Melomaniacal
Smash Champion
You're right. I shouldn't have posted that, I should have used my Jedi mind powers to project my thoughts into everyone's head.
This thread is more for TOs if you ask me.
-
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
This thread is more for TOs if you ask me.
Members of the SBR take the opinions of the community into account when deciding on rules the majority of the time. Plus, alot of members that could potentially vote or comment on these threads are the movers and shakers of the smash metagame, so there opinions kinda matter to some extent. Also, new members join every day that werent here to voice there opinion on the previous metaknight discussions, nows there chance.
Plus its funny to watch peole argue over this.
Darxmarth23
Smash Champion
Just look at the big pic.
Anth0ny
Smash Master
Ally's gonna pack their lunch son
But speaking of Genesis, I think this topic should be closed until we see those results. At this point, everything that could be said, has been said. The arguments are just getting stupid. Being arguably the grandest Smash tournament of all time (700+ participants?!?), there is no way that MK will be banned any time before that.
Another major factor that will probably be discussed are the results of Apex this weekend. However, I highly doubt that the top 8 will be MK dominated, as some of the elite MKs from WHOBO will not be there and many of the elite non-mk users will be present at this.
Remember to watch the live stream kids.
FB Dj_Iskascribble
Frostbitten
bolded response
Actually, we've seen some real progress. Several people (like at least 8 or something from what I have personally taken note of) have openly declared that they have switched sides after reading the debate.
Every single one of them switched from pro-ban to anti-ban. So, yeah, this thread has yielded results. Just not much.
I don't get angry, ever (almost). Just because I'm being witty, sarcastic and snarky doesn't mean I'm angry.
Also, just because you lack the ability of logical thinking and insight into Competitive Smash and Competitive fighting games to recognize "important stuff" doesn't mean what I say isn't factual and supported by evidence, some of it common sense and common knowledge (to those who have any kind of insight into Competitive Smash and/or fighting games).
I can't help but recall the fact that the last time I replied to one of your wholly factually incorrect posts, you completely ignored my reply and refused to address my refutations of your arguments, despite the fact that I was perfectly curteous.
I wonder why that is.
dmbrandon was banned? Permanently? ;__;
We don't think that. We think a lot of things about the pro-ban side, but that's not one of them.
That happens in all threads.
This is the "solution". Because this is how Competitive fighting games usually work. It's "Play the best character or one of the characters who go even with him/her". If you do not like it, go back to being a Casual player.
Two players of equal skill is impossible/irrelevant because other things factor in, like really good players playing badly, worse players playing better, sandbagginig, off days, cold hand johns, climbing mountains before tournaments etc....
A good MK may lose once just due to how he was playing at the time, not because he wouldn't dominate in general....
That's why "occasional examples" of good MKs losing arent necessarily valid (though this applies to any character and it's just something for people to think about).
Food for thought......
A good MK may lose once just due to how he was playing at the time, not because he wouldn't dominate in general....
That's why "occasional examples" of good MKs losing arent necessarily valid (though this applies to any character and it's just something for people to think about).
Food for thought......
The only matchup advantages they will have if they are even, is the fact that they're even and NOT disadvantaged... Hence the classification "even".
So, according to what you say, Tekkie, MK either badly beats characters OR brutally ***** them. By just looking at the anti-ban side's size, we can safely say that, oh, I dunno... 40% of the community don't agree with you. If he would TRULY **** other characters, the pro-ban size would CLEARLY be bigger than 50%, thanks to the fact that he would be near impossible to beat (if not COMPLETELY impossible) if it were true.
So, according to what you say, Tekkie, MK either badly beats characters OR brutally ***** them. By just looking at the anti-ban side's size, we can safely say that, oh, I dunno... 40% of the community don't agree with you. If he would TRULY **** other characters, the pro-ban size would CLEARLY be bigger than 50%, thanks to the fact that he would be near impossible to beat (if not COMPLETELY impossible) if it were true.
-Ran
Smash Master
Undecided voters are the key. [Just as any poll] Their vote won't solidify until the vote becomes of worth. This isn't even counting people who didn't even -care- to vote in this thread, much less pick the option for not sure.
Maniclysane
Smash Lord
I actually want to change my vote to Anti-Ban, but I already voted Not Sure. I've decided this because 30% dominance isn't even as bad as Melee Marth. MK is a ***** who we all have to deal with. I know there would be more diversity if he was banned, but at the same time banning a character for diversity feels just...
brinboy789
Smash Champion
i dont get the diversity arguement. MK dont not make a single character unviable by himself, while with the likes of D3 and marth making several chars unviable just by themselves.
and also, i dont get how MK is easiest learning curve in the game. have you seen D3? its LITERALLY all grabs, chaingrab, bair and utilt. and waddle dee spam.
and also, i dont get how MK is easiest learning curve in the game. have you seen D3? its LITERALLY all grabs, chaingrab, bair and utilt. and waddle dee spam.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Marth makes several characters unviable all by himself? Lol
Pretty much anything Marth *****, MK ***** harder, that's why MK negates Marth's presence in the metagame.
There are a very select few characters that Marth does better against then MK, and I can't even think of one that he makes non-viable by himself.
Maniclysane
Smash Lord
To be honest, the only reason why he bans diversity is because he's the best and if you main MK, you won't have any disadvantaged matchups. People flock to the best character often in fighters.
Don't forget Pikachu makes Fox unviable too. ._.
Maniclysane
Smash Lord
Lucas and Ness?
FB Dj_Iskascribble
Frostbitten
no marth ***** characters harder than meta, its exactly opposite what you said
with the excaption of a few, he has generally BETTER matchups than meta does
tekkie
Smash Master
Your argument is that a bad player with a good character doesn't beat a good player with a bad character. See below.
Seriously, does the term "theoretical" mean anything to you? Two people of theoretically even skill will yield an MK victory if one uses him.
Ad what was that second argument? Two separate characters might be able to even out MK on two separate stages? Holy crap, someone alert the MK boards before they get knocked down to Z tier.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Prior to extra-inch DI you'd be right, but Marth doesn't have his 0-death grab on them anymore, so it's not true.
Yes, Marth does better against Lucas then MK, but barely, and G&W destroys lucas far harder.
Against Ness, MK is probably a far more significant threat then Marth, if only because of his far superior gimp game.
No, Marth's match-ups are almost entirely 60-40s, he has only a select few better match-ups, and those are almost always against characters that basically the entire cast negates.
MK's amazing gimp game, plus his crazy offensive game, as well as his almost as good defensive game as marth, ***** more characters then Marth.
thrillagorilla
Smash Ace
I hope you aren't including me in this, Yuna. Technically, I moved from unsure to anti-ban.
I made my pro-ban argument while suspending my own judgment on the matter.
As for the official statement, I have decided to cast my vote anti-ban for lack of evidence for over-centralization. If people want details, I can give them, but I'll do so on my own time. On a side note, thank you again for pointing out the large language flaw in my pro-ban argument, Nic64.
Palpi
Smash Hero
There would be a bigger representation of low and mid tiers in tournaments if Game and Watch was banned. MK is only about 3 characters worst match up.
A little behind on the time adumbrodeus? Or am I?
Last I heard, EIDI was proven false and just a tool used to allow matchup ratios to be discussed civilly without the marth boards bringing it up everytime. =/
FB Dj_Iskascribble
Frostbitten
No. Marths match-ups against tourney viable characters are generally better than mks, his match with g&w, diddy, falco, kirby, and wario is better than mks
the only time meta does better than marth is against d3
the rest of match-ups are the same.
Comments in red.
Nic64
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,725
snake and ROB
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Falco and wario I disagree with drastically.
If for no other reason, PLANKING. If Mk's would actually plank, then we'd see a very different story.
Regardless, Marth does better against them because... if MK does really well against them, they're not tournament viable. He's far too ever-present for a characters that do worse against him then marth (see: most of the cast) to generally be viable. Whatever happened to ROB by the way, catch my drift?
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
you being called a girl isnt as much inappropriate as much as it is just incorrect. Based on the information people get about you on the forum ( which isnt much usually) id say a lot of the time it is appropriate to come to the conclusion that you are a girl. but its still incorrect.
also, can somebody please explain to me why people will think genesis will make people stop saying "hey lets wait for the next big tournament"? because people have been saying lets wait for teh next big tournament since like november with like HOBO 11
No. No, I didn't.I hope you aren't including me in this, Yuna. Technically, I moved from unsure to anti-ban.
Please reply to the my latest reply to your reply to a post of mine.
AvaricePanda
Smash Lord
It looks like all of my points were addressed...except for the whole, "other games all have their best no-bad-matchups character and why is this any different" point, and I think the matchup number subjectivity point.
It's really annoying when some random guy who probably doesn't main nor know of either character in a matchup like Diddy vs. MK or Wario vs. MK goes, "That's 60:40 MK!" -1 for the super subjective matchup numbers, -1 for not knowing anything about the matchup in the first place.
Anyway....
You only ban for a necessity. Banning MK is not a necessity.
-MK has even matchups, arguably more even matchups or disadvantageous matchups on certain stages. He can be beat. And at highest levels of play, when matchup numbers quite frankly don't matter when they're as close as 55-45 and 60-40 (re: the posts Hylian made early on in this thread), skill is the huge determining factor in winning matches.
-MK makes no other characters unviable. While he has good matchups across the board, many other characters like Marth or D3 only have to worry about a couple of characters while they literally make other characters unviable. Marth makes Lucas and Ness even more unviable, and D3 has an infinite chaingrab on 5 characters. MK has no special trait which makes any of his matchups unwinnable. In fact, as already shown, he is only really the worst matchup for about 3 characters. D3 is much worse than this.
-MK's popularity is not forced. MK is not so popular because choosing a different character means you automatically lose, he's so popular because he's the best in the game. This is evident with ALL games; Marth in Melee was also so frequently used, not because he's the only choice to win, but just because he's the best in the game. Choosing MK is not a necessity to win.
It's really annoying when some random guy who probably doesn't main nor know of either character in a matchup like Diddy vs. MK or Wario vs. MK goes, "That's 60:40 MK!" -1 for the super subjective matchup numbers, -1 for not knowing anything about the matchup in the first place.
Anyway....
You only ban for a necessity. Banning MK is not a necessity.
-MK has even matchups, arguably more even matchups or disadvantageous matchups on certain stages. He can be beat. And at highest levels of play, when matchup numbers quite frankly don't matter when they're as close as 55-45 and 60-40 (re: the posts Hylian made early on in this thread), skill is the huge determining factor in winning matches.
-MK makes no other characters unviable. While he has good matchups across the board, many other characters like Marth or D3 only have to worry about a couple of characters while they literally make other characters unviable. Marth makes Lucas and Ness even more unviable, and D3 has an infinite chaingrab on 5 characters. MK has no special trait which makes any of his matchups unwinnable. In fact, as already shown, he is only really the worst matchup for about 3 characters. D3 is much worse than this.
-MK's popularity is not forced. MK is not so popular because choosing a different character means you automatically lose, he's so popular because he's the best in the game. This is evident with ALL games; Marth in Melee was also so frequently used, not because he's the only choice to win, but just because he's the best in the game. Choosing MK is not a necessity to win.
This is pure opinion.
MK isn't being compromised in gameplay. Tactics available to him just fall into the categories of some of the already set rules we have such as no stalling.
If Fox could do the IDC it would still be banned.
A compromise to gameplay would be something like -- You can't use b-moves with MK, or limiting DDD's small step chain to 5/6 grabs,ect.
Planking isn't just a MK tool. He just does best with it due to the invincibility he and Marth share on their Up B's.( Marth has the Up B quick grab which is similar to Link's Z regrab. But when the hit box comes out it is much more effective.)
If a character is so good we need to compromise gameplay with them, they are better off banned, MK is no exception.
I laughed pretty hard.
Roffles galore.
Conclude that counterpicking isn't necessarily a strong part of Brawl? Yes, I'd agree.
Use as a premise in a pro-ban argument, I don't see how as the best argument pro-ban has is that MK breaks the CP system, but it's possible I suppose. Go for it.
How so?
Just because I don't need to switch from Falco against ICs, doesn't mean it wouldn't be in my best interest.
If I'm going even against an opponent, having a support system to give me a little boost is nice and may give me the edge I need to win. But I, nor anyone else should depend on this system to win.
Suggesting players having a hard time use a character who does better against MK isn't invalid at all using that statement. Often times it is in response to a request for a better matchup.
Eye disagree that your reasoning would suggest that, but I do feel for the most part these arguments are pointless since matchup numbers are subjective. I personally feel that disadvantaged matchups are more an indicication that you have to play differently than you normally would.
I always go for running out the clock against MK on Rainbow Cruise when I stay Peach.
Fighting him on this stage is a nightmare.
MK breaks the counterpick system by having no counters. Not the game.
A game that depends on counterpicks essentially boils down to rock,paper scissors.
Results show this isn't true for Brawl. And other fighting games show that breaking the counterpick system isn't that big of a deal.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean about flow, but this game is not about balance.
In a competitive scene things will often be unfair. MK just got a really nice boost because of the way things turned out like his worst stages being banned.
Anti-ban doesn't really argue counterpicks. Merely asking if this is a game where we depend on it citing examples, and showing characters with very winnable MUs.
And it was pretty clear, nice food for though.
:d
Yes, it's called using your secondary.
If everyone was forced to use their secondary that tourney result would have more than likely placed DoJo right back at the top.
ROFFLES.
Climbing mountains ftw. Or is it ftl?
The same type of things can be said for non-MKs that are shown to lose once or twice(often to what most people agree simply better players).
As far as using them as examples, it all depends on what for.
Saying something like MK is unbeatable can easily be refuted with a video of Plank v Rougue.
And saying something like MK has no broken tactics(legal or unlegal) can easily be refuted by showing someone winning using IDC.
Diversity argument is basically like this as far as I understand it:
A lot of people use MK, so if we ban him, they will be forced to use another character.
( Please correct me if I'm wrong)
And MK does have the smallest learning curve. This is pretty common in the best character of a game. MK only gets hard to use against good players where using more than the easily learned basics is necessary.
This is pretty true for all character though, DDD's basics are pretty simple like MK's which is why he's so high. But further down, you can get into things like Auto canceling dairs, swallowcides, low lag nairs, spiking certain recoveries (Snake, Fox, MK) using Up B , the almighty Buuman trap and so much more.
You've gotta love Smash for the amount of depth we the player put into games that weren't even meant to played competitively.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yuna~!
Thanks for replying for me when I could.
(:
Also, lol.
What's going on between you and DA KID?
Seems like he folows right behind your every post.
lololol
Bans are always the last resort.
If something is banned.
It more than likely had to go.
FB Dj_Iskascribble
Frostbitten
rob yes snake to a lesser extent, i forgot those
marth is wario's hardest matchup 6-4
wario v meta is close 55-45
falco v marth is 6-4
falco v meta is close 55-45
you can NOT say that if mk does well against them they arent tourney viable, it is clear the all the characters who have a very bad match-up with meta have at least 1 other tourney viable character that has the same or worse of a ratio. This is just your bias giving meta WAY too much credit
as for planking just ban it. most big tourneys dont allow it anyway. Plus mk is not the only character who can plank effectively.
AvaricePanda
Smash Lord
While it's true that the statement is opinion, that doesn't make it any less important. This entire debate is composed of opinions, really. Plus, the opinion that you only ban characters when necessary is an opinion agreed upon with a vast amount of people not only in this Smash community, but in any fighting game community as well.
Please explain why you'd ever ban something if it isn't necessary.
You don't ban a character unless it's necessary for the competitive environment of a game to do so. If MK was the only logical option in the game, had 7:3 matchups against all other characters, and was forcing people to use him to win, then it's necessary to ban for a game's survival.
But let's take Marth in Melee, for example. It can be nearly unanimously agreed that he shouldn't be banned. Yet, he doesn't have bad matchups and has been the dominant character in terms of tournament preformance. Banning him would obviously bring more diversity among the other characters. So why isn't he banned? It's simple: it's not necessary for the game. A healthy competitive game can still exist with him in the game, and the diversity you get from banning him isn't necessary for the game.
Why would you say, "Banning MK isn't necessary, but let's do it anyway"? What would then be the line between banning MK and banning Snake, or for that matter, any other character? Honestly, with THAT logic, there'd be nothing stopping you from banning any other character who's popular and performs well.
A character ban has to be a necessity. You don't ban a character to make it easier for the rest of the cast, and you don't ban a character to bring unnecessary diversity that people, for whatever reason, feel that the game has to have. You ban a character when it is absolutely necessary, and when the character is the only feasible option to compete with.
This is not the case with Meta Knight.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
yummynbeefy
Smash Champion
yea and also marth had a TON of neutrals which made him far from bannable also he actually HAS lag and unsafe moves even in melee
fox didnt like marth or falco but he also had a few neutrals as well
AvaricePanda
Smash Lord
Then replace that with Sagat from SFIV, or Xianghua from SCII.
You both are still missing the point of the post.
You both are still missing the point of the post.
FB Dj_Iskascribble
Frostbitten
There is a trend in metas matchups if some of you havent noticed.
6-9 months ago, lucario was 65:35, now its 6-4
pika was 65:35, now its 6-4
wario was 6-4, now its 55:45
diddy was 6-4, now its 55:45
it just shows that as time goes on, matches are slowly becoming more even.
If this trend continues, it is likely that meta will have neutral or possibly even disadvantageous matches.
As the metagame is being progressed people are learning to deal with meta. Meta being advanced so far only adds to that, considering that there is still alot for other characters to discover, while most of everything mk may get is already known.
6-9 months ago, lucario was 65:35, now its 6-4
pika was 65:35, now its 6-4
wario was 6-4, now its 55:45
diddy was 6-4, now its 55:45
it just shows that as time goes on, matches are slowly becoming more even.
If this trend continues, it is likely that meta will have neutral or possibly even disadvantageous matches.
As the metagame is being progressed people are learning to deal with meta. Meta being advanced so far only adds to that, considering that there is still alot for other characters to discover, while most of everything mk may get is already known.
Because it would make the competitive game better with it banned than without it.
Why are many stages banned? Not because they're necessary to be banned - it's not the end of the world if a counterpick stage provides 0-death for some characters, is it? No, that's not necessary to prevent. But it improves the competitive game with it not available, so the stage gets banned.
The whole debate (Or at least a very large part of it) is about whether the competitive game gets improved by banning Meta Knight or not, not whether it's necessary to ban him. Given that he's not outright 90:10 against the whole cast, you'll never get "necessary".
Did you know that Akuma was just banned in SF2ST HD Remix? The same Akuma that was rebalanced to not be unbeatable? The same Akuma that simply is advantaged against the entire cast but not 90:10 against them?
Yeah, it wasn't necessary to ban Akuma but they did anyway.
Kyari
Smash Lord
Lol, Akuma wasn't banned in SF3 wtf are you talking about. He was banned in SF2ST HD Remix.
- Status