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

[Yuna]

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)

He did not mean what the designers intended for the game, he meant what is in the game. As in not unnecessarily banning truckloads of stuff.

 

[ShadowLink84]

He did not mean what the designers intended for the game, he meant what is in the game. As in not unnecessarily banning truckloads of stuff.

Ah my error.

 

[salaboB]

Ah my error.

You were still correct though (Edit: About Daimonster's post being incorrect).

Stages, items, game modes, special moves (IDC, chaingrabbing in some places) -- many "designed" aspects of Brawl are removed to make it competitive. We are not playing it as it was designed (Alternatively, if we are playing it as designed then removing a character from tournament play will be no less as designed either. I'm fine going either way).

 

[Yuna]

Stages, items, game modes, special moves (IDC, chaingrabbing in some places) -- many "designed" aspects of Brawl are removed to make it competitive. We are not playing it as it was designed (Alternatively, if we are playing it as designed then removing a character from tournament play will be no less as designed either. I'm fine going either way).

Because they broke the game and made it unplayable as a whole. Things like that need to be banned. Meta Knight does not do any of that and therefore does not need to be banned.

 

[Dark Sonic]

You were still correct though (Edit: About Daimonster's post being incorrect).

Stages, items, game modes, special moves (IDC, chaingrabbing in some places) -- many "designed" aspects of Brawl are removed to make it competitive. We are not playing it as it was designed (Alternatively, if we are playing it as designed then removing a character from tournament play will be no less as designed either. I'm fine going either way).

It is designed to have options to turn off these things if they players wish to do so. In that sense, we are still playing it as it was designed, since all of our changes are simply game options (the same way that some competitive fighting games have 3/5 matches instead of 2/3.)

IDC, stalling rules, ect. are pretty much the only cases of us making rules against the original design (notice I didn't say purpose, but design) of the game.

 

[salaboB]

It is designed to have options to turn off these things if they players wish to do so. In that sense, we are still playing it as it was designed, since all of our changes are simply game options (the same way that some competitive fighting games have 3/5 matches instead of 2/3.)

All banning MK from competitive play would be is turning off an option the same way stage bans work when you don't pick random -- you're still not allowed to select any stage you want.

The game is not being played with all the options available to select when used in a tournament, banning MK will not make it any more or less so.

 

[Sesshomuronay]

Metaknight isnt cheap. I mean hes good but not good enough to warrant a ban. Like if he all the matchups he had were 70-30 then he could be banned but that is not the case as he has quite a few even matchups and some that are being debated as possible disadvantages. Yes he is better than the rest of the cast and wins a lot of tournaments but thats because he is the best. In almost every competitive fighting game there is someone who is the best and this just happens to be metaknight.

 

[TreK]

I voted for the ban, though i'm more for a semi ban thing like, i don't know, hacking him to have an actually exploitable weakness, or put some handicap on.
I see the "hacking a videogame is baaaad" stuff coming, so i'll explain why i'm saying this :
We're all aware Sakurai did some mistakes in brawl, to me metaknight is just another one ; but we can get over it like we did for non neutral stages and items. Though we used the banhammer without regret on items and stages, MK deserves his character slot : that's why i am for a semiban.

 

[Brinzy]

I don't mind hacking games, but for the tournament scene, that is a terrible idea.

All banning MK from competitive play would be is turning off an option the same way stage bans work when you don't pick random -- you're still not allowed to select any stage you want.

By removing MK, the performance of some characters will increase (Marth) while others will be harmed more by it because MK dealt with their harder match-ups (Jigglypuff). On the surface, you're simply removing an option, but it can be very damaging to the metagame, in my opinion.

 

[Eddie G]

How so Raphael? There would be severe changes that would result from a banning of MK, but would the metagame really suffer that much? I'm just curious, that's all.

 

[mimic_king]

Although I want Meta Knight to be banned, I still believe it would be fair if he isn't banned. They never banned Fox from a tournament, but people managed to beat him. If everyone complains about Meta Knight so much then why doesn't everyone pick him? You will win just like the other MK mains.

 

[salaboB]

By removing MK, the performance of some characters will increase (Marth) while others will be harmed more by it because MK dealt with their harder match-ups (Jigglypuff). On the surface, you're simply removing an option, but it can be very damaging to the metagame, in my opinion.

I was simply pointing out that the argument "Other games don't ban things" is irrelevent -- Competitive Brawl already limits options that are coded into the game, the most notable being people not allowed to select any stage they feel like when it's their pick.

 

[Yuna]

I was simply pointing out that the argument "Other games don't ban things" is irrelevent -- Competitive Brawl already limits options that are coded into the game, the most notable being people not allowed to select any stage they feel like when it's their pick.

You obviously have never played other games. There have been games where stages have been banned if they are ruled detrimental to the metagame. Soul Caliburs II & III, Guilty Gear XX-series (a certain stage can only be played if both players agree to it), a certain game in Naruto: Naritumate Hero, etc.

Stages play a larger role in Smash, so we ban more stages, but stage bans are hardly unheard of outside of Smash. Things that are deemed detrimental to the game as a whole, making it unplayable, are banned. Certain stages make the game unplayable, thus they are banned.

 

[GofG]

Although I want Meta Knight to be banned, I still believe it would be fair if he isn't banned. They never banned Fox from a tournament, but people managed to beat him. If everyone complains about Meta Knight so much then why doesn't everyone pick him? You will win just like the other MK mains.

Fox is not the same thing as Metaknight. This comparison is meaningless; Metaknight is overpowered, Fox has just the right amount of power for a top-tier character. Also, everyone does pick Metaknight.

If only he were a bit better, maybe he'd be ban worthy. Maybe if he could jump indefinitely.

 

[Brinzy]

How so Raphael? There would be severe changes that would result from a banning of MK, but would the metagame really suffer that much? I'm just curious, that's all.

I could be completely wrong, and I probably should not have gone so far as to say the whole metagame, but if MK is out of the picture, Marth's worst match-up (and only truly disadvantageous one) is gone, which places him on the same pedestal as MK, that is, "He has no bad match-ups!" Jigglypuff, according to the Jigglypuff board, does not get destroyed by MK, while MK removes many other characters that Jigglypuff has a harder time with, such as Marth and I think Snake. Removing MK would harm Jigglypuff more than it has already been harmed. Yoshi's fight against MK has been a huge step forward in how people view him, albeit he's still negatively received for the mos tpart. Removing MK would pretty much knock off one of his big claims to fame.

Those type of changes would benefit some and hurt others, but really, if MK is not a character's worst fight, then removing MK, at best, won't affect them as much, but at worst it can really hurt them.

 

[ExCeL 52]

Although I want Meta Knight to be banned, I still believe it would be fair if he isn't banned. They never banned Fox from a tournament, but people managed to beat him. If everyone complains about Meta Knight so much then why doesn't everyone pick him? You will win just like the other MK mains.

I voted to ban Meta-Knight.... Hes just too good .. I dont even feel right when I play with him against other people I win almost every time .. I go with gut feelings and Meta-Knight is crap in my gut..

As to the quote by mimic_king .. Fox was not winning crazy amounts of tournaments in melee ..People could win against him half of the time ... Metaknight is like 3/4s of the time you lose.

 

[Sesshomuronay]

Metaknight is like 3/4s of the time you lose.

Only if you suck/opponent is better than you overall.

 

[Supernova757]

i used to think he should be banned. but after our discussion in the smash back room. I don't think he should be banned anymore!

 

[Nefarious B]

I voted yes, though I would agree with the podcast that it should last for a month or two just to advance the rest of the characters' metagame. It would be interesting to see where the game is after.

Only part of metaknight that seems OP to me is B up, it is just too good in every way.

 

[Eddie G]

I could be completely wrong, and I probably should not have gone so far as to say the whole metagame, but if MK is out of the picture, Marth's worst match-up (and only truly disadvantageous one) is gone, which places him on the same pedestal as MK, that is, "He has no bad match-ups!" Jigglypuff, according to the Jigglypuff board, does not get destroyed by MK, while MK removes many other characters that Jigglypuff has a harder time with, such as Marth and I think Snake. Removing MK would harm Jigglypuff more than it has already been harmed. Yoshi's fight against MK has been a huge step forward in how people view him, albeit he's still negatively received for the mos tpart. Removing MK would pretty much knock off one of his big claims to fame.

Those type of changes would benefit some and hurt others, but really, if MK is not a character's worst fight, then removing MK, at best, won't affect them as much, but at worst it can really hurt them.

Hmm...good point. I suppose the changes would still be pretty severe like you are describing, even if the whole metagame isn't being torn up that much, the potential changes could and should still be enough to halt any ban attempts. Even though I think I'm just repeating your point here, I just hope that I am grasping it correctly. Is that what you mean?

 

[Yuna]

Even if the whole metagame isn't being torn up that much, the potential changes could and should still be enough to halt any ban attempts.

Not really. It's all of the other stuff.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

MK isn't Marths only bad match-up mofos. Removing MK maybe would change the metagame for better but that's really only a personal opinion. Whether it's better or not wihout MK is a POV. Personally, I think it's good that he's in the gane...some characters metagame started envolving more or less becaue of him (Diddy) and I think it's more fun to fight MK rather than King Dedede, ROB or Snake.

You can't say "the game is more fun without MK" because it's nothing but an opinion. He's neither too good nor does he make the game more unfun than other top tiers do.

 

[Yuna]

MK isn't Marths only bad match-up mofos.

I'd like you to name one other.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I'd like you to name one other.

King Dedede

 

[Yuna]

King Dedede

55:45 - You call this "bad"? That's an even match-up by most people's counts. Those who do not consider it as even call it "slight disadvantage".

Bad? Never.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

55:45 - You call this "bad"? That's an even match-up by most people's counts.

Most people's counts =/= facts
If it was "even" it'd be 5/5 and not 45/55
It's highly debatable whether this match-up is 55/45 or rather 6/4. It's only 55/45 because EL says so.

Quite a lot of Marths who actually still take part in tournaments (and even win like Hrnut) say D3 does indeed have the advantage. Why don't you ask a notable Marth player what he thinks. EL says it's 55/45. But Roy_R and Hrnut (who both win tourneys or place well recently) say D3 has the advantage and so do other Marths who know what they are talking about.

Those who do not consider it as even call it "slight disadvantage".

Bad? Never.

A 6/4 isn't that much worse. From that POV Marth has no "bad" match-up at all even if he's disadvantaged to at least 3 characters (Don't ask me why he's supposed to be even with DK). According to you (and most notable players) a 6/4 is reasonable enough to win even if you have the disadvantage. That's not bad either. That means that most characters in high tier - down to Kirby have no "bad" match-up's.

 

[Yuna]

A 6/4 isn't that much worse. From that POV Marth has no "bad" match-up at all even if he's disadvantaged to at least 3 characters (Don't ask me why he's supposed to be even with DK). According to you (and most notable players) a 6/4 is reasonable enough to win even if you have the disadvantage. That's not bad either. That means that most characters in high tier - down to Kirby have no "bad" match-up's.

60-40, according to me, and most "notable" players, is not a "bad" match-up. No even if it's 60-40, it's still not a "bad" match-up. It's a disadvantageous one.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

60-40, according to me, and most "notable" players, is not a "bad" match-up. No even if it's 60-40, it's still not a "bad" match-up. It's a disadvantageous one.

OK, I can agree with that. Marth has no "bad" match-up but (at least) 3 disadvantageous ones. So MK, Snake, Marth, G&W, ROB, Falco, D3, Lucario, Kirby, Toon Link and Pit all have no truly bad match-up...which is easily proven by the fact that all these characters can easily go solo in tournaments

 

[HRNUT (Honey Roasted)]

That fight is by no means even D3 has the obvious advantage, spacing in that match is still gay because once you get grabbed he instantly catches back up and he kills you easily at 100% you struggle to land a kill blow for the most part its a really aggrivating match-up

 

[Atomsk_92]

D3 Beats marth. People believeing that the matchup is even are fools.

 

[HRNUT (Honey Roasted)]

D3 Beats marth. People believeing that the matchup is even are fools.

thanks, because thats the sad sad truth of the matter, seibrik tried to get me to believe that garbage...i said Fvck that no free wins for you

 

[Eddie G]

Not really. It's all of the other stuff.

Such as his apparent weaknesses that people are refusing to see?

@ Thread- Atomsk is right, DDD ***** that matchup.

 

[Yuna]

Such as his apparent weaknesses that people are refusing to see?

@ Thread- Atomsk is right, DDD ***** that matchup.

He has weaknesses, but not that many and not that bad. There's a lot of other reasons to not ban him. For one thing, you can reliably beat him with several characters. So he's not "Play him or lose" at all.

And no, D3 does not **** Marth. It's not even, apparently, but nowhere near ****.

 

[Overswarm]

D3 Beats marth. People believeing that the matchup is even are fools.

I think I like your style

And no, D3 does not **** Marth. It's not even, apparently, but nowhere near ****.

Yeah, screw listening to people that actually play the game and the characters we're talking about. Let's listen to Yuna (who?) and Emblem Lord, who doesn't play.

I am a genius.

 

[Zankoku]

Emblem Lord said the matchup is even? Since when?

 

[Steel]

NEO and I feel the match is probably 60:40, it’s currently set at 55:45.. not even.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Emblem Lord said the matchup is even? Since when?

I think they've decided to interpret "not ****" as even...

I could see soft counter, but I doubt it's any worse then that.

 

[Overswarm]

Emblem Lord said the matchup is even? Since when?

Most people's counts =/= facts
If it was "even" it'd be 5/5 and not 45/55
It's highly debatable whether this match-up is 55/45 or rather 6/4. It's only 55/45 because EL says so.

Quite a lot of Marths who actually still take part in tournaments (and even win like Hrnut) say D3 does indeed have the advantage. Why don't you ask a notable Marth player what he thinks. EL says it's 55/45. But Roy_R and Hrnut (who both win tourneys or place well recently) say D3 has the advantage and so do other Marths who know what they are talking about.

^^^^^^^^^^


I don't know where these people get these numbers from anyway.

It's like they say 50:50 can go either way, and then 55 and 60 are disadvantaged... but the NUMBERS are close so it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what the numbers represent, the numbers themselves are close! You can beat that matchup!

Nothing else exists until you get to 70:30 matchups and people say "ROFL more like 60:40". Thne there are 90:10 and 100:0 matchups which are the exact same thing.

People with numbers make me full of rage.

 

[Yuna]

I think I like your style

Yeah, screw listening to people that actually play the game and the characters we're talking about. Let's listen to Yuna (who?) and Emblem Lord, who doesn't play.

I am a genius.

So your position is that Marth gets ***** my D3? In my view, "****" requires at least 70:30 (and even then, it's iffy. 80:20's more like it). As in, if you don't want to go with numbers, Marth is statistically set to lose a great majority of the time, around 2/3rd of the time or 3/4ths of the time.

 

[Zankoku]

people With Numbers Make Me Full Of Rage.

3 + 4 = 7