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

[Xzax Kasrani]

wait, people play melee?

 

[Justblaze647]

OMG... Check my sig...

Gimpy's cooking up some Melee Magic...

 

[Brinzy]

On topic- I'm pro ban. I can handle the matchup just fine (I play Vidjo a lot for practice), but the character himself has just too many glaring advantages with little disadvantages that don't really do much to compensate for those huge advantages. Ok, he's light, and? He'll still combo/gimp/kill you at early percentages as well, regardless of good DI. Many of the anti-ban arguments are based on future predictions/promises/speculation of some mysterious and marvelous technique/tactic that would completely turn the tables on MK, when pro-ban has their data here and now, ready to present. The thing about MK is that he has NO bad matchups, Snake has a couple bad matchups, DDD has a couple, GnW has a couple, ROB has a couple, does MK? Nope...his lowest is 50/50. He has no predetermined disadvantages that really contribute to Smash being a game of options and counterpicks between the characters. He has the moves and potential to deal with any situation at nearly any time. As was said in the podcast, why pick up someone else and learn the strategies to beat MK or any other high tier character when you can just pick up MK and get him down faster to deal with those issues?

Rhetoric: Having no bad match-ups and being good but still reasonably beatable is usually not reason enough alone to ban a character. I could see if he was 7:3ing the whole cast, but that's not the case.

Also, to address your message about Fox. A Melee Fox usually has to play very precisely and be a fine-tuned player overall to compete at high levels of play. Not to mention Fox can be comboed significantly by a good portion of the cast as well as gimped by a lot of characters. The two are not comparable, not at all.

The MK also has to be skilled in order to not get wrecked by other players. MK isn't as easily gimped, true. He probably also isn't as easily comboed. If he's 50/50 with some characters in your opinion, then his huge advantages in general apparently aren't overwhelming everyone in the cast.

Besides, both get chaingrabbed somehow, both aren't very heavy, and both have really good match-ups. There are qualities that Melee Fox and Brawl MK share.

 

[Yuna]

Rhetoric: Having no bad match-ups and being good but still reasonably beatable is usually not reason enough alone to ban a character. I could see if he was 7:3ing the whole cast, but that's not the case.

What the... are you actually quoting me or did you just happen to repeat what I was saying for months almost verbatim?

 

[Brinzy]

I just happened to repeat you, haha.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Many of the anti-ban arguments are based on future predictions/promises/speculation of some mysterious and marvelous technique/tactic that would completely turn the tables on MK, when pro-ban has their data here and now, ready to present.

1) Really, Kirby was good two months ago?
2) Really, MK has been taking the majority of top 8 at tournaments with the highest skill level? Or did MK do good at Hobo 11 two months ago and people still think that tournament is somehow proof of anything?

 

[Yuna]

Besides, it's not like "many" of "our" aguments are based on future predictions, either. The brunt of the mare based on facts and established rules, history and precedence. Of course, those are automatically ignored by those who don't have enough insight into the history of Competitive gaming to know about them.

 

[da K.I.D.]

wasnt this topic decided on like, a month ago, why are people still even talking about this.

 

[Yuna]

wasnt this topic decided on like, a month ago, why are people still even talking about this.

Beating a dead horse - international past time since 9100 B.C.

 

[da K.I.D.]

i thought you would be above bothering with this topic even though its already been decided.

 

[adumbrodeus]

wasnt this topic decided on like, a month ago, why are people still even talking about this.

Check the wording of the official decision, the SBR decided firstly that as far as they could tell as of the time (after extensive review) that MK was not ban-worthy and definately is worthy of being watching.

Furthermore, read the comments by some SBR members, the main reason why many people said they COULDN'T vote "yes" was because of the lack of a concrete ban criteria.


This issue isn't ultimately settled, this is a holding decision, the topic is quite relevant.

 

[Eddie G]

Besides, it's not like "many" of "our" aguments are based on future predictions, either. The brunt of the mare based on facts and established rules, history and precedence. Of course, those are automatically ignored by those who don't have enough insight into the history of Competitive gaming to know about them.

Right, because I just would not be capable of knowing anything regarding competitive gaming nor would someone like me have this tremendous level of insight on the subject, because I'm just some random player, what do I know right? I know, I expected to hear something along those lines. I'm done. Everyone enjoy the debate, it's sad that we even have to go through with this. MK gives a whole new meaning to METAgame, kids.

 

[Brinzy]

Quit taking things personally. You came in this thread with:

Honestly...it would be wonderful to just be able to walk up to some of the people in the community and punch their scrawny little selves in the mouth. This community is getting worse with each passing day.

...

Call me a random scrub you elitist fools lurking out there, I'll gladly call transportation johns with no hesitation. I still know what I'm talking about.

and the moment someone disagrees with you (and doesn't even say that you, personally, don't know anything about competitive gaming), you run off to the Farplane.

Why would you even take that statement personally? Where did he even mention you? He mentioned your argument and then said "those who don't have enough insight into the history of Competitive gaming." That does not mean YOU. That's merely a statement that is meant to counter your statement that people are using future predictions when, in fact, people are using the PAST as for a good chunk of their reasoning as to what could/does happen.

 

[Pi]

I don't want to see MK banned because if you ban him
All hope for any form of counter/ways to beat him is lost

Keeping him in play will FORCE people to find ways around him

Remove him from play and nobody will try any more

And he's removed forever

Playing MK does not guarantee a win AFAIK? So he shouldn't guarantee a ban

 

[Eddie G]

Quit taking things personally. You came in this thread with:



and the moment someone disagrees with you (and doesn't even say that you, personally, don't know anything about competitive gaming), you run off to the Farplane.

Why would you even take that statement personally? Where did he even mention you? He mentioned your argument and then said "those who don't have enough insight into the history of Competitive gaming." That does not mean YOU. That's merely a statement that is meant to counter your statement that people are using future predictions when, in fact, people are using the PAST as for a good chunk of their reasoning as to what could/does happen.

I know it doesn't mean me. I just said I was done, and I am. You all can sit here and continue to argue/debate over a trivial matter whose final decision isn't even left in our hands, in a game that will eventually die down like all the rest, but not me, so even if that qualifies as me running like a *****. I'll gladly turn the other cheek. Enjoy your thrilling little topic everyone.

 

[GofG]

What the hell do you mean, the decision isn't in our hands? The SBR has no power over us. We can choose to deviate from them if we want. The power is ENTIRELY in your hands to run a tournament where MK is banned, or not banned.

TO with your power.

 

[Eddie G]

I don't want to see MK banned because if you ban him
All hope for any form of counter/ways to beat him is lost

Keeping him in play will FORCE people to find ways around him

Remove him from play and nobody will try any more

And he's removed forever

Playing MK does not guarantee a win AFAIK? So he shouldn't guarantee a ban

Before I go, I would just like to point out something similar to Edrees' way of thinking. People will try hard with him around, they will try hard specifically to fight Metaknight. He nullifies any sort of balance that could possibly be present even among the higher tier characters. For example, in Melee, Fox and Marth can dominate at higher levels of play, but they can also be comboed and gimped by a good portion of the cast to compensate for their great offensive capabilities. Sheik is able to take out most of the lower tier cast as well as compete with the higher tier characters. Falco is a similar case. There aren't just options in-game with Melee, there are options and things to consider when choosing your characters and stages as well. Does that apply to MK? No, it does not. He has no stages that significantly hinder his play if at all. He has no bad matchups, the lowest being even, which limits the counterpick reasoning to "well...this character MIGHT do well against him". As was said in the podcast, that leaves us with the question "why should we even bother picking up another character to combat MK or any other tough matchup when we can just pick up MK in a shorter amount of time?" That limits the amount of players that are dedicated to other characters, thus slowing the development process for those characters while keeping the MK population high and full of options to choose from. He is a self-destructive force to this veil of "balance" that Brawl supposedly has. He does hinder the development of Brawl's metagame overall.

Should people work hard with their characters to find ways to defeat MK? Yes. But again, what's the point when he is still an easier solution to himself? People will more often than not pick the better character, it is natural with competitive gaming. The problem is, MK is too good of a character, and the balance between character selections and counterpicks hardly exists with him remaining present for selection.

 

[Eddie G]

What the hell do you mean, the decision isn't in our hands? The SBR has no power over us. We can choose to deviate from them if we want. The power is ENTIRELY in your hands to run a tournament where MK is banned, or not banned.

TO with your power.

Alright, perhaps my thought on that was a little rash and unspecific. My apologies. ^.^

I was speaking of a more national "norm", if you will. Of course the option will always be available to us to hold MK-free tournaments, but without a final decision by the SBR on the matter, or anything being posted around smash sites, the MK-free tournaments would most likely not amount to anything on a national scale. That was where I was going with that statement.

 

[Pi]

Before I go, I would just like to point out something similar to Edrees' way of thinking. People will try hard with him around, they will try hard specifically to fight Metaknight. He nullifies any sort of balance that could possibly be present even among the higher tier characters. For example, in Melee, Fox and Marth can dominate at higher levels of play, but they can also be comboed and gimped by a good portion of the cast to compensate for their great offensive capabilities. Sheik is able to take out most of the lower tier cast as well as compete with the higher tier characters. Falco is a similar case. There aren't just options in-game with Melee, there are options and things to consider when choosing your characters and stages as well. Does that apply to MK? No, it does not. He has no stages that significantly hinder his play if at all. He has no bad matchups, the lowest being even, which limits the counterpick reasoning to "well...this character MIGHT do well against him". As was said in the podcast, that leaves us with the question "why should we even bother picking up another character to combat MK or any other tough matchup when we can just pick up MK in a shorter amount of time?" That limits the amount of players that are dedicated to other characters, thus slowing the development process for those characters while keeping the MK population high and full of options to choose from. He is a self-destructive force to this veil of "balance" that Brawl supposedly has. He does hinder the development of Brawl's metagame overall.

Should people work hard with their characters to find ways to defeat MK? Yes. But again, what's the point when he is still an easier solution to himself? People will more often than not pick the better character, it is natural with competitive gaming. The problem is, MK is too good of a character, and the balance between character selections and counterpicks hardly exists with him remaining present for selection.

I think it's too early in the games development to make the decision to ban a character.

But I have no experience with skilled MK's any way. So my opinion might be different having experienced them.

 

[Eddie G]

I think it's too early in the games development to make the decision to ban a character.

But I have no experience with skilled MK's any way. So my opinion might be different having experienced them.

I agree with that. It's too early to make the absolute decision on whether to ban him or not, but sooner or later, that reason is going to be void. It is then that a decision must finally be made.

 

[Pi]

I agree with that. It's too early to make the absolute decision on whether to ban him or not, but sooner or later, that reason is going to be void. It is then that a decision must finally be made.

Of course.

 

[Swordplay]

I can't believe I'm still undecided. I'm so lame

 

[salaboB]

I can't believe I'm still undecided. I'm so lame

Lame! Lame! Lame!

 

[gantrain05]

i don't get it, why are people just assuming that "having no bad matchups and having no weaknesses just simply isn't enough to warrant a ban" why not? we are the smash community, we've been trodding off the beaten path since we started playing this game competetivley, this isn't street fighter where you had to be some freakin akuma to be banned, we change things to create balance, and honestly....getting rid of MK would greatly increase the balance imo. im getting tired of people stating that the criteria the pro ban side came up with doesn't justify a ban.......we can ban what we feel necesarry it doesn't have to be rediculously broken.

 

[Justblaze647]

i don't get it, why are people just assuming that "having no bad matchups and having no weaknesses just simply isn't enough to warrant a ban" why not? we are the smash community, we've been trodding off the beaten path since we started playing this game competetivley, this isn't street fighter where you had to be some freakin akuma to be banned, we change things to create balance, and honestly....getting rid of MK would greatly increase the balance imo. im getting tired of people stating that the criteria the pro ban side came up with doesn't justify a ban.......we can ban what we feel necesarry it doesn't have to be rediculously broken.

The most logical reason I've come across so far was that it's too early in Brawl's competitive lifespan to ban a character... not to say that couldn't be potentially problematic in the future... imo

 

[Yuna]

i thought you would be above bothering with this topic even though its already been decided.

I accidentally wandered in here one day after thinking I'd clicked on another thread and replied to a post which didn't make it completely obvious this thread was about MK. I thought it was just about banning in general, so I debated it. It was only afterwards I realized my mistake, but by then, I'd already posted and had to reply to the replies.

Right, because I just would not be capable of knowing anything regarding competitive gaming nor would someone like me have this tremendous level of insight on the subject, because I'm just some random player, what do I know right? I know, I expected to hear something along those lines. I'm done. Everyone enjoy the debate, it's sad that we even have to go through with this. MK gives a whole new meaning to METAgame, kids.

Your juniority with the game has nothing to do with it. It's not how long one has been a part of a scene, it's about what one knows. Some people, new and old, showcase incredible ignorance on the part of how Competitive gaming works.

Some people, old or new, showcase incredible insight.

I didn't single out a single poster in that post of mine and I didn't even mention new players. I just said that there are people with little to no insight into Competitive gaming and who are then unable to comprehend valid arguments which require such insight for comprehension. I don't even know you. I make no judgment on what you do and do not know. It is only after debating you that I can make that judgment.

New players are so on the defense. When I'm berating ignorant players, I'm not berating new players. New players can be knowledgeable. The fact that many aren't doesn't mean none can be. And if you don't fall into the category of "Ignorant players", why assume I mean "New players" just so you can be outraged at something I never ever said?

It has nothing to do with whether or not one is new to the scene.

I know it doesn't mean me. I just said I was done, and I am.

Funny, you, yourself, disagree:
"I just would not be capable of knowing anything regarding competitive gaming nor would someone like me have this tremendous level of insight on the subject, because I'm just some random player, what do I know right?"

Before I go, I would just like to point out something similar to Edrees' way of thinking. People will try hard with him around, they will try hard specifically to fight Metaknight. He nullifies any sort of balance that could possibly be present even among the higher tier characters.

This is a total lie and shows a lack of insight into Smash (not because you're random, new or whatever but because you just know nothing).

Are you even aware of that MK has even match-ups to 60-40s against every single one of the Tops and Highs?

For example, in Melee, Fox and Marth can dominate at higher levels of play, but they can also be comboed and gimped by a good portion of the cast to compensate for their great offensive capabilities.

A match-up can be even/close to even evenw ithout comboing and gimpage. The mere fact that even on paper, MK doesn't totally dominate shows that he's not "too good".

Random stuff.

Congratulations, you just proved he's the best character in the game. There is still balance between the Tops and Highs and he is still perfectly beatable. Just because he has no disadvantageous match-ups does not mean he has to be banned.

If you had any insight into Competitive gaming or any scene other than Smash, you'd know this. Also, did Kirby in SSB64 have any disadvantageous match-ups? At all? Should we go back and retro-actively ban him if he didn't?

i don't get it, why are people just assuming that "having no bad matchups and having no weaknesses just simply isn't enough to warrant a ban" why not? we are the smash community, we've been trodding off the beaten path since we started playing this game competetivley, this isn't street fighter where you had to be some freakin akuma to be banned, we change things to create balance, and honestly....getting rid of MK would greatly increase the balance imo. im getting tired of people stating that the criteria the pro ban side came up with doesn't justify a ban.......we can ban what we feel necesarry it doesn't have to be rediculously broken.

So just because we're Smash, we have to be n00bs and Scrubs? If anyone is remotely hard to beat, we ban them? Why work hard when we can just ban them?

MK is perfectly beatable by several characters. Just pick one of them. Not all characters are viable in Competitive play. Not all characters have 60-40s or better against the best character in the game. Not all characters have disadvantageous match-ups and no bad stages.

Just because we're "different" does not mean we have to be "different" in bad ways. Banning things because we're just too lazy to deal with something that is perfectly beatable and can be handled just fine at the highest level of play would just make us whiny little Scrubs too lazy to get good at the game.

If you're that desperate to not have a disadvantage against MK, play Snake. Or Banana lock him as Diddy Kong.

 

[gantrain05]

yuna, did i ever say the smash community was all noobs and scrubs? if i thought that i wouldn't be here, your putting words in my mouth, and saying that banning MK would be the BAD thing to do is just your opinion, stop stating it as if its fact, your logic of "MK is beatable by several characters" is also meh, any character is beatable by any character given the right circumstances i never said anything of the sort, my ONLY argument was w/out MK the game would become more balanced. You really do like to blow things out of proportion.

 

[Zankoku]

But without top tiers every game would be more balanced, and saying

your logic of "MK is beatable by several characters" is also meh, any character is beatable by any character given the right circumstances

is also dismissing the previous Melee argument of "Marth and Fox dominated but were still beatable when set up for a combo."

 

[Yuna]

yuna, did i ever say the smash community was all noobs and scrubs? if i thought that i wouldn't be here, your putting words in my mouth, and saying that banning MK would be the BAD thing to do is just your opinion, stop stating it as if its fact, your logic of "MK is beatable by several characters" is also meh, any character is beatable by any character given the right circumstances i never said anything of the sort, my ONLY argument was w/out MK the game would become more balanced. You really do like to blow things out of proportion.

Did you even read my post? I said that we shouldn't be n00bs and Scrubs just because we're "different".

Just because we walk down a different path from other games does not mean we have to be much more ban happy and ban everything to Kingdom Come. Nowhere in there did I ever claim you had said any of it. Seriously, go back and re-read my post because I think you misinterpreted it to Sony.

Almost every single game would be more balanced without the best character present. What's your point? MK is reliably beaten by several characters. 50-50, 55-45 and 60-40 are considered very good odds.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

The problem is that these match-up's numbers just show the odds of one character winning but not how well he does against him. While this might be almost the same thing it isn't quite...
If MK has a 55/45 advantage on Falco it means he has yet another match-up in his favour. But its still a hard match-up for MK to win. On the paper it says that MK has an easier time vs Falco than vice versa but MK still has an incredibly tough time to beat Falco at all. Just because Falco has less chances doesn't mean it's easy or even close to easy to beat him.
So even if we consider MK to have a slight advantage on Falco, Falco is still overall not a good match-up at all for MK. Even 6/4 match-up's are not always pleasant things...I can't think of one MK saying "Marth is easy". Marth is a tough opponent for MK, even if the match-up is 6/4 in MKs favour.
And the list of 55/45 match-up's is growing: Falco, Bowser, Diddy Kong, possibly DK, Kirby and depending on the stage even Sheik. Zamus is also doing unusually well vs MK...and we still have to see how Olimar#s oindg. and let's not forget Lucario who - despite having the disadvantage apparently - is also never doing terrible.

I think people need to see things from this pov: MK might have all match-up's in his favour (which is NOT the case actually) but it's not enough to ban him, especially since there are plenty of these match-up's.

 

[Dantarion]

I have also noticed a move by a lot of players to shy away from MK, simply because of the belief that MK is such a good character that winning with him requires less skill.

People dont want to be "that metaknight guy" now that people think meta is the best by far.

 

[Eddie G]

Yuna, I was being sarcastic when I spoke of myself in that way. You should turn the serious lever down a notch. It may be hard to notice sarcasm on the net but come on dude...really? >.>;

Also, lack of insight? I don't care who you are or how good of a debater you may be, just tossing that statement/assumption around is a bit much. Oh, scary bolded words for emphasis, so what? I'm shaking.

You're partly correct, I have a lack of insight (in some respective Brawl aspects), but I knew a lot about Melee, the players, the matchups, the counterpicks, the frame data (enough, at least), combos, percentage data, you name it. Why? simple, I chose to invenst my time into educating myself about the game. I have not repeated this process with Brawl (as much), that's my choice, but I do believe that I still presented a respectable argument in support of the pro-ban side.

Go right ahead, tear this post to shreads like you always do, but I suggest you save yourself the time, because I couldn't really care less at this point. Yes, I'm stubborn, just like a lot of people, sue me. ^.^

 

[Xzax Kasrani]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=210999
take a look at that sometime ^^^^

 

[GofG]

Yuna, I was being sarcastic when I spoke of myself in that way. You should turn the serious lever down a notch. It may be hard to notice sarcasm on the net but come on dude...really? >.>;

Also, lack of insight? I don't care who you are or how good of a debater you may be, just tossing that statement/assumption around is a bit much. Oh, scary bolded words for emphasis, so what? I'm shaking.

You're partly correct, I have a lack of insight (in some respective Brawl aspects), but I knew a lot about Melee, the players, the matchups, the counterpicks, the frame data (enough, at least), combos, percentage data, you name it. Why? simple, I chose to invenst my time into educating myself about the game. I have not repeated this process with Brawl (as much), that's my choice, but I do believe that I still presented a respectable argument in support of the pro-ban side.

Go right ahead, tear this post to shreads like you always do, but I suggest you save yourself the time, because I couldn't really care less at this point. Yes, I'm stubborn, just like a lot of people, sue me. ^.^

What you are doing is more counterproductive to the discussion than what Yuna is doing.

 

[Brinzy]

King Beef, seriously, the stuff you're saying probably wouldn't even be addressed with any additives if you would just quit with this defeatist/victimized tone. Nobody is going to rip you or what you say to shreds so long as you present yourself just fine and so long as you don't announce to everyone that you've got your bodyarmor on and that you're talking to elitists.

 

[Yuna]

Stuff.

Having insight into Melee's/Brawl's metagame =/= Having insight into Competitive Smash or Competitive gaming. They are connected, but different things.

If you had more insight into how Competitive gaming worked, you would not be questioning why Meta Knight is not banned as much as you are now. Or at the very least, you wouldn't question our justifications for not banning him as much.

Also, don't use sarcasm on SWF. The level of stupidity is so high that anything that sounds ludicrous to you might have and probably has been said by someone before... and they meant it. Something that sounds so ludicrous it'd be obvious it's sarcasm to you will just make me think you're another one in the Great Horde of Idiots.

If you're going to be sarcastic, at least make it perfectly clear, like using sarcastic formulations such as "Oh right, it couldn't possibly be that..." or "Nooooo, not at all.". Don't just say something stupid and expect me to be psychic enough to assume you're too intelligent to actually mean it and that it must, thus, be sarcasm.

Also, lay off the martyrism. The reason why your arguments are being "ripped to shreds" is because they are weak. Instead of playing the role of a victim, get better arguments.

 

[Archangel]

I have also noticed a move by a lot of players to shy away from MK, simply because of the belief that MK is such a good character that winning with him requires less skill.

People dont want to be "that metaknight guy" now that people think meta is the best by far.

I did notice that in Melee. Players moved from Marth and Falco to Jiggly and Ice Climbers

What I'm getting at is for all I know their may be worse characters than MK lurking in the shadows. Let me say it now. I HATE MK but I have an even shot against him with most characters thanks to my new hacks.

 

[Daimonster]

Yuna never seizes to impress.

Players from the MvC2 scene do not ban the god tier characters for the sake of balance (56 CHARACTERS). Instead they play the game that was designed. If you find that game fun...play it. If you find smash bros fun the way it is...then play it.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Yuna never seizes to impress.

Players from the MvC2 scene do not ban the god tier characters for the sake of balance (56 CHARACTERS). Instead they play the game that was designed. If you find that game fun...play it. If you find smash bros fun the way it is...then play it.

That is incorrect,
The way the game is designed is of no importance at all to competitive play.
In the case of smash we are going against the design which was casual.
In the case of MvC2 they are also not exactly going with design because the game typically revolves around 4 characters (7 at less than high level play) rather than the entire cast.

It is not often that a game is designed to be for competitive play,StarCraft is one of those games that are designed to be played competitively (hence why they patched it so often to balance things)

 

[Eddie G]

Having insight into Melee's/Brawl's metagame =/= Having insight into Competitive Smash or Competitive gaming. They are connected, but different things.

If you had more insight into how Competitive gaming worked, you would not be questioning why Meta Knight is not banned as much as you are now. Or at the very least, you wouldn't question our justifications for not banning him as much.

Also, don't use sarcasm on SWF. The level of stupidity is so high that anything that sounds ludicrous to you might have and probably has been said by someone before... and they meant it. Something that sounds so ludicrous it'd be obvious it's sarcasm to you will just make me think you're another one in the Great Horde of Idiots.

If you're going to be sarcastic, at least make it perfectly clear, like using sarcastic formulations such as "Oh right, it couldn't possibly be that..." or "Nooooo, not at all.". Don't just say something stupid and expect me to be psychic enough to assume you're too intelligent to actually mean it and that it must, thus, be sarcasm.

Also, lay off the martyrism. The reason why your arguments are being "ripped to shreds" is because they are weak. Instead of playing the role of a victim, get better arguments.

Well said, point taken. I'll post a little more intelligently on SWF from here on out like I used to. My apologies for the unnecessary behavior I temporarily displayed in the Brawl tactical discussion.

Now then, back on topic. ^.^

In all honesty, both sides make good points. OS, Edrees, AZ, and Mow were all really convincing with what they said. I'm leaning more towards neutral now than anything, and the fact that I've learned (as a Peach player) how to adapt to the matchup enough to be able to exploit any weaknesses that aid Peach (F-smashes against tornado, u-tilts from underneath, dairs/turnips from above, etc.) really helps to determine that. This has made me realize that Metaknight is not unbeatable, even in the hands of a decent player. The matchup is **** hard, and even more so depending on who you're using, but not impossible. The only reason that still stands strong from the pro side in my opinion is the plea for character diversity at tournaments, at least for the sake of their quicker development. Thoughts on this?