Should Metaknight be Banned? ***Take 3***

[thrillagorilla]

Why does Snake have double the rep of DDD and Marth have 3 times as much?

Maybe because the representation depends on who wants to choose that character?


If you have a problem with how little representation a character has, start by representing them.

I play Kirby...

So if Snake, MK, and DDD all took up about 30% of representation this would be ok?
I thought you guys wanted diversity?

If you are going to use those results as evidence of overcentralization MK will never be banned. Marth has a higher representation than both Snake and DDD . MK is his worse matchup which should discourage his play. And YET, people choose to play him. In the same way people choose to play MK.

Keep in mind that the numbers are from two tournaments from the same region. The numbers look different in different regions. Except Meta. He's always on top, usually by a comfortable percentage. If those are factored in, his overall percentage increases due to the drop in consistent activity from the other characters. As to your first statement, what is your definition of diversity? If we go by Eyada's criteria, it would be two distinct options. All I'm seeing out of the current numbers is a lot of Metaknight and then everyone else. Meta vs. the cast =/= diversity by that standard. Again, it isn't a proof, it is an indication.

If what you want is to even out character representation, promote a character you would like to see, play him yourself. I never saw so many Warios before Fiction hype spread around. Diddy was even considered to be just by winning by people not knowing the matchup until NL won the second time against M2K-- and now we have all of these Diddys.

You are assuming that the only reason for Metaknight's representation is popularity. If that were the case, why didn't Diddy become as popular as Metaknight after the M2K vs. Ninjalink matches? Or better yet, why isn't that the case on the whole now? You're assertion doesn't have any evidence to support it.

So many of you shout overcentralization, but don't say how. How is MK overcentralizing? Give us a reasonable example so that if this happens again we stop it alot sooner. " Too many people pick MK is a ridiculous reason because once he is banned, where do you think that percentage go? Evenly into every character? You have a better chance of Sakurai admitting adding tripping was the stupidest thing he's done in his life.

Is this directed at me? I made a whole essay out of it. I backed up my points. I did make an error in language as pointed out by Nic64, but the base of the argument is still sound.

The second half of your statement is "slippery slope" fallacy. It hasn't happened yet, and you have no evidence to support that it will. I gave reasons as to why it wouldn't happen in my essay, though.

None of the methods we've used in past competitive games to determine overcentralization apply to MK.

I'm sure people would disagree with you there. There have been plenty of people to quote Sirlin in this thread. The only question is whether or not the criteria is being quoted correctly. As I have stated before, Eyada is working on new criteria that doesn't support one side or the other, so even if old methods haven't worked, perhaps a new one will. Does this new criteria mean a Meta-ban? I have no idea.

No one is being forced to use MK in order to win.
He does not renders a sufficient majority of or all, other characters non-viable.
Nothing he does breaks the game.

IDC and his ground moves override intrinsic priority rules.

It would be best to stick with the No counterpicks argument, because as far now MK is just really popular.

And it's pretty obvious a lot of people would play him , look at how many type of people he is applicable to:

• Tier Whores
• Meta Knight fans (from the series)
• Hype Addicts (With all this MK is this and that talk who wouldn't want to atleast try him)
• Pro-ban (He's broken-- I'll show you by beating people I'm better than and losing to Sonic)
• Matchup Junkies ( A couple 50:50s at best, if you are better you will win and that's that)
• Style Lovers (Fast, furious, aggressive and highly anti-camp)
  

Proof of these claims?

I can understand not wanting to face him. Beatable or not if you have to face a character every other set, and then occasionally lose as people switch to them as a last resort--you are bound to get annoyed/bored/ect.. And hell, a ban wouldn't hurt if they are your worst matchup or a bad matchup at all. But when you could have won simply by being a better player, does he deserve a ban? If Snake becomes his counter and things look generally the same will he still warrant a ban?

If snake becomes a viable counter, then no MK doesn't warrant a ban. Potential can't be measured in the now, however, and there is no proof that Snake can become a counter. We are talking about the now. Also, why would it have taken a full year for the Snake meta-game to have come up with something that counter's Meta? It doesn't make sense.

I really want to know-- why do we need to ban MK?

And as far as I know you can't arbitrarily throw out numbers if you are alright in the head. You can throw out arbitrary numbers, which is much different and would not apply to the question I asked at first.

So again, What percentage would you consider an acceptable number of representation for the best character in a game?

Again, I am using the numbers as a gauge. The real argument lies with Meta as a character and the logic behind why so many people are playing him.

 

[ShadowLink84]

ShadowLink, I'm speaking about MK's current situation. What I have said is in contrast with MK's situation and MK's situation only.

So? Again popularity has nothing to do with the ban criteria. MK can be the only character used but unless it can be proven that the overcentraliing is due to a "Use MK or lose" situation, it would be the samea s trying to ban kirby for being popular.

 

[Kewkky]

Just a quick question...

Can anyone tell me the name of the tourney(s) NinjaLink has beaten M2K in? The link would be preferred, but name alone is ok, I'll find it. Thanks!

PS: This is a serious question, I really want to see the tourney, I'm not using it as a sarcastic argument against anyone. I just really want to see those tourney results.

 

[ShadowLink84]

**** thats actually quite difficult. Just ask m2k or Ninjalink. I am sure they can tell you.

 

[rathy Aro]

Shouldn't popularity and overcentralizing the meta go hand in hand? If people choose to not play mk he simply could not overcentralize anymore.

Anyway according the Eyada's criterion for ban, items really shouldn't have been banned (they add diversity and therefore skill, and therefore blah, blah). The status quo has already been lowered so that shouldn't be an anti-ban argument (it was a weak argument to begin with).

Anyway its pretty clear by Eyada's criterion, common sense, and moral decency that MK shouldn't be banned. He just hasn't done anything to warrant it. period.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Shouldn't popularity and overcentralizing the meta go hand in hand? If people choose to not play mk he simply could not overcentralize anymore.

Anyway according the Eyada's criterion for ban, items really shouldn't have been banned (they add diversity and therefore skill, and therefore blah, blah). The status quo has already been lowered so that shouldn't be an anti-ban argument (it was a weak argument to begin with).

Anyway its pretty clear by Eyada's criterion, common sense, and moral decency that MK shouldn't be banned. He just hasn't done anything to warrant it. period.

You might want to give it another read. The criteria states that randomness is the enemy of competition, and randomness is the epitome of item play. Therefore, items should be banned. Also, read the over-centralization portion and look at how it relates to the situation.

Before people get mad at me for that statement (people that main Peach, DeDeDe, G&W, Diddy and anyone else I missed) remember that the player has a certain amount of control over when the items appear as well as where. Items (as in pokeballs, smashballs, food, etc.) appear in random places on the map, so that is the random factor that I am referring to.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Shouldn't popularity and overcentralizing the meta go hand in hand? If people choose to not play mk he simply could not overcentralize anymore.

Well lets put it this way
There are two types of overcentralization.
One is frmo popularity, you know, peopleliking Link, jiggly an stuff.
That doesnt make those characters ban worthy.

Overcentralization is what matters.
So even if here was only one Akuma uer in SF2 Kuma would be banned ebcause when facin Akuma, its a play Akuma or lose situation.
There is no choice but to play this character in order to win.

 

[darkchaos59]

No MK shouldnt be banned he is good competition

 

[Cirno]

I play Kirby...

Cool.

Having a secondary doesn't hurt anyone.

All I was saying though, is that if a certain character's representation bothers you, play them/promote them/ect.

Keep in mind that the numbers are from two tournaments from the same region. The numbers look different in different regions. Except Meta. He's always on top, usually by a comfortable percentage. If those are factored in, his overall percentage increases due to the drop in consistent activity from the other characters. As to your first statement, what is your definition of diversity? If we go by Eyada's criteria, it would be two distinct options. All I'm seeing out of the current numbers is a lot of Metaknight and then everyone else. Meta vs. the cast =/= diversity by that standard. Again, it isn't a proof, it is an indication.

Keep in mind those were two tournaments that were presented as MK being dominant. And MK is not on top of every tournament, he's not even IN every tournament. Check the rankings thread more often.

As long as there is more than 1/3 of viable characters left in the competitive scene, I'm fine.
Imagine how little characters you would see place, if we still had walk offs and boxed stages.

All you can really get out of tournament numbers though are character popularity and 'heads up'/indications due to the dependence on players.

And I still don't agree with the idea that diversity is reason to ban. Not that MK is even preventing character diversity.

Warioware is not ony another stage, but very different from what we currently have- unban for diversity?

ICs make 5 character unviable. Ban for diversity?


We can all agree numbers aren't proof of anything . Indication of something?
Possibly.

But what is it?

The only argument pro-ban has that hasn't been refuted is the problem with the counterpick system.

Which can be argued in itself that it is not a problem as many believe he has even matchups, and the game does not depend on the counterpick system, which is obvious, since as you can see in RKJoker's thread a majority of people don't even counterpick.

You are assuming that the only reason for Metaknight's representation is popularity. If that were the case, why didn't Diddy become as popular as Metaknight after the M2K vs. Ninjalink matches? Or better yet, why isn't that the case on the whole now? You're assertion doesn't have any evidence to support it.

There are many reason for being a popular character ( being the best character, preferring his play style, ect.), but you can only be represented as a character if you are.

Some are more than others due to people having individual reasons, but in the end if no one wants to play as a character, they won't get representation.

MK IS popular, our job as a community is to analyze why he is, and determine if it is a problem.

Why didn't DDD become more popular when he was discovered to be a Snake counter?

Diddy is still not a better character than Metaknight, he also still has to deal with horrible matchups like Olimar, and Luigi. There is no reason why he should reach MK's level of popularity ever.

My assertion?
I'm telling you what I see.

After Fiction hype, spread I saw more Warios. And after NL I saw more Diddys. It could be complete coincidence, but I highly doubt it.

You can listen to that tourney's commentary, if you disagree with how people thought of Diddy previously. Or just look for anything dealing with Diddy predating those matches.
Tons of Diddy's even believe it's 50:50 now.

Is this directed at me? I made a whole essay out of it. I backed up my points. I did make an error in language as pointed out by Nic64, but the base of the argument is still sound.

The second half of your statement is "slippery slope" fallacy. It hasn't happened yet, and you have no evidence to support that it will. I gave reasons as to why it wouldn't happen in my essay, though.

I missed it, I'll address it if you wish.

Of course it hasn't happened yet. It can only happen if MK is banned and players who remain Brawlers are forced to switch. It's more like math than a slippery slope theory.

If you have 4 cups of water and take away one but want to keep the water, it's going to have to go into or be distributed amongst the cups.

In our situation however, we have some cups which are better than others, meaning more than likely, more water will go into the better one than the others.

I didn't suggest a slippery slope, but something tells me you can feel it's pretty possible if we ban based on the evidence we have now, since you got slippery slope from me saying the MK players will not distribute evenly into all other characters.

I'm sure people would disagree with you there. There have been plenty of people to quote Sirlin in this thread. The only question is whether or not the criteria is being quoted correctly. As I have stated before, Eyada is working on new criteria that doesn't support one side or the other, so even if old methods haven't worked, perhaps a new one will. Does this new criteria mean a Meta-ban? I have no idea.

I (shouldn't but I do) care if someone disagrees with me, but what matters is if I am wrong or not.

I know we have asked ourselves whether or not MK fits the criteria of an overcentralization ban. There has not even been one good reason as to why MK is overcentralizing the metagame. If there has, please, PLEASE link to it so that we can ban this character and get on with life.

Perhaps a new one will require a MK ban. Perhaps it won't. Will the community accept it either way? I don't see it happening without there being massive threads like this debating whether we need a new criteria or not.

IDC and his ground moves override intrinsic priority rules.

IDC is banned and so do Lucario's.

There has already been a thread on this.

Even bringing up a banned move, seem like grasping at straws to me.
=/

Proof of these claims?

Proof that some people play MK for these reasons?

Ask around, read around, look around.

Every other thread about MK has someone who will either identify themselves as one or another type of these MK players.

Here I'll help you with a couple that are widely known to main MK for these reasons.

Tier *****- M2K

Pro-ban-Overswarm

Style Lovers DoJo, M2K

If snake becomes a viable counter, then no MK doesn't warrant a ban. Potential can't be measured in the now, however, and there is no proof that Snake can become a counter. We are talking about the now. Also, why would it have taken a full year for the Snake meta-game to have come up with something that counter's Meta? It doesn't make sense.

Why not with a Snake counterpick? He's beatable now. MKs playing him now would have no reason to switch, so he'd still be highly played. The best MKs are still going to have the best players behind them, meaning results will still generally be the same, and MK will still be the best character with the best chances of winning.

The only difference would be that we have a fully function counterpick system, which our game does not depend on.

Oh, and Snake beats MK on paper, if that isn't proof he can become a counter I don't know what is.Some people already insist he is a counter, most notably Inui.

With as many players pushing MK's Metagame as compared to Snake, why would he be discovered ( or should I say widely accepted) as a counter any sooner?

Again, I am using the numbers as a gauge. The real argument lies with Meta as a character and the logic behind why so many people are playing him.

I guess I have to take a look at your essay to see what this logic is huh?
(:

Using the numbers as a gauge...?

So?

Why can't you just tell me what you think would be an acceptable number of best character representation?

If you don't want to, just tell me that. But don't keep dodging around the question by telling me what I already know you were doing. It wastes both your and my time.

 

[Slipsystem13]

There isn't a number, this ban IS about diversity and as soon as we begin to see things turn out to be top tier or lose then we are getting ridiculous. If I wanna play a low tier character I should expect to have a fair chance against a lot of characters if I have the same amount of "skill" as them. Metaknight clearly represents too much of the population if he is (by the math) doubling the winnings of Snake and quadrupling the winnings of DDD.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Cool.

Having a secondary doesn't hurt anyone.

All I was saying though, is that if a certain character's representation bothers you, play them/promote them/ect.



Keep in mind those were two tournaments that were presented as MK being dominant. And MK is not on top of every tournament, he's not even IN every tournament. Check the rankings thread more often.

As long as there is more than 1/3 of viable characters left in the competitive scene, I'm fine.
Imagine how little characters you would see place, if we still had walk offs and boxed stages.

All you can really get out of tournament numbers though are character popularity and 'heads up'/indications due to the dependence on players.

And I still don't agree with the idea that diversity is reason to ban. Not that MK is even preventing character diversity.

Warioware is not ony another stage, but very different from what we currently have- unban for diversity?

ICs make 5 character unviable. Ban for diversity?


We can all agree numbers aren't proof of anything . Indication of something?
Possibly.

But what is it?

The only argument pro-ban has that hasn't been refuted is the problem with the counterpick system.

Which can be argued in itself that it is not a problem as many believe he has even matchups, and the game does not depend on the counterpick system, which is obvious, since as you can see in RKJoker's thread a majority of people don't even counterpick.




There are many reason for being a popular character ( being the best character, preferring his play style, ect.), but you can only be represented as a character if you are.

Some are more than others due to people having individual reasons, but in the end if no one wants to play as a character, they won't get representation.

MK IS popular, our job as a community is to analyze why he is, and determine if it is a problem.

Why didn't DDD become more popular when he was discovered to be a Snake counter?

Diddy is still not a better character than Metaknight, he also still has to deal with horrible matchups like Olimar, and Luigi. There is no reason why he should reach MK's level of popularity ever.

My assertion?
I'm telling you what I see.

After Fiction hype, spread I saw more Warios. And after NL I saw more Diddys. It could be complete coincidence, but I highly doubt it.

You can listen to that tourney's commentary, if you disagree with how people thought of Diddy previously. Or just look for anything dealing with Diddy predating those matches.
Tons of Diddy's even believe it's 50:50 now.





I missed it, I'll address it if you wish.

Of course it hasn't happened yet. It can only happen if MK is banned and players who remain Brawlers are forced to switch. It's more like math than a slippery slope theory.

If you have 4 cups of water and take away one but want to keep the water, it's going to have to go into or be distributed amongst the cups.

In our situation however, we have some cups which are better than others, meaning more than likely, more water will go into the better one than the others.

I didn't suggest a slippery slope, but something tells me you can feel it's pretty possible if we ban based on the evidence we have now, since you got slippery slope from me saying the MK players will not distribute evenly into all other characters.



I (shouldn't but I do) care if someone disagrees with me, but what matters is if I am wrong or not.

I know we have asked ourselves whether or not MK fits the criteria of an overcentralization ban. There has not even been one good reason as to why MK is overcentralizing the metagame. If there has, please, PLEASE link to it so that we can ban this character and get on with life.

Perhaps a new one will require a MK ban. Perhaps it won't. Will the community accept it either way? I don't see it happening without there being massive threads like this debating whether we need a new criteria or not.



IDC is banned and so do Lucario's.

There has already been a thread on this.

Even bringing up a banned move, seem like grasping at straws to me.
=/



Proof that some people play MK for these reasons?

Ask around, read around, look around.

Every other thread about MK has someone who will either identify themselves as one or another type of these MK players.

Here I'll help you with a couple that are widely known to main MK for these reasons.

Tier *****- M2K

Pro-ban-Overswarm

Style Lovers DoJo, M2K




Why not with a Snake counterpick? He's beatable now. MKs playing him now would have no reason to switch, so he'd still be highly played. The best MKs are still going to have the best players behind them, meaning results will still generally be the same, and MK will still be the best character with the best chances of winning.

The only difference would be that we have a fully function counterpick system, which our game does not depend on.

Oh, and Snake beats MK on paper, if that isn't proof he can become a counter I don't know what is.Some people already insist he is a counter, most notably Inui.

With as many players pushing MK's Metagame as compared to Snake, why would he be discovered ( or should I say widely accepted) as a counter any sooner?



I guess I have to take a look at your essay to see what this logic is huh?
(:

Using the numbers as a gauge...?

So?

Why can't you just tell me what you think would be an acceptable number of best character representation?

If you don't want to, just tell me that. But don't keep dodging around the question by telling me what I already know you were doing. It wastes both your and my time.

Thank you for being civil, it makes it so much easier to talk.

Eyada's most recent form of his ban criteria is here.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7290422&postcount=3901

Most of the post is a response to Amazing Ampharos, so no need to read it unless you want to know why the most recent form of the criteria was created. The criteria starts with the first blue text you see. Our discussion might make a bit more sense if you know where I am coming from in my argument.




My essay is here.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7269717&postcount=3405

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you hadn't seen it. It should address most of your points in your post, but I'll go over the ones I think it doesn't. Eyada's criteria should also address some of your questions and points. Let me know if anything is missing or left unaddressed. Oh, and sorry for the length of it.




I browsed through a lot of the tourney board last night, and I saw a lot of Meta in the threads that posted characters used. I'll take another look tonight.

As for the water analogy, I don't expect players who were using Metaknight to go directly into characters like Captain Falcon. Its doesn't follow any type of logic. I do see them getting dispersed into characters like Snake, DeDeDe and Marth, though. Since one doesn't completely dominate the others, it is safe to say that the MK players will not all go into one place, and we would have a net gain in diversity. The importance of diversity should be explained in Eyada's ban criteria.

I was only answering the question you posed about what Meta does that breaks game-play, I didn't think of it by itself as ban criteria. I honestly only posted that there to see your response. I know that ICD is banned for obvious reasons. I didn't know about Lucario, though. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I like to know these things so I can have a better perspective in the future.

As for Snake countering MK, I'm not a snake main, so IDK. I would like to see it in practice, though.

As for the number split... hmm. Depending on context, I would like to see the other top characters increase to around a 7-8% total lower than MK, using the previous numbers listed as a base. This could mean a decrease in MK activity, or an increase in the other top character's activity. I think that once you read my essay, you'll see why I don't like the idea of giving exact numbers. The numbers are an indication of another problem, rather than the problem itself.

Thank you for responding. I hope this can turn into a good discussion.

 

[Cirno]

If you play low tier, than no you shouldn't.

That's why you are low tier.

If you want diversity, ban a character that makes more than 3 character unviable like G&W since MK doesn't make any character unviable by himself.

And if you want to ban based on popularity then quit life, because that is idiotic.
Captain Falcon having 99% representation does not make him bannable. Being forced to play a character as the only viable option does.

 

[thrillagorilla]

If you play low tier, than no you shouldn't.

That's why you are low tier.

If you want diversity, ban a character that makes more than 3 character unviable like G&W since MK doesn't make any character unviable by himself.

And if you want to ban based on popularity then quit life, because that is idiotic.
Captain Falcon having 99% representation does not make him bannable. Being forced to play a character as the only viable option does.

...? What are you responding to? I'm a bit confused...

 

[Cirno]

xD

We hit reply at the same time and yours got there first.

I was talking to slips.

I'm reading your post now.
(:

 

[thrillagorilla]

xD

We hit reply at the same time and yours got there first.

I was talking to slips.

I'm reading your post now.
(:

lol, np.

@Slipsystem13: I more or less agree with Cirno's post. Except the part about quitting life.

 

[Eyada]

As long as there is more than 1/3 of viable characters left in the competitive scene, I'm fine.
Imagine how little characters you would see place, if we still had walk offs and boxed stages.

Indeed, walk-offs and boxed stages are heavily damaging to diversity. Which is why they are banned.

And I still don't agree with the idea that diversity is reason to ban. Not that MK is even preventing character diversity.

That's funny, given that the only possible reasonable justification for what you said in that first quote up there is diversity.

Or perhaps not? If not diversity, why are walk-offs and boxed stages ban-worthy? Since you don't think diversity is a valid reason, can I ask what reasoning you use to justify your claim that walk-offs and boxed stages deserve to be banned?

Warioware is not ony another stage, but very different from what we currently have- unban for diversity?

Ugh, randomness. Randomness does not create diversity. Randomness indiscriminately kills any real possibility of making meaningful decisions (or, at the very least, hinders the ability to do so); reading my argument will make it clear why that results in the death of diversity in a competitive game.

So, no, my diversity argument doesn't support Warioware being unbanned; in reality, it calls for the stage to remain banned, as unbanning it is anti-competitive. (Which is just another way of saying "anti-diversity".)

Again, since you don't believe that diversity is a valid reason to ban something, can I ask what justification you use to support the banning of Warioware? And if you're tempted to parrot the well known phrase "because randomness is anti-competitive", please, do elaborate on why you believe that to be the case; and remember, no relying on my argument to justify your claim, because you don't think it is valid.

ICs make 5 character unviable. Ban for diversity?

Which 5 characters are you referring to? Would those 5 characters all become viable if IC's were banned?

I know we have asked ourselves whether or not MK fits the criteria of an overcentralization ban. There has not even been one good reason as to why MK is overcentralizing the metagame. If there has, please, PLEASE link to it so that we can ban this character and get on with life.

If diversity isn't a valid reason to ban something, why would overcentralization justify a ban? If diversity doesn't matter, what's wrong with having only one character be relevant?

If you want diversity, ban a character that makes more than 3 character unviable like G&W since MK doesn't make any character unviable by himself.

Can I ask which 3 characters you are talking about?

And if you want to ban based on popularity then quit life, because that is idiotic.
Captain Falcon having 99% representation does not make him bannable. Being forced to play a character as the only viable option does.

What's wrong with being forced to play one character? Diversity doesn't matter, right?

 

[Cirno]

=___=;;

Sorry for the delay.

I was typing and closed out my window by mistake (this shouldn't happen since I had other tabs open)

But I'll get to your argument in the morning Eyada and I'll check out your essay tomorrow night Thrilla.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, walk-offs and boxed stages are heavily damaging to diversity. Which is why they are banned.

Eye disagree sir.

That's funny, given that the only possible reasonable justification for what you said in that first quote up there is diversity.

Or perhaps not? If not diversity, why are walk-offs and boxed stages ban-worthy? Since you don't think diversity is a valid reason, can I ask what reasoning you use to justify your claim that walk-offs and boxed stages deserve to be banned?

Overcentralization on a character through a broken tactic.

Everything we did would have to be based around DDD.

From the character(s) we choose to the stages we ban to the very way we'd fight.

Ugh, randomness. Randomness does not create diversity. Randomness indiscriminately kills any real possibility of making meaningful decisions (or, at the very least, hinders the ability to do so); reading my argument will make it clear why that results in the death of diversity in a competitive game.

Guess I have to give that wall of text a read after all huh?

I was hoping someone else could refute it, but as I understand now it's more a set of criteria than anything huh?

I actually got distracted when you first posted it saying you refuted the popularity claim, which I responded to in my own wall of text in case you missed it, but I'll get to reading your criteria as soon as I have the chance.

So, no, my diversity argument doesn't support Warioware being unbanned; in reality, it calls for the stage to remain banned, as unbanning it is anti-competitive. (Which is just another way of saying "anti-diversity".)

Eye disagree.

Unbanning it would add one more viable option available to players.

And they could still make meaningful decisions. One being to focus on the mini-game.
Tripping is random. A player can still make a meaning full decision once entered into a trip state. Rolling just as an opponent attacks is one.

What Peach pulls out of her dimensional bag (props if you know where I got this) is random.She can make the meaningful decision to use what ever item she gets in the most effective way.

G&W's Judgement Hammer is random. He can meaningfully make the decision to filter out certain number to increase a chance of getting a 9.

Feel free to define meaningful decision if you find these example not holding true to what you consider a meaningful decision.


But before that, shall we ban Peach and G&W for randomness which is anti-competitive "which is just another word for anti-diversity"?

Again, since you don't believe that diversity is a valid reason to ban something, can I ask what justification you use to support the banning of Warioware? And if you're tempted to parrot the well known phrase "because randomness is anti-competitive", please, do elaborate on why you believe that to be the case; and remember, no relying on my argument to justify your claim, because you don't think it is valid.

Randomness is anti-competitive, and that is the best justification for it's ban. As I stated earlier you can still make meaningful decisions in a game with random factors, but there is something that randomness promotes that a competitive scene should avoid at all costs:

LUCK​

When Luck becomes a large determining factor in the outcome of a game we have a big problem in the competitive scene. G&W and Peach's random moves also have a certain degree of luck factoring into their use, but this is also controlled to an extent. That being you have to use this move to possibly get this. You also have to use this character.

On the stage Wario Ware however, just by being on the stage you are forced into mini-games at random. Depending on your luck, you may even lose as soon as it starts (Stay dry, Pop the Balloon) and even when you win luck is the deciding factor in what you get. But then as long as you can make a meaningful decision with the option you chose (fulfilling mini-game conditions) who cares if you lose because you got super mushroom while your opponent got invincibility right?

Items are random. You can make a meaningful decision with them so why are they banned ?
Luck again. Nothing about a capsule preventing a meaningful choice. But where does it appear, closer to DK or Ike? Will it explode upon contact or contain a heartpiece? Marth goes for the forward smash on Wario to punish and-- bomb-omb. LOL lucky Wario I guess. Could have been a soccer ball and generally served the same purpose although random.

Luck is an unhealthy factor in any competitive scene and we must strive to prevent it and control it to the best of our abilities.

If you don't mind losing $800.00 by unluckily tripping into an Ike F-smash than feel free to unabn Wario-Ware at your hosted tourneys, but the competitive community would prefer that luck have no part in deciding the better player.

Which 5 characters are you referring to? Would those 5 characters all become viable if IC's were banned?

Bowser, Fox, Sheik, Ganon, and Capt.

All 70:30 or worse.

Bowser would only have Diddy to worry about(assuming the DDD small step is banned)
Fox would still have wonder why DDD's infintes are banned (for the most part or not used) while Pika's is.
Shiek would only have Lucario to look out for. Both her and Boozer's worse matchups would then be 35:65 which has been proven winnable.
Ganon and Capt still have horrible matchups, but having them out wouldn't hurt their chances of appearing at all.

If diversity isn't a valid reason to ban something, why would overcentralization justify a ban? If diversity doesn't matter, what's wrong with having only one character be relevant?

Diversity matters, no one ever said it didn't. I just don't think it's a criteria for banning.

Overcentralization basically comes down to focusing on one thing. As if you don't you lose, essentially changing the very way we play the game.

Suppose we allowed Smash Balls, and hacked in a way that they appear near in the center every 3 and a half minutes. Considering how powerful they are, and how they can turn a game around or help completely decimate an opponent, all focus is going to go into getting that Smash Ball. It's not random anymore, it's not luck that determines who gets it, but still worthy of a ban as it would force focus onto it's capture and change the game into Super Grab That Ball.

Can I ask which 3 characters you are talking about?

Lucas, Jiggz, Falcon.

You know the Falcon sitch, but Lucas does just as well as Zelda if not better without G&W around.
Jiggz can not ever win with a G&W of equal skill in tourney, and on Corneria you may as well just skip to the next match. Her other bad matchups would also make her unviable, but considering the success Wario has been having due to camping and clock running, I think Jiggz needs to review this matchup with that style in mind against these slower characters.

What's wrong with being forced to play one character? Diversity doesn't matter, right?

You have a really bad habit of simplifying people's ideas and trying to refute them.
You did this with the popularity argument too. Again, no one said diversity didn't matter, but it isn't criteria to ban something.

The fact that we are being forced is an obvious sign that something is breaking the game.
Marth develops a homing Shield Breaker technique?

You are forced to play as him or lose. Why ban if not to diversify? Because this specific tactic breaks the game. No character was designed to handle something like that.

 

[kigbariom]

A temp ban wouldn't work.

He is a different tier in himself, I think the days of catching up in the metagame are over.
Some characters can only go so far in their metagame. MK will just comeback just as strong. And it's not like people have to STOP playing as him, people will still be discovering new things.
I mean come on.... He has meta in his name.

 

[Mickey69]

I think meta is pretty broken...he has his own tier category what kind of bull**** is that? He should be banned, other characters would have so much more opportunities and people wouldn't feel the need to pick up meta to fight meta...

 

[brinboy789]

A temp ban wouldn't work.

He is a different tier in himself, I think the days of catching up in the metagame are over.
Some characters can only go so far in their metagame. MK will just comeback just as strong. And it's not like people have to STOP playing as him, people will still be discovering new things.
I mean come on.... He has meta in his name.

there hasnt been a meta discovery in like forever. his metagame is at a standstill. its like already the farthest it can get.

 

[ZHMT]

there hasnt been a meta discovery in like forever. his metagame is at a standstill. its like already the farthest it can get.

Not true lol

 

[clowsui]

sheik vs pika is garbage, on par with fox vs pika

sheik gets cged to ~100 and gets a nice usmash to boot

she's pretty light too, and only decent at escaping juggle traps

so uh put two and two together

 

[Overswarm]

there hasnt been a meta discovery in like forever. his metagame is at a standstill. its like already the farthest it can get.

You have no idea how wrong you are.

=)

 

[xDD-Master]

Haha OS you Sig is great xD

YES WE CAN !

 

[~*Voom*~]

people cant ban him!
Think about it could they ban in melee or ssb64? NO!

 

[meepxzero]

Cirno you know neo's sheik has taken a round off my ice climbers and im like one of th 2 best ic players out there. Its definitely winnable for sheik since she has ftilt lock on ice climbers. you just have to play smart and never get grabbed which is easy because none of her moves have any lag and run the timer.

al agree tho the other 4 u listed are hopeless.

 

[teeman92]

a charather has NEVER been banned in smash bros., heck shiek,fox, and marth in melee are terribly broken. but they arent banned

 

[En.Ee.Oh]

never getting grabbed isn't easy meep wtf?


i outplayed you by like 400% that match, it isn't really winnable for sheik that was just one time and i lost the second match pretty easily


that one match was much more me vs you than sheik vs IC


just like my sheik vs your MK on RC, i probably should've won even tho MK ***** sheik there

 

[Conti]

hmmm, Banning Metaknight is not going to do too much... If people Ban metaknight, then all the people who just Wreckd while playing MK will find a new Top Tier Main, like Snake DDD Falco or whatever... And just become rediculous with them... Think about it seriously...

Idc, but wow... lol

 

[En.Ee.Oh]

BTW, nobody is ever going to adhere to this **** because of the community, banning chars in smash just doesn't happen


besides I want MK to stay so i can **** the **** out of MK mains with inferior characters =D

 

[TP]

hmmm, Banning Metaknight is not going to do too much... If people Ban metaknight, then all the people who just Wreckd while playing MK will find a new Top Tier Main, like Snake DDD Falco or whatever... And just become rediculous with them... Think about it seriously...

Idc, but wow... lol

You are the 100th person to say this at least. It doesn't really make any sense. The other characters have counters, so you can't dominate with them nearly as easily.

Also, don't post in a debate and then say "Idc". That's like saying "I want to put my opinion into this debate, but don't question what I say because I will just brush off your comments or ignore them like a *******."

 

[2001]

hellooooo new signature..........(what neo said)

 

[kigbariom]

Even if MK players moved to top tiers like Snake they couldn't be as good as MK because he was just that much better. Which is why the fact that a ban is being disputed.
I don't think people should be on the fence with this topic, it's simply unfair.

I hate to sound like someone who complains all the time, but it's true.

 

[Palpi]

There are characters that destroy some mid->low tiers worse than MK does. If you play a ****ty character it is 100% your fault, because you willingly decide to play that character. No reason to complain unless you're a fool.

Though I wouldn't care if Metaknight was banned, he doesn't deserve to be banned.

 

[meepxzero]

never getting grabbed isn't easy meep wtf?


i outplayed you by like 400% that match, it isn't really winnable for sheik that was just one time and i lost the second match pretty easily


that one match was much more me vs you than sheik vs IC


just like my sheik vs your MK on RC, i probably should've won even tho MK ***** sheik there

true but u cant deny the fact sheik has all the tools to play safe against ic moreso than melee. People think its an auto loss because ic **** sheik in melee, but ic cant combo to grabs like in melee.

your right u probably did outplay me by 400%, but you could safely play sheik moreso than ur marth could.

 

[Kage Me]

There are characters that destroy some mid->low tiers worse than MK does. If you play a ****ty character it is 100% your fault, because you willingly decide to play that character.

First of all, low-tier characters are not ****ty, and mid-tier characters even less so.

Secondly, there are also some low-tiers who destroy high-tiers more than Meta Knight does. The reason people want him banned is because nobody destroys Meta Knight.

 

[brinboy789]

Not true lol

You have no idea how wrong you are.

=)

yea? whats the latest meta discovery? its been so long ago i dont even remember the last meta discovery....the meta boards are dead, since his metagame is been explored in and out. hes pretty much reached his peak.

 

[Shaya]

yea? whats the latest meta discovery? its been so long ago i dont even remember the last meta discovery....the meta boards are dead, since his metagame is been explored in and out. hes pretty much reached his peak.

metagame 'discoveries' aren't just OH HEY LOOK A NEW ADVANCED TECHNIQUE!
It's applications of movesets, and the matchups with other characters.

Since Meta Knight's initial dominance, and the 'fight back' of characters to then even up their meta:them match ups, MK's have taken their 'revenge' and now most character's matchups with meta knight are changing, in MORE FAVOUR of meta knight.

Applications of moves are not the big discoveries you're looking for, but can drastically effect individual match ups.

MK's neutral air, is a ****ing transcended priority move that covers his entire ****ing body. That is INSANELY broken. Meta Knight has a move that comes out in 3 frames, and lasts for a long period of time, where, if your character doesn't have a disjointed hitbox, they're guaranteed to get hit. What does that mean? MK's nair hardcore ***** just about every character's recovery in the game. Most character's cannot feasibly recover against a smart meta knight. Any characters with a SMIDGEN of telegraphed recoveries are ****ed. And Smart MK's are started to abuse this more and more by the day.

Good Meta Knight's are also starting to **** the **** out of every character (because MK's Up B grounded outranges just about everything) OoS or even pre-emptively with Shuttle Loop, a COMPLETELY SAFE strike that is a reasonably okay kill move. Anyone trying to compare it to Marth's or Mario's is an idiot. Nothing compares to how unbelievably awesome the range, safety, kill power, follow up potential, speed, AND HAS 3? maybe 4 frames of invicibility to boot.

"Oh look how awesome our character is! We have moves that stop Tornado!" Great! Let's talk about it. Oh what? Your character is still getting owned by tornado because of how fast he can just spam your shield for BRIEF moments at your character's BLIND SPOT (just about every character has them... except MK arguably Snake [on the ground only]...) and then rush to the other part of the stage? Oh, with priority that nearly all aerials cannot outdo?

Should I keep going on? These aren't "OMG LETS MAKE A HUGE TOPIC, TELL THE PRESSES OMG" type of information, but application of moves that are being highly distributed and used by meta knight mains that WEREN'T (as much) in the past. And as I started out with, just about every meta:else match up in the game is becoming more and more in his advantage all the time. I wonder how long Wario will last? I don't see M2K having huge issues with Wario, and I can see how much nair/up b oos and fair wrecks Wario's **** just by watching him play. GG EPIC METAGAME DISCOVERIES. Just ****ing go to tournaments, or watch tournament videos, and see the progression.

 

[camden]

Sure, MK has some **** moments, and yeah, he's ****ing annoying, but there's a way around him. We just...haven't found it yet.

Just to let you guys know, I do attend tournies, so I do see MK's progress. There's been a decline of him in my area.

I voted no btw, in case no one guessed that.

 

[Cirno]

Cirno you know neo's sheik has taken a round off my ice climbers and im like one of th 2 best ic players out there. Its definitely winnable for sheik since she has ftilt lock on ice climbers. you just have to play smart and never get grabbed which is easy because none of her moves have any lag and run the timer.

al agree tho the other 4 u listed are hopeless.

I didn't even know Neo had a Sheik.

But to be completely honest I went strictly off of matchup numbers.

I personally think no matchup is unwinnable, just in some positions the best option would be to counterpick. When the DDD infinite was going around I went up against a couple other players with DK to see what the match was like.

No doubt about it if they can just pick up DDD and ravage my 4 week old DK it's a broken technique, but I did win one set using the grounded footstool combo to nine punch because he focused so heavily on the grab.

Matchup numbers are hardly the end all be all anyway.


But in anycase, yes ICs ****, I want to play yours since I heard your in MD.