This is what stage banning is for.
I'd like to hear about these many evenish match-ups of MKs he can just counterpick to death with several stages.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Should Metaknight be Banned? ***Take 3***
- Thread starter SamuraiPanda
- Start date
- Status
I'd like to hear about these many evenish match-ups of MKs he can just counterpick to death with several stages.
C~Dog
Smash Champion
I would totally buy that game.
@Yuna
Metaknight:
Rainbow Cruise, Delfino Plaza, Frigate, Lylat Cruise (arguable), Luigi's Mansion
Metaknight:
Rainbow Cruise, Delfino Plaza, Frigate, Lylat Cruise (arguable), Luigi's Mansion
gallax
Smash Hero
i just wanna say that as of now the MU is 65/35 in favor of MK against pika. BUT...i think the MU is going to be lowered a bit to 60/40 soon. i can say this b/c i run the pika character MU thread and collaborate with the top pikas in the states on a regular basis about these MU's.
No, no, don't list me stages that are good for MK, list me stages on which MK can **** his even-ish match-ups. There's a big differnce. Even if the stages are good for MK, they might not be too bad for his even-ish match-ups.
I want specifics, i.e. "Meta Knight ***** X-character on this stage". Not just "Meta Knight really loves Y-stage."
Also, Luigi's Mansion is Counter/Banned. And I believe quite a few, if not the majority of tournaments, ban it.
This is what Competitive gaming is all about. Don't go first match Blind Pick or not Blind Pick with your main if s/he has horrible match-ups, especially against the most well-played characters in the game.
This is true for all fighting games. Life isn't fair, not all characters are viable, yaddi yaddi yadda.
MajinSweet
Smash Journeyman
I think these statistics alone show that MetaKnight shouldn't be banned. You could have the exact same post and just change the names to match other competitive games and it would fit perfectly. Chun Li for 3S, Marth for Melee, Sim for ST and so on. Hell, in Melee, Marth probably has more tournament wins than everyone from middle tier down.
There aren't many match ups that aren't heavily skewed in Meta Knight's favour on those stages.
MK's
"Even Match Ups"
Snake
Diddy
Falco
Wario
Rainbow Cruise
-> Snake. Definitely skewed in MK's favour
-> Diddy. Definitely
-> Falco. Definitely
-> Wario. Arguable. Some claim as Wario's got a great recovery and aerial mobility he
Norfair
-> Planking wins.
Delfino Plaza
-> Snake. Platforms and stage transformations are definitely not in his favour.
-> Diddy. Arguable. ADHD CP'd this against Shadow. But as Meta can attack from under the stage, and many transformations ruin bananas...
-> Falco. Terrible Horizontal recovery screws him in transformations. Transformations get in the way of lasering.
-> Wario. Same situation as diddy to a degree... (attack under the stage stuff)
The main focus on Delfino Plaza is MK's ability to keep people from recovering on the 'rising' stage during the transformations. Walk Offs do allow for very easy shuttle loop kills...
Lylat Cruise
-> Falco = bad.
-> Others: Arguable.
Frigate Orpheon
MK definitely has the over all best recovery on this stage, but the on stage fighting between all the characters would seemingly only hurt Diddy and maybe Falco.
Luigi's Mansion:
-> All destroyed except Snake.
Whatever the situation, if the opponent bans Rainbow Cruise, I doubt the MK would lose on Norfair.
I'm not asking for stages where victory is skewed in MK's favor. Someone made the claim that he can destroy his even-ish match-ups on counterpick stages. Give me some of those!
IIRC, 3S Chun-Li is worse than Brawl MK.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Umm... Has anyone ever considered, instead of a ban, a handicap? IIRC, someone was talking about a single blind system against metaknight for character choice... I really think this is a more reasonable direction; i.e. MK can't counterpick a stage if he loses a round, or other person knows if you're going with MK at character choice... What other ways could we neuter MK over the tournament organization itself, as opposed to banning a very good character? Wouldn't that be more reasonable? Other fighting games with broken characters don't have solutions like this, meaning that this could break the curve. It would appeal to the pro-bans, while giving the MK mains and TOs a lot less to ***** about.
A little list of possibilities:
(Most of these obviously are null during the mirror MK matchup.)
Wouldn't something like this be a better solution?
A little list of possibilities:
- No planking with MK (hard to enforce, though... >.<)
- Rainbow Cruise set to ban if MK is playing and the opponent doesn't agree to it
- No counterpicks for MK player
- Single Blind character choice
- atcual built-in game % handicap (unsophisticated, but it exists)
- etc.
(Most of these obviously are null during the mirror MK matchup.)
Wouldn't something like this be a better solution?
Please Yuna. Just because I chose to use different synonyms and that I don't like using the word '****'.
Rainbow Cruise and Norfair collectively (i.e. an environment where a stage can be banned) allows MK to DESTROY/****/MAIM his even match ups. And EVERY OTHER MATCH UP.
Red Arremer
Smash Legend
I wouldn't know of one Top Tier character in Melee that has a 35:65 matchup disadvantage with other characters.
Marcbri
Smash Lord
when CP, the loser says the stage and then the winner can change character to avoid getting his character ***** in a bad stage for him. So if Mk cps you whichever of this stages you still have options of getting and even or close to even match-up
exemples:
Rainbow Cruise
->Wario
->Kirby
-> Falco ( has an infinite on this stage that can pwn MK)
-> DDD ( not sure if even or small disadvantadge)
->G&W/Yoshi/Jiggs small disadvantadge (4-6?)
Norfair
->Wario ***** at norfair.
-> if planking wins, Jiggs/G&W win too.
-> lol Deva beat DSF with link here ( of course Link is ***** by mk in any stage, but just saying to point mk isn't invencible in this stage)
Delfino Plaza
-> Snake, Diddy and Wario can still do well in here
-> Kirby/ Jigglypuff/Yoshi can compete against MK here (4-6)
-> DDD is either even or small disadvantadge
Lylat Cruise
->Wario is awesome in this stage
->why is this an especially bad stage for snake/diddy?
->Falco can still do well here, he would be at a close disadvantadge
->Kirby/Jiggs/Yoshi/DDD/DK/Bowser are able to compete with MK (4-6)
Frigate Orpheon
->Snake and Wario do pretty well here
->Kirby, Jigglypuff and DDD can fight MK here too (4-6?)
Luigi's Mansion:
->First off this stage should be banned.
->Olimar does awesome in here
-> as you said Snake can defeat MK here
->The other caracters I've said somewhere in this post can still do acceptable here except Diddy and Falco
there ya have plenty of options of how to have a chance of winning in a MK counterpick
of course this isn't for scrubs who think 6-4 are impossible match-ups or that just think MK is unbeatable.
I don't see how MK is auto-win in any of these stages, and don't forget there's the ban stage rule so you can ban the one you play worse on. and some tourneys don't even have norfair or Luigi's as cp stages
Crow!
Smash Lord
Anyway, it looks like the poll results are reasonably settled now. Let's take a look:
49% say ban, 39.5% say no ban, 11.5% say unsure.
"Ban" is more popular an opinion than "no ban" by 9.5%.
We can compare this to a 8% difference in the first poll and a 10.9% difference in the second poll.
On the other hand, we have a third option this time out. If we look at the ratio of pro-ban to anti-ban, it is now 55.4 : 44.6, which is almost exactly what it was after the previous poll.
If our objective is to determine whether the banning sentiment of this community has gone up or down, the question to ask is where the "not sure" people came from.
If they are all people who formerly did not vote, then no change has occurred.
If they uniformly had previously voted "no," but voted no because they were unsure rather than because they actively were anti-ban, then the anti-ban support has risen rather considerably - though in that case the previous poll would have actually indicated a 62.6 : 37.4 ban to no-ban ratio.
If they uniformly had previously voted "yes," but actually were undecided, then the ban support has risen, following the same logic as above. In that case, the previous vote indicated extremely close to a 50:50 ban vs anti-ban sentiment.
If the "not sure" came from both options in a 50:50 manner and their opinions have not changed, then the previous poll actually indicated a 56.1 : 43.9 ban vs no ban ratio.
Alternatively, if the unsure vote came completely from people who previously voted one way but changed their minds, then analysis becomes much more messy. Let us try a model wherein the people from the previous poll may change from a yes to a "not sure" or from a no to an "unsure" but cannot go from yes to no. To obtain our current poll's results with this model, we would require 6.4% of the unsure vote to have come from old yes votes and 5.1% to have come from old no's, suggesting that support for the ban has fallen slightly more than anti-ban support.
The actual sitiuation is probably some mixture of the above cases. Interpret as you will. It is also significant to note the unreliability of internet poll data: obviously the people participating in this poll are self-selecting which can inflict all sorts of bias. Also, multiple account creation for the purpose of poll skewing does happen from time to time, and if there is a correlation of which side such people come from (they certainly wouldn't be in the unsure category!), then the poll's numbers are not sufficiently different from their previous numbers to make any conclusions in this case.
It is curious that the poll this time started with the yes option taking a huge early lead which later fell back some. I seem to recall something similar happening with the previous poll but I have no data to provide in that regard. I do not pretend to know a cause for this.
In other news, this thread still thinks it has more pages of posts than it really does.. what's up with that?
49% say ban, 39.5% say no ban, 11.5% say unsure.
"Ban" is more popular an opinion than "no ban" by 9.5%.
We can compare this to a 8% difference in the first poll and a 10.9% difference in the second poll.
On the other hand, we have a third option this time out. If we look at the ratio of pro-ban to anti-ban, it is now 55.4 : 44.6, which is almost exactly what it was after the previous poll.
If our objective is to determine whether the banning sentiment of this community has gone up or down, the question to ask is where the "not sure" people came from.
If they are all people who formerly did not vote, then no change has occurred.
If they uniformly had previously voted "no," but voted no because they were unsure rather than because they actively were anti-ban, then the anti-ban support has risen rather considerably - though in that case the previous poll would have actually indicated a 62.6 : 37.4 ban to no-ban ratio.
If they uniformly had previously voted "yes," but actually were undecided, then the ban support has risen, following the same logic as above. In that case, the previous vote indicated extremely close to a 50:50 ban vs anti-ban sentiment.
If the "not sure" came from both options in a 50:50 manner and their opinions have not changed, then the previous poll actually indicated a 56.1 : 43.9 ban vs no ban ratio.
Alternatively, if the unsure vote came completely from people who previously voted one way but changed their minds, then analysis becomes much more messy. Let us try a model wherein the people from the previous poll may change from a yes to a "not sure" or from a no to an "unsure" but cannot go from yes to no. To obtain our current poll's results with this model, we would require 6.4% of the unsure vote to have come from old yes votes and 5.1% to have come from old no's, suggesting that support for the ban has fallen slightly more than anti-ban support.
The actual sitiuation is probably some mixture of the above cases. Interpret as you will. It is also significant to note the unreliability of internet poll data: obviously the people participating in this poll are self-selecting which can inflict all sorts of bias. Also, multiple account creation for the purpose of poll skewing does happen from time to time, and if there is a correlation of which side such people come from (they certainly wouldn't be in the unsure category!), then the poll's numbers are not sufficiently different from their previous numbers to make any conclusions in this case.
It is curious that the poll this time started with the yes option taking a huge early lead which later fell back some. I seem to recall something similar happening with the previous poll but I have no data to provide in that regard. I do not pretend to know a cause for this.
In other news, this thread still thinks it has more pages of posts than it really does.. what's up with that?
"Skewed in MK's favor" is nowhere near being a synonym to "****". Norfair is C/B and I'd push for it to be banned.
So MK has Rainbow Cruise... which can be stage banned. Problem solved. Not really. But even if Norfair isn't banned, that leaves MK only one stage where he destroys his evenish match-ups (the other will be stage banned).
While MK cannot be effectively counterpicked, that's still just one match out of an entire set.
Perhaps the users who frequent this section of the forum are uniformly more pro-ban in general, thus, it is likely a lot of them voted in the poll before any anti-banners had the chance. Also, since the pro-ban side of very vocal and number quite a few, in the first few days of a thread, there is bound to be a lot of skewed posting, mostly on the pro-ban side.
Some if not many of these posts will contain hyperbole, exagerrations, inaccurancies or even downright lies. The less informed might take these as facts and vote according to these skewed influences. However, once the anti-ban side "gets going" more facts and counter-arguments are brought to the table, leading to less people to buy the lies such as "MK ***** everyone... a lot!".
You see, for every poster who says "MK needs to banned! That Tornado is unbelievably broken and has no counter!" and "MK wins every single tournament by a huge margin!" (both obvious lies), at least one vote went to the pro-ban side based on a lie. However, if they are exposed as lies, less and less votes will go to the pro-ban side because of this lie.
But you cannot change your vote, so a lot of votes will have been placed on the pro-ban side of the issue before the dust have settled from when the thread is first started.
What is curious here is the very fact that pro-ban support decreases as time moves on. You can extrapolate from this that as more and more discussion gets going, more and more people become convinced MK does not need banning and vote "No" instead of "Yes" or "Unsure". In other words, a lot of people who vote in this poll were at least initially very ignorant on the matter, yet they vote anyway. But there are others who wait and later cast their votes because they were swayed by either side.
Maniclysane
Smash Lord
It has something to do with admins deleting posts. I think someone said earlier their quote in one of their quotes got edited or something.Crow! said:
This shouldn't matter in the least. Posts get deleted all the time. Another forum I frequent uses pretty much the same scripts and there's a thread that has had literally half of its content deleted. Many threads have posts deleted all the time. This is the very first time I've ever seen something like this happening.
Kage Me
Smash Ace
Isn't that also true for a lot of the anti-ban votes, though?
Yes, but events indicate that the longer the debate rages, the less votes go to the pro-side whilst more and more votes go to the anti-side, indicating that either most anti-banners are just reaaaaaally slow to vote or that the longer the debate rages, more people become educated on the subject matter and the more people ar educated, the more they lean towards anti-ban.
Of course there are those who are ignorant and who vote without educating themselves first on both sides.
number1ricky
Smash Cadet
Meta Knight is cheap but not unbeatable, therefore don't ban him.
ZHMT
Smash Lord
Were almost 5000 posts in, and so far nothing significant came out of this thread.
I personally dont know why this thread is even here anymore, its basically repeating posts over and over.
If anything, people are watching over this and seeing if there is anything that can help this "issue".
I personally dont know why this thread is even here anymore, its basically repeating posts over and over.
If anything, people are watching over this and seeing if there is anything that can help this "issue".
Supermodel From Paris
Smash Hero
Thread summary:
Yuna gets really angry and says nothing important. BTW, the HObo 16 results are the most diverse of any tourney I've ever seen. I wonder why that is.
Yuna gets really angry and says nothing important. BTW, the HObo 16 results are the most diverse of any tourney I've ever seen. I wonder why that is.
Nic64
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,725
it was entertaining when dmbrandon and mango were trolling it at least, that made this thread more worthwhile than the previous two
but in terms of productive value, you're right, totally pointless
GorillaWarfare
Smash Rookie
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 8
I voted no, I believe Metaknight is a hard character to face, especially if the player is pro with him, but I do not think it's to the point where he should be banned.
cutter
Smash Champion
I have a feeling it was from dmbrandon when he made a ridiculous amount of alt accounts to evade his ban around the beginning of this topic when he was posting stuff.
Thread summary is more like this: Wait until after Apex and Genesis.
OmegaXis
Smash Cadet
Let me put it this way... If we ban meta, then its only going to work its way down.
First we ban meta
months later we ban snake
Then everyone going down in tiers e_e.
First we ban meta
months later we ban snake
Then everyone going down in tiers e_e.
ZHMT
Smash Lord
I wish all tourneys were like HOBO 16...
Metaknight isnt unbeatable, and either was any other character in any other fighting game. Every character was "beatable". Akuma was "beatable". It was just really really really hard.
If the opponent puts his controller down and sits there, your gonna beat a Akuma player. Im sick of people throwing the word unbeatable around.
Metaknight isnt unbeatable, and either was any other character in any other fighting game. Every character was "beatable". Akuma was "beatable". It was just really really really hard.
If the opponent puts his controller down and sits there, your gonna beat a Akuma player. Im sick of people throwing the word unbeatable around.
ZHMT
Smash Lord
Snake has counters and bad stages, Metaknight doesnt. This was said 4000 posts ago. Matter of fact..months ago.
OmegaXis
Smash Cadet
No character is ever unbeatable.
Oh, and people need to understand that match-ups aren't everything.
Oh, and people need to understand that match-ups aren't everything.
Supermodel From Paris
Smash Hero
Slippery Slope. Jesus you people are stupid.
Meta mains took high spots without meta. What does this mean?
Could it mean... No, it can't be. Skill mattering more than characters? That's just stupid.
ZHMT
Smash Lord
Look at Metaknight's moveset and the amount of options he has. THIS is what made me vote for the ban. Metaknight doesn't have one move with significant lag or startup time on them, yet he outranges most of the cast. His fsmash is his slowest move, and its amazing, dont bring that move up.
95% of Metaknights don't play him to his potential and still place well. What happens when the stuff M2K, Dojo, and such do, everyone starts to pick up. Then what...
You cant blame it on their Metagame being advanced further then other characters because this is Brawl and were only going to get so far. There are options MK has that beats and/or shuts down every character in this game (when they play correctly). People dont get it.
95% of Metaknights don't play him to his potential and still place well. What happens when the stuff M2K, Dojo, and such do, everyone starts to pick up. Then what...
You cant blame it on their Metagame being advanced further then other characters because this is Brawl and were only going to get so far. There are options MK has that beats and/or shuts down every character in this game (when they play correctly). People dont get it.
Nic64
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,725
so...meta knight has to not touch his controller in order to lose?
totally comparable to akuma lol
OmegaXis
Smash Cadet
oh XD.
I don't usually go back 4000 posts into a topic. maybe I should start doing that lol
ZHMT
Smash Lord
No, I was simply defining unbeatable. Its used way too much.
Supermodel From Paris
Smash Hero
The highest Meta main placed fourth. No one argues that Meta mains can't be skilled anyway, you Neanderthal.
I am sick of the idea that pro-ban guys think all MK players are unskilled trash or that we think he is an "unbeatable" character. You parrots needed a new argument about 150 pages ago.
Supermodel From Paris
Smash Hero
I would bet all kinds of money that the meta game would not centralize in the same way it has now if MK was banned. Sure, we might not see Samus and Sonic in the top 15 in three months like we did at Hobo 16 (dare to dream), but things would definitely be more diverse which is important for the metagame to evolve.
- Status