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

[Master Raven]

Actually I believe I read somewhere that the SBR is suggesting for certain TOs to hold temporary MK-ban tournies so they can compare the results to the no-ban ones. That's a better idea than a nationwide temporary ban imo.

 

[aeghrur]

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.

Well, the first one isn't disproven, he's just using a crappy generalization basically hiding the fact he's conceding the point.
Same with the second.
No bad matchups=/=80:20 to everyone. That's pretty easy to understand.
Remember, 4>1

 

[Zankoku]

Are you saying that Meta Knight is the only viable character, and if he gets banned there will only be four viable characters?

Why are you playing this terrible terrible game?

 

[cutter]

Why are we playing this terrible terrible game?

Fixed.

Spoiler

10fixes

 

[aeghrur]

Nah, people will still pick their mains even if they're unviable. Just that there will be a bigger chance of having your character in a neutral->good match up if MK was banned.
I play this crappy game because it has smash balls in it. Does melee have that? Yeah, that's what I thought. Just kidding, lol. It's cuz of sonic. :O

 

[Zankoku]

Nah, people will still pick their mains even if they're unviable. Just that there will be a bigger chance of having your character in a neutral->good match up if MK was banned.

What. Yeah, I guess you have a 2.77778% greater chance of getting a better matchup with Meta Knight gone.

I'm still not sure I understand - Meta Knight will dominate the environment, even though people will still pick their "unviable" mains?

 

[bobson]

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.

Clearly people do care if over half of the community (going by the poll) is pushing for a ban.

 

[Master Raven]

Clearly people do care if over half of the community (going by the poll) is pushing for a ban.

I doubt ~480 players make up over half the community.

>_>

There's also the neutral people like myself and Shadowlink who don't actually vote in the poll (well Shadowlink did but not me). I think there should be a neutral option.

 

[da K.I.D.]

shadowlink voted no to the ban, hes said so many times.

and honesty...

480 people sounds like 3/4ths of the community in the states if you were to just ask me out of the blue

p.s. i also play brawl cus of sonic

 

[da K.I.D.]

and as for the top tier argument.
in addition to the top tiers all doing well against themselves, without MK every top tier has at least 1 character NOT in top tier that has at least a 50-50 with them
'cept snake

falco: shiek
D3: Sonic, pika
GaW: link, tink,
oli: peach

 

[MBlaze]

Metaknight needs a super ban.

 

[SirSpamAlot]

idk i dont think he should be banned hes beatable like all other characters....or maybe im just playing against bad mk's

 

[Swordplay]

I was pro ban before but after listening I'm now neutral again.

I want to hear them debate Hobo 12. The only major tournament that had Metaknight banned.

 

[da K.I.D.]

i still like where this poll is going...

lolz

 

[BentoBox]

this poll isnt any different from the last

 

[Swordplay]

There are some characters with **** edge games. They didn't even mention zair edge guarding....

But I guess strategies like this belong to characters who aren't even mid tier worthy thus not mentioning...

 

[ColinJF]

People now voting Yes who voted No last time (38):

Dark Hart, Chum, BrawlLover, Earthbound Zero, East, EraOfGames, Fat_K, Funk King, Ironboots33, JacobWins, JuanTendo, KillerSOS, Kiyokiyo, Myst007_teh_newb, NeoMagic, Nic64, Nick A, Nintendoughnut, Oh Snap, PieM4ster, RawrZ, Shoop70, Shred_kid, Sigrid Fiinikkusu, SilverBlaze, SilverSpark, Slush, SmAsH-T3r, Ugg, XxBlackxX, Yikarur, YumeMaxx, Zylar, highandmightyjoe, kigbariom, kongfucius, laird, slikvik

People now voting No who voted Yes last time (32):

omegablackmage, Bowyer, Anth0ny, ArcPoint, BBQ°, BentoBox, Binx, Blad01, DanGR, Dark Ryu, Eight 52, Falconv1.0, God-is-my-Rock, GodAtHand, GofG, Helkulkhamen, Joak, K 2, King Yoshi, LRS, LegionBrawler, Linguini, Lolofora, NAKEDeDeDe, NF Alex, Pullvie, Ray/Boshi, Sphyra, Tyser, marsulas, smashplaya, viparagon


Frankly I doubt it was the podcast that changed anybody's opinion, but these are the results as far as changed opinions go so far. It appears the net gain for the ban side is +6 at this point. Overswarm may need to step up his scrub rhetoric.

 

[crewster]

Add me to the later list of the above.

idk i dont think he should be banned hes beatable like all other characters....or maybe im just playing against bad mk's

As I said:

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.

 

[ColinJF]

You voted No last time as well actually.

http://www.smashboards.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=502

 

[crewster]

did I, oh well I did. My bad.

 

[Ice Climbers P and N]

Now look at all of the Yes. XD

 

[BentoBox]

The yes camp led by a steady 200 in the previous poll. And at the end the ratio was a bit under 60:40~ Nothing indicates so far that its going to be any different.

 

[Ignatius]

I think you mean a bit under 55:45, the last poll got closed at 1271 yes to 1083 no. Which was about 54% to 46%.

I don't expect much difference from this poll either, ban will probably get an early lead again, and hold about a 200 vote lead again for the duration.

 

[Natch]

The yes camp led by a steady 200 in the previous poll. And at the end the ratio was a bit under 60:40~ Nothing indicates so far that its going to be any different.

No, closer to 55:45. That makes a difference, by a full 10%.

 

[aeghrur]

What. Yeah, I guess you have a 2.77778% greater chance of getting a better matchup with Meta Knight gone.

I'm still not sure I understand - Meta Knight will dominate the environment, even though people will still pick their "unviable" mains?

Yeah, basically. The correct and profitable choice is to go metaknight so most people will do it. Yet, there will be people who stick to their original yet unviable mains because, well, we're human, we don't do things purely because it's logical. My thought is that the numbers of other character mains will dwindle as they keep losing to metaknights and snakes(since most people will switch for money and stuff) and the metagame growth for the other characters will stagnate.

 

[LinkStrifeLeonhart]

This isn't really going to go anywhere, is it? In the end it is up to the TO to decide to ban MK or not, and we already know that there are several that will not ban him. If he doesn't get banned, then there probably will be several TOs that will ban him.

So, in the end, isn't this going to come down to a psychological battle? If Mk is banned, those that pushed for it should get a surge of confidence now that MK is gone. Those that didn't want him banned will probably not be affected by it at all other than switching mains if their TO does ban him. If MK isn't banned, those that wanted him banned will have to man up and work on the matchup while those that didn't want him banned will continue on anyway.


Not that it matters, but I'm neutral on this.

 

[Calixto]

Go Go Ban Wooooooooooo!

 

[Ice Climbers P and N]

It doesn't really matter to some people.

Meta Knight is always beatable...even though he breaks basically everyone.

 

[XienZo]

What. Yeah, I guess you have a 2.77778% greater chance of getting a better matchup with Meta Knight gone.

I'm still not sure I understand - Meta Knight will dominate the environment, even though people will still pick their "unviable" mains?

I thought we were a play to win communtiy, striving for every little advantage we can get.

Besides, its better than if we do nothing and have a 2.7% chance of getting a worse matchup.

 

[1048576]

Pro-ban people should just switch to MK. Then you can make the unicentric metagame argument, he will get banned, and all will be well.

 

[XienZo]

Pro-ban people should just switch to MK. Then you can make the unicentric metagame argument, he will get banned, and all will be well.

Thats like saying anti-drug people should all go and get addicted to show the bad effects of drugs.

 

[kr3wman]

Thats like saying anti-drug people should all go and get addicted to show the bad effects of drugs.

Even then people who discard the bad effects of drugs wouldn't be totally convinced.

Just as the MK argument.

 

[Master Raven]

Pro-ban people should just switch to MK. Then you can make the unicentric metagame argument, he will get banned, and all will be well.

That doesn't prove anything. We need to know more about how truly broken he might be. You don't get a whole bunch of people to main him so you would deliberately centralize the metagame around him, 'cause in that case it's the community's fault for doing that and not MK.

 

[Zankoku]

I thought we were a play to win communtiy, striving for every little advantage we can get.

Besides, its better than if we do nothing and have a 2.7% chance of getting a worse matchup.

"Playing to win" involves trying to disallow people to play a character now?

Whoops. I mean, I'm all for the ability to beat everyone by saying "you're not allowed to play your main any more."

 

[XienZo]

"Playing to win" involves trying to disallow people to play a character now?

Whoops. I mean, I'm all for the ability to beat everyone by saying "you're not allowed to play your main any more."

Hey, remember, its a 2.7% more character use for others.

And besides, whats so bad about "You're not allowed to play your main anymore"?

Normally, it doesn't lead to a 2.7% increase in viability for everyone else(does that seriously include top-tier viability, since I think they get a bigger boost), so it looks stupid.

But we don't know exactly how much a 2.7% viability increase is worth, and for all we know, it could completely justify getting rid of MK.

In other words, we don't know how to convert character viability in % to characters lost in % yet, and the conversion rate could totally make it worth it.

 

[Zankoku]

2.7% was a joke. It's the percent of 1/36, that is, the chances of playing against Meta Knight given equal representation from all characters.

The "play to win" mentality is one to improve your chances of winning as much as possible within boundaries of the game's rules. I'm not sure this extends to altering the rules to be in your favor as well. If you want to make an argument for banning Meta Knight, it will not be because everyone wants to win and banning him would make peope win more.

 

[aeghrur]

*GASP*, A NEW ARGUMENT ARISES. Quickly, TO THE MATH MOBILE!

 

[XienZo]

The "play to win" mentality is one to improve your chances of winning as much as possible within boundaries of the game's rules. I'm not sure this extends to altering the rules to be in your favor as well. If you want to make an argument for banning Meta Knight, it will not be because everyone wants to win and banning him would make peope win more.

Heh, well , now that I think about it, I guess I should have used the "increase # of viable characters" mentality, since "play to win" doesn't really apply to making rules, like you said.

Anyhow, the main point is that a character becoming completely unviable might be offset by more characters becoming even SLIGHTLY more viable, as we don't know if that "slightly" is actually neglible or would totally justify the ban.

 

[Zankoku]

The ban would only be truly justified if the previous number of viable characters was under two. Banning under the pretense of increasing the number of viable characters is an entirely subjective matter, and one you could do for both Snake and Dedede.

 

[XienZo]

Banning under the pretense of increasing the number of viable characters is an entirely subjective matter, and one you could do for both Snake and Dedede.

Why would it be ENTIRELY subjective?