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

[salaboB]

Not really, you wouldnt understand, people keep on dissing online, while as a matter of facts, alot of top players are online players (ADHD, Atomsk, Ally, Holy to name a few), and D3 is basically the same online as offline depending on lag.

But hey, how would YOU know. You challenged the best D3 in united states and expect not to lose 50 bucks. Seriously.

But are the IC's the same online as offline?

And how is online play relevant to this discussion at all? It's different from offline play, and things change noticably even with low lag.

 

[swordgard]

But are the IC's the same online as offline?

And how is online play relevant to this discussion at all? It's different from offline play, and things change noticably even with low lag.

I played good D3s offline also, its all the same. Online is VERY similar to offline. The matchups dont magically become totally different. Heck, Atomsk beat lain at CoT4, remember? Not an impossible matchup. 6-4

 

[salaboB]

I played good D3s offline also, its all the same. Online is VERY similar to offline. The matchups dont magically become totally different. Heck, Atomsk beat lain at CoT4, remember? Not an impossible matchup. 6-4

I actually wasn't trying to say it was impossible, I was simply saying that online play changes things enough to be pretty much irrelevent for looking at offline similarities -- while that particular matchup may not change a lot, others do, so none are really usable.

 

[choknater]

It's not that different salaboB, that's what he's trying to get at. The small changes don't change EVERYTHING about the game, because you learn things from online play that are very applicable to offline play.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I played good D3s offline also, its all the same. Online is VERY similar to offline. The matchups dont magically become totally different. Heck, Atomsk beat lain at CoT4, remember? Not an impossible matchup. 6-4

Online means nothing.


Even in very low latency (green) moves that are unsafe suddenly become safe because you need to react before you could possibly react in order to punish.


Granted, some match-ups change more then others, but in general, the defensive game is DRASTICALLY hurt.


So yes, a few frames make all the difference, that's why we're so concerned with frame data for match-ups.

Then replace that with Sagat from SFIV, or Xianghua from SCII.

You both are still missing the point of the post.

No, I know what you were trying to say, but I dislike incorrect information.

60-40? Hardly.

I think it edges closer to 65-35%, but it's the worst out of the top 4.

 

[salaboB]

It's not that different salaboB, that's what he's trying to get at. The small changes don't change EVERYTHING about the game, because you learn things from online play that are very applicable to offline play.

They change matchup ratios such that you can't rely on any of them for comparison between play types.

Since he's applying them to offline matchup ratios, it's different enough to be invalid.

 

[Coney]

Too nooby for any attention?

Well since everyone else seems to be giving you the shaft, I'll go ahead and answer.

I believe all of those ideas have been addressed, and all have been rejected. The basic idea is that if a character is dumb enough to warrant a handicap, we should honestly just ban them. MK players shouldn't be punished for using a character, we should just remove the problem at its source rather than result to convoluted procedure.

Good suggestions though!

 

[Cirno]

Why would anyone not play MK right now?

Maybe for the infinite number of reasons people keep ignoring.
If there are even other characters in the tourney scene, obviously people have their own reasons.

Why would anyone not play SF4 Sagat?

Suppose I'm trying to get tourney viable. Who should I use? In melee, there would be relevant questions. Are there a lot of Foxes? Pick whoever you like out of the top four. They all go even. Is there a lot of Falco? Go Marth. You see Sheiks, go Falco, etc... In brawl, it doesn't matter. The correct answer is always: play Metaknight.

I like how even though we have a top player in this thread saying MK goes even with the character he plays, even though if I were to change the characters in your example so that MK would not be the best choice(as he's often not in MUs), EVEN IF someone like Inui wanted to show how Snake wins on paper against MK (making him a counter), you would still say MK is a problem.

Overcentralization. It's a valid ban criteria.

Yes it is. Does MK overcentralize ? Tournament results say not even a chance.
If you'd like to explain how he does this, I'm sure someone from anti-ban would love to show you how wrong you are.

 

[AvaricePanda]

-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.

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(edit: or Sagat in SFIV, or Xianghua in SCII, etc.), 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.

Neither of these statements have been challenged, noted, adressed, or really anything in this thread except when two people adressed a (rather minor) problem in the last one concerning Marth.

I would like these two statements to be directly addressed.

 

[CRASHiC]

Neither of these statements have been challenged, noted, adressed, or really anything in this thread except when two people adressed a (rather minor) problem in the last one concerning Marth.

I would like these two statements to be directly addressed.

Okay.



Here I go.

I hope this satisfies you.

 

[Grunt]

It's foolproof.

 

[1048576]

Uh, Avarice. This point has been rehashed over and over again. In Melee, Marth < Sheik. Sheik < Falco. Falco < Marth. Fox goes evenish with all 3. That's a stable equilibrium with four characters. In brawl, MK beats everyone except, for arguemts sake, Falco, and Snake, who he goes even with. I think he even beats them, but w/e. The difference is that Snake beats Falco, so it's foolish to ever choose Falco for any reason. This leaves MK and Snake, so you have to pick one of them to be competitive. Snake has at least one bad matchup, so the logical choice is to always pick MK, and we've seen a steady march toard this phenomenon ever since this became apparant.

If Snake had an advantage against MK, I'd be anti-ban in an instant. However, it seems like every week you guys pick a new character who somehow beats MK. I've seen you argue for Bowser, and I've seen you argue for ZSS. You'll have to forgive my skepticism for this particular fad.

 

[rathy Aro]

Neither of these statements have been challenged, noted, addressed, or really anything in this thread except when two people adressed a (rather minor) problem in the last one concerning Marth.

I would like these two statements to be directly addressed.

I'm actually anti-ban, but if you really want, here:

(dressing your second post) Saying that you don't ban someone when it isn't needed suggest that banning a character is inherently bad and it isn't. What you really mean is that banning a character has clear, serious repercussions to the metagame. That said those repercussions simply need to be outweighed by the rewards to make banning mk a logical decision. So its not so much you ban if its needed as it is you ban if what you get is more than what you loose (though in my opinion you loose more if you ban him than you get).

Marth has bad matchups. Bad example. Fox would have been better, but still not quite equal.

That whole, "if we ban mk we'll ban anything" logic really is a stretch and has been addressed many times now, but I'll use my own argument to counter it. Banning MK will not be setting the ban criteria lower, because it was lowered significantly when we banned items for no reason. And the arguments made for mk can never be made for snake. He simply does have bad matchups and could not possibly dominate like mk did unless everyone plays him (even more than the ppl who play mk now).

You can't define necessity in this case anyway. You can only define what would be helpful to the metagame. The meta could be just fine with every single person playing MK. This is just an undesired result.
__________________________________________________________________________
Again, banning mk is stupid. Unless its a temp ban, which isn't needed, but would be cool/interesting.

 

[Pez55]

I don't think MK should be banned.

We'll eventually find ways to counter him.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Uh, Avarice. This point has been rehashed over and over again. In Melee, Marth < Sheik. Sheik < Falco. Falco < Marth. Fox goes evenish with all 3. That's a stable equilibrium with four characters. In brawl, MK beats everyone except, for arguemts sake, Falco, and Snake, who he goes even with. I think he even beats them, but w/e. The difference is that Snake beats Falco, so it's foolish to ever choose Falco for any reason. This leaves MK and Snake, so you have to pick one of them to be competitive. Snake has at least one bad matchup, so the logical choice is to always pick MK, and we've seen a steady march toard this phenomenon ever since this became apparant.

If Snake had an advantage against MK, I'd be anti-ban in an instant. However, it seems like every week you guys pick a new character who somehow beats MK. I've seen you argue for Bowser, and I've seen you argue for ZSS. You'll have to forgive my skepticism for this particular fad.

The point isn't being rehashed because you haven't really addressed the point, and according to your own logic, Fox=MK in terms of matchups.

MK goes evenish with Snake, Falco, Wario, and Diddy. Fox goes evenish with all of those top people you've listed. Matchups and matchup numbers are subjective, so we could argue yes or no for these forever. And at high levels of play where paper matchups aren't nearly as heavy, these matchups are determined by player skill.

MK doesn't make any other character unviable.

And, people aren't forced to pick MK to have a shot of winning. You pick MK and you have to worry about evenish matchups, as with Melee Fox, AKA player skill will determine who wins. There are still many other viable options such as Snake, Falco, D3, Wario, etc., because characters like this only really have one or two definitively bad matchups, and even then it's no worse than 60-40 which is still very winnable. There are plenty other viable options, and the difference between their viability and MKs is very slight. There's a reason why everyone doesn't flock to the best character in the game.

You also say, "If Snake had an advantage against MK, I'd be anti-ban in an instant." But since the matchup is evenish, why does it honestly matter? There are mains of MK and Snake, such as Inui, that believe Snake has the advantage. There are mains that believe the MU is evenish, there are mains that believe MK has the advantage. Since the matchup is evenish and matchups can't be consisely defined, then that will obviously happen.

@rathy, You're right, I probably should have phrased that better.

 

[CRASHiC]

Because Fox has match ups that go against him somewhat.
Metaknight does not.

 

[AvaricePanda]

@Crashic

Not only did you not address all of my points, please explain Fox's matchups that go against him somewhat and why they do, and then explain why MK has no matchups that go against him or are even with him, and why they aren't.

I've already stated that not only are on paper matchups ratios subjective, but at high levels of play, even and evenish matchups like 55-45 are determined by player skill. Plus, even if a character has even matchups, it means that they aren't getting a "free win pass" to victory. Just because a character has even matchups at worst, doesn't mean they are banworthy.

AKA, arguably Melee Fox, arguably SFIV Sagat. Both of which are definitely not banworhthy. This isn't new. What makes MK so special that he, in comparison to these other top characters in other fighters, should be banned?

 

[lain]

I played good D3s offline also, its all the same. Online is VERY similar to offline. The matchups dont magically become totally different. Heck, Atomsk beat lain at CoT4, remember? Not an impossible matchup. 6-4

....What?

I clearly remember me and Atomsk going even in mm's at COT4. He beat me in DDD dittos, then beat my IC's. Then I 3 stocked him the first game with IC's, and he went diddy kong for the next two against my IC's and lost.

Online is not very similar to offline at all. The matchups do suddenly change a bit.

Again, another person just spouting off info and boasting. It's all over. :/

 

[CRASHiC]

@Crashic

Not only did you not address all of my points, please explain Fox's matchups that go against him somewhat and why they do, and then explain why MK has no matchups that go against him or are even with him, and why they aren't.

I've already stated that not only are on paper matchups ratios subjective, but at high levels of play, even and evenish matchups like 55-45 are determined by player skill. Plus, even if a character has even matchups, it means that they aren't getting a "free win pass" to victory. Just because a character has even matchups at worst, doesn't mean they are banworthy.

AKA, arguably Melee Fox, arguably SFIV Sagat. Both of which are definitely not banworhthy. This isn't new. What makes MK so special that he, in comparison to these other top characters in other fighters, should be banned?

So we should compromise everything for the top 1% level of play?

And excuse the rest of the community?

Are you John McCain?

And I don't run their match up threads, and am not going through why Snake, Falco, and Diddy Kong have a disadvantage with Metaknight, and why Fox looses slightly to Marth, other than Marth's gay furry fetish and his big ****.

....What?

I clearly remember me and Atomsk going even in mm's at COT4. He beat me in DDD dittos, then beat me IC's. Then I 3 stocked him the first game, and he went diddy kong for the next two against my IC's and lost.

Online is not very similar to offline at all. The matchups do suddenly change a bit.

Falcon Pawnch.
Best online kill move

 

[Fletch]

AKA, arguably Melee Fox, arguably SFIV Sagat. Both of which are definitely not banworhthy. This isn't new. What makes MK so special that he, in comparison to these other top characters in other fighters, should be banned?

I'm anti-ban, but you shouldn't use Melee Fox as an example, he has matchups that he is at a disadvantage in especially when CP stages come into play.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Top 1% of play? Hardly. High levels of play doesn't mean the absolute top, it means high levels of play. Top contenders at tournaments around the nation would fall into this, not just M2K, Ally, and DSF or whatever you may think.

But otherwise, yes. High levels of play are really what matter with these rules and such. You shouldn't compromise for the middle people trying to get better. If something isn't broken at high levels of play where it matters, then you shouldn't ban it.

I also don't see where I said I'd compromise things for high levels of play. I said that evenish matchups are determined by player skill at high levels of play.

Fletch, MK arguably has disadvantageous matchups when CP stages come to play (Snake on Halberd, Diddy on FD, etc,) Melee Fox might not be the best example, but he's still an example that people in this community know enough about.

And again, please do address all of my points. Other than what I've said previously, I have two main questions:

1. Why does MK have to have a disadvantageous matchup in order for him to not be banworthy? What makes an even matchup not good enough?

2. What makes MK any different than Melee Fox, SFIV Sagat, SCII Xianghua, or really any top character in any major fighter that arguably doesn't have disadvantageous matchups but is almost unanimously decided not to be banworthy. Why is MK so different that a ton of people want to ban him for this reason, even though he arguably has bad/evenish matchups like Sagat arguably has bad/evenish matchups?

also, Fletch, your sig is amazing.

 

[salaboB]

Neither of these statements have been challenged, noted, adressed, or really anything in this thread except when two people adressed a (rather minor) problem in the last one concerning Marth.

I would like these two statements to be directly addressed.

It's not my fault you didn't read after your last one:

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.

And while we're at it, this statement has not been addressed. I would like someone to address it directly:

Personally, I'm still waiting for anti-ban to address why Akuma being banned in SF2 HDR doesn't set a precedent for banning MK. This is not the unbeatable Akuma, it's one that Sirlin rebalanced so that he was supposed to be fair, and didn't get the job quite done. But the SF2 HDR Akuma is realistically beatable, unlike the traditional SF2 Akuma that always gets discussed, yet he got banned... unnecessarily.

So how does another community banning something that they didn't absolutely have to ban impact banning MK? So many comparisons have been made saying MK is beatable so you can't ban him like Akuma got banned, but a beatable version of Akuma has in fact been banned.

 

[Yuna]

Personally, I'm still waiting for anti-ban to address why Akuma being banned in SF2 HDR doesn't set a precedent for banning MK. This is not the unbeatable Akuma, it's one that Sirlin rebalanced so that he was supposed to be fair, and didn't get the job quite done. But the SF2 HDR Akuma is realistically beatable, unlike the traditional SF2 Akuma that always gets discussed, yet he got banned... unnecessarily.

Didn't I already actually reply to this? According to my research, while he's not anywhere near as bad as SSF2T Akuma, he's still plenty bad. He's still so bad the metagame would revolve around him.

He still has random BS setups plus glitched throws which shouldn't even be possible. Which lead to him being banned. Now, if you know something I don't know, please feel free to enlighten us.

Is Akuma not so friggin' good the metagame won't revolve around him?

So how does another community banning something that they didn't absolutely have to ban impact banning MK? So many comparisons have been made saying MK is beatable so you can't ban him like Akuma got banned, but a beatable version of Akuma has in fact been banned.

You throw around the word "beatable" as if it means something. Is he "beatable" as in "He 70-30s" everyone? Or is he "beatable" like MK?

Too nooby for any attention?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: The answer to all of those is a resounding "No!!!". Either we ban him or we don't, we don't randomly quasi-ban aspects of his game for no good reason other than to simply make him worse (IDC and Planking are different things altogether).

Neither of these statements have been challenged, noted, adressed, or really anything in this thread except when two people adressed a (rather minor) problem in the last one concerning Marth.

I would like these two statements to be directly addressed.

Would it surprise you to know that I have using those very same arguments ever since January 2008 and that every single time, the opposition refuses to even attempt to refute me (barring futile BS attempts)? It's because you cannot refute these arguments and they know it!

Uh, Avarice. This point has been rehashed over and over again. In Melee, Marth < Sheik. Sheik < Falco. Falco < Marth. Fox goes evenish with all 3. That's a stable equilibrium with four characters. In brawl, MK beats everyone except, for arguemts sake, Falco, and Snake, who he goes even with. I think he even beats them, but w/e. The difference is that Snake beats Falco, so it's foolish to ever choose Falco for any reason. This leaves MK and Snake, so you have to pick one of them to be competitive. Snake has at least one bad matchup, so the logical choice is to always pick MK, and we've seen a steady march toard this phenomenon ever since this became apparant.

Yes, congratulations, Brawl is different from Melee. And, oh noes, if you pick Snake, you might run into a 40:60! How horrible!

You still have the choice to play as other characters and stand quite a reasonable chance of winning major tournaments. The choice exists, does no ban is needed!

If Snake had an advantage against MK, I'd be anti-ban in an instant. However, it seems like every week you guys pick a new character who somehow beats MK. I've seen you argue for Bowser, and I've seen you argue for ZSS. You'll have to forgive my skepticism for this particular fad.

The more time passes, the closer some of MK's closest match-ups become. Several of his former 60:40s have now become 55:45s, some of them about to enter 50:50. Obviously, we do not need to ban MK.

Bowser and ZSS is not one of these, however.

Because Fox has match ups that go against him somewhat.
Metaknight does not.

Oh yes, that one horrible 60:40 (and that 60:40 against Falco on FD)! How horrible! So Melee Fox shouldn't be banned because he has one match-up that is barely disadvantageous (while having at least 60:40 against every single other character in the entire game), but MK should be banned because his worse match-up is currently 55:45 (moving slowly towards 50:50)?

Great logic!

So we should compromise everything for the top 1% level of play?

And excuse the rest of the community?

Are you John McCain?

The point is that just because people of lower skill lose badly to MK doesn't mean he has to be banned, especially when the people at high levels of skill handle him quite well. And no one said top 1%.

Hey, ban Peach in Melee! Because players at lower levels of skill get dsmashed to death! And Fox and his shinespikes destroy people who are bad at handling shine on recovery.

It's not my fault you didn't read after your last one:

And while we're at it, this statement has not been addressed. I would like someone to address it directly:

Funny, I replied to that as well. You conveniently missed it.

Stop bringing up stages you personally feel do not need to be banned as examples for why MK should be banned. If you feel there are stages which are banned but which need not be, crusade for them to come back. Don't use them as excuses to ban MK. Also, specify which stages and why you feel they shouldn't be banned. Otherwise, you don't actually have an argument.

Stop bringing SSF2THDR up without providing context. Tell me, how much do you actually know on the subject? What are his match-ups in HDR? How much better is he than everyone else/How is he not the best character in the game by far? How is it not necessary to ban him?

All we have is you saying "They banned Akuma in HDR though they didn't have to."

 

[AvaricePanda]

It's not my fault you didn't read after your last one:

And while we're at it, this statement has not been addressed. I would like someone to address it directly:

Your last statement has been addressed by Yuna many pages back. Here is the quote.

Regarding the Akuma ban in HD Remix, this is what I've been able to find on the matter insofar:
1) Setups for Inescapable super. <---main reason
2) fireball recovery/DP better than Ken/Ryu.
2) He can juggle pretty much off every move.
2) Air Fire Ball not only is the best cross up in the game (seriously, the fireball sometimes hit the back of the opponents head), it slows the game down too much when it hits. Sometimes it's unplayable for the other person.
3) There's really no other reason to use any other character. Especially the other shotos.

And apparenely he has a bunch of other broken BS. Once again research trumphs blindly regurgitating stuff you've heard without fact-checking first because it supports your argument! So, apparently, the ban was perfectly warranted.

Do your research before using an argument because if you don't, I might very well end up making you look like an idiot!

Also, you really didn't address my statement at all. You said it would make the competitive game better, then backed that up with absolutely no facts or statements on how exactly it would. You said things about why you ban stages because they improve the competitive game and because MK doesn't outright 90:10 everyone, it isn't a necessity, but you didn't say how at all MK warrants a ban or how the competitive game is better with MK gone.

Reinforce your statements.

And yet again...

1. Why does MK have to have a disadvantageous matchup in order for him to not be banworthy? What makes an even matchup not good enough?

2. What makes MK any different than Melee Fox, SFIV Sagat, SCII Xianghua, or really any top character in any major fighter that arguably doesn't have disadvantageous matchups but is almost unanimously decided not to be banworthy. Why is MK so different that a ton of people want to ban him for this reason, even though he arguably has bad/evenish matchups like Sagat arguably has bad/evenish matchups?

 

[|RK|]

1. He doesn't; Nothing.

2. Scrub power?

 

[teekay]

According to what I've read, Akuma in HDR also has a 100% safe jump in, which is utterly contrary to the fundamental design of the game. Sirlin himself admitted that his attempts to rebalance Akuma didn't go far enough. More than anything else, this is a testament to just how broken SF2 Akuma really was; even when you tone him down you discover he still basically removes everything else from the game.

MK still isn't on the same level. When it all comes down to it I think people simply need to accept that there is a part of this game they aren't going to like, and that is playing Metaknight. I absolutely thoroughly feel that the game would be more fun without him and I hate playing him, but I recognize that that doesn't make it fair to ban him.

 

[salaboB]

Also, you really didn't address my statement at all. You said it would make the competitive game better, then backed that up with absolutely no facts or statements on how exactly it would. You said things about why you ban stages because they improve the competitive game and because MK doesn't outright 90:10 everyone, it isn't a necessity, but you didn't say how at all MK warrants a ban or how the competitive game is better with MK gone.

I will not.

Because you're trying to make me back up things I was not putting forward as points for banning MK. Here is what I did: I debunked your claim that something must be necessary to ban or it couldn't be done.

And you know what? That's all I intended to do, and all that I did do with my response. The Akuma example and why Yuna didn't disprove it is exactly the same thing -- I was simply explaining it was not necessary, I never said it was unwarranted. Major difference, quit putting words and arguments into my mouth and then trying to make me support your ideas.

According to what I've read, Akuma in HDR also has a 100% safe jump in, which is utterly contrary to the fundamental design of the game. Sirlin himself admitted that his attempts to rebalance Akuma didn't go far enough. More than anything else, this is a testament to just how broken SF2 Akuma really was; even when you tone him down you discover he still basically removes everything else from the game.

MK still isn't on the same level. When it all comes down to it I think people simply need to accept that there is a part of this game they aren't going to like, and that is playing Metaknight. I absolutely thoroughly feel that the game would be more fun without him and I hate playing him, but I recognize that that doesn't make it fair to ban him.

People in Akuma discussion threads were insisting he wasn't broken and could be defeated - not as large a % as you see in the MK discussion threads, but enough that it's obvious he wasn't 100% unbeatable. The fanboys were still believing him to be fine. It's a bit hard to say MK isn't on the same level -- he doesn't have 100% safe things, but he certainly has maneuvers that give him more safety than the majority of the cast can bring to bear.

 

[Yuna]

People in Akuma discussion threads were insisting he wasn't broken and could be defeated - not as large a % as you see in the MK discussion threads, but enough that it's obvious he wasn't 100% unbeatable. The fanboys were still believing him to be fine. It's a bit hard to say MK isn't on the same level -- he doesn't have 100% safe things, but he certainly has maneuvers that give him more safety than the majority of the cast can bring to bear.

salaboB, just out of curiousity, did you put me on ignore or are you just pretending to not see my posts?

Also, from what I've read, Akuma is perfectly bannable. The fanboys against the ban were idiots who just wanted to keep their SSS Tier from what I can tell.

I will not.

Because you're trying to make me back up things I was not putting forward as points for banning MK. Here is what I did: I debunked your claim that something must be necessary to ban or it couldn't be done.

And you know what? That's all I intended to do, and all that I did do with my response. The Akuma example and why Yuna didn't disprove it is exactly the same thing -- I was simply explaining it was not necessary, I never said it was unwarranted. Major difference, quit putting words and arguments into my mouth and then trying to make me support your ideas.

You proved baloney. Name things that have been banned unnecessarily.

Also, from what I can tell, banning Akuma was necessary. You haven't put up a single argument for why that is not the case. You've just flat out stated "It is not" as if that proved everything. Guess what, in debate, evidence is necessary.

I've asked the pro-ban side to do this many times. Name the things you claim were banned unnecessary if you are going to claim things can be banned without it being necessary for the survival of the metagame. If you're going to use an argument, back it up, especially when someone specifically asks you to.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Huh?

First, sorry that I'm ambiguous with my words. I meant necessary for the health of the competitive community, AKA, is the ban something the community needs in order to be healthy. I agree though; I should have used a better word, although really my statement still stands, we're just interpretting the word in different ways, I believe.

However, you said that banning him would make the competitive game better than without him banned, which is a statement you did not support at all. If all you intended to do was debunk my claim, there was no reason to put in that statement. But you did, and left it unsupported, so I challenged it.

Also, I'm still talking about my entire argument, not just pieces. No one has addressed all of the points in my argument yet. And, until I get a direct response from someone on the pro-ban side, I'm going to keep reposting this.

1. Why does MK have to have a disadvantageous matchup in order for him to not be banworthy? What makes an even matchup not good enough?

2. What makes MK any different than Melee Fox, SFIV Sagat, SCII Xianghua, or really any top character in any major fighter that arguably doesn't have disadvantageous matchups but is almost unanimously decided not to be banworthy. Why is MK so different that a ton of people want to ban him for this reason, even though he arguably has bad/evenish matchups like Sagat arguably has bad/evenish matchups?

 

[CRASHiC]

Pete, the problem isn't beating MK. its the majority of people don't feel like putting the effort in, and SINCE mk is so easy to play as, they'd rather resort to MK dittoes.


once they've done that, and get comfy with mk, they start thinking to themselves, "well im already playing mk, theres no reason NOT to main him" since he has no bad matchups, and that player will only start to fall back on him more and more often when in pressury situations.

now you have a whole bunch of people who used to hate playing against mk, using mk just to stay in the loop of things without having to try expaning their characters metagame.

granted it'd be great to tell people to man up and just get better with their character, to them its alot simpler to just pick mk, and have increased chances of winning now. in peoples minds, its just as easy to drop ur coin on mk's face, as it is on anyone elses, so why not?

thats where a ban comes in, much of these problems go away when mk just isn't a playable character anymore.

thats where the discussion comes in. how much of characters metagame are we willing to sacrifice to keep mk around, and do we bother expanding the meta game with mk, or should we get rid of him all together to let other characters expand quicker now.



-maybe this post should be put in the first post so people can read it before discussing-

By the top Metaknight in Florida.

Refute this.

 

[pure_awesome]

Uh... many stages are banned without it being necessary.

 

[|RK|]

Sounds like you're being rather... opinionated. What stages, pray tell, did not need to be banned?

 

[salaboB]

1. Why does MK have to have a disadvantageous matchup in order for him to not be banworthy? What makes an even matchup not good enough?

Having at worst an even matchup still leaves him the best first option, and the best option when you're about to be counterpicked. It means that 2/3rds of matches should be MK if you're playing to give yourself the best chances against an opponent with a wide range of characters -- and since your opponent should be doing the same against you, means you may as well just play him every round (Unless you're also as skilled with one of the few people who goes even against him -- but why bother learning that when you could simply get better with MK during the same time instead?) The problem is what MK does to the whole system if someone so chooses, diehard fans of other characters at the top levels of competition are about all that's limiting this from occurring as near as I can tell.

2. What makes MK any different than Melee Fox, SFIV Sagat, SCII Xianghua, or really any top character in any major fighter that arguably doesn't have disadvantageous matchups but is almost unanimously decided not to be banworthy. Why is MK so different that a ton of people want to ban him for this reason, even though he arguably has bad/evenish matchups like Sagat arguably has bad/evenish matchups?

Why does this matter in the least? Do most of those games have a counterpick element where people often switch characters to engage based on who their opponent is using? Do their stages significantly impact the effectiveness of the character you're using, so that after the first round against the same enemy it might be smarter to switch characters? Both are important in Brawl. Melee certainly does, but Fox has better and worse stages that could drive his matchups past even against him, so just blindly picking Fox was not always ideal. MK's worst stages are all debatably worse for him - nobody can say with any certainty that it's an actual disadvantaged matchup, is how close it is. The rest don't have a similar basic situation to even compare to Brawl.

 

[pure_awesome]

The majority of them.

But for the sake of discussion, I'll say Corneria, Norfair, and umm... I'll go with Luigi's Mansion. All banned or at least C/B on the latest ruleset.

I prefer having those stages banned. I hope they stay banned. But anyone can see it's not necessary.


If I really wanted to be a jerk, I could bring up how we unnecessarily ban all items. Or how the Japanese ban every stage except like 8. That kind of stuff.

 

[AvaricePanda]

By the top Metaknight in Florida.

Refute this.

It's not forced. It's just a popularity loop.

He said himself that the problem isn't beating MK, it's putting forth the effort. Which means obviously, MK is beatable. He's saying in that post that one of the reasons why MK is so popular, is that people resort to him for ditto matches, think, "Hey, why not," and gradually start to full out main him.

This is not forced. These people can easily put forth the effort of learning to play the matchup with their main and, depending on their main, fare just as much of a chance, they just choose not to. Meta Knight is not the only viable choice for wanting to win a tournament; plenty of characters are only very slightly less viable than him, and are all still very viable. All Seibrik did was explain the popularity loop that people start using him because he's the BEST choice, NOT the ONLY choice.

This "problem" (even though it really isn't a problem) is easily circumvented by just deciding to learn the MK matchup with your main or with a different secondary.

Oh, and guess who didn't address either of my two questions?

1. Why does MK have to have a disadvantageous matchup in order for him to not be banworthy? What makes an even matchup not good enough?

2. What makes MK any different than Melee Fox, SFIV Sagat, SCII Xianghua, or really any top character in any major fighter that arguably doesn't have disadvantageous matchups but is almost unanimously decided not to be banworthy. Why is MK so different that a ton of people want to ban him for this reason, even though he arguably has bad/evenish matchups like Sagat arguably has bad/evenish matchups?

Sorry that I'm being so annoying by posting this every single post, but if that's what it takes for people to actually respond to it, then so be it.

 

[salaboB]

Sorry that I'm being so annoying by posting this every single post, but if that's what it takes for people to actually respond to it, then so be it.

Waiting for you to explain why my response wasn't enough:

Having at worst an even matchup still leaves him the best first option, and the best option when you're about to be counterpicked. It means that 2/3rds of matches should be MK if you're playing to give yourself the best chances against an opponent with a wide range of characters -- and since your opponent should be doing the same against you, means you may as well just play him every round (Unless you're also as skilled with one of the few people who goes even against him -- but why bother learning that when you could simply get better with MK during the same time instead?) The problem is what MK does to the whole system if someone so chooses, diehard fans of other characters at the top levels of competition are about all that's limiting this from occurring as near as I can tell.

Why does this matter in the least? Do most of those games have a counterpick element where people often switch characters to engage based on who their opponent is using? Do their stages significantly impact the effectiveness of the character you're using, so that after the first round against the same enemy it might be smarter to switch characters? Both are important in Brawl. Melee certainly does, but Fox has better and worse stages that could drive his matchups past even against him, so just blindly picking Fox was not always ideal. MK's worst stages are all debatably worse for him - nobody can say with any certainty that it's an actual disadvantaged matchup, is how close it is. The rest don't have a similar basic situation to even compare to Brawl.

If you want to keep skipping my new responses I can keep posting them after each time you repost your questions.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Having at worst an even matchup still leaves him the best first option, and the best option when you're about to be counterpicked. It means that 2/3rds of matches should be MK if you're playing to give yourself the best chances against an opponent with a wide range of characters -- and since your opponent should be doing the same against you, means you may as well just play him every round (Unless you're also as skilled with one of the few people who goes even against him -- but why bother learning that when you could simply get better with MK during the same time instead?) The problem is what MK does to the whole system if someone so chooses, diehard fans of other characters at the top levels of competition are about all that's limiting this from occurring as near as I can tell.

Why does this matter in the least? Do most of those games have a counterpick element where people often switch characters to engage based on who their opponent is using? Do their stages significantly impact the effectiveness of the character you're using, so that after the first round against the same enemy it might be smarter to switch characters? Both are important in Brawl. Melee certainly does, but Fox has better and worse stages that could drive his matchups past even against him, so just blindly picking Fox was not always ideal. MK's worst stages are all debatably worse for him - nobody can say with any certainty that it's an actual disadvantaged matchup, is how close it is. The rest don't have a similar basic situation to even compare to Brawl.

One, sorry that as I was making my post, you posted yours. It was within a 4 minute timeframe, and it definitely took me more than 4 minutes to type that post.

1. How does him being the best option mean that he's banworthy? In just about any game, there's going to be a best option. MK is this best option. However...

MK dittos proves who's better at MK dittos, not necessarily who's the most skilled. Some people have absurd trouble with dittos and would much rather put in the time learning a different character MK goes even with than do a ditto match (although the converse can also be said).

Also, I'm not sure why people are speaking as if it takes like 2 weeks to get your MK to the highest levels of play, while it takes half a year for any other character. People need to stop writing off the skill of MK players in this way. Sure, he's easy to pick up at a basic level, and against quite a bit of matchups that are 65:35 or 7:3, you obviously have an easier time. However, against an even matchup, you're still going to have the same trouble if you don't know the matchup, just like any other character.

Besides that, time invested is a moot argument anyway. Because certain characters don't fit some people's playstyles and other variables like that, you can't assume everyone can pick up MK and **** at a top level of play. What if some guy is INSANELY good with Wario and improves with him insanely fast?

Either way, the endpoint is still both characters being at top levels of play, and the (subjective) amount of time taken to get to that is moot because of many other factors.

One can, just as well, use two mains that cover each others bad matchups to circumvent the system in the same way.

2. Most people don't CP characters when their character's worst matchup is 6:4 (although yes, they have the option to). Also, not many stages are super detrimental to any of the more viable characters to the point where they basically lose on the stage unless they change. You usually end up banning the stage worse for the matchup, not the stage worse for you yourself.

MK against Snake on Halberd is arguably against his favor. MK against Diddy on FD is arguably against his favor. I don't see how this is any different from Fox's matchups in Melee.


My point still stands on how MKs matchup dominance isn't really different than those other character's matchup dominance, yet everyone's going berserk over MK. Why is this?

 

[salaboB]

1. How does him being the best option mean that he's banworthy? In just about any game, there's going to be a best option. MK is this best option. However...

It's your turn to answer a couple questions:

How does having one clear, undisputed best character to open a match and resist counterpicks with benefit the competitive game?

How would removing this fallback harm the competitive game?

Bearing in mind of course that there is only one character that fits the criteria, and banning him would result in there being no clear best character to open a match with or to resist counterpicking with.

And as far as me posting while you were posting, it's your own fault for spamming your questions without giving people time to respond. People often read through the thread from where they left off, you don't have to fill it with repeating yourself just because nobody's answered you yet -- especially not when the last response on it had been just 10 minutes earlier.

 

[Yuna]

If you want to keep skipping my new responses I can keep posting them after each time you repost your questions.

This is rich, coming from you, who refuses to acknowledge my posts.

Uh... many stages are banned without it being necessary.

Name some!

The majority of them.

But for the sake of discussion, I'll say Corneria, Norfair, and umm... I'll go with Luigi's Mansion. All banned or at least C/B on the latest ruleset.

Norfair and Corneria are a matter of taste. Corneria is ultra-campy and has one of the lowest ceilings in the game, making it an excellent gimp-stage for those who kill easily. Which happens to make it an excellent counterpick for, say, Snake and Meta Knight. Not to mention the random lasers, who can inflict quite a lot of damage. But it's a borderlkine-ish stage, yah. Which is why it's C/B.

Norfair is a stage where a lot of the time you end up fighting the stage more than each other. Or simply get punished for being hit by the opponent at the wrong time. Oh, you got smashed. No biggie, you survived it, but WTF is that lava wave doing coming at you from the left?!

Not to mention the ridiculousness of having to fighting for a spot in the safe-house when the giant lava cascade decides to show it itself or try to spotdodge/roll it (or jump over it). It's like the game just went "Now here's 30 seconds during which you most probably won't be fighting each other, run with it!". But it's not totally broken, which is why it is C/B.

C/Bs are there for those who wish to go that extra mile and be extra hard on banning according to the criterias of anti-competitiveness.

Luigi's Mansion is banned for ridiculously obvious reasons.

I prefer having those stages banned. I hope they stay banned. But anyone can see it's not necessary.

C/B stages are not banned due to necessity. Which is why they are C/B and not B. Luigi's Mansion, necessity.

If I really wanted to be a jerk, I could bring up how we unnecessarily ban all items. Or how the Japanese ban every stage except like 8. That kind of stuff.

1) We do not unnecessarily ban all items. We unnecessarily ban, uhm, 4 items. There, crusade for them to be allowed!
2) And we should care what the Japanese do because...? The Japanese aren't even contemplating banning MK.

It's your turn to answer a couple questions:

How does having one clear, undisputed best character to open a match and resist counterpicks with benefit the competitive game?

So this is your brilliant ban criteria? "It doesn't benefit the metagame, it has to be banned"?

How would removing this fallback harm the competitive game?

Because we'd be removed a huge part of the metagame for a ridiculous reason.

Bearing in mind of course that there is only one character that fits the criteria, and banning him would result in there being no clear best character to open a match with or to resist counterpicking with.

Yes there would, the character with the best overall match-ups.

 

[MrTryHard]

Whats wrong with a character having a lttle advantage? you probably feel better when you win ^_^