WTF M2K LOST?
OMG, SCREW 2012, IT'S 2009.
Dx I WANT JUST WANTED 3 MORE YEARS, BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
-
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
OMG, SCREW 2012, IT'S 2009.
Dx I WANT JUST WANTED 3 MORE YEARS, BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Alus
Smash Champion
Lol i saw that too
it was awesome.
Red Arremer
Smash Legend
In your FACE, Supermodel from Paris!! Bwahaha.
Yea, right. At least 6 Meta Knights in the Top 10. Harhar.
Yea, right. At least 6 Meta Knights in the Top 10. Harhar.
Da-D-Mon-109
Smash Lord
:flame:
Okay, I think from that stream that Metaknight could easily be replaced by Snake. Who opposes Snake again? XD
But seriously, all jokes aside, How did M2K lose? This is pretty epic, but the quality stinks. ;.;
Did it just freeze? I think Ally still won though.. that's what they said. It was close.
:flame:
Okay, I think from that stream that Metaknight could easily be replaced by Snake. Who opposes Snake again? XD
But seriously, all jokes aside, How did M2K lose? This is pretty epic, but the quality stinks. ;.;
Did it just freeze? I think Ally still won though.. that's what they said. It was close.
:flame:
Not sure. I didn't see the actual match but everyone else did.
The Sauce Boss
Smash Ace
lain beat m2k. This threads over metaknight doesnt need a ban.
What happened to "one tournament doesn't prove anything"?
Oh, right. That's only true when it doesn't support your argument.
Red Arremer
Smash Legend
Wasn't it the Pro-ban side that always repeatedly brought up WHOBO, one single tournament?
Oh right. Tournaments only count when they support banning Meta Knight.
Da-D-Mon-109
Smash Lord
:flame:
It's a little different when it's M2K that's losing. Although he might make a comeback in the tournament... But still, 1 tournament isn't going to change much. Which is why so many times, the Proban's posts at the beginning were so flaued.
Edit:Darn you Spade! ;.;
:flame:
Master Raven
Smash Master
One tourney doesn't necessarily support either side but Apex at this point will not be dominated by MK. Genesis will hopefully remain that way.
I was trolling hard as **** back there. Now I'm being serious.
Red Arremer
Smash Legend
Even if he makes a comeback - there is only ONE Meta Knight in the Top 5 at a major tournament, and this one is M2K.
This tournament everyone predicted to be dominated by Meta Knight.
This tournament everyone predicted to be dominated by Meta Knight.
Many people have said "Let's wait for the results of APEX and Genesis before passing judgment on MK". Obviously, APEX was not dominated by MK.
Because someone can't have figured out M2K's patterns, or he didn't just have a bad day?
Right.
One tournament loss by M2K does not prove that MK isn't more harmful for the community by being allowed than not. Which is something neither side can really prove or disprove (No, anti-ban has not disproven it - demonstrating whether the community would be healthier without him would require banning him for a decent length of time and seeing how tournament popularity shifted for that duration.)
That's because MK's being partially soft banned - people have been jumping on the "MK's overpowered" bandwagon and it forced others who might have used him to switch, for fear of being labelled as using an OP character.
It's mitigating the actual impact he'd have had if there was no stigma against using him (The way the top melee characters didn't really get you looked down on for utilizing them)
Red Arremer
Smash Legend
lol.
Seriously... how ridiculous can the Pro-Ban side arguments get?
Anti-Ban: "Let's look at the next major tournament's, APEX's, results to see if Meta Knight is really that dominating, okay?"
Pro-Ban: "Okay!"
- APEX happens. Meta Knight doesn't dominate. -
Anti-Ban: "See? Meta Knight doesn't dominate. He doesn't need to be banned."
Pro-Ban: "BUT HE WAS SOFT BANNED AND THAT DOESN'T COUNT ANYWAY CAUSE MK DOESN'T DOMINATE RAWRAWR! D:<"
Da-D-Mon-109
Smash Lord
:flame:
Da-D-Mon-109 glomps SpadeFox.
Very well put. But darn you! I was trying to look to see if I could quote atleast 5 posts, and you made that irrelivant...
:flame:
Da-D-Mon-109 glomps SpadeFox.
Very well put. But darn you! I was trying to look to see if I could quote atleast 5 posts, and you made that irrelivant...
:flame:
Does anyone have a better argument?
No. Wrong. Banned is a possible result of "illegal"-only if you're caught. Playing as Meta Knight is not-and I repeat-NOT "illegal". Illegal activity such as spamming or glitching, of which I refer to as "illegal" strictly to point out that spamming and glitching are strategies used by those who cannot win honorably and must play like-and excuse my french-a *****. One example to make clear, is in a timed match, if one player is in the lead, running away, or flying away, or planking, or whatever you wanna call it, is something that should be supervised and monitored. If he or she fails to confront the opposing player honorably, in recognition that they may in fact be risking their victory over their opposer, then let them be booted for their "*****" way-of-play. If they run, they are afraid of you. You should not win because you are afraid. By all means be cautious when confronting your opposer if you are at a high damage percentage, but don't run away. This threaded-question is ridiculous to me. I'm just trying to get everyone to see the conflict as it is, a farce.
AvaricePanda
Smash Lord
Whether or not a character is helpful or not to the metagame compared to harmful is a crap reason to ban a character if they aren't banworthy in the first place.
Question: What does one single character do to the metagame? All a single character does is add one more character diversity.
How much does it harm? For some characters, quite a lot. D3 easily makes quite a bit of characters like DK completely unviable because of an infinite chaingrab, and he's really doing more harm than good. Marth does the same thing against Lucas and Ness, and has generally advantageous matchups across the board except for against D3 and MK, but his matchups against mid-low tier are generally better than MKs. Keeping him means he does more harm than good. Arguably, low low-tiers like Falcon and Ganondorf just keep people from using more tourney viable characters, and are arguably doing more harm than good. Snake and MK are used by a lot of people and have good matchups across the board. They both do more harm than good.
Does that mean that all of these characters are banworthy because they do more harm than good? No. A character is banworthy when he's the only viable choice to win anything big. Meta Knight is not this.
Question: What does one single character do to the metagame? All a single character does is add one more character diversity.
How much does it harm? For some characters, quite a lot. D3 easily makes quite a bit of characters like DK completely unviable because of an infinite chaingrab, and he's really doing more harm than good. Marth does the same thing against Lucas and Ness, and has generally advantageous matchups across the board except for against D3 and MK, but his matchups against mid-low tier are generally better than MKs. Keeping him means he does more harm than good. Arguably, low low-tiers like Falcon and Ganondorf just keep people from using more tourney viable characters, and are arguably doing more harm than good. Snake and MK are used by a lot of people and have good matchups across the board. They both do more harm than good.
Does that mean that all of these characters are banworthy because they do more harm than good? No. A character is banworthy when he's the only viable choice to win anything big. Meta Knight is not this.
Red Arremer
Smash Legend
You can't believe how much I love you for this post. Sorry to bug you, but can you tell us: is what salaboB claims, that Meta Knight was "partially soft-banned" because of whatever reason true, or is it just something he made up to create himself an "argument" eradicating the results of APEX and their meaning?
Sosuke
Smash Obsessed
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2007
- Messages
- 25,073
- Switch FC
- 8132-9932-4710
Wow, nice pointless paragraph.
Many consider playing MK to be " a strategy used by those who cannot win honorably and must play like-and excuse my french-a *****".
And , as of now, planking is not considered illegal.
And neither is spamming.
Or running away.
As long as its not impossible to get around.
I am just concerned that if we ban Meta Knight how long will it be before we start banning Snake or Dedede?
Ultimately I think that banning a character is something that should never happen, but this is very odd case. It's not like people who don't even play competitive brawl are picking up a control and winning tournaments. But even for skilled players playing against a skilled Meta Knight it does get really difficult, some times the matches aren't even close.
Ultimately I think that banning a character is something that should never happen, but this is very odd case. It's not like people who don't even play competitive brawl are picking up a control and winning tournaments. But even for skilled players playing against a skilled Meta Knight it does get really difficult, some times the matches aren't even close.
deepseadiva
Bodybuilding Magical Girl
Why are you posting.
Do you honestly think there's no stigma for people using MK? That they don't feel at least some community pressure for using a character many feel is overpowered?
If there's any negative associated with using the character, it's going to show up as increased diversity from other people choosing different ones because of, literally, peer pressure to not play MK.
Also I'm not sure who Plairnkk is saying was wrong, I don't believe I saw a single post that said only M2K had been playing MK there.
AvaricePanda
Smash Lord
He was posting at you.
You said that MK was soft-banned in that the stigma of using an "overpowered" character made some MK mains choose different people.
Plairnkk was saying that no big MK mains changed to different characters. They were ALL there, they just didn't all place well.
Please do inform exactly which MK mains in this tournament switched because of stigma? Right, none. Don't pull out random stuff to try to justify something that goes against what you previously claimed.
You said that MK was soft-banned in that the stigma of using an "overpowered" character made some MK mains choose different people.
Plairnkk was saying that no big MK mains changed to different characters. They were ALL there, they just didn't all place well.
Please do inform exactly which MK mains in this tournament switched because of stigma? Right, none. Don't pull out random stuff to try to justify something that goes against what you previously claimed.
OmniOstrich
Smash Lord
Snake and DDD both have a hard time with Falco, and Olimar.
Nobody's even trying to disprove it because it's a ****ty reason to ban characters.
Brinzy
Godfather of the Crimean Mafia
No offense to anyone here, but LOOOOL @ that.
Also, yes Yuna, I am not an MK main. In fact, I have only used MK for Classic Mode, the SSE, and on random select.
...
...
Seriously?
Complete and total logic fail.
The people who would have buckled to the pressure are the ones who populated the tournament with such a high percent of non-MKs. You won't see the people who already resisted it so long suddenly abandoning their mains, they're likely too much in it to just get the best chances to win.
I note nobody answered my question of whether there was a stigma associated with playing MK or not. This wasn't a new thought btw -- I commented on it in the Ban MK 2 thread months ago, is how long the process would have been in effect and creating non-MK mains who might otherwise have chosen him.
Red Arremer
Smash Legend
If I want to use that character, I will use it, except if it is banned. Obviously, you are too blind to understand the fact that not everything can be turned to a Pro-Ban argument. The Top Meta Knight players played their character. And so did the Top Non-Meta Knights. Who cares about people who won't place anywhere near the top players, anyway? Do you think Noob X would've beaten Lain or Mew2King because he would've used Meta Knight instead of, say, Falco?
What should the pressure be? "ur so cheep dud ur using mk lulz" or what? Do you think that the people playing at APEX are a bunch of scrubs?
You claimed that less people used Meta Knight because you don't want to believe people actually didn't use Meta Knight - who is obviously so important to win, and noone can win without him - therefore Meta Knight was not dominating APEX.
All you do is making up BS to claim that the results of APEX are wrong because the tournament is actual proof that Meta Knight doesn't dominate as badly as the Pro-Ban-Side claims. If I may remind you of the posting of Supermodel of Paris, who claimed that Meta Knight will definitely take 6 out of the Top 10 spots. Why, lookie here, the only Meta Knight in the Top 5 is Mew2King.
bobson
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,674
Why do we care about them?
They aren't getting in the top ten.
They just overran it.
AvaricePanda
Smash Lord
Everything that SpadeFox said.
Who do you really think is going to buckle under the pressure, "Oh noes, I'm playing a cheap character! I should use him less." Lots of people who use MK don't think he's banworthy, and even some people who use him and think he's banworthy don't quit him, like Overswarm.
Do you think someone's just going to walk up to you and say, "Oh my god, MK is so cheap, you shouldn't use him!" As already aforementioned, people at Apex aren't scrubs, at least not the ones playing decently well.
The ones who switched out of pressure probably placed horrible and would have placed horrible regardless.
And you still didn't answer my question of, "Who was a notable MK main who switched to not MK due to pressure?" No one did.
Who do you really think is going to buckle under the pressure, "Oh noes, I'm playing a cheap character! I should use him less." Lots of people who use MK don't think he's banworthy, and even some people who use him and think he's banworthy don't quit him, like Overswarm.
Do you think someone's just going to walk up to you and say, "Oh my god, MK is so cheap, you shouldn't use him!" As already aforementioned, people at Apex aren't scrubs, at least not the ones playing decently well.
The ones who switched out of pressure probably placed horrible and would have placed horrible regardless.
And you still didn't answer my question of, "Who was a notable MK main who switched to not MK due to pressure?" No one did.
Yes. They're not entirely immune to the attitude of those around them any more than anyone else. I think many likely chose to focus entirely on their main rather than at least secondarying MK due to the anti-MK attitudes that so pervade the community.
Will we know how many? Never. Does it particularily matter? Again, no. Was I simply explaining what happened to the "MK will sweep everything" argument? Yes.
Am I upset? Not at all. Laughing a little bit every time someone takes the time to post a full rant at me, but that's about it.
Do I think MK requires banning? No. Do I think the competitive community would be healthier and have better tournaments if he were banned? Yes. Do I think the overall metagame would progress faster and better if he wasn't sitting there making everyone worry about how to fight him? Yes.
Do I know he won't be banned unless someone finds a basic technique for him that nobody can beat? Yes. So am I really worried about it? Not in the least. I'm just pointing out some things the anti-ban side never really debunked except in their own heads.
Again, this statement is derived entirely from a failure of logic. It is less likely that someone would have switched off of playing MK, what is very much more likely is that people would never switch to him in the first place. They'd have their mains, and just never think about picking up MK (I said this earlier in this post, but if I don't bludgeon you with it I know you'll miss the point) due to community pressure against it. Yes, some will have switched -- but I bet not as many as would have if a decent chunk of the community hadn't thought playing MK was cheap.
So no, I have nobody to point to for having switched off of MK to someone else. But again, why would I? I never claimed that occurred.
Brinzy
Godfather of the Crimean Mafia
"I play to win, but I also play to not be teased/scolded for using MK. Therefore, I do not play Metaknight."
If there is a top player with this mindset, please quote this and say that this is you.
It is more important to play the character that will help you do what you want to do in tournaments than it is to not play a character because some other people said so. It is illogical (or less logical than the former) to not play a character when that character is legal in every sense if
the reason is solely to appease people who don't want you to use MK.
My college is really good for this type of attitude. They look down upon those with cars because of some environmental stuff and because they really think that bicycles are superior to cars in every situation (especially in the U.S.). They look down upon those who eat meat and consider them savages. They look down upon Windows machines for arbitrary reasons ("Apple is creative!"). They look down upon people who study something that is not of their own area (so bio/chem/geo/physics majors will look down upon everyone else, english/language/classics/philosophy/cinema/theatre/dance/cultural studies majors will look down upon everyone else, econ/psych/sociology/anthro majors will look down upon everyone else, etc) because they believe that everyone else is doing the wrong thing. They look down upon people who decide to play Smash instead of exploring the same mile-long campus everyday.
The point is that when people begin to judge you for irrational things and view you because of something you believe in or something you just do (or don't do), it is usually more logical to simply do what you wish than it is to listen to everyone else. Maybe I just feel this way because I ****ing hate hipsters and I'm surrounded by them.
Anyway, to tie this into what you're saying, I highly doubt that those of a strong enough will to play MK or to win with MK or whatever with Mk will be switching from MK; I believe that they comprise the toughest MKs in the nation. The rest... well, good luck to them and all, but as you said, this is almost completely unimportant.
If there is a top player with this mindset, please quote this and say that this is you.
It is more important to play the character that will help you do what you want to do in tournaments than it is to not play a character because some other people said so. It is illogical (or less logical than the former) to not play a character when that character is legal in every sense if
the reason is solely to appease people who don't want you to use MK.
My college is really good for this type of attitude. They look down upon those with cars because of some environmental stuff and because they really think that bicycles are superior to cars in every situation (especially in the U.S.). They look down upon those who eat meat and consider them savages. They look down upon Windows machines for arbitrary reasons ("Apple is creative!"). They look down upon people who study something that is not of their own area (so bio/chem/geo/physics majors will look down upon everyone else, english/language/classics/philosophy/cinema/theatre/dance/cultural studies majors will look down upon everyone else, econ/psych/sociology/anthro majors will look down upon everyone else, etc) because they believe that everyone else is doing the wrong thing. They look down upon people who decide to play Smash instead of exploring the same mile-long campus everyday.
The point is that when people begin to judge you for irrational things and view you because of something you believe in or something you just do (or don't do), it is usually more logical to simply do what you wish than it is to listen to everyone else. Maybe I just feel this way because I ****ing hate hipsters and I'm surrounded by them.
Anyway, to tie this into what you're saying, I highly doubt that those of a strong enough will to play MK or to win with MK or whatever with Mk will be switching from MK; I believe that they comprise the toughest MKs in the nation. The rest... well, good luck to them and all, but as you said, this is almost completely unimportant.
First off, there's no need to insult me or my paragraph
Anyway, playing as a character, if he/she is your best, is considered a strategy, for you'd most certainly want to perform at your best when faced with a competition of sorts. Am I correct? Those who consider a person whom chooses to play as Meta Knight solely a strategy for those who cannot win honorably is false. This might make it clear: CHOOSING META KNIGHT IS NOT AN ACT THAT SHOULD BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. However, you may be right, in that if planking or spamming or running away is not considered illegal, then so be it. But, now ask yourself: Why ban Meta Knight?!
**Is he too good? - Then get better.
**You can say he is superior in spamming, or planking, or running away... but you, yourself, has just debunked that argument.
**So what if Meta Knight is known to win competitions. Have you ever thought of it as a legal statistic, and not some "sore-loser" attitude?
I am 100% certain it is not something that most people who have avoided picking up MK have identified so clearly.
People usually justify their decisions caused by social pressure without ever mentioning that it's really because their friends would look down on them for doing it.
Are you saying every non-MK Top 10:er once played or considered playing MK but then switched because of the stigma? Do you have any kind of proof to back it up or are you just making **** up again?
Translation:
You have absolutely nothing to back this up and are trying to excuse it with BS psychology.
- Status