger if given the chance.

What in god's name?

So I guess all the other characters besides MK have only 1 leg, and Metaknight has 2 AMIRITE GUIZ?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Every competitively viable fighter game disagrees with you.

Who cares?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Here, I have a question for you guys.

Do you think Metaknight "fits" as a character in the game? That is, given Brawl and all of the characters and their attributes, do you think Metaknight somehow resides outside of their dimension? If so, why?

I do, actually... I think he belongs in a different game, but I don't really have time (working) to go into it right now. Interesting you brought that up, though, I was just thinking it a while ago.

DOUBLE POST *****ES

 

[WillLi]

Every competitively viable fighter game disagrees with you.

What's your point? It's still a mistake in regards to balance, whether or not other games do it aside. Or are we trying to be "StreetFighter Bothers: Brawl?" What other games do is of little concern, because other games aren't Brawl.

 

[Omni]

Ok well if winning doesn't matter in picking a character then it shouldn't matter if MK was only allowed in friendlies, cause winning doesn't matter there either. The problem here is that as a competition, having a character is unmistakably superior is a grave error on the side of the host. If you had a horse race where all the hoses had only 3 legs, except 1 with 4, yeah some people would bet on the 3 leggers at the start, but eventually everyone would bet on the 4 legger if given the chance.

Alright, I'm going to attempt to make you understand.

Using the best character in the game gives you the best chance at winning, however, it does not guarantee victory. There are two reasons why a player wins:

1.) Level of tactics intelligence which is the ability to outsmart their opponent.
2.) Level of proficiency with given character.

An example is Azen. Azen is a great player. Smart, patient, and understands how to fight. However, he was awful with Metaknight. Why? Despite his overwhelming experience and tactics intelligence he simply was not proficient with the character.

Another example is Justin Wong. In the current SF4 metagame, he uses Rufus who is most likely the equivalent of Wario in terms of tier placement. However, his ability to use Rufus is astounding and allows him to win match-ups that are not in his favor. Many players have also commented that Justin Wong's Sagat is NO WHERE near the level of his Rufus.

If a man with weak arms picks up a rocket launcher, he won't get far. Vice versa, if stretch arm strong picks up a knife **** is gonna' get dirty. I make these metaphors in a joking manner, but there is a little bit of truth in them.

 

[Zankoku]

Who cares?

Unless you claim that Brawl is not competitively viable, I hope you do. >_>

What's your point? It's still a mistake in regards to balance, whether or not other games do it aside. Or are we trying to be "StreetFighter Bothers: Brawl?" What other games do is of little concern, because other games aren't Brawl.

It doesn't matter whether I look at Street Fighter or Melee, there's a very obvious, very limited number of character choices that is optimal for if I wanted to go for a win (like, between 3 and 5, being lenient). If you really think Meta Knight is 133% (4 legged horse compared to 3) better than any other member of the cast, then the results of Pound 4 tell me more about the tendency of humans making ridiculously large mistakes than the dominance of a character.

 

[Chuee]

Yes but HOW much better? Way way way too much. Infact i think every matchup discussion is wrong, maybe if you took 10 away from every character on smashboards it would be more accurate this is how broken this character is.

People can say counterpick dk with Dedede, Mk is more deadly than an infinite chain grab dk should never win this matchup ever that said the dk match for mk is probably LOL on the same level as d3. However mk get's this "chaingrab" on every single character in the game.

Ban this nuisance already the amount of controversy over this character should be reason enough for a ban, consider that.

Yeah, because 60-40 is definitely worse than 80-20

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Unless you claim that Brawl is not competitively viable, I hope you do. >_>

Brawl's competitive community dwarfs that of other fighting games; why would we want to base our decisions on those of inferior communities?

Also: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

 

[Omni]

Yes but HOW much better? Way way way too much. Infact i think every matchup discussion is wrong, maybe if you took 10 away from every character on smashboards it would be more accurate this is how broken this character is.

People can say counterpick dk with Dedede, Mk is more deadly than an infinite chain grab dk should never win this matchup ever that said the dk match for mk is probably LOL on the same level as d3. However mk get's this "chaingrab" on every single character in the game.

Ban this nuisance already the amount of controversy over this character should be reason enough for a ban, consider that.

This amount of controversy is the normal for any competitive fighting game.

There is nothing abnormal about the community being split. There is nothing abnormal about low/mid tiers whining because their character doesn't have a chance. There is nothing abnormal about a game consisting of a best character.

By how much you ask? I would answer this, but dare I say do you even know how good Pikachu was compared to the rest of the cast in Smash 64? My guess is no so my explanation would probably do no good.

 

[WillLi]

Alright, I'm going to attempt to make you understand.

Using the best character in the game gives you the best chance at winning, however, it does not guarantee victory. There are two reasons why a player wins:

1.) Level of tactics intelligence which is the ability to outsmart their opponent.
2.) Level of proficiency with given character.

An example is Azen. Azen is a great player. Smart, patient, and understands how to fight. However, he was awful with Metaknight. Why? Despite his overwhelming experience and tactics intelligence he simply was not proficient with the character.

Another example is Justin Wong. In the current SF4 metagame, he uses Rufus who is most likely the equivalent of Wario in terms of tier placement. However, his ability to use Rufus is astounding and allows him to win match-ups that are not in his favor. Many players have also commented that Justin Wong's Sagat is NO WHERE near the level of his Rufus.

If a man with weak arms picks up a rocket launcher, he won't get far. Vice versa, if stretch arm strong picks up a knife **** is gonna' get dirty. I make these metaphors in a joking manner, but there is a little bit of truth in them.

We're not trying to ban people though, this is a discussion about a character. There are no certainties when humans are involved, aside form the fact that we will eventually die. What needs to be done is a comparison of the -characters- and the character alone. Because the people are going to change everyday, but we're not going to wake up one morning and MK suddenly be less OPed.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

It's that same reasoning that makes the rest of the community look like total morons for not picking Meta Knight, and all Meta Knight players look incompetent by not taking first place. >_>

We're all morons lol.

 

[Zankoku]

Brawl's competitive community dwarfs that of other fighting games; why would we want to base our decisions on those of inferior communities?

There hasn't been a single Brawl tournament to post up numbers larger than Pound 4's Melee - 349. So, no, it does not dwarf that of every other fighting game. Anyway, my point was that Will's reasoning was faulty even when applied to Brawl, seeing as how (I hope) Brawl is a competitively viable fighter.

We're not trying to ban people though, this is a discussion about a character. There are no certainties when humans are involved, aside form the fact that we will eventually die. What needs to be done is a comparison of the -characters- and the character alone. Because the people are going to change everyday, but we're not going to wake up one morning and MK suddenly be less OPed.

Unless you know something we don't, there's no way to know by how much Meta Knight is overpowered, only to make a good estimation based on our own perceptions.

 

[WillLi]

Unless you claim that Brawl is not competitively viable, I hope you do. >_>


It doesn't matter whether I look at Street Fighter or Melee, there's a very obvious, very limited number of character choices that is optimal for if I wanted to go for a win (like, between 3 and 5, being lenient). If you really think Meta Knight is 133% (4 legged horse compared to 3) better than any other member of the cast, then the results of Pound 4 tell me more about the tendency of humans making ridiculously large mistakes than the dominance of a character.

33% better, but the thing is, in a competitive game there should be no 'mistakes' when it comes to picking a character. Cause then essentially what are the other characters there for? We might as well have MetaKnight- The game.

 

[Omni]

Brawl's competitive community dwarfs that of other fighting games; why would we want to base our decisions on those of inferior communities

These "inferior" fighting games are sponsored by MLG.
These "inferior" fighting games have a publisher that reaches out to their players and forums for advice and suggestions.
These "inferior" fighting games are the most played fighting video games in Japan (population: 1 zillion).

But yeah, there's no reason for us to be using successful fighting games as a comparative example in our attempts to keep a successful game. Silly me.

 

[Dark.Pch]

You boys will never get to the point in this thread will you. Just like the other meta threads.

You know what, I would just keep it simple. One character getting so much attention and taking over 1- top 10 more than any character. So many useless topics about meta till this day and people still can't figure out how broken he is. ****, sheik did not get this much attention in melee. Nearly 2 years and de que diablo, same **** once again. And people don't know what to do. Making a topic that is not gonna die, not getting anywhere, and when people finalyy get tired of the thread to close it, there will be another topic on meta In a few months, with the same ****.

And you know what, bann that *******. Why? Gonna keep it simple, No one can freaking prove meta is not broken, hurting the meta game or taking over the game. Have not seen anything on that matter. As for the other way around? yea I seen plenty. Also if M2K was to actually learn more things than just his options with meta and simple stuff like Z grabbing, I think he be taking over. He does not know much outside his character options and look at how he does. Only 2 people can beat him. If that is not saying enough then idk what it.

People make no sense. Random talk that goes in circles. Boys never gonna get to the point. Real talk. Like wtf is the point of this **** now? idk anymore.

 

[Zankoku]

33% better, but the thing is, in a competitive game there should be no 'mistakes' when it comes to picking a character. Cause then essentially what are the other characters there for? We might as well have MetaKnight- The game.

Then why don't we? And if it's because of human preference and they're all making mistakes, why are people winning with characters that are not Meta Knight? Is this "mistake" in character selection not that big, or are the people winning tournaments better than Meta Knight by more than a 33% margin?

Look, this argument in particular is getting really dumb, so I'll just get to the root of the problem. You're making the assumption that everyone who plays is a robot, except in the human factor of selecting a character. You're then making the assumption that Meta Knight is so far ahead of every other choice that making the "mistake" of selecting anyone else is huge, effectively game-ending. Both of those assumptions are dead wrong.

 

[WillLi]

Unless you know something we don't, there's no way to know by how much Meta Knight is overpowered, only to make a good estimation based on our own perceptions.

Essentially the fact that special rules were made with MK as the main focus, though not the only focus. Also the fact that such a large debate about him has sprung up at all. Plus his rising level of occurrence, and even new people being able to acknowledge that he is superior. This all points to a great deal of imbalance, yes we can not measure the -exact- amount. But honestly, how much more ridiculous must he get to be seen as a problem?

 

[Luigi player]

Yes but HOW much better? Way way way too much. Infact i think every matchup discussion is wrong, maybe if you took 10 away from every character on smashboards it would be more accurate this is how broken this character is.

People can say counterpick dk with Dedede, Mk is more deadly than an infinite chain grab dk should never win this matchup ever that said the dk match for mk is probably LOL on the same level as d3. However mk get's this "chaingrab" on every single character in the game.

Ban this nuisance already the amount of controversy over this character should be reason enough for a ban, consider that.

You have NO idea how bad DK vs Dedede is if you think MK is that good against everyone.

Learn to fight against MK if he's such a problem for you.

 

[RDK]

Yes but HOW much better? Way way way too much. Infact i think every matchup discussion is wrong, maybe if you took 10 away from every character on smashboards it would be more accurate this is how broken this character is.

People can say counterpick dk with Dedede, Mk is more deadly than an infinite chain grab dk should never win this matchup ever that said the dk match for mk is probably LOL on the same level as d3. However mk get's this "chaingrab" on every single character in the game.

Ban this nuisance already the amount of controversy over this character should be reason enough for a ban, consider that.

This is probably the stupidest thing I've read since entering this thread.

Congratulations.

 

[WillLi]

Then why don't we? And if it's because of human preference and they're all making mistakes, why are people winning with characters that are not Meta Knight? Is this "mistake" in character selection not that big, or are the people winning tournaments better than Meta Knight by more than a 33% margin?

Look, this argument in particular is getting really dumb, so I'll just get to the root of the problem. You're making the assumption that everyone who plays is a robot, except in the human factor of selecting a character. You're then making the assumption that Meta Knight is so far ahead of every other choice that making the "mistake" of selecting anyone else is huge, effectively game-ending. Both of those assumptions are dead wrong.

Actually if you do any level of scientific study the first thing you're taught is to remove the human element from the equation. So yes, I am saying we should use robots. Cause if God played you it wouldn't matter what character you used, you'd lose to him. The only way to be fair is to look at raw statistics. When you include people then thousands of uncontrollable and unmeasurable variables are added in, and it's no longer about MK. Cause an MK that is drastically superior to everyone could lose cause he sneezed. (I am not however suggested this is what happened at Pound 4)

 

[Zankoku]

Actually if you do any level of scientific study the first thing you're taught is to remove the human element from the equation. So yes, I am saying we should use robots.

This is.... really ineffective for the given subject matter. To do something like this would be proving Meta Knight as objectively broken based on the attributes of the character, without actually looking at tournament results, 'cause, you know, humans play in tournaments.

The only way to be fair is to look at raw statistics. When you include people then thousands of uncontrollable and unmeasurable variables are added in, and it's no longer about MK.

See above. Also note that MK is not a problem in several local/regional sectors, in terms of pure statistics.

Cause an MK that is drastically superior to everyone could lose cause he sneezed. (I am not however suggested this is what happened at Pound 4)

If this were true, then MK would be arguably the worst character in the game. I can't think of any other good character in any other game that has such a gigantic risk-reward ratio.


I think I'm done responding to you. However, I would enjoy seeing M@v discussing this with you. Your points and particular use of numbers are very similar, yet the two of you are happily on opposing sides of the issue.

 

[Inaphyt]

This amount of controversy is the normal for any competitive fighting game.

There is nothing abnormal about the community being split. There is nothing abnormal about low/mid tiers whining because their character doesn't have a chance. There is nothing abnormal about a game consisting of a best character.

By how much you ask? I would answer this, but dare I say do you even know how good Pikachu was compared to the rest of the cast in Smash 64? My guess is no so my explanation would probably do no good.

Yea yea pikachu was good but isai could beat him with LINK.

Is this happening in brawl? no never ever. This is a terrible comparison.

Every game has a best character, but most fighting games don't have a character with that amount of dominance usually there are 2 or 3 other characters keeping them in check.

Don't bring up exceptions i used the word most ^ look.

Also low tiers aren't the problem, it's when your top tiers are actually getting pushed around like little toycars by mk that there's a problem, that's where my interest lies who can get good with the top tier characters? Moreover this increases viability as the question asked isn't can my character beat mk but what can my character do against that potentially beatable top tier.

 

[Punishment Divine]

Here, I have a question for you guys.

Do you think Metaknight "fits" as a character in the game? That is, given Brawl and all of the characters and their attributes, do you think Metaknight somehow resides outside of their dimension? If so, why?

No. I believe MK is a Melee character due to his attributes. Here are some reasons why:

1) He has combos that are almost inescapable, and sometimes they are. Some examples of this are uair chains, dash attack->stuff at 0 and sometimes above, uair to nair is ****-near inescapable and is deadly.

2) Edgeguarding. Brawl's ledges make edgeguarding with many characters difficult. This does not apply to MK. He has several options when it comes to preventing an opponent from coming back to the ledge, and getting back onto the stage.

3) Speed. He has what I believe is the best movement speed : attack speed : attack power ratio in the game. He can dish out damage and move around fast, while still maintaining a large amount of power in moves like Shuttle Loop, fsmash (almost unpunishable), nair, and dsmash (to an extent).

4) (Frame) traps/brick walls. His dtilt is almost a frame trap in and of itself. He forms one of the most impenetrable walls in the game.

5) Tech Chases. Or should I say, one BIG tech chase, which would be tornado. His throws set up for guaranteed stuff if DI is read correctly, and Tornado tech chases as one huge, long-lasting move.

 

[WillLi]

This is.... really ineffective for the given subject matter. To do something like this would be proving Meta Knight as objectively broken based on the attributes of the character, without actually looking at tournament results, 'cause, you know, humans play in tournaments.


See above. Also note that MK is not a problem in several local/regional sectors, in terms of pure statistics.


If this were true, then MK would be arguably the worst character in the game. I can't think of any other good character in any other game that has such a gigantic risk-reward ratio.

Pound 4 was proof that MK is dominating. You all keep saying that he didn't make 1st so it's not bad. But that's like saying: Because the most prominent man in Mexico, is American, but 80% of the population is Mexican, that they're not Mexican. You don't have to win to dominate the rankings, you just have to hold a large % of them. Also, you try closing your eyes and shaking your head the moment you're about to get hit with a smash attack, and tell me if that doesn't effect your game-play.

Essentially you're saying because 'some' people can win, then it's ok to overpower the rest of the people.

 

[Omni]

No. I believe MK is a Melee character due to his attributes. Here are some reasons why:

1) He has combos that are almost inescapable, and sometimes they are. Some examples of this are uair chains, dash attack->stuff at 0 and sometimes above, uair to nair is ****-near inescapable and is deadly.

2) Edgeguarding. Brawl's ledges make edgeguarding with many characters difficult. This does not apply to MK. He has several options when it comes to preventing an opponent from coming back to the ledge, and getting back onto the stage.

3) Speed. He has what I believe is the best movement speed : attack speed : attack power ratio in the game. He can dish out damage and move around fast, while still maintaining a large amount of power in moves like Shuttle Loop, fsmash (almost unpunishable), nair, and dsmash (to an extent).

4) (Frame) traps/brick walls. His dtilt is almost a frame trap in and of itself. He forms one of the most impenetrable walls in the game.

5) Tech Chases. Or should I say, one BIG tech chase, which would be tornado. His throws set up for guaranteed stuff if DI is read correctly, and Tornado tech chases as one huge, long-lasting move.

A broken character is a character that does not fit the standard laws within a game but rather ignores some or all of these laws giving the character a substantial advantage against the remaining characters.

The "laws" that exist in Brawl relate to a character's attributes that include strength, speed, versatility, weight, recovery, range, size, and other unique attributes that only certain characters have such as invincibility frames on attacks.

Metaknight has great speed, versatility, recovery, range, size (in regards to being a target), and many unique attributes. In regards to these attributes I believe it is fair to assume that he has the best recovery, the best versatility, and the best unique attributes which include a number of moves in his moveset.

Metaknight lacks strength and weight. This is important to understand. This means Metaknight lacks the strength to remove opponents stocks by the normal method of increasing their % and knocking them outside of the arena. This also means Metaknight lacks the weight to stay within the arena once he has reached a certain % that is lower than the average. He can make up with his lack of strength by using his better attributes to gimp characters off the stage.

An important thing to note is that Metaknight does not have projectiles.

All I've stated above are reasons why Metaknight should be top tier. He WOULD be broken if the rest of the cast possessed significantly lower traits but this is not the case. We have characters that can live to insanely large percents. We have characters with ridiculously good projectiles. We have characters who have the ability to chaingrab. We have characters who are guaranteed a kill after a grab. With all of these abilities combined with a player's ability to maximize a character's potential through the power of their own intelligence, I will boldly say that they can take competing to a level that is very close to Metaknight's.

What you have given me, Punishment, are the attributes that make MK the best character. All of the best characters are essentially "playing a different" game or more accurately "playing their own game". Diddy's banana usage/game is completely different from the rest of the cast. Having the ability to spawn an infinite amount of extremely helpful ITEMS is pretty hardcore. Snake living to 150%+ while also having one of the fastest/strongest kill moves in the game is pretty frightening. Ice Climbers being able to remove an entire stock off your character from one grab is a big deal.

In the end, though, it may be a matter of perception and preference more than anything.

 

[Praxis]

You mean: "Peach has another hard counter", and that's just considering the pre-determined matchup ratio.

Marth.

And that matchup is still way more manageable than the MK matchup despite the ratio similarity, I assure you.

Her matchup spread is basically 50-50 across the board with a couple of 45-55s here and there, with MK and Marth being the only two notable splotches.

But all technical mish-mash aside, I know both matchups and both are winnable. Peach is viable.

Peach:Marth is even.

Peach loses to MK, Snake, and Falco.

Marth and G&W are even or 55:45.

Marth isn't even CLOSE to being as tough as Metaknight, LOL. MikeHAZE and Havok have both played Edrees and I and said even or even-ish when I asked on AIM.