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

[Nic64]

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 meta game to evolve.

certainly this is true, but I don't think MK is that much of a problem now as it is, several fighting game characters have been more dominant in tournament than him including Melee's Marth, that no one had a problem with. other characters are still plenty viable. I definitely agree that the game would be a little more diverse without MK but I think it's already acceptable as is, I don't think merely improving diversity alone is valid ban criteria unless the current level of diversity is a serious problem, which it isn't, it's not really anywhere near a "play MK or lose" situation

 

[tekkie]

it's not really anywhere near a "play MK or lose" situation

It's more of a "If one player choses MK, the other player will most likely need to chose MK." I understand that that isn't always the case, but there are way more cases of this being true than there are exceptions.

I also understand that a MK-banned tournament isn't a rock solid ground of evidence, but neither is saying "They had to use a secondary character".

 

[Nic64]

It's more of a "If one player choses MK, the other player will most likely need to chose MK." I understand that that isn't always the case, but there are way more cases of this being true than there are exceptions.

that's really not true at all

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

It's more of a "If one player choses MK, the other player will most likely need to chose MK." I understand that that isn't always the case, but there are way more cases of this being true than there are exceptions.

I also understand that a MK-banned tournament isn't a rock solid ground of evidence, but neither is saying "They had to use a secondary character".

This. Plus, competitive gamers tend to be a very conservative bunch and I don't think any of you would want him banned unless literally everyone was maining him.

It's really a "pick MK or any character that goes nearly even with MK" situation. It's not nearly the web of match-ups it should be. Instead, the entirety of the game is based around trying to find a character that can go even with MK so you don't have to play him. We are grasping at straws right now trying to find a solution that isn't there.

 

[deepseadiva]

It's more of a "If one player choses MK, the other player will most likely need to chose MK." I understand that that isn't always the case, but there are way more cases of this being true than there are exceptions.

No, that's not true at all.

Instead, the entirety of the game is based around trying to find a character that can go even with MK so you don't have to play him. We are grasping at straws right now trying to find a solution that isn't there.

No, people are making a crisis of something that's actually a nuisance.

 

[Nic64]

It's not nearly the web of match-ups it should be.

that's entirely subjective and not really a reason to ban a character. after MK, you could also improve character diversity by banning game and watch, snake, DDD, and falco, and maybe pikachu now, characters that outright invalidate more other characters than MK does(MK invalidates marth except... marth is still viable...and that's about it.)

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

that's entirely subjective and not really a reason to ban a character. after MK, you could also improve character diversity by banning game and watch, snake, DDD, and falco, and maybe pikachu now, characters that outright invalidate more other characters than MK does(MK invalidates marth except... marth is still viable...and that's about it.)

Stop. Trying. To. Use. Slippery. Slope. Fallacies.

 

[Nic64]

I didn't say other people would want to do that, learn 2 reading comprehension.

 

[tekkie]

that's really not true at all

How so? Obviously, if you're excellent with Snake or Diddy then it's not a huge deal, but what about everyone else?

Also, the argument that banning MK -> banning like 10 other characters is a slippery slope. The distinction between "could" and "would" doesn't nullify that.

 

[Dekar173]

No, that's not true at all.



No, people are making a crisis of something that's actually a nuisance.

$10 MM on the 16th Meno! :D

 

[Nic64]

How so? Obviously, if you're excellent with Snake or Diddy then it's not a huge deal, but what about everyone else?

I think unless you're using like marth or ROB you should be able to beat a meta knight with most viable characters(and a few that aren't but those are irrelevant to the discussion to me) if you're the better player even by a somewhat small margin, and even those are winnable albeit more severe. Also I think wario has a better MU with MK than snake does tbh

Also, the argument that banning MK -> banning like 10 other characters is a slippery slope. The distinction between "could" and "would" doesn't nullify that.

I said that you could improve character diversity by doing so, not that it could be a viable option, because it's silly and no one would agree to it, for good reason, you don't just ban characters to improve diversity unless diversity is perceived to be extremely problematic, which it isn't. this isn't a slippery slope at all and it seems like you are just throwing the term around because you don't have an actual way to address this.

 

[Dekar173]

I think unless you're using like marth or ROB you should be able to beat a meta knight with most viable characters(and a few that aren't but those are irrelevant to the discussion to me) if you're the better player even by a somewhat small margin, and even those are winnable albeit more severe. Also I think wario has a better MU with MK than snake does tbh



I said that you could improve character diversity by doing so, not that it could be a viable option, because it's silly and no one would agree to it, for good reason, you don't just ban characters to improve diversity unless diversity is perceived to be extremely problematic, which it isn't. this isn't a slippery slope at all and it seems like you are just throwing the term around because you don't have an actual way to address this.

It's a slippery slope if you truly believe things will transpire like

"Ok, great! We just banned MK!!! Woot! Now let's go ban those other *******s!"

When in actuality it'll be nothing like that, as we all know, and you just said.



"Slippery slope fallacy" is the easiest and best way to address exactly what you said: IT'S A LOGICAL FALLACY. If it's a logical fallacy, then it can be brushed aside and ignored as a possible outcome.

When MK is banned, no other characters will be banned, this I can guarantee you.

 

[Nic64]

When MK is banned, no other characters will be banned, this I can guarantee you.

do you people even read?

 

[|RK|]

Listen. You can improve character diversity by banning other characters. Correct statement. Read and think about it.

 

[Alus]

It's a slippery slope if you truly believe things will transpire like

"Ok, great! We just banned MK!!! Woot! Now let's go ban those other *******s!"

When in actuality it'll be nothing like that, as we all know, and you just said.
"Slippery slope fallacy" is the easiest and best way to address exactly what you said: IT'S A LOGICAL FALLACY.

If it's a logical fallacy, then it can be brushed aside and ignored as a possible outcome.

When MK is banned, no other characters will be banned, this I can guarantee you.

I think you might be replying to the wrong person...

 

[Dekar173]

Listen. You can improve character diversity by banning other characters. Correct statement. Read and think about it.

You could also just hold mid and low tier tourneys if you wanted to go to such extremes.

MK has a 28% tourney dominance rate. Something that can't be so lightly brushed aside, so of course getting rid of MK is going to help diversity.


As has been stated many times, if someone chooses MK, they have nothing to worry about except for being beaten by a much better player. The same can not be said about their opponent if they want to choose most of the cast. They have to think "Is this winnable against MK? Is this winnable against Snake? Is this winnable against D3?" If they aren't saying yes to all three of those questions (the first, most importantly) then they may as well just suicide the first three stocks and move it on to their counter-pick stage (which, at best, will be "even" aka 60:40 in MK's favor).

Without MK, the worries of many will be set aside.

Without D3, or Snake, or Falco (who's 10th now) the community would stagnate and crumble.

 

[tekkie]

do you people even read?

do you even have a real reply? stop wasting time.

 

[|RK|]

You didn't actually see what he meant by that statement :/

No fallacies present. At all.

 

[tekkie]

By the way, it looks like the vote's settled down.

 

[Terrydactyl]

I voted no.

No johns here, if an MK beats me, it's because I was outplayed, not because his character is unbeatable.

Most of us who do not main MK are slowly finding our ways around this new character with an extremely versatile moveset. He has no standing infinites or anything like that, so why should he be banned?

 

[tekkie]

No johns here, if an MK beats me, it's because I was outplayed, not because his character is unbeatable.

A friend of mine (who you'd probably call a scrub) spent two weeks learning MK, went to a tournament, and beat some of the best players in the state. No joke.

 

[|RK|]

Well now we know how good your state is.

 

[Nic64]

do you even have a real reply? stop wasting time.

thoughtless posts provoke thoughtless responses.

MK has a 28% tourney dominance rate. Something that can't be so lightly brushed aside, so of course getting rid of MK is going to help diversity.

Sure it can be, that's not atypical for a games best character at all, many top players care only about winning and will simply migrate to the best character, do you think M2K, DSF, spamerer etc. are going to use lower high tier characters like kirby or DK if MK is banned? no, they're just going to shift down to the next best characters like DDD, Snake, and Wario(oh wait, the countries best players already play those characters too). marth won 55% of national melee tournaments because ken dominated with him and then azen and M2K in turn switched to marth themselves, this **** happens.

Without D3, or Snake, or Falco (who's 10th now) the community would stagnate and crumble.

I'm sure all the people who main characters with unwinnable matchups against these characters would be sad to see them go.

Oh wait, do you mean all the snake's and falco's would be angry to have their months of practice and dedication wasted and might quit? Does sound like a pretty silly idea now that you mention it...

 

[tekkie]

Well now we know how good your state is.

Jumping to conclusions. As long as we're flinging logical fallacies around, I might as well do my share.

t
Oh wait, do you mean all the snake's and falco's would be angry to have their months of practice and dedication wasted and might quit? Does sound like a pretty silly idea now that you mention it...

Snake and Falco have characters with advantages over them.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Tekkie, if we don't know how good your state is, what top players this person beat, and if these players are even at the highest level of competitive play, it's a very moot point.

Plus, hasn'it been posted multiple times that:

-55:45 and 60:40 matchups at high levels of play are still very winnable, and are mostly determined by player skill.
-Matchup numbers are subjective anyway.
-It can easily be argued that characters like Snake and Wario don't have counters, just disadvantageous matchups (like Snake vs. D3, the two aforementioned statements back up this one).
-Because matchups assume both characters are at the highest level of play, CPing a character you don't often use against another person's main when the matchup is only going to be 55:45 or 60:40 in your favour most probably means you'd lose.
-In essentially every other fighter, there's a character or characters with no bad matchups. This is true in Brawl, Melee, GG, SCII, SCIII, SCIV, SFIII third strike, SFIV, I could go on and on.
-According to the "Do you CP Character thread?" a huge majority of people do not unless they have a main with unwinnable matchups (re:, Fox vs. Pika or DK vs. D3, not MK vs. Zelda "Zomg 60:40 matchup ima lose!!11one").
-Out of 210 or so possible matchups against the tourney viable characters, only roughly 30, give or take a few, are true counters like 65:35 or 6:4 (which arguably isn't a counter, just a good matchup). This is one-seventh of all matchups among tourney viable characters that are actually counters. You can find this post some pages back, I forget how many.

 

[Tommy_G]

anyone have the stats to who got second to m2k at various brawl tournies?

 

[tekkie]

-55:45 and 60:40 matchups at high levels of play are still very winnable, and are mostly determined by player skill.

Assuming they are even, the one with the advantage will win. If someone using MK plays against someone with equal skill using any other character, MK will win every time.

-It can easily be argued that characters like Snake and Wario don't have counters, just disadvantageous matchups (like Snake vs. D3, the two aforementioned statements back up this one).

It's still in the favor of the other character.

-Because matchups assume both characters are at the highest level of play, CPing a character you don't often use against another person's main when the matchup is only going to be 55:45 or 60:40 in your favour most probably means you'd lose.

That case will exist for every single character except MK. It's acceptable.

-According to the "Do you CP Character thread?" a huge majority of people do not unless they have a main with unwinnable matchups (re:, Fox vs. Pika or DK vs. D3, not MK vs. Zelda "Zomg 60:40 matchup ima lose!!11one").

If there was a MK counterpick, I'm sure it would be used.

-Out of 210 or so possible matchups against the tourney viable characters, only roughly 30, give or take a few, are true counters like 65:35 or 6:4 (which arguably isn't a counter, just a good matchup). This is one-seventh of all matchups among tourney viable characters that are actually counters. You can find this post some pages back, I forget how many.

The point isn't pure counterpicking. Against MK, if two players are the same skill, the choice of the non-MK is getting beaten badly or ***** brutally.

 

[Ax00x0]

Valiant efforts Tekkie and Dekar, but it's like talking to walls made out of the thickest element. I'll just give our state's results to Xyro and see what he can do with it.

 

[Popertop]

Well now we know how good your state is.

exactly what I was thinking

 

[|RK|]

Assuming they are even, the one with the advantage will win. If someone using MK plays against someone with equal skill using any other character, MK will win every time.

WRONG. First, there is no such thing as equal skill, so get that out of your head. Second, each person takes different thought patterns along the course of the battle. Brawl capitalizes more on mindgames, and each advantage in these matchups debated even or 60:40, each character has their tools and proper spacing/zoning to take a good MK on.

It's still in the favor of the other character.

Actually, Avarice, it just so happens that a counterpick is defined as a choice that gives you the advantage, so he's in the right here.

That case will exist for every single character except MK. It's acceptable.

One thing: there is no highest level of play. It just keeps getting raised. Besides, arguably, this does exist for MK as well. MC is working on some strats for Wario to beat MK on Norfair right now, and Snake vs MK on FD is generally seen as even.


If there was a MK counterpick, I'm sure it would be used.

Read above.

The point isn't pure counterpicking. Against MK, if two players are the same skill, the choice of the non-MK is getting beaten badly or ***** brutally.

Above.

Comments in red.

 

[Overclassed]

-According to the "Do you CP Character thread?" a huge majority of people do not unless they have a main with unwinnable matchups (re:, Fox vs. Pika or DK vs. D3, not MK vs. Zelda "Zomg 60:40 matchup ima lose!!11one").

Couldn't we also use this information to conclude that counterpicking isn't necessarily a strong part of Brawl and, perhaps, use that as a premise in an pro-ban argument?

It would suggest that the anti-ban suggestion of "choose a good counter" isn't valid.

It would also suggest that the continuous conversation about whether there are characters to go against Metaknight or not totally pointless, since no one really counterpicks anyway.

On one side, there's the idea that Metaknight 'breaks the game' by having no counterpicks. But if the game isn't about counterpicks, than that isn't game breaking at all.

On the other side, if the game is about balance, someone with no poor matchups is inherently better than any other character who has to struggle at some time or another, and 'breaks' the flow of the game.

So, really, the counterpick argument should be entirely thrown out from both sides.

Sorry if that wasn't entirely clear .-.

WRONG. First, there is no such thing as equal skill, so get that out of your head.
.

I think he meant congruent skill.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

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.

he took a top spot but not the top spot. Theres a difference.

 

[|RK|]

I think he meant congruent skill.

Classy.

But yeah, congruent is still a more accurate term and does describe the matchup between MK and Wario even better. Congruent is still ever so slightly in one side's favor, however the actual number is so close that no one actually cares.

 

[Overclassed]

Classy.

But yeah, congruent is still a more accurate term and does describe the matchup between MK and Wario even better. Congruent is still ever so slightly in one side's favor, however the actual number is so close that no one actually cares.

Into the fifth or sixth decimal statistically, no doubt.

P;

 

[|RK|]

Yeah.

EDIT: Melo loves to whine.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Yea h.

Nice! +1 post count! And a sneaky 10 character avoidance! BONUS POINTS!

Someone set this man's post count at 10,000.

 

[Palpi]

Nice! +1 post count! And a sneaky 10 character avoidance! BONUS POINTS!

Someone set this man's post count at 10,000.

I am fairly sure you missed a 0. People have over 10,000.

It would have to be 100,000 or it wouldn't work.

 

[Sosuke]

Nice! +1 post count! And a sneaky 10 character avoidance! BONUS POINTS!

Someone set this man's post count at 10,000.

Your post is the same as his since you are not discussing the topic.


Not to be rude, but doesn't the decision just come down to members of the SBR? What is this thread for?
MKs been voted banned 2 times already and hes still allowed. >_>

 

[salaboB]

I am fairly sure you missed a 0. People have over 10,000.

It would have to be 100,000 or it wouldn't work.

10,000 would be OVER NINE THOUSAND, it works for me.

sasukebowser - going off topic for a while before getting back to it is a tradition in MK ban threads.

 

[Overclassed]

10,000 would be OVER NINE THOUSAND, it works for me.

sasukebowser - going off topic for a while before getting back to it is a tradition in MK ban threads.

Sort of like Yuna getting inappropriately labeled a female.