Should Metaknight be Banned? **Take 2** (Post-podcast)

[da K.I.D.]

Uh, obviously? You're a Sonic main that voted "Yes" because you think MK is broken LOL.

Regardless of the results of this poll, I know my region isn't going to ever ban MK. I think my whole coast isn't. He's perfectly legal in FL. In fact, if you look at FL's rankings, there are only two MKs IIRC. 1st is Snake, 2nd is Dedede, and 3rd is Snake/Marth. W1n.

why else would i vote yes if i didnt think he was teh brokness

and how about this, i do just fine against snake, and im constantly telling jesse that snakes need to start beating D3 so we can ban both of them...

GTFO of here with that crap.

and my TO has already stated that he will never bann MK no matter what happens.
so its whatevs...

 

[da K.I.D.]

as i was talking with others, i think the only reason an mk ban would be good is that it makes the game much more balanced.

currently: mk has no "bad" matchups, and goes even with a couple here and there

without him: everyone in the top tiers has counters and its more of a circle of characters doing good against each other while loosing to others. its really a lot more balanced.

so is mk as a character bannable per say? not reeeaaaly, but is the game more fair without him, most likely.

i will never say anything ever again and i will stop advocating his ban if every anti-ban person on these boards admits to this statement

@ aeghrur,
read again and edit your post cus i think you are contradicting your self

 

[SirroMinus1]

Who cares if it's fair or not, this game wasn't made to be fair. We just want it *possibly* a little more competitive since we'll actually have a counterpicking system again if MK is banned.

SF2 turbo wasn't made to be fair but they realized there was an unbeatable character and fixed that problem for tourneys

 

[aeghrur]

SF2 turbo wasn't made to be fair but they realized there was an unbeatable character and fixed that problem for tourneys

That's making it more competitive, not making it more or less fair.
Not really KID, I'm saying we shouldn't ban on the idea of if it's fair to play metaknight or not because no matter what, it won't ever be "fair" per say. We should ban on the idea that
A. He's dominating tournaments.
B. He breaks the counterpicking system
C. Many people are switching to him and stagnating the other characters metagames
D. A+B+C=hurts the metagame, makes the game less competitive and have *possibly* less people.

 

[SirroMinus1]

That's making it more competitive, not making it more or less fair.

same with brawl

 

[BrawlLover]

i think it's safe to say metaknight shouldn't be banned

 

[MdrnDayMercutio]

has anyone mentioned that Meta's sword can't clank in here?

I was suprirsed that wasn't mentioned in the "debate" podcast...

Seems note worthy, and I voted against the ban... but either way I won't really care alot. I don't think it's needed but if it's decided it's decided I guess.

 

[Inui]

i will never say anything ever again and i will stop advocating his ban if every anti-ban person on these boards admits to this statement

@ aeghrur,
read again and edit your post cus i think you are contradicting your self

I feel the same as Chibo, lol.

MK has the tools to win every match in the game.

However, so does every other character I think is in the same tier as him. Game and Watch, Diddy Kong, Dedede, Olimar, Falco, and Snake don't have any matches worse than 40/60, imo, and thus have nothing they can't win consistently. And guess that? Their worst matches, for the most part, are each other. MK just happens to beat all of them but Snake, so he's the best character. He is by no means the worst match for every character in the game.

 

[Sasha]

as i was talking with others, i think the only reason an mk ban would be good is that it makes the game much more balanced.

currently: mk has no "bad" matchups, and goes even with a couple here and there

without him: everyone in the top tiers has counters and its more of a circle of characters doing good against each other while loosing to others. its really a lot more balanced.

so is mk as a character bannable per say? not reeeaaaly, but is the game more fair without him, most likely.

This is quite possibly the best anyone has stated the situation.

I am personally anti-ban, though that may be due to the facts that
1) I hardly ever go to tourneys, though I've won all but one that I've been to.
2) I don't really have any trouble beating MK.
3) I like to develop the meta-game for myself instead of depending on the boards. Thus I don't really use any advanced techniques. I just mindgame and punish.

The only reason I would be pro-ban would be to see how other characters' metagames could develop in the pro/tournament scene. Otherwise, we're all trying to be the best at the game right? Well he IS in the game.

So are items. Maybe we should just soft-ban those as well. Lol.

 

[crewster]

Ive changed my mind scince *take 1* MK is just placing high because everyone says he's cheep. That gives people confidence when useing him and there we have high tourny placings. Sure he has The infinite gape glitch but DDD has chan grab and, on 5 characters, infinite Dthrow and he isn't bad.

Thats my theory but I personaly are in the middle, I don't know if he should be bad.

 

[Cirno]

Hey, could anyone do me a favor and list all the reasons why MK should be banned?

 

[crewster]

OK:
1) His moves are REALY powerfull and fast.
2) His has a glitch where he can do his cape for ever.

These are the only reasons that I can think of now but I will have missed of some.

 

[Cirno]

You had to have missed some.
IDC is banned, and so is Donkey Kong(fast and powerful).


Those reasons don't make sense.

 

[crewster]

they are just some reasons. They are true but there are more.

 

[Sephiroth27]

Maybe just listen to the podcast debate?

 

[Cirno]

I planned to eventually since I heard it was a good listen, whether you were pro, anti, or undecided. I just always preferred to have thoughts written/typed down as they give people time to think, look over, and finalize what it is they want to say.

Where as when speaking and disagreeing with a certain concept, it is more likely to come out rushed, misinterpreted,ect.

 

[Mmac]

However, so does every other character I think is in the same tier as him. Game and Watch, Diddy Kong, Dedede, Olimar, Falco, and Snake don't have any matches worse than 40/60, imo, and thus have nothing they can't win consistently. And guess that? Their worst matches, for the most part, are each other. MK just happens to beat all of them but Snake, so he's the best character. He is by no means the worst match for every character in the game.

This is what I don't get. You said that MetaKnight isn't the worst of any of those characters, yet you also claim that none of the characters above have matchups that are above 40:60 (Which really isn't true in the first place). Since being any form of counter you have to be 40:60 or more, won't that make MetaKnight the worst for those characters in the first place?

Plus you pretty much admitted that Brawl would be leagues balanced without MetaKnight by, in your opinion, having Six Characters dominating instead of one sole character. Don't you think the MetaGame would greatly benefit if it was like that instead of basically being like:

-MetaKnight
-Snake
-Characters that Counter Snake
-Everyone Else

 

[Ominous]

Yes he should... coz its easy to win with him...

 

[adumbrodeus]

You mean something that claims Snake deserves top tier? Here's an idea: stop walking into Snake's Forward Smash in 1-on-1s.

Somebody actually does this?

The last time a Snake f-smash hit me was months ago.

Even if Diddy and Marth get past it, Pit can just adapt. He has decent weight and ridiculous maneuverability for it.

They adapt better.

It's fine. And since we're on the subject, I have a friend who gets 9 on Samurai Kirby. He certainly got to Meta Knight on Hard. Big surprise: he agrees that Pit's arrow abuse is over the top.

Make him play smash versus M2K, him using pit and arrow abusing to heck, and M2K using MK. We'll see how over the top he thinks it is now.

Oh, you mean I'll just air dodge jump right at him? I'm just shaking off the attempt. Why would I want to jump towards him during defense. That makes no sense.

You NEED to approach, otherwise you can't win. Falcon has the range advantage, and can fire fast, even short-hopped.

To fight falco you are required to both defend against lasers AND move foreward.

Oh, you mean the disjointed tilts that are still close range? Here's an idea: fight Snake from long range. Everything he can do becomes easier to react to then. What's that? He can blow me up randomly with a mine I didn't see him set on the ground? That can happen, that is IF I DON'T REALIZE HE CAN SET THEM FROM THE AIR AND THEY ARE ALWAYS REMOTE MINES! But wait. I forgot he could Mortar Slide. Or wait, no I didn't. I kick his butt literally then move out of the way of the mortar. All he has left are grenades to crowd the battlefield. Oh, right. I don't even need too much space to kick his butt, he's slow.

He has a powerful projectile to force approach, and his tilts outrange almost all characters. And you still need to KO him up close unless you're Samus.

Learn 2 play.




You amuse me, whether you're an absolute idiot or a troll, you're arguments are so factually lacking it's comical.

 

[Cirno]

Oh gawd.

Overswarm is getting us cake if MK is banned.

I LOVE CAKE.

It's not a lie is it? Is the cake a lie?


Also lol for the first player v character matchup. Inui-- Sonic 70/30 sonic's favor.

Hilarious podcast is hilarious.

 

[gantrain05]

I feel the same as Chibo, lol.

MK has the tools to win every match in the game.

However, so does every other character I think is in the same tier as him. Game and Watch, Diddy Kong, Dedede, Olimar, Falco, and Snake don't have any matches worse than 40/60, imo, and thus have nothing they can't win consistently. And guess that? Their worst matches, for the most part, are each other. MK just happens to beat all of them but Snake, so he's the best character. He is by no means the worst match for every character in the game.

try olimar vs peach, thats EASILY 70-30, and i do believe IC's have a pretty big advantage on DDD also but i can't be 100 percent sure as i don't main either one, but my point is, w/ meta gone even the mid tiers can be used in tournies w/out having meta wipe em all out.

 

[OverLade]

-MetaKnight
-Snake
-Characters that Counter Snake
-Everyone Else

This is pretty much what the metagame looks like right now. XD

 

[Remzi]

try olimar vs peach, thats EASILY 70-30, and i do believe IC's have a pretty big advantage on DDD also but i can't be 100 percent sure as i don't main either one, but my point is, w/ meta gone even the mid tiers can be used in tournies w/out having meta wipe em all out.

Mid tiers will still be wiped out by characters like Snake, Falco, D3, and G&W who pretty much **** anyone below high tier. Low tiers will be able to do a bit better, but an MK ban would really only benefit the Tops and some Highs.

 

[gantrain05]

Mid tiers will still be wiped out by characters like Snake, Falco, D3, and G&W who pretty much **** anyone below high tier. Low tiers will be able to do a bit better, but an MK ban would really only benefit the Tops and some Highs.

i kinda disagree with this, just as an example, snake vs peach is a pretty even matchup at top level play, D3 goes even with both fox and peach, snake is countered by pikachu easily, and those are just examples from characters i play. im just saying, yeah not EVERY character is going to be competetive, but there are alot of characters that can now be used as counterpicks because there wouldn't be MK's around all the time.

 

[OverLade]

Mid tiers will still be wiped out by characters like Snake, Falco, D3, and G&W who pretty much **** anyone below high tier. Low tiers will be able to do a bit better, but an MK ban would really only benefit the Tops and some Highs.

Which is still better than the metagame is now.

And that's not true, it's Metaknights nadospam and unpunishable attacks that makes certain characters unavailable. Characters like Captain Falcon and Shiek would have a much greater chance, while they have no chance vs. Meta.

 

[gantrain05]

Which is still better than the metagame is now.

And that's not true, it's Metaknights nadospam and unpunishable attacks that makes certain characters unavailable. Characters like Captain Falcon and Shiek would have a much greater chance, while they have no chance vs. Meta.

oh and i forgot all about shiek who does very well against falco lol. theres just so many more options with MK gone.

 

[BrawlLover]

overswarm better give us more than jus cake, perhaps sushi?

 

[gantrain05]

i want some pie.....

 

[Red Arremer]

What I don't get is... why do people think bans have to be absolute?

Seriously. Before you read my statement, keep in mind that, although I voted Pro-Ban, I'm not absolutely for it. To read why I voted on Pro-Ban, please keep on reading.

Now, let's look what we have on facts:
Meta Knight is dominating the (American) tournament scene by far. He has more victories and top placements than all other characters in the Top Tier together. He has no extremely bad matchups except for Snake - and even that one is debatable and debated all over the place -, no extremely bad stage performances. He's really good.
If you want to play a tournament to seriously win, you probably will be bound to make a Snake or a MK (or even both) tourney-fit, so you have even a slight chance because there WILL be at least one MK.

During this thread I've read of several hosters and players that tourneys without MK were so much more fun and better. I don't know if that holds true, but I trust them.

Therefore... how about a temporary ban? Let's look how the whole tournament scene will turn out if Meta Knight is banned. Let's finish this first year of Brawl, maybe by then there'll be a Tier List 2.0. Around May or June we could start trying out the ban for MK, for, let's say 10 months or so.
Then look how the whole scene changes. Are tournaments more enjoyable according to hosters and players? What will happen with the character placements - will they move a lot or only slightly?

If it turns out that MK's absence doesn't change much, we still can bring him back. It's not like he'll be removed from the game.
If it turns out that MK's absence benefits the tourney scene, makes the game more fun for everyone to play competitively and all that jazz, then we'll keep him banned.

Easy, no?

 

[bob-e]

Easy, no?

No, not easy.

Look at the ****storm caused by trying to get MK banned in the first place. If would be just as bad trying to get him back in the game. Not to mention the huge subjective argument of whether or not his absence made the game "better" or "more fun".

 

[XienZo]

What I don't get is... why do people think bans have to be absolute?

Seriously. Before you read my statement, keep in mind that, although I voted Pro-Ban, I'm not absolutely for it. To read why I voted on Pro-Ban, please keep on reading.

Now, let's look what we have on facts:
Meta Knight is dominating the (American) tournament scene by far. He has more victories and top placements than all other characters in the Top Tier together. He has no extremely bad matchups except for Snake - and even that one is debatable and debated all over the place -, no extremely bad stage performances. He's really good.
If you want to play a tournament to seriously win, you probably will be bound to make a Snake or a MK (or even both) tourney-fit, so you have even a slight chance because there WILL be at least one MK.

During this thread I've read of several hosters and players that tourneys without MK were so much more fun and better. I don't know if that holds true, but I trust them.

Therefore... how about a temporary ban? Let's look how the whole tournament scene will turn out if Meta Knight is banned. Let's finish this first year of Brawl, maybe by then there'll be a Tier List 2.0. Around May or June we could start trying out the ban for MK, for, let's say 10 months or so.
Then look how the whole scene changes. Are tournaments more enjoyable according to hosters and players? What will happen with the character placements - will they move a lot or only slightly?

If it turns out that MK's absence doesn't change much, we still can bring him back. It's not like he'll be removed from the game.
If it turns out that MK's absence benefits the tourney scene, makes the game more fun for everyone to play competitively and all that jazz, then we'll keep him banned.

Easy, no?

I also believe a temp ban would help. As long as we set an end date, there'll be no fear of "Oh, what if they never unban him, even if he's ok" or "We'll all get owned by MK when he comes back."

No, not easy.

Look at the ****storm caused by trying to get MK banned in the first place. If would be just as bad trying to get him back in the game. Not to mention the huge subjective argument of whether or not his absence made the game "better" or "more fun".

Thats why we set an end date where he will ALWAYS be unbanned, and then we talk about it for a few day before rebanning him permanently or let him back.

 

[Red Arremer]

No, not easy.

Look at the ****storm caused by trying to get MK banned in the first place. If would be just as bad trying to get him back in the game. Not to mention the huge subjective argument of whether or not his absence made the game "better" or "more fun".

Sure, that's a valid point you bring up here.

I still say that a temporary ban for trying out how the tournaments will develop without him would be the most reasonable solution.

 

[The Milk Monster]

Who cares if it's fair or not, this game wasn't made to be fair. We just want it *possibly* a little more competitive since we'll actually have a counterpicking system again if MK is banned.

This.
We'll be able to play the mains we want, and not have to focus our metagame around how to beat Metaknight, and we can actually start CPing again.

 

[_Keno_]

Even if Meta is beatable by...not snake, Brawl would still be better competitively without him.
.

 

[Zankoku]

Even if Meta is beatable by...not snake, Brawl would still be better competitively without him.
.

More like Brawl would be better for everyone who doesn't want to play against Meta Knight. -_-

 

[TeeVee]

More like Brawl would be better for everyone who doesn't want to play against Meta Knight. -_-

People want to play against Meta Knight?

 

[BentoBox]

MK makes me all hot and bothered.

 

[Zankoku]

People want to play against the rest of the top tier?

Banning a character people don't want to play against because people don't want to play against him is... funny.

 

[gantrain05]

People want to play against the rest of the top tier?

Banning a character people don't want to play against because people don't want to play against him is... funny.

thats not the reason why we want him banned and you know it ankoku.

 

[Zankoku]

H ere.

MK dominates tournaments. well, we've had this before, no one cares.
MK has no counters. well, we've had this before, no one cares.
MK has no bad matchups. Then why doesn't he always win?
MK makes characters unviable. All top tiers do this, welcome to smash.

The only thing we haven't been able to disprove thus far is totally subjective in that MK "is easy to learn" which was totally thrown out the window as we now have an observable trend in that people that switch to MK get *****. People that main MK and switch away from him when he's banned get *****. This character has shown that he requires talent to play. Unlike before, we can now prove this with empirical data.

We have proved one thing though: metaknight isn't broken. We've proved this repeatedly in every subject arena, including ones that people make up that don't even matter. Lots of characters are "really really good". Whatever that means.