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

[Yuna]

I think he's saying if someone can get so close to beating one of the best MKs with Captain Falcon, MK can't be that broken?

Apex Singles are today.

In Teams, M2K and Ally teamed, so they couldn't have been fighting each other (except for lulz). The only possibility left is Brawl+, which doesn't really matter.

 

[swordgard]

Apex Singles are today.

In Teams, M2K and Ally teamed, so they couldn't have been fighting each other (except for lulz). The only possibility left is Brawl+, which doesn't really matter.

Nope, hes reffering to random friendlies. But yeah, as you said, its for the lulz. Nobody cares about friendlies.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

That's something the Smash community will never understand. So many fighting games have a character where there's really no reason not to use that character because they have no bad matchups, and 6-4's against most of the characters in the game.. I'm going to make a comparison really quick to SFIV - According to a recent tier list made for SFIV (http://www.eventhubs.com/guides/2008...cter-rankings/), Sagat only has four matchups that are 5-5, the rest are in his favor. Why is Sagat not banned? Even if there are other characters that have no bad matchups alongside Sagat (Ryu), there's no reason to use them (Ryu) when you can have it even easier against the rest of the cast by using the one who is superior to him (Sagat). So why doesn't SFIV dwindle down to nothing but Sagat vs Sagat, and if it does, why don't they consider banning him?

Meta Knight doesn't have a 50:50. And why DON'T they consider banning him? They haven't, that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

 

[Alus]

Meta Knight doesn't have a 50:50. And why DON'T they consider banning him? They haven't, that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

lol wat?

They did consider banning...otherwise this thread wouldn't exist...

and lol @ no 50/50s

 

[Red Arremer]

Okay. Let's ban Meta Knight. Then we have Snake, who only has even-ish matchups (I'm not too sure if Dedede is that bad... I think MK is close to that, isn't he?). Therefore, Snake breaks the CP System. Let's ban Snake. But wait, with MK and Snake gone, Marth has no more bad matchups, only even-ish and good ones. Therefore, he breaks the CP system. Let's ban Marth, too. But wait! With MK, Snake and Marth gone, Peach's 3 bad matchups are gone. She'd have only even-ish and good matchups, and therefore breaks the CP system. Let's ban Peach, as well.

 

[master-fresh]

Okay. Let's ban Meta Knight. Then we have Snake, who only has even-ish matchups (I'm not too sure if Dedede is that bad... I think MK is close to that, isn't he?). Therefore, Snake breaks the CP System. Let's ban Snake. But wait, with MK and Snake gone, Marth has no more bad matchups, only even-ish and good ones. Therefore, he breaks the CP system. Let's ban Marth, too. But wait! With MK, Snake and Marth gone, Peach's 3 bad matchups are gone. She'd have only even-ish and good matchups, and therefore breaks the CP system. Let's ban Peach, as well.

yeah... I think that the machup part of this disscussion should be left out...

 

[CRASHiC]

Okay. Let's ban Meta Knight. Then we have Snake, who only has even-ish matchups (I'm not too sure if Dedede is that bad... I think MK is close to that, isn't he?). Therefore, Snake breaks the CP System. Let's ban Snake. But wait, with MK and Snake gone, Marth has no more bad matchups, only even-ish and good ones. Therefore, he breaks the CP system. Let's ban Marth, too. But wait! With MK, Snake and Marth gone, Peach's 3 bad matchups are gone. She'd have only even-ish and good matchups, and therefore breaks the CP system. Let's ban Peach, as well.

Dude, DDD ***** Snake. ROB also does really good against Snake. He also goes even with Falco, Wario, Lucario, Pikachu, Donkey Kong, and Diddy Kong. Snake is only as high as he is because of his matchup with Metaknight.

Also, Marth has bad matchups. Ask DDD and Marth.

 

[Red Arremer]

Rrrriiiiiight. That's also why Bowser is (almost) Low Tier, his good performance against Meta Knight (55-45 in MK's favor, just like most even-ish Matchups currently are).

Snake is so high because he's a god**** good character.

 

[Yuna]

Meta Knight doesn't have a 50:50. And why DON'T they consider banning him? They haven't, that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

Because other communities know from historical evidence that characters such as Sagat and Meta Knight do not destroy the metagame or any of the other lies the pro-ban side is perpetuating. History shows that characters such as Sagat and Meta Knight, or even worse, are just really good characters who do well in tournaments.

Also, Marth has bad matchups. Ask DDD and Marth.

60-40 =/= bad. Disadvantageous.

 

[The Sauce Boss]

After reading bits and pieces of this here and there, I would probably change my vote to not ban.

The arguments from anti-ban are just much more convincing.

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

Because other communities know from historical evidence that characters such as Sagat and Meta Knight do not destroy the metagame or any of the other lies the pro-ban side is perpetuating. History shows that characters such as Sagat and Meta Knight, or even worse, are just really good characters who do well in tournaments.

:flame:
Except for Akuma, but then again, Akuma was so rigged they banned him without another thought. No poles, no votes, no arguements. They saw him, and knew that he was too good instantly. Metaknight hasn't come close to being so good to warrent a unanimous band. Last time I'm going to personally reference him.
:flame:

 

[AvaricePanda]

Meta Knight doesn't have a 50:50. And why DON'T they consider banning him? They haven't, that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

So I'm guessing that Wario, Snake, Falco, and Diddy all just don't count?

Also, what Yuna has been trying to say a million times is that other games have these characters that are just like, if not WORSE, than MK, and yet their metagames still thrive. You don't see these other games' competitive scenes collapsing because of these characters, yet that's what a lot of people on the pro-ban side say will happen. Historical evidence says otherwise.

 

[Yuna]

After reading bits and pieces of this here and there, I would probably change my vote to not ban.

The arguments from anti-ban are just much more convincing.

Shockingly enough, you're, like, the 10th person to say this that I've personally taken note of. Meanwhile, I haven't seen a single person decide to switch from anti-ban to pro-ban after reading the arguments of both sides. Hmmmmmmmm...

:flame:
Except for Akuma, but then again, Akuma was so rigged they banned him without another thought. No poles, no votes, no arguements. They saw him, and knew that he was too good instantly. Metaknight hasn't come close to being so good to warrent a unanimous band. Last time I'm going to personally reference him.
:flame:

Akuma was not on MK's level or just simply better than him. Akuma was on a whole new, trascendent level, far above everyone else in fighting game history.

Also, IIRC, it took them 1 year to ban Akuma, when tournaments were literally Akuma, Akuma, Akuma, Akuma, Akuma.

 

[CRASHiC]

Shockingly enough, you're, like, the 10th person to say this that I've personally taken note of. Meanwhile, I haven't seen a single person decide to switch from anti-ban to pro-ban after reading the arguments of both sides. Hmmmmmmmm...

Fiction did.

 

[Red Arremer]

Fiction did.

Not after reading arguments.
After something that happened at a tournament.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Not after reading arguments.
After something that happened at a tournament.

Which is far more important than an online argument.

 

[Yuna]

Fiction did.

His decision had nothing to do with reading the arguments of both sides. Classic strawman/lie. Classy!

 

[Red Arremer]

Which is far more important than an online argument.

Yes, but it's lying if he says Fiction changed his mind after reading the arguments of both sides. Fiction based his decision on something else.

oh lol, Yuna was faster

 

[CRASHiC]

Not after reading arguments.
After something that happened at a tournament.

Because that makes his decision less valid?
Basing off of real life experience and not theoretical statistics?
Talking about Matchups is silly, and has little to do with the anti-metaknight people. Yuna keeps trying to diverge the topic into us saying its all about matchups, but quite frankly, the best pro ban message (the ones that turned me from Antiban to proban had nothing to do with matchups at all. If you want an example of someone who changed their mind, anti to pro, after reading the arguments. Me.

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-

You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what diversity really is.

Diversity is the only valid argument, and that is true for all competitive games of every genre. No exceptions.

Even if people don't realize it, diversity was the reason that items and stages were banned in Melee; diversity is the reason that stages and items are banned in Brawl; diversity is the reason cards are banned in Magic: the Gathering; diversity is the reason that Akuma was banned in ST; diversity is the reason why he has been banned yet again in HDR; and diversity is also the reason why all things that have not been banned were not banned in the first place.

Diversity supersedes all other arguments for and against banning anything in a competitive game. All other arguments, of any variety, are sub-arguments that exist solely to help determine the final outcome of the diversity argument. At the final stage of reasoning of all arguments concerning allowing content in a competitive game, the final determining factor is always diversity (or lack thereof.)

The truth of the matter is that diversity is the only valid, justifiable criterion for deciding whether or not something should be banned in the context of a competitive game. Moreover, diversity has been the underlying justification behind all rule sets adopted by this community for both Brawl and Melee, even if it wasn't acknowledged or recognized as such.

A generalized summary of the argument supporting this is as follows:

1.) Establishing that "diverse" and "competitive" are really the same thing. This means that the diversity of a game is the sole factor in determining the competitiveness of the game. More diverse is more competitive, less diverse is less competitive.
2.) Establishing a clear concept of "completely dominant options" (i.e., an absolute lack of diversity) and "overcentralization" (i.e., extreme, but not complete, lack of diversity), showing why a game with those features is either not competitive at all or is strictly less competitive than it would be otherwise, and addressing how those two concepts help show that diversity is essential for competitiveness.
3.) Establishing that the goal of any competitive rule set is to maximize the competitiveness of the game.
4.) Making the connection that premise (3.) combined with premise (1.) leads to the conclusion that the true goal of any competitive rule set is to maximize diversity because doing so leads to the maximization of competitiveness.
5.) Establishing the diversity-based criteria for banning something under a competitive rule set. Namely: An option in a competitive game can be justifiably banned when banning that option results in a net increase of diversity within the game. This means that the diversity lost by banning something must be less than the diversity gained by banning it. If the net result of a ban is a zero change in diversity or a decrease in diversity, the ban is not warranted. The goal of any ban is to maximize the competitiveness of the game by maximizing the diversity.

The first part, proving that competitiveness is determined by diversity , is the longest. I put this argument into writing a few weeks ago after re-reading Sirlin's book, mulling this idea over, and then deciding that it was accurate. I had no real intention of sharing it with anyone, but it is apparent that there is a great deal of confusion and disagreement circulating here concerning diversity and what sort of criteria can be used to justify a ban. Perhaps this will be helpful in solving the problem. I tried to format it somewhat for easier readability, but for the most part I just copy+pasted it, so I apologize for any reading difficulty. I have never presented this argument to a public audience for scrutiny before, so if you see any problems with it, please let me know.

For those who don't feel like reading the full argument, a grossly oversimplified, lazy, slightly inaccurate version of the logic is basically:

Diversity = the available viable options; more diversity = more options; more options = more possibility for skill; and more skill = more competitive, because skill = competitive. Apply the transitivity principle and you get Diverse = Competitive. (And yes, you also get that not Diverse = not Competitive.)

Then, once the fact that "diverse" = "competitive" has been established, it is obvious that "making a maximally competitive rule set" is the same as saying "making a maximally diverse rule set".

And the ban criteria comes from the idea that banning is used to maximize competitiveness. Competitiveness = diversity. Therefore, banning is to maximize diversity. Maximizing something means to increase it as much as possible, hence the criteria that a ban must result in increased diversity.

If you disagree with reasoning behind that, read the full argument. The full argument is not as imprecise, lazy, or flawed as that little summary is.

This post is already really long, so I will not put the explanations why this system supports items and certain stages being banned; however, if anyone cannot see why that is so, just post and I will respond with the explanations.

The full, rigorous argument is the following:

/* Defining a competitive game/*
1.) A game is considered competitive if the outcome of the game is determined by meaningful decisions made by the players; as opposed to being determined purely by luck or by random decisions which lack any sort of logical basis.
2.) Any option that can reasonably result in victory is considered to be a "viable" option.
3.) Any option that cannot reasonably result in victory is considered to be a "non-viable" option.
4.) Having only a single viable option in a game means that players must always choose that option in order to win.
5.) Therefore, games with only one viable option do not allow players to make meaningful decisions.
6.) Therefore, multiple viable options to choose from in a game are required before players can make meaningful decisions.
7.) Therefore, a competitive game must have multiple viable options.
8.) Therefore, the outcome of a competitive game is determined by players making meaningful decisions concerning various viable options within the game.

/* Defining Skill /*
9.) The ability of players to deliberate and then meaningfully decide between multiple viable options in order to maximize the possibility of victory is called "skill".
10.) Therefore, the outcome of a competitive game is determined by skill.

/* Defining Diversity and showing a relationship to Skill /*
11.) The number of viable options available for players to base their meaningful decisions upon in a competitive game is called "diversity".
12.) By definition, the larger the amount of viable options a game has (i.e., the greater the diversity), the larger the amount of meaningful decisions players will have to make concerning those options.
13.) Therefore, by the definition of skill shown in (9. and 10.), a game with greater diversity will provide more opportunities for players to show skill.
14.) As a corollary, a game with lesser diversity will provide less opportunities for players to show skill.

/* Defining Competitiveness and showing its relationship to increased Diversity /*
15.) By definition of the word "competitiveness", a game's level of competitiveness is determined by how much competition it fosters.
16.) Following from (1. and 10.) and the definition of the word "competitive", a game being resolved by skill between players is a competition.
17.) By definition, a game being resolved by a greater amount of skilled exchanges between players is a greater amount of competition.
18.) Therefore, a game which encourages greater amounts of skill encourages greater amounts of competitiveness.
19.) An increased amount of diversity causes an increased amount of skill, as shown in (13.)
20.) Therefore, increased diversity causes increased competitiveness.

/* Defining Overcentralization and showing the relationship between Competitiveness and decreased Diversity. /*
21.) If a single viable option in a game renders a sufficient majority of, but not all, other options non-viable, that option is said to be "overcentralizing".
22.) By definition, an overcentralized game has less diversity.
23.) Following from (15. and 16.), and by logic similar to (17.), a game being resolved by a lesser amount of skilled exchanges between players is a lesser amount of competition.
24.) Therefore, a game which encourages lesser amounts of skill encourages lesser amounts of competitiveness.
25.) As shown in (14.), less diversity means less skill.
26.) Therefore, decreased diversity causes decreased competitiveness.
27.) Therefore, overcentralization causes decreased competitiveness.

/* Defining Completely Dominant and showing its relationship to Skill /*
28.) If a single viable option in a game renders all other options non-viable, that option is said to be "completely dominant".
29.) A game with a completely dominant option does not allow for meaningful decisions, as shown in (4. and 5.)
30.) By definitions shown in (9. and 10.), skill cannot exist without the ability to make meaningful decisions.
31.) Therefore, the outcome of a game with a completely dominant option is not determined by skill.

/* Identifying the conditions necessary for a game to lack Skill and Diversity, and showing that they are logically equivalent. /*
32.) As shown in (28., 29, 30., and 31.), a game with a completely dominant option does not allow for skill.
33.) By the definition of "skill" shown in (9.), a game with zero viable options does not allow for skill.
34.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not allow for skill.
35.) By the definition of diversity shown in (11.), a game must allow for meaningful decisions among viable options in order to have diversity.
36.) Therefore, as follows from (4. and 5.), a game with a completely dominant option does not have diversity.
37.) Similarly, a game with zero viable options does not have diversity.
38.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not have diversity.
39.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not have skill or diversity.
40.) Therefore, a lack of skill and a lack of diversity have logically equivalent necessary conditions.
41.) Therefore, a lack of skill necessitates a lack of diversity; and a lack of diversity necessitates a lack of skill.
42.) Therefore, a game with no diversity cannot have skill; and a game with no skill cannot have diversity.

/* Showing the conditions necessary for a game to have Skill and Diversity, and showing that they are logically equivalent. /*
43.) As a corollary to (34.), a game with two or more viable options does allow for skill.
44.) As a corollary to (38.), a game with two or more viable options does allow diversity.
45.) Therefore, a game with two or more viable options allows for both skill and diversity.
46.) By the definition shown in (9.), a game with two or more viable options necessarily has skill.
47.) By the definition shown in (11.), a game with two or more viable options necessarily has diversity.
48.) Therefore, a game with two or more viable options necessarily has skill and diversity.
49.) As shown in (13. and 14.), the quantity of skill and diversity in a game are mutually determined.
50.) Therefore, the presence of skill and the presence of diversity have logically equivalent necessary conditions.
51.) Therefore, the presence of skill necessitates the presence of diversity; and the presence of diversity necessitates the presence of skill.
52.) Therefore, a game with diversity must have skill; and a game with skill must have diversity.

/* Using the logical equivalence of Skill and Diversity and the relationship between Skill and Competitiveness to show the relationship between Diversity and Competitiveness. /*
53.) As shown in (42. and 52.), the logical conditions required for skill and diversity are equivalent.
54.) Therefore, by logical equivalency, the presence or absence of skill implies the presence or absence of diversity; and the presence or absence of diversity implies the presence or absence skill.
55.) Therefore, skill is necessary for diversity, and diversity is necessary for skill.
57.) As shown in (15. and 16.), skill is necessary for competitiveness.
58.) Skill and diversity are logically equivalent.
58.) Therefore, by logical equivalency, diversity is necessary for competitiveness.
60.) As shown in (20. and 26.), increased or decreased diversity causes increased or decreased competitiveness.
61.) Therefore, the diversity of a game determines the competitiveness of the game.

/* Showing that the purpose of a Competitive Rule Set is to maximize the competitiveness of the game. /*
62.) The goal of competition is to test the players' skills to the maximum extent possible in order to determine a winner.
63.) A Competitive Rule Set is a rule set meant to facilitate competition.
63.) The goal of a competitive tournament is to facilitate competition.
64.) Therefore, the goal of a competitive tournament is to facilitate testing the players' skills to the maximum extent possible in order to determine a winner.
65.) Doing things that unnecessarily hinder one's attempts to do something is bad.
66.) Therefore, making a Rule Set that hinders the ability of one's tournament to effectively test the skills of players is bad.
67.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should facilitate competitive tournament play to the maximum extent possible.
68.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should maximize competitiveness.

/* Showing that the relationship between Diversity and Competitiveness leads to the conclusion that Tournament Rule Sets should maximize Diversity. /*
69.) As shown in (61.), the diversity of a game determines the competitiveness of the game.
70.) As shown in (68.), a Competitive Rule Set should maximize competitiveness.
71.) Therefore, maximizing diversity causes a maximization of competitiveness.
72.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should maximize diversity.

/* Establishing a justifiable ban criterion under a Competitive Rule Set. /*
73.) As shown in (72.), the goal of competitive rule making is to maximize diversity.
74.) Banning is part of competitive rule making.
75.) Therefore, the goal of banning is to maximize diversity.
76.) Banning anything in the game means a loss of diversity.
77.) Banning everything in the game leaves a total of zero diversity.
78.) Not banning something means that diversity is maintained.
79.) Therefore, not banning anything is the best method of maintaining maximized diversity in an already maximally diversified game.
80.) Not banning something that is making other options non-viable means that maximum diversity is not being maintained.
81.) Banning something that is making other options non-viable means that those options will become viable as a result of the ban.
82.) By definition, if a ban results in a net increase of diversity then that ban contributes to maximization of diversity.
83.) By definition, if a ban results in a net decrease of diversity then that ban contributes to non-maximization of diversity.
84.) By definition, if a ban results in neither a net increase nor a net decrease in diversity then that ban contributes nothing to diversity.
85.) By definition, the only way to maximize something is to increase it.
86.) Therefore, only bans that increase diversity help maximize diversity.
87.) Therefore, only bans that increase diversity are justified.

/* Done /*

And countless Xyro arguments.

 

[swordgard]

Yuna, please i dont feel like refuting spadefox, he makes so many fallacies in one post. I can handle the fact that proban says alot of stupid ****, but comon, dont let him get away with very bad slippery slope comments when he says SNAKE has no bad matchups is OP. The closest to MK in this situation is definitly marth. Tiers represents overall matchups.


If bowser has 45-55 vs mk(which im not completely sure of >.> ), wont make him S tier. Its the fact that snake not only can go near even/even/is at slight advantage vs MK AND can hold his own vs the rest of the cast(aka has no hard counter 7-3 or worst like d3vs bowser). However this may change with the discovery of a way to cg twice as long snake with d3 using true pivot grab >.>

I expect MK to dominate more now that snake has a worst matchup. I didnt say he would completely dominate, just yield even better results due to snake having a harder matchup.

 

[Alus]

Yuna keeps trying to diverge the topic into us saying its all about matchups,

Last time i checked...all he was doing was debunking bull****...which the majority of it happened to do with machups...

 

[CRASHiC]

Last time i checked...all he was doing was debunking bull****...which the majority of it happened to do with machups...

There was very little matchup discussion being made by the proban side until Yuna came in. in fact, antiban uses it more than I see proban.

 

[Yuna]

Because that makes his decision less valid?
Basing off of real life experience and not theoretical statistics?

No, it just makes your post invalid.

Me: I have yet to see someone change their mind after reading the arguments of both sides.
You: Fiction did.
Me: My elbow he did!
You: Because that makes his decision less valid?

Classic strawmanning and BS:ing.

Talking about Matchups is silly, and has little to do with the anti-metaknight people. Yuna keeps trying to diverge the topic into us saying its all about matchups, but quite frankly, the best pro ban message (the ones that turned me from Antiban to proban had nothing to do with matchups at all. If you want an example of someone who changed their mind, anti to pro, after reading the arguments. Me.

Maximize this!

Yes, because you fell for something that was resoundly refuted. You fell for the "maximization of skill/variety argument", which is ridiculous. Eyada's arguments were refuted into next Tuesday and his only response (he could not offer a single counter-argument to my refutations of his arguments) was "I'm going to leave for Sirlin's forum now". Eyada might be very eloquent and intelligent-sounding, but his reasoning, logic and arguments are way off and do not hold up to deeper scrutiny.

Incidentally, I just checked out Sirlin's forum. Not a single trace of Eyada.

But, regardless of what prompted you to switch, that still makes you one vs. many. There have been overwhelmingly a lot more people switching from pro- to anti-ban after reading the arguments than vice versa.

There was very little matchup discussion being made by the proban side until Yuna came in. in fact, antiban uses it more than I see proban.

Revisionist history and blatant lying will get you nowhere. How many times didn't people use "MK has no disadvantageous match-ups!" and "MK destroys so many characters" and such flimsy arguments as... arguments? Just becuase I've used the match-up argument against them doesn't mean they didn't try to use it themselves way before I came along.

In fact, it was one of the most perpetuated-pro-ban arguments for quite some time and it still is. The only reason why I bring it up is because people are still bringing it up, so I have to use examples from other games to refute it. Have you ever seen me randomly go into a rant about match-ups without anyone bringing it up first?

Lying will not get you anywhere when I'm around. Or maybe you just have Selective Reading Disorder.

 

[Red Arremer]

If bowser has 45-55 vs mk(which im not completely sure of >.> ), wont make him S tier.

This is what Crashic proposed, not me. He said all Snake had going for him was his matchup with Meta Knight, otherwise he wouldn't be second. So I asked why Bowser is Crap Tier if he has an evenish matchup against Meta Knight. READ THE POST I RESPONDED TO, PLEASE.

 

[Master Raven]

Snake doesn't do that bad vs DDD. Seibrik just ***** at the matchup and some Snakes are too stubborn to camp their balls off.

 

[swordgard]

This is what Crashic proposed, not me. He said all Snake had going for him was his matchup with Meta Knight, otherwise he wouldn't be second. So I asked why Bowser is Crap Tier if he has an evenish matchup against Meta Knight. READ THE POST I RESPONDED TO, PLEASE.

Fair enough, please quote or give indication next time cause i did not see that.

However, as i said, stuff my change now that d3 can cg alot more vs snake >.<

 

[CRASHiC]

No, it just makes your post invalid.

Me: I have yet to see someone change their mind after reading the arguments of both sides.
You: Fiction did.
Me: My elbow he did!
You: Because that makes his decision less valid?

Classic strawmanning and BS:ing.


Maximize this!

Yes, because you fell for something that was resoundly refuted. You fell for the "maximization of skill/variety argument", which is ridiculous. Eyada's arguments were refuted into next Tuesday and his only response (he could not offer a single counter-argument to my refutations of his arguments) was "I'm going to leave for Sirlin's forum now". Eyada might be very eloquent and intelligent-sounding, but his reasoning, logic and arguments are way off and do not hold up to deeper scrutiny.

Incidentally, I just checked out Sirlin's forum. Not a single trace of Eyada.

But, regardless of what prompted you to switch, that still makes you one vs. many. There have been overwhelmingly a lot more people switching from pro- to anti-ban after reading the arguments than vice versa.

I was unaware of what had made Ficition change sides.

Eyada's was not soundly refuted.
Seibrik's point still stands AND backs up Eyada's.
Xyro's experience with Metaknight (being the main TO in Texas) is far beyond the majority of the people on this site, and has fact, and numbers, and reason to back up everything.
And I have seen more people post in here, saying that they have switched from anti to undecided or pro, after they have voted.

This is what Crashic proposed, not me. He said all Snake had going for him was his matchup with Meta Knight, otherwise he wouldn't be second. So I asked why Bowser is Crap Tier if he has an evenish matchup against Meta Knight. READ THE POST I RESPONDED TO, PLEASE.

No I didn't.
But if Metaknight wasn't here, Marth or another character would be top.

Snake doesn't do that bad vs DDD. Seibrik just ***** at the matchup and some Snakes are too stubborn to camp their balls off.

The Snake's believe it is a 35:65. That's **** close to ****.

 

[Yuna]

I was unaware of what had made Ficition change sides.

Then why the hell did you bring him up as an example of someone who'd switched from anti- to pro-ban due to reading the arguments of both sides?!

Why would you just assume to know his reasoning? Or did you mean to say that you thought he did it after reading the arguments of both sides, but were mistaken?

Eyada's was not soundly refuted.

Only in the eyes of those with little insight into Competitive fighting games. So you support the notion that we should ban things to maximize diversity, that if the sum of diversity goes up by a ban, it should be enacted?

So you support the hypothetical scenario in which if by banning 9 characters, we get 10 characters back as viable characters, a ban is warranted?

Seibrik's point still stands AND backs up Eyada's.
Xyro's experience with Metaknight (being the main TO in Texas) is far beyond the majority of the people on this site, and has fact, and numbers, and reason to back up everything.

What the hell are Xyro's arguments, anyway? Just because he has experience does not mean his arguments are automatically valid.

Seibrik's point is invalid. He wants to punish MK for being popular. Everyone and anyone still has the choice to main one of several characters other than MK and still stand a reasonable chance at winning major tournaments (and many people do!). Just because MK is the safest choice and very popular does make a ban warranted.

This is where our comparisons with other communities come in and refute this ridiculous argument.

And I have seen more people post in here, saying that they have switched from anti to undecided or pro, after they have voted.

Yes, but then you're also known to lie.

Also, I edited my previous post before you posted your reply. Please reply to it in its entirety, such as the part where I accuse you of deceit.

 

[rehab]

What "stands" about Seibrik's point? There's nothing wrong with switching to a better character if you think that will make you do better. There's never been anything wrong with it. "Oh I have to play against a lot of MK's and that's kind of difficult and I don't get as much fun from whatever vs. MK matchup I'm playing as I do from other characters and I dun really wannnnaaaaa" is a ****baby reason for caving in and banning a character when he's just good.

 

[Red Arremer]

No I didn't.

Yes you did. If I may quote your post:

Dude, DDD ***** Snake. ROB also does really good against Snake. He also goes even with Falco, Wario, Lucario, Pikachu, Donkey Kong, and Diddy Kong. Snake is only as high as he is because of his matchup with Metaknight.

 

[Master Raven]

The Snake's believe it is a 35:65. That's **** close to ****.

It probably was then, but many high-level Snakes and DDDs now believe it's pretty close, even Seibrik himself thinks it's a dead even matchup. Some of the current matchup numbers are simply outdated. Falco boards used to think MK was a 50/50 matchup, for example. I wouldn't really rely on matchup topics that much unless there is a good, consensus agreement and discussion amongst high-level players who have lots of actual experience in the matchups.

 

[OverLade]

Snake vs. D3 is even if Snake doesn't make overt mistakes. Dedede actually has no viable approaches on snake. So when Snake makes a mistake, he gets grabbed, and D3 can edguard him well. But if D3 isn't able to get snake in a setup, he wont win.

 

[SlyNinja]

Some of you guys should play Street Fighter 4. I did 70 matches yesterday and went against 62 Kens. Is MK that bad?

 

[Red Arremer]

Some of you guys should play Street Fighter 4. I did 70 matches yesterday and went against 62 Kens. Is MK that bad?

lmao, this is SO sigged

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

Some of you guys should play Street Fighter 4. I did 70 matches yesterday and went against 62 Kens. Is MK that bad?

:flame:
People pretend he's Almighty Killing Ultimate Monster Achillies. But really, Metaknight's not so bad. Kids just want to moan about something.

How many people does Metaknight fully stop by himself again? Who is considered to have a huge disadvantage against him? This isn't an arguement, just a personal question. I'm not quite fit to argue for the antiban side, only because I don't have as much experience as I wish I had. I only get to go to local tournaments... ;.;
:flame:

 

[SlyNinja]

People should really compare banning MK in SSBB to banning Garchomp in Pokemon. What happened once 'Chomp got banned? Another pokemon just gained huge popularity.

 

[CRASHiC]

Yes you did. If I may quote your post:

Yes. That high. as in he wouldn't be second if it wasn't for Metaknight. He would be lower.

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

People should really compare banning MK in SSBB to banning Garchomp in Pokemon. What happened once 'Chomp got banned? Another pokemon just gained huge popularity.

:flame:
Actually, Garchomp got banned because it was litterally too strong for the game, and was promoted to the Uber's section (although I'm still trying to look for different choice sets that do well against it).

The thing about Pokemon is that most Pokemon are actually in the "UU" and "NU" section (not counting the NFE Pokemon, since who's going to use Metapod over Butterfree?). The Ou Pokemon are good pokemon that are really popular, that everyone uses. Heck, the Smogon website said that if one out of every 20 teams has said Pokemon, they are sent to the OU.

However, Garchomp is considered too much for even the OU (although most people use him comboed with the help of like 3 other Pokemon, and even Rampardos can be Arceus level with help), and so, Garchomp was promoted. He's considered TOO good. Metaknight isn't TOO good. Metaknight is more like the Salamance or Scizor of Pokemon.
:flame:

 

[CRASHiC]

:flame:
Actually, Garchomp got banned because it was litterally too strong for the game, and was promoted to the Uber's section (although I'm still trying to look for different choice sets that do well against it).

The thing about Pokemon is that most Pokemon are actually in the "UU" and "NU" section (not counting the NFE Pokemon, since who's going to use Metapod over Butterfree?). The Ou Pokemon are good pokemon that are really popular, that everyone uses. Heck, the Smogon website said that if one out of every 20 teams has said Pokemon, they are sent to the OU.

However, Garchomp is considered too much for even the OU (although most people use him comboed with the help of like 3 other Pokemon, and even Rampardos can be Arceus level with help), and so, Garchomp was promoted. He's considered TOO good. Metaknight isn't TOO good. Metaknight is more like the Salamance or Scizor of Pokemon.
:flame:

But remember, there are still people who disagree with Garchomp being banned, as well as Deoxys-E

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

But remember, there are still people who disagree with Garchomp being banned, as well as Deoxys-E

:flame:
Which one was Deoxys-E? I know of a Deoxys, Deoxys-A, Deoxys-D, and Deoxys-S. What's Deoxys-E?

And yes, people will argue about Garchomp and Deoxys-S (the Speed version, who I'm assuming is the one you are talking about) being banned, but Pokemon is a little more concrete that Brawl. Unless new ways of fighting them are uncovered, I personally don't see Garchomp coming back too recently (although he might), and Deoxys-S being kicked out seems very unlikely as of now.

Something that relies on skills is easier to change. Something that is as concrete as writing down numbers and plugging them into formulas is not going to be changed for quite a while. 2+2 usually equals 4. Not much is going to change that.
:flame: