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

[CRASHiC]

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'm guessing this is not Texas or New Jersey.

 

[Jigglymaster]

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.

Sorta like Diddy Kong. We learned the MK matchup and we could beat them. Then they learned the matchup and once you learn how to fight diddy with MK its over. NL made us Diddy's have our 15 minutes of fame.

 

[Zodac]

just make it you can only use metaknight once a set, everybody wins

 

[Falconv1.0]

just make it you can only use metaknight once a set, everybody wins

Ahahahahahahahahah-no.

Just no. If you seriously think your idea is new, original, or good, you need to lurk moar. Lurk as hard as you possibly can.

 

[Inui]

Random rules that limit MK get shot down easily in the SBR. It's not going to happen.

He'll get banned, or he won't be. The debate is pretty close right now, so we just have to wait. Expect a decision after we get to analyze APEX and Genesis results.

 

[Danimals]

you guys should ban brawl that will settle everything.
the games ehh anyways LOL

 

[deepseadiva]

So what are all the Gimmick Handicaps listed so far...?

• One MK selection every set
• Making his specials illegal
• Removing his stage counterpicking privileges
• Making MK available only during the first match

People, you understand that if a TO or the SBR uses one of these, they're blatantly admitting that MK is broken. At that point, it's obvious he's a problem and we just ban him instead of coming up with random penalties.

There is no "kinda broken" and there is no "kinda banning", such as with these ridiculous handicaps. He's either ban-worthy or he's not.

 

[gallax]

one could just say that you can have to choose MK at the beginning of a match or not at all. you cannot counterpick with a MK.

 

[Cirno]

never getting grabbed isn't easy meep wtf?


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

Shouldn't all high level matches come down to that though?

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.

Don't feel like that. We're all trying to get to a healthy competitive scene we can all enjoy.

As far as MK players, their skill won't change with the character, just the tools they have available. MK's tools aren't that much better according to the tier list, and Snake doesn't even use alot of his tools regularly like MK does.


People are on the fence because MK doesn't really apply to any of the ban criteria we have.
He breaks the counterpick system, but we don't depend it on it.

A huge amount of people use him, but no one's being forced to use him or lose.

He ***** some characters, but he's usually not even their worse.

He good, but we don't know if he's too good. That's what this discussion is for.

 

[gallax]

wait...what? we dont depend on the counterpick system? i dont know about you but every tournament i have been to uses the CP system. i have had people choose MK after losing to me in a tourney set.

 

[deepseadiva]

"Depends" as in, a "crucial" and "completly essential" game mechanic.

Not "depends" as in "very useful and popular strategy."

 

[Cirno]

Thanks Meno.
(:


Here's an interesting thread for you Galax:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=231789

 

[bobson]

If he does end up banned, will future tier lists be made to reflect the metagame without him?

 

[Nic64]

He'll get banned, or he won't be.

There's also the he won't get banned, but "Should Meta Knight be banned? Take 4" goes up in another few months option.

 

[Tristan_win]

There's also the he won't get banned, but "Should Meta Knight be banned? Take 4" goes up in another few months option.

I think that has the highest percent chance then any of the listed options above for happening.

 

[Zesty_Chicken]

I don't like MK (I actively hate him), but, IMO, I'd say unless the game of the other characters improves dramatically soon, ban him.

I don't like going to a tourney (generally local, a few good players) and seeing a scrub pick up MK and plank the whole time, or spam the 'nado against an unknowing opponet. It annoys me and most of the other nom-MK people there.

 

[TP]

I don't think MK is broken, but I think he hurts the community, so I would be happy to see him banned.

He hurts the community by causing people to stop coming to tournaments because he is not a fun character to play against or watch.

 

[Nic64]

he is not a fun character to play against or watch.

Both of those are totally subjective, and just speaking personally, I'd much rather watch an MK play than any combination of Olimar/Falco/DDD/IC's, and Wario and Snake frequently fit into this category as well(especially if DDD is involved). Whether or not MK overcentralizes the metagame by having no disadvantaged matchups is debatable, but I don't see how you can argue entertainment value when you look at the characters directly underneath him. Even if it's a bigger disadvantage when I use other characters I'd rather face MK than most of these tbh, it's far less gay usually.</totally unecessary thoughts because this is pretty irrelevant anyway>

 

[Flayl]

There's also the he won't get banned, but "Should Meta Knight be banned? Take 4" goes up in another few months option.

For the love of Smash, smack SamuraiPanda if he tries this.

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

For the love of Smash, smack SamuraiPanda if he tries this.

:flame:
Despite how maybe only 30% of the community that vote have actual intel on the subject, isn't it a good thing that he is letting the people that (hopefully) go to tournaments and play to voice their oppinions to the people who make the rules, host tournaments, and otherwize "command" the community?
:flame:

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

He hurts the community by causing people to stop coming to tournaments because he is not a fun character to play against or watch.

:flame:
Sorry for the Double Post, but didn't Amazing Ampharos take a list of a bunch of tournaments, and then tell us how Metaknight is only dominating like 24% of them, and how even characters like the Pokemon Trainer (not knocking on you guys, but that down-special is an easy kill unless you guys play pro) are still placing in the top 8, which means that they've had to kill a few MetaKnight's along the way? Granted, some people are a little scared of him (cowards), but most people really don't even have that much of an issue with Metaknight.

And also, the only thing that isn't fun to watch is when someone gets trapped by an attack and a wall, and is hit until the 300% range. THAT'S not fun to watch. (atleast in my oppinion, but when people get mad about it and try to block the other player from seeing, I'm quite sure that others share said oppinion).
:flame:

 

[CRASHiC]

Reflex Wonder is an amazing and rare case.

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

:flame:
What exactly again are the reasons from the Ban Side and the Anti Ban Side? I think I'm about ready to vote, but I'd like to know the concrete reasons for each side, along with what I've read from the posts.
:flame:

 

[ANTi_]

We will see at apex.

 

[CRASHiC]

We will see at apex.

I wonder about this though, with all the hype surounding these tournaments and their importance, what if players throw matches, don't use metaknight, or purposely pick metaknight to mess up data.

though considering the money at stake, its not likely.

 

[Kamikaze*]

I like how the SBR always votes that he shouldn't be banned, but the average joe says that he should be.

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

I like how the SBR always votes that he shouldn't be banned, but the average joe says that he should be.

:flame:
Because most of the common people say things like "TORNADO IS RIGGED, BAN HIM!" or some of the slightly more educated say "NO ONE IS BETTER THAN HIM, BAN HIM!"

And I know I'm speaking a lot from the view point of the AntiBan side (kinda looking down on the new people that say stuff like that before they vote), which is why it's weird that I haven't voted for the Anti-Ban yet. But again, I want to hear the concrete reasons from both sides as to why it should happen or shouldn't happen, before I make my decision. This is a pretty important, game and series changing vote, and should not be taken lightly by anyone.
:flame:

 

[Kewkky]

:flame:
What exactly again are the reasons from the Ban Side and the Anti Ban Side? I think I'm about ready to vote, but I'd like to know the concrete reasons for each side, along with what I've read from the posts.
:flame:

Anti-ban has refuted all of Pro-ban's points practically... The only one left is "MK break the counterpick system", but... It's not like the game DEPENDS on counterpicks, people usually pick the stages they feel most comfortable in rather than give lots of thought to the machup's advantage (emphasis on "usually", meaning not everyone does it that way)... Counterpicks ARE an important part of Brawl, but it's not a "counterpick right, or lose" thing. So, the argument of "MK breaks the counterpick system" is quite weak... And it's their best argument so far.

We pointed out that the most MK's have dominated tourneys (in the worst scenarios) has been like 21% of the whole tourney, IN THE WORST CASES. In normal tourneys, MKs are picked as much as any other character (according to the other tourneys I have seen in the Tourney Results forum), meaning they aren't dominating in terms of outnumbering everyone else, just that they are simply overall better than the rest of the cast... Which is normal in a fighting game, there will always be a character which will be better than the rest... Hence the results that are piled together to create "tier lists". So, the argument of "MK dominates all the tourneys" is weak, if not invalid.

We also pointed out that if MK is banned, most the MK mains will probably spread across the tier list... But of course, the higher tier'd characters will have the most attention, meaning the lower tiers will go practically unchanged (since people keep saying it's "PLAY TO WIN, not PLAY TO HAVE FUN"), which in turn points to the lower tiers' metagame progressing exactly the same as now (advancements and standstills would happen at more or less the same rate). So, the argument of "Banning MK will mean the lower tiers' metagame progress faster" is invalid.

MK doesn't make any characters unviable in a way that can contrast with D3's or IC's infinites... In fact, in most of the cases, MK isn't even the other characters' worst matchups! They're at a disadvantage, but it's usually around 60/40, sometimes leaning towards a neutral matchup than a disadvantageous one... Which means that in most of MK's matchups, the winner is determined by player skill... Which is not a bad amount, considering some other characters make OTHER characters literally NON-viable. So, the argument of "MK makes others non-viable for tourneys" is invalid.

And last thing I want to add... When was the last time you saw an MK-maining nobody beat a non-MK pro at a tourney? Obviously experience has to do with how MK mainers are winning the tourneys, so MK's character traits isn't EVERYTHING that's at fault here! The thing is that, overall best players PLUS overall best character meas overall best results... Resulting in the placings we see now and then in tourneys like WHOBO, CoT:4, and Hobo 11. So, the argument of "Anyone can pick up MK and win any tourney" is invalid.

So, you can decide for yourself... I'm anti-ban, and if we could do a do-over poll for X or Y reason, I'd click on the "No" option 3 times before submitting my vote.

 

[1048576]

Gotta love the strawman.

It's not that he's the best. It's that he weakens the required skill level and overcentralizes the metagame. The latter is obvious and has been gone over literally a thousand times. His worst matchup (character or stage) is even. He has several advantageous matchups. No other character shares this property. Thus, the obvious strategy is to main MK, which has been increasingly adopted by top level players.

Becoming proficient with any other two or more characters requires more skill than becoming profieint with Metaknight. Thus, MK in the metagame is decreasing the skill required to place highly. If metaknight didn't exist, M2K would be forced to learn a secondary for his D3's Falco matchup, or be so good with D3 that he can overcome the disadvantage. This takes more skill than being good with Metaknihgt.

 

[Kewkky]

It's not that he's the best. It's that he weakens the required skill level and overcentralizes the metagame

So, he's a stand-alone character. If I'm not mistaken, there are a few of those around Brawl, and other fighting games (like [of course I was gonna name this one] Melee). The fact that those characters fare well against (almost) all of the cast doesn't mean that their required skill level is lower, it just means that since you just gotta concentrate on a single character, it takes less time to master it.

Given enough time, maining two different characters turns out better than maining one. I mean... What if you face a player who does exceptionally well against your character? You won't be able to learn the other player's strategy before the set ends, and before you know it, BAM! Loser's Brackets, or eliminated! It's a risk taken, and because MK has no disadvantageous matchups, the risk isn't as great as Brawl's other stand-alone characters... Although if you find someone who loves to **** MKs, it will still mean trouble for you (maybe a loss, maybe not. You just have to play and find out).

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

:flame:
Kewkky, thank you for the recap. Now I know that I'm unquestionably Anti-Ban. If the Pro-Side doesn't have any other points of discussion, I think I'll click that vote in before my Bedtime. Throughout this year, I've been having stomach issues and cases of extreme Nausia, and with the Gannon-Flu running around, I need to be careful.

And Mr.Numbers, it's not that I'm ignoring you, but I have a personal bias against what you just said. About a year ago, I was considering using Metaknight as my secondary, and Lucario as my Primary, but didn't because I was scared that, despite me playing with all of the characters I enjoy since the game's beginning that I would be lumped in with the Nobodies that try to use Metaknight just to win. About 3 months after deciding to work on ZSS for my unfavorable matchups, I went to a random tournament with some friends. I tried using Metaknight FIRST, saving my Lucario for last, and I got rick-rolled (thankfully Lucario saved me, and accepted my appology for a possible defaction from him).

The skill to use a character varies from person to person, and people like M2k who master Metaknight put in everything they get out of him. But the character really has to be able to fit you, and I learned first hand that Metaknight does not quite fit me. He doesn't fit everyone. If people would stop trying to do the "Instant-Gratification" thing, and find the character that naturally flows with them, this really wouldn't be an issue.
:flame:

 

[Inui]

I like how the SBR always votes that he shouldn't be banned, but the average joe says that he should be.

The more educated elite makes the decisions, much like in basically every form of government in existence.

The SBR (mostly) won't vote based on "i suck against MK and cant win " or "he makes the game boring," which I see as real and legit reasons for people in this poll. While such things will be brought up as arguments (some in the SBR main bad characters, and people like me and Atomsk think MK makes the game fun), votes won't be casted based on those arguments.

It's basically "does MK damage the competitiveness of Brawl, and is he a huge detriment to the community and the growth of the game?" That's what we'll vote on after APEX and Genesis.

 

[salaboB]

And Mr.Numbers, it's not that I'm ignoring you, but I have a personal bias against what you just said. About a year ago, I was considering using Metaknight as my secondary, and Lucario as my Primary, but didn't because I was scared that, despite me playing with all of the characters I enjoy since the game's beginning that I would be lumped in with the Nobodies that try to use Metaknight just to win. About 3 months after deciding to work on ZSS for my unfavorable matchups, I went to a random tournament with some friends. I tried using Metaknight FIRST, saving my Lucario for last, and I got rick-rolled (thankfully Lucario saved me, and accepted my appology for a possible defaction from him).

Nobody serious has said you could go to a tournament without practicing MK and win with him. It's very odd that you'd try to use such an example as evidence that MK isn't broken, because that's just an unrealistic time to expect to win with him anyway. Taking less skill than others is not the same as taking no skill.

Also, I'd point out that the problem with this whole debate has been the pro-ban side bringing up points, the anti-ban side going "But suchandsuch is true, I have now proved you wrong." the pro-ban side saying, "But you didn't because of this" and the anti-ban side going "LALALALA you're disproven LALALALA" Most pro-ban arguments aren't fully disproven, if they were so soundly debunked the debate would be over. But the anti-ban keeps claiming they've done it, magically never producing the actual argument that demonstrates their point so well.

 

[Kewkky]

Nobody serious has said you could go to a tournament without practicing MK and win with him. It's very odd that you'd try to use such an example as evidence that MK isn't broken, because that's just an unrealistic time to expect to win with him anyway. Taking less skill than others is not the same as taking no skill.

Also, I'd point out that the problem with this whole debate has been the pro-ban side bringing up points, the anti-ban side going "But suchandsuch is true, I have now proved you wrong." the pro-ban side saying, "But you didn't because of this" and the anti-ban side going "LALALALA you're disproven LALALALA" Most pro-ban arguments aren't fully disproven, if they were so soundly debunked the debate would be over. But the anti-ban keeps claiming they've done it, magically never producing the actual argument that demonstrates their point so well.

Help me and tell me what arguments we've failed to fully "debunk", and I shall do my best to "debunk" them, then.

 

[GirugaMarc]

I wonder about this though, with all the hype surounding these tournaments and their importance, what if players throw matches, don't use metaknight, or purposely pick metaknight to mess up data.

though considering the money at stake, its not likely.

I could totally see something like this happening to a small degree

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

:flame:
Salabob, if I thought that I could go to a tournament without practicing the character I was going to use, I would be a idiot (sorry censors). I would never do something so ******** in my life. I practice with all of my characters. I'd never be so stupid to think that Metaknight was so good that player skill wasn't needed. I don't think you really understood me when I made that post.
:flame:

 

[aeghrur]

Help me and tell me what arguments we've failed to fully "debunk", and I shall do my best to "debunk" them, then.

Has Eyada's criteria for banning been debunked yet?
I know it's neutral, but I'm just asking if it has.

 

[Inui]

Eyada's criteria was briefly discussed in the SBR...but we didn't agree with it much. It's valid and makes some sense, but we don't agree with Eyada's assessment on skill and diversity entirely, especially skill.

 

[Dekar173]

The more educated elite makes the decisions, much like in basically every form of government in existence.

The SBR (mostly) won't vote based on "i suck against MK and cant win " or "he makes the game boring," which I see as real and legit reasons for people in this poll. While such things will be brought up as arguments (some in the SBR main bad characters, and people like me and Atomsk think MK makes the game fun), votes won't be casted based on those arguments.

It's basically "does MK damage the competitiveness of Brawl, and is he a huge detriment to the community and the growth of the game?" That's what we'll vote on after APEX and Genesis.

?

Iraq/Afghanistan, nuking Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Stem cell research, Gay Rights, Bush's presidency, Federal Reserve, LACK OF separation of Church and State, etc.

There are a lot of mistakes made by "the more educated elite" including the MK issue. It's not that the SBR is full of idiots, it's more the fact that a lot of you have vested interests (I win with MK, I need him to win!) It's being put upon the shoulders of those of us who run tournaments and keep the gaming scene alive in our areas (TOs in other words) to lead the ban, as the SBR seems to be a bit slow in doing what is right for the metagame/community in general.

I want a healthier, better Smash community. I promote both Brawl and Melee at any and all tournaments I run (including all other fighters the Abq players want run at my events) and I work VERY hard to keep my community going strong. I have come to the conclusion that the Smash community as a whole would benefit greatly from the banning of MK, as many more people would be willing to participate in tournaments where they wouldn't have to worry about playing against an MK player every other round, and with added diversity, it's MUCH more fun.

Regardless of what any of the MK mains on the anti-ban side try and convince you, this game is better without MK. Ask anyone, it's more entertaining to watch, it's more entertaining to participate in, and it's much more entertaining to newcomers. What will become of newcomers in an MK legal Smash scene? They won't exist. Think Melee. New players are literally nonexistent in Melee, and Brawl is well on its way to that fate. Without newcomers, who's going to fund the pot at tournaments? No one.

MK will eventually be banned, of this I am absolutely certain. Until then, I'll have to sit by and watch scrubs like Inui chant their ignorant, regurgitated, poorly veiled attempts at flaming.

 

[salaboB]

Salabob, if I thought that I could go to a tournament without practicing the character I was going to use, I would be a idiot (sorry censors). I would never do something so ******** in my life. I practice with all of my characters. I'd never be so stupid to think that Metaknight was so good that player skill wasn't needed. I don't think you really understood me when I made that post.

You said you'd been practicing ZSS for your bad matchups, then decided to pull out MK at a tournie.

If you had been practicing MK for serious tournament use, you certainly did not mention that fact.

Help me and tell me what arguments we've failed to fully "debunk", and I shall do my best to "debunk" them, then.

A key one is explaining why MK isn't the best opening pick, and best character to select after a victory when you can be counterpicked. Everyone else if you pick when your opponent hasn't selected a character, you can end up disadvantaged from the start.

That means people playing to give themselves the best advantages will be playing MK two out of three rounds, minimum.