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

[ShadowLink84]

Speak for yourself.

As opposed to someone who feels it is fine to loop everyone under the same umbrella based upon their stance in the argument.

Sorry I was soooo wrong.

I'm sorry we don't live in a "Kumbaya" world.

I do apologize, perhaps I am speaking french, where did I ever say we need to all be perfect and in harmony?
Re-read my post.

For a second I thought we were talking about the ban arguments on Metaknight.

I cannot see how when I was obviously addressing the behavior of the smash community.
Lurk moar.

Guess I was wrong.

Very.

 

[Palpi]

We'll see now won't we?

You lose 100$. yes.

 

[swordgard]

just sayin, in AiB top 4 winter playoffs, there wasnt a single MK. winner was an olimar.

Thats cause my ics trashed a few MKs


No but seriously, AiB had a high concentration of good nonmk players, that is all. Some good MKs resigned, i took off a few myself, and then theres ally and holy who are good vs MK overall.


Lets make something clear though. Whoever says banning MK would make ics more viable is wrong, i can assure you it would be the opposite.

 

[Noble-]

This is why other fighting communities look down upon the smash community.
We are too busy having our heads up our ***** or our hands on each others throats that we can never get anything done productively.


yes you will have scrubs who will whine about EVERYTHING, but to use that as a reason to knock down everyone else including those who feel their concerns are of merit?
What justification is there? hmm?

This debate is not only to prove the other side wrong, but to also provide a justification for that other side when we refute them, in doing so they gain the knowledge that has been placed before them and are capable of applying it in the future.

That is how the community gets better.
We do not lump everyone under the same roof, then call it truth like an elitist fool would.

Oh, I completely forgot about this.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Oh, I completely forgot about this.

I did too. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Noble-]

┐( ´ー｀)┌

10 char

 

[ShadowLink84]

┐( ´ー｀)┌

10 char

Friends?

Spoiler

Stealthchar

 

[number1ricky]

Meta Knight is F tier in Coolness!!!!

 

[Yanoss1313]

Meta Knight is F tier in Coolness!!!!

agreed.... wait no! his voice! it's so manzly! you must mean pit!

 

[Deathcarter]

Thats cause my ics trashed a few MKs


No but seriously, AiB had a high concentration of good nonmk players, that is all. Some good MKs resigned, i took off a few myself, and then theres ally and holy who are good vs MK overall.


Lets make something clear though. Whoever says banning MK would make ics more viable is wrong, i can assure you it would be the opposite.

To the last part, that was me. I won't argue with you as you actually main ICs, but I cannot see how ICs would do worse in a MK-less scene. Could you explain that to me.

Meta Knight is F tier in Coolness!!!!

Some of us actually think Mk is a cool...............wait, why am I wasting my time replying to you?

 

[krazyzyko]

MK was 1 of the reasons I stopped playing brawl and played fully Melee, too bad that Brawl is currently where the money is...

 

[Yanoss1313]

MK was 1 of the reasons I stopped playing brawl and played fully Melee, too bad that Brawl is currently where the money is...

same reason i went to brawl+ recently, but yeah, sadly, no money

 

[meepxzero]

deathcarter: people would flock to snake if mk was banned.

snake is a lot harder to fight than mk with ice climbers.

 

[Deathcarter]

Alright, thanks Meep. *Goes to IC boards to get more info*

 

[PikaPika!]

deathcarter: people would flock to snake if mk was banned.

snake is a lot harder to fight than mk with ice climbers.

Can we make it so every tournament I go to all I fight is snake?

 

[gallax]

Can we make it so every tournament I go to all I fight is snake?

i second this. i will gladly fight snake over MK any/every day

 

[meepxzero]

snake is more annoying to fight. If your fighting a really good snake no matter how good you play the fights always come down to last hit last stock.

 

[Overswarm]

snake is more annoying to fight. If your fighting a really good snake no matter how good you play the fights always come down to last hit last stock.

This.... isn't true.

 

[Yuna]

You find that with Meta Knight gone, the new safe character is Marth. Your opponent knows this, and also knows that Snake, DK and King Dedede all have an advantageous match-up against Marth. By using any of those, they make Marth unsafe.

'55:45 and 60:40 =/= Unsafe.

King Dedede gets countered by Ice Climbers, who get countered by R.O.B., who gets countered by Mr. Game & Watch, who gets countered by Snake, who gets countered by Olimar, who gets countered by Peach, and so on. Eventually, both of you just pick your main, and you end up playing Toon Link vs. Pikachu.

60:40 =/= Counters.

Please do forgive the exaggeration.

I won't forgive obvious hyperbole.

Is there anything wrong with a MK only metagame/tourney scene? Well honestly if everyone wants to do solely MK ditto's for large sums of money, that is up to them. Every matchup would be even and boil down to player skill, but a lot of people I think would find that boring fairly quickly. There aren't many popular fighting games out there that are successful with only 1 character in the scene.

Funny, I could have sworn Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike was one of the most Competitive fighting games in the history of Competitive fighting games despite Yun having zero disadvantageous match-ups with his "worst" being an even match-up (however, because Chun-Li just ***** more in general, she won almost every single tournament).

And it lived for years and years after it was initially released and it's still alive and well today. History > Your made up "facts" and emotionally charged opinions (disguised as facts).

I am simply going to show why Sirlin's criteria inevitably leads to the idea of the diversity argument.

And as I've demonstrated several times, it does not. It's like saying "Stealing is bad, it should be illegal" inevitably will lead to "Stealing is bad, it should be punishable by death."

I am going to prove the "essence" behind the diversity argument. I know it isn't readily apparent why Sirlin's ideas lead to the diversity argument, and it's difficult to believe that it truly is the completion of Sirlin's criteria. Once I have the guide finished, it should be much easier to see the connection; it should be much easier to see that Sirlin laid the groundwork for the diversity argument, but he never realized the full implications of his ideas.

I look forward to seeing Sirlin refute your interpretation of his words. I'll bet you 100 dollars right now, on the record, to be paid through Paypal, that his intention was never ever "To maximize diversity" or come anywhere near arguing it.

It is not a logical progression at all. You yourself admitted to this. It is a non-obvious reimagination built upon certain traits in the original argument.

The "guide" will start with Sirlin's criteria, and then go step by step through the journey I took to find the diversity argument. Hopefully, it will make it clear why the idea of the diversity argument is correct and necessary, even if my current written version of the idea has flaws due to poor wording or bad organization.

Even if you can, somehow, link Sirlin's argument to the diversity argument, we'll just reject it for its sheer preposterousness. Because we do not ban things to maximize diversity. That would be idiotic.

This is the problematic idea that led to me developing the diversity argument. It is a fundamental problem with Sirlin's criteria, and I couldn't think of a way to get around it without modifying Sirlin's ideas.

It's only a problem for those who wish to ban things Sirlin's criteria (or the other criteria which are used today) does not cover.

Yet, when I try to think of a justification for that standard, nothing good is available. Why does the current competitive standard demand more than one option? Saying that it's "because overcentralization is bad" is really just a tautology. Overcentralization, in this context, is being used to mean only having one option. So, claiming overcentralization as justification is like saying that it's wrong to only have one option because that means you only have one option; which is a useless tautology. All the attempts at providing justification for this "standard" using only Sirlin's original ideas result in tautologies or weak arguments that don't hold up to scrutiny.

What is over-centralization? The over-centralization around one single thing.

In Competitive fighting games, this means the over-centralization of the metagame around a single character/tactic/etc. This means that out of all options in the game, you have only one viable option (if you want to win).

Think of Brawl as a competitive sport, such as Ice Hockey. Now imagine all hockey was about was Peanlties. No actual matches, just penalties. Or imagine American Football where there was one tactic so good all other tactics became obsolete and the only way to win was to use only that one tactic and the sport would be all about who could use that one tactic the best.

Why do we dislike this? Because it is friggin' boring. And people like multiple choices, especially in a game where there are a total of 35 characters. What would happen, you ask, if there is only one possible viable option? The scene would die.

When a metagame becomes exceedingly boring for various reasons, it dies. And we don't want that. (Cue the whiners whining about how the scene will die if MK isnt banned. Guess what, it's still alive and thriving. And you still have choices.)

Perhaps not though? Can anyone think of a valid reason why competitive players are justified in wanting more than one viable option available in their games? Am I wrong in thinking that that desire seems intuitively justified, that the preference towards having more than one option seems reasonable? If it seems intuitively obvious, surely there must be a logical explanation why it is reasonable.

I just did. To not have the scene die.

But is this really true? Is a game with only Character A vs. Character A ditto match-ups really any more skilled than a game with a wide variety of match-ups? Is a game with only one usable option actually more skillful than game with a wide variety of options?

Why yes. Because then it's all about who is the better player since both players have the exact same options.

At the very least, if we want to maximize the gauging of skill, we should ban all match-ups that aren't 50-50.

I don't think that the answer to that question is readily apparent. When I reached this point in my deliberations 3 weeks ago, it eventually became clear that the only way to get a valid answer to that question is to first ask what constitutes "skill". How can we decide whether something is more "skillful" than something else if we don't even have a clear understanding of what "skill" means? It's like trying to decide if one object weighs more than another without first defining what "weight" means.

This is because you're under the assumption that we ban things and write the rules to maximize things. We don't.

When someone says "M2K is a really skilled player", what do they mean? When someone looks at a simple little game made for children and says "That game takes no skill", what do they mean?

Skill:
A combination of the technical skill and mindgames (which in itself is a very broad term) employed by a player to wield a character/several characters. Also, match-up and metagame knowledge plays a huge part, but that's not inherently "skill".

Technical skill includes reaction time while mindgames includes the ability to plan, think ahead, read your opponent, etc.

That took me 30 seconds to think and write up.

The point I'm trying to get at is that a fundamental part of a game being competitive is that the outcome of the game is determined by decisions made by the players. The relevance of this point isn't readily apparent.

Yes. That's obvious. I'm not seeing how this could be relevant to this discussion, but I'll wait and see what you can cook up.

My questioning is failing supremely at accomplishing anything productive, so, as I said earlier, I'll just end it for now.

I wish you wouldn't keep saying that because I'm not answering your questions the way you want me to answer them. Instead of being all cryptical and asking questions, some of which are apparently not relevant at this point in our debate, maybe you should just say what it is you want to say straight out.

It'd be faster, for one thing.

It helps if you list which characters you mean, but I'll address the characters I think you're talking about.

Overall, I fail to see how banning the IC's would result in increased diversity.

Overall, I don't see why you would think I was arguing for an IC-ban.

If that's the case, then his criticism isn't valid. My argument doesn't result in the banning of all non-50:50 match-ups. Remember, a ban must increase diversity.

Part of your criteria specifically states that we ban things to maximize skill. We're simply saying "Stop using the term maximize because that's not we do! Neither now nor will we ever!".

Since you object, is it fair to assume then that you don't believe that the goal of a Competitive Rule Set is to maximize the competitiveness of a game? If that's the case, can I ask what you think Competitive Rule Sets are supposed to do?

Please dig me up the ruleset of a single Competitive fighting game which was writtenm to maximize Competitive viability. A single one.

I'll give you one week. And bet you $25 to be paid through Paypal you won't find a single one. And if you do, I'll even throw in the additional bonus of the promise to cosplay as Black Zelda at a future animeconvention, possibly Otakon 2010.

What do we write the rulesets for? We write them in order to foster a Competitive environment. We'll tinker with the settings a bit to find the "best" settings without having to go into specifics and tinker around with handicap and such. This is why many communities do not stick with the default settings regarding primarily time, rounds and, though this is rare, lifebar (Smash is unique in that we use stocks, so it doesn't count as "Lifebar", stocks are more like rounds).

So, we'll tinker with the settings to produce the settings we deem most beneficial to fostering Competitive viability.

But we do not ban things or fine tune the rules to maximize Competitive viability. If so, we'd start changing the settings and start using handicaps for individual match-ups to make all match-ups 50-50 or as close to 50-50 as possible. Hey, since we wouldn't be banning anything, it wouldn't diminish diversity! It would add to it!

So, to sum things up:
What is the point of the rules? To foster a Competitive playing field, notto maximize it. This is why we ban only stages which we feel are highly detrimental to the Competitive viability of Smash. Some stages are banned without needing to be banned, however. If you feel like crusading for them to be reinstated as legal stages, be my guest.

But to reiterate:
We do not do anything to maximize anything!

If I come off as antagonistic, it's because I have to refute this fallacious argument time and time again every single time there's a topic on banning.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Yes, yes it does.

I was just pre-empting the pro-ban side's possible refutations of the main point by addressing the fact that what was being discussed was major and not national tournaments. In order to win debates, one must use valid and accurate arguments.

Understandable.

I wouldn't want to leave a gaping whole in anything I post.

 

[Nic64]

just sayin, in AiB top 4 winter playoffs, there wasnt a single MK. winner was an olimar.

LMAO wifi

watch the finals set, you can see how badly the lag twists the game. Snake and MK aren't even the best characters on wifi IMO, using it as an example of anything is kind of stupid.

its still playoffs. it was pretty lagless too, i watched the matches.

6 frames of input lag is the lowest amount of lag possible, there is no such thing as lagless, and even so you're still wrong.

See where this is going? When this gets proven true to the players EVERYONE will main metaknight...because there is not a reason to choose another char...

Gross hyperbole FTL, everyone already knows MK has no disadvantaged matchups and is the best character in the game, this has been known for a long time...and yet...still plenty of people using and winning with other characters. People are not perfectly 100% logical creatures that choose only their optimal choice in any given situation, if this were true, only a few characters would ever get used in ANY fighting game. This is not a rational argument at all. Only when presented with "play _____ or lose" does a character gain that kind of dominance over a game, and MK isn't even close to that and I don't think anyone disagrees with that, he's not a boss character, he's simply the best choice by a good margin.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Suspect Tournaments....

That is the final solution to MK....

 

[adumbrodeus]

Suspect Tournaments....

That is the final solution to MK....

Reasonable to run, but we don't have an uber tier.

 

[kr3wman]

And if you do, I'll even throw in the additional bonus of the promise to cosplay as Black Zelda at a future anime convention, possibly Otakon 2010.

Aw comon now you want to do that

 

[Yuna]

Aw comon now you want to do that

It's a trap!

 

[ShadowLink84]

It's a trap!

WE DON'T CARE!
I demand you do it. And that I get pics *goes to otakon yearly*

 

[CR4SH]

Ban MK. He's completely broken, even if we don't allow him to be.

Instead of trying to fix a broken character, get rid of it.

 

[Twin_Scimitar]

Is a complete *******

You come off as more than antagonistic.

You seem to read through his post at top speed, not even taking time to see what it says, never mind thinking about what it means.

He says that he is not asking you the correct questions AND WILL DROP IT.

You don't read the part where he says he will drop it and say that you wish he would drop it. Well guess what, he's already done being all "cryptical".

He doesn't care about what your opinion is now, he's trying to get you to think about your own opinion. I don't care if you think you're right, you clearly haven't given the matter of whether or not we ban for diversity (or rather to maximize diversity) more than a minute's thought after you read it. It astounds me how you can respond to such a well mannered post asking for some discussion in such a negative manner. Regardless of the logic in your post, the way you go about it is shameful.


"Please dig me up the rule set of a single Competitive fighting game which was writtenm to maximize Competitive viability. A single one."

The fact that competitive communities don't ban things to maximize diversity or "Competitive viability" (as you put it) is irrelevant. He's arguing for something different. Saying that it is not the norm doesn't matter. Different games can use different methods of banning as it suits them. Pokemon has a completely different method of determining what should be banned. They check each Pokemon against an Offensive, Defensive, and Support Characteristic that makes them Uber. The system works very well for the game. It's quite different from anything I've ever heard of, considering it doesn't even include over centralization as a factor in the ban criteria. Obviously the ban criteria of Pokemon does not pertain to Smash; I'm simply illustrating that just because a ban criteria is not used in most games does not mean it does not have its place. Having said this, there is nothing to suggest that the common way is not inferior to this one, new ideas can be superior.

What you should do is argue against his criteria while actually thinking about whether or not you agree with the logical proof. You've actually managed do this a few times, but with a complete lack of civility.

 

[gallax]

very well stated twin scimitar. i feel that whenever i post something to yuna he doesnt even take time to sit back and think about what i wrote, even when im asking him to just further explain cuz im interested in what hes trying to say. i feel he just assumes the worst and feels that he needs to post something to show his 'superiority' in knowledge or what not.

yuna, you are very knowledgeable and are very good at arguing. i give you that. i can totally agree with you when someone is obviously an idiot and trying to argue with invalid points. i wouldnt listen to them either. but, when someone does argue with you and they do have well thought out points that do seem to follow a logical order, just try and consider what they are saying. just try to have a more open mind. most people are not out to make you look bad. they just wanna try to get you to understand their point and get it acknowledged.

i think everyone should have an open mind when it comes to the MK being banned discussion. personally, i dont think MK should be banned. but, i still read what everyone has to say and acknowledge it when they do have a good reason.

when it comes down to it, people need to put personal bias aside. this goes out to all players. not just those who play MK. it goes out to those who are biased against MK too. do we really need to ban MK? is he unbeatable? does banning MK make the smash tourney scene a healthier environment?

i think that as long as you are able to beat MK then he does not warrant a ban.

 

[number1ricky]

Meta Knight killed my Father, and R***ED my Mother!

When playing a match on Brawl, if the crowd starts to cheer for Meta Knight, the cheers all sound like Asian people!

 

[_Liquid_]

I'm not quite sure.

I mean sure metaknight is obviously the best character in the game, but he is not impossible to beat. And as the meta game is evolving, people are figuring out ways to stop metaknight and his tornado of doom. Besides, I think a player's skill has more to do with wining than their character.

I think it's best to leave him alone right now and see what the future holds.

 

[tekkie]

i think that as long as you are able to beat MK then he does not warrant a ban.

Even if the only way to even the matchup for some characters is to give your opponent a lobotomy?

 

[Eyada]

Funny, I could have sworn Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike was one of the most Competitive fighting games in the history of Competitive fighting games despite Yun having zero disadvantageous match-ups with his "worst" being an even match-up (however, because Chun-Li just ***** more in general, she won almost every single tournament).

And it lived for years and years after it was initially released and it's still alive and well today. History > Your made up "facts" and emotionally charged opinions (disguised as facts).

He was discussing the fact that there aren't any successful competitive games with only one viable option. Why mention 3S? Yun isn't the only viable character in 3S, so mentioning that game doesn't refute his point. You mentioned Chun-Li in your refutation, so it's clear that you know that 3S isn't just Yun.

Perhaps you accidentally quoted the wrong statement?

Why do we dislike this? Because it is friggin' boring. And people like multiple choices, especially in a game where there are a total of 35 characters. What would happen, you ask, if there is only one possible viable option? The scene would die.

When a metagame becomes exceedingly boring for various reasons, it dies. And we don't want that. (Cue the whiners whining about how the scene will die if MK isnt banned. Guess what, it's still alive and thriving. And you still have choices.)

While I agree that community health is important, I'm hesitant to accept that something making the game boring is a valid reason for a ban. I strongly agree that one option dominating the game is a dire situation that can lead to the death of the community, and I strongly agree that a ban is needed; but I don't think it is acceptable to attribute the ban to the metagame being "boring". "Boring" is too subjective. Moreover, any time some random scrub started complaining that something made the game "boring", what justification would we have to refute his argument? "Well, uh, the difference is...., uh, Akuma made the game extremely boring, you stupid Scrub. You're complaining about fireball spamming? That's not boring, that's fun. Your opinion is stupid, and our opinion is right." Using opinions as justification seems like a very untenable position.

Overall, I don't see why you would think I was arguing for an IC-ban.

This is flat-out intellectual dishonesty; and it is needlessly vitriolic.

I made a post claiming that, according to the diversity argument, all Infinites in Brawl except for the IC Infinites should be banned.

Ah, but there are several characters who under the "70-30 = unviable" philosophy would become viable again if IC infinites were banned,I believe. So at the end of the day, there would be a net gain.

That was your response. You are saying that, according to diversity argument, the IC's would need to be banned. In other words, you are "arguing for an IC-ban" as a result of the diversity argument.

So not only are you being dishonest, you are doing so in a condescending and rude fashion, when I've been nothing but extremely courteous to you.

It's only a problem for those who wish to ban things Sirlin's criteria (or the other criteria which are used today) does not cover.

I look forward to seeing Sirlin refute your interpretation of his words. I'll bet you 100 dollars right now, on the record, to be paid through Paypal, that his intention was never ever "To maximize diversity" or come anywhere near arguing it.

I'll give you one week. And bet you $25 to be paid through Paypal you won't find a single one. And if you do, I'll even throw in the additional bonus of the promise to cosplay as Black Zelda at a future animeconvention, possibly Otakon 2010.

I'm not here for a competition, Yuna. I'm not here to prove you wrong, make you look bad, or try to tear you down as some sort of demented means of bloating my sense of self-worth. I'm not looking to keep a tally of who said what, who was proven wrong, or right, or even if someone needs to retract a statement because discussion has shown it to be invalid. I don't care. I really don't. I'm not here to "win", I'm here to find the best solution to the problem.

I'm here to try to find a resolution to this problem that will help the community move past this damaging, divisive discussion.

I'm here to have an honest, academic discussion; I am not here to prove anyone wrong. My goal is simply to try to find the truth so that the community can make the best decision possible. I am not trying to warp Sirlin's criteria in some sinister, underhanded fashion in order to justify an "idiotic" system as a means of forwarding some sort of agenda. I do not have any hidden agenda. I am neither pro-ban nor anti-ban. All I have is an open mind and a desire to amicably debate so that, together, we can reach a better solution to this problem.

Right now, I believe that the diversity argument could be helpful to the community, so I am working on proofs for it. I'm not interested in doing so to earn any sort of acclaim; again, I just want to find the truth.

Even if you can, somehow, link Sirlin's argument to the diversity argument, we'll just reject it for its sheer preposterousness. Because we do not ban things to maximize diversity. That would be idiotic.

If that's really the case, then further discussion between us is a waste of time. If you are going to simply refuse to give any sort of serious consideration to my argument regardless of any proof I might present, then you aren't actually interested in debating.

As such, I'll just focus on getting my argument up on Sirlin's forums and having a discussion there.

To anyone here who is interested, I'll post any conclusions garnered during my discussions on Sirlin's forums later if they are helpful to moving this discussion forward.

Edit: As a final note, Yuna, I think it would do you some good to re-read the section in Playing to Win where Sirlin discusses what should or should not be banned. In particular, look at the Old Sagat example. Read through it carefully, and then think. Sirlin never comes right out and says it, but he is talking about banning for diversity in that section. While he doesn't unconditionally embrace the idea, he admits that the Japanese decision to soft-ban Old Sagat in order to increase diversity has merit.

I'm not claiming that that constitutes some sort of complete endorsement of the diversity argument by Sirlin. I don't think Sirlin is aware of or endorses the diversity argument. However, it is very telling that he mentions the idea of banning to increase diversity as part of discussing his criteria for a ban. It is a subtle sign that there might be more to his ideas than he discusses in the book.

 

[Red Arremer]

Even if the only way to even the matchup for some characters is to give your opponent a lobotomy?

Oh, so all matchups have to be even now for him not to be banned? Wow.

I'd like to show you Dedede, a character who gives a part of the cast a REALLY unwinnable matchup.

 

[Yanoss1313]

sure matchups dont need to be even, hell, i'm a ganon main, stupid matchups are expected for him, doesn't stop me from placing ok in tourneys. but to have to fight atleast twice as many MKs as anyone else gets boring real fast... hell, for the time being, i've pissed brawl away, and no am plowing Brawl+ for pretty much that reason alone. it's just not fun anymore

on another note.... "organs in mains!"

 

[JayBee]

i personally feel that if someone beats a metaknight player without using a metaknight:

they are considerably more skilled at brawl than the player they are playing

and / or

the character they choose is also of high tier status.


the fact that it takes not nearly as much skill to master snake, compared to meta, and still be considered formidable is what upsets me the most. that, and there is not counter, and that he eliminates any need to have a secondary. he way too easy to pick up, and if you got any decent level skill already, with meta, your potential skyrockets.


people also seem to like to toss around the idea that since they beat metas all the time, or that since he's been beaten before (wow) that means he is not broken. that bothers me, because i feel that is extremely flawed thinking. i main sonic, and i have beaten metas. so what? that doesn't suddenly change the matchup, or that i have to work at a ridculous level to have a chance, and that those chances will only occur on human error, and not something in mets game you can exploit. I dont forecast it to everyone, but i'm also a meta player, so i know that character inside and out, yet i still feel this way, and it still is hard at times to fight them.


i'd also like to ask you guys to recall any examples in fighting games (i know, brawl is not a fighting game by traditional standards) where the best character in the game, had no bad matchups and was easy to pick up too. have those characters been beaten before? probably. so what? did it change anything about the mechanical aspects of that character, and what people have shown you can do if you simply cared enough to practice them? i'm sure if mew2king doesn't even play D3 much anymore it certainly isn't because he doesn't like the character. but why bother? seriously?


for now, all im gonna say that im a meta player, and i wouldn't miss him if he got banned.

 

[Yanoss1313]

i personally feel that if someone beats a metaknight player without using a metaknight:

they are considerably more skilled at brawl than the player they are playing

and / or

the character they choose is also of high tier status.


the fact that it takes not nearly as much skill to master snake, compared to meta, and still be considered formidable is what upsets me the most. that, and there is not counter, and that he eliminates any need to have a secondary. he way too easy to pick up, and if you got any decent level skill already, with meta, your potential skyrockets.


people also seem to like to toss around the idea that since they beat metas all the time, or that since he's been beaten before (wow) that means he is not broken. that bothers me, because i feel that is extremely flawed thinking. i main sonic, and i have beaten metas. so what? that doesn't suddenly change the matchup, or that i have to work at a ridculous level to have a chance, and that those chances will only occur on human error, and not something in mets game you can exploit. I dont forecast it to everyone, but i'm also a meta player, so i know that character inside and out, yet i still feel this way, and it still is hard at times to fight them.


i'd also like to ask you guys to recall any examples in fighting games (i know, brawl is not a fighting game by traditional standards) where the best character in the game, had no bad matchups and was easy to pick up too. have those characters been beaten before? probably. so what? did it change anything about the mechanical aspects of that character, and what people have shown you can do if you simply cared enough to practice them? i'm sure if mew2king doesn't even play D3 much anymore it certainly isn't because he doesn't like the character. but why bother? seriously?


for now, all im gonna say that im a meta player, and i wouldn't miss him if he got banned.

first things first, i agree with you 100%

and i think i may have an example.... wait for it...... akuma! (booo!!!)
but guess what, we "was" banned, guess it makes your point even more valid

....."organs in mains!"

 

[ohaiduhg]

I voted No.

I say he shouldn't be banned, but anyone who uses him should be put through a nightmare of scrutiny for being an unoriginal coward. Sounds harsh and unfair, but whatever.

If he gets banned then everyone will use Snake, Diddy, Falco, Marth, etc., and progress those characters, since they are next in the tier list. Then everyone will be saying, "Ban them too they are so broken!"

Meta's not really broken. He just has overly obvious pros with cons not being noted so much. People have found ways to counter him, and will find more. Facing him head-on and fighting him more sounds better than banning him and giving up.

Considering everyone uses him and everyone can easily pick him up, I'd say he is fairly predictable and typical. He's still great but predictability is an extreme con to have.

***jumping into a pokemon reference*** He's Blissey. :l

 

[JayBee]

@ dark water:

why do people say that? "if meta is banned then people will whine about other character and they will get banned etc..."

the "domino theory" doesn't stack up when we compare it to other games that ended up banning characters, stages, etc... it has never happened like the way you describe, and in fact your desciption is very much a "worse case scenario" that would be farfetched to occur.

whether you think he is broken or not, i cannot hate you for that. however, his "cons" are not really significant because brawl has given him methods of negating his weakness. so not only does only have one true weakness, it is inconsistant to either exploit it, or notice it on average matches. Momentum cancelling im sure has already been discussed. meta's moveset also makes spikeing at early percents very unlikely and the act of setting them up even more so.

your statement about people countering him is also misleading. whether you didn't see it or not, its not that people are countering him, they are simply getting better with thie character, understanding the meta more. but understand that there is NO counter or metaknight right now, there wasn't one last year, and unless we missed something in what many consider a shallow game there will not be one anytime soon.

predictability isn't only meta specific. and since he has more tools than any one character in the game it makes sence to say that technically he has the potential to be the least predictable in this game, not to mention that his most common options are so good that in many situations, it doesn't matter. in addition, predicability has nothing to do with the character, its player dependant, and quite frankly the only way you'll beat a meta in high levels is if you can capiolize on those to its maximum, while keeping your predictabilty to a minimum. and considering you have less tools than meta, this task is harder for you to than it is for meta.

 

[Cirno]

i personally feel that if someone beats a metaknight player without using a metaknight:

they are considerably more skilled at brawl than the player they are playing

I personally feel, this is flawed thinking. Thinking that is very common.

Roy R has beaten DSF's MK.

Considerably better?

I believe many people would disagree even though Marth v MK is 35:65

A player beating another player does not mean they are better.
It means they were the better player that match.

and / or

the character they choose is also of high tier status.

Tier status isn't based simply off of who beats who.
The tier list we currently have a mixture of known potential in a character and current ranking in tourneys.

the fact that it takes not nearly as much skill to master snake, compared to meta, and still be considered formidable is what upsets me the most.

Formidable to who?

We have multiple players who beat MKs consistently.


And what character has been mastered?

that, and there is not counter, and that he eliminates any need to have a secondary.

Several of our top players haven proven MK is not the only character who does not need a secondary.

And this is not the first fighting game where a character has had no counters.

he way too easy to pick up, and if you got any decent level skill already, with meta, your potential skyrockets.

First came Pit.
Then came G&W.
Next was Snake.
And now MK.

Whoever people are getting ***** by is whoever is currently too easy to pick up.
Brawl is a technically easy game. There are very few characters that are hard to pickup, but every character is hard to play at a high level. OverSwarm has proven this by switching to MK and not placing nearly as well.



And yes, if you are an ok player and pick the best character you will have a better chance at winning. This is nothing new to competitive gaming.

people also seem to like to toss around the idea that since they beat metas all the time, or that since he's been beaten before (wow) that means he is not broken. that bothers me, because i feel that is extremely flawed thinking. i main sonic, and i have beaten metas. so what? that doesn't suddenly change the matchup, or that i have to work at a ridculous level to have a chance, and that those chances will only occur on human error, and not something in mets game you can exploit.

In matches of equal skill, you do not win against broken characters.
Ever.

It seems a lot of you have no idea what a broken character is. So many of you say Akuma this, and Akuma that, but if any of you have ever played against a human opponent using Akuma, I have no doubt you will change your opinion on whether MK is broken or not.

When the term broken was coined, it was not a joke or some clever idea for lulz. Akuma had a move that the game was not designed to handle. Even in the HD Remix, Akuma was once again granted something the game was not meant to handle-- a 100% safe jump in, and in this case a player of lesser skill went around destroying much better players.

No one in Brawl can do that with MK.
There have been claims,(OS once said something about a frame trap with dtilt and Ftilt) but the closest thing to broken MK has ever had was the IDC which was immediately banned, even then under stalling, where as Akuma's air fireball was an offense tactic that any player could consistently abuse.

I dont forecast it to everyone, but i'm also a meta player, so i know that character inside and out, yet i still feel this way, and it still is hard at times to fight them.

For someone that knows MK in and out, you sure don't know he has weaknesses.
Which you should know, so you can use the methods developed to overcome them, best you can, and avoid situations where you would expose a weakness.


And if you knew any character inside and out, I highly doubt you would have a hard time in a slightly disadvantaged matchup.

i'd also like to ask you guys to recall any examples in fighting games (i know, brawl is not a fighting game by traditional standards) where the best character in the game, had no bad matchups and was easy to pick up too.

Yun. Pickup and **** your friends.

Master? You've got a couple long night ahead of you to combo into those Kara throws buddy.


Sagat. I **** you not when I say I literally picked up Sagat for the first time and consistently beat players I had constantly lost to with my Akuma. And everyone knows the Sagat matchup, he's a common character in tourneys.

I could go on, and on but I have done this so many times, I'm wondering if it's even worth it.

have those characters been beaten before? probably. so what? did it change anything about the mechanical aspects of that character, and what people have shown you can do if you simply cared enough to practice them?

Nope.

A character being beat isn't going to change the mechanics.
Maybe new uses for known options, similar to Sagat Tigger crush>Zangeif and MK OOS Shuttle Loop>G&W Turtle.

i'm sure if mew2king doesn't even play D3 much anymore it certainly isn't because he doesn't like the character. but why bother? seriously?

Yes, why bother with a character you use to win who's style isn't as fun for you, when you can use a character who's style is fun for you and win.

I agree with that. Problem?

for now, all im gonna say that im a meta player, and i wouldn't miss him if he got banned.

You wouldn't be the only one.

For now I'm gonna say that I'm a Brawl player, and I wouldn't miss all these whinners if they left.


(There's a difference between whinners and debaters/ people who have competitively relevant reasons for feeling a ways about something.)