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

[Kewkky]

Quit pretending this one match (Or even overall tournament, really) has some huge significance.

The significance of the tourney isn't that MK's didn't take all the top spots, but that the best MK mainer, BEST MK MAINER, couldn't find victory no matter how hard he tried. MK's not dominating the whole top 10 list is an added bonus, and a welcome one at that. To me, this is significant. If MK, the character who's being argued as "too good" and "needs to be banned in order for the game to progress", can't win EVERY tournament they end up in (like Akuma did in SF2), much less take all (or almost all) of the top spots in the majority of tourneys (or at least half the tourneys), then it clearly points to MK just being "the better character"... NOT "too good for the game"... Just like Marth was "the better character" in Melee...

Oh, and before the "But pro-ban said this tourney would be big for MK" -- I never once said that, I never supported that, and I couldn't care less what other people said.

Are you the whole pro-ban community? Or are you some separate person, who's neither anti, pro, or in-between? If the majority of a community agrees on one thing or decide to wait out for an example of their point to appear, it applies to EVERYONE in their community, or else they would've left said community and made a better one.

That line of reasoning doesn't make sense no matter which side uses it.

Way to go, you did lots of help by not saying this BEFORE it got to the point where it is now. Both sides are using it... Even the side that's not technically a side is using it ("not sure"), in order to rethink their decisions, and the OTHER "side", the ones who haven't voted, are now using it as ground to go anti-ban! Point is, these people find it a good example as to what the tourney meant.

Even singular events have some meaning, if not lots or none... This one had lots of meaning.

Figure out who did if you want to tell someone they were wrong, it wasn't me saying it.

The majority of pro-ban said it. They were all saying it a BUTTLOAD of pages back, too far for me to want to look for it, just to point it out to you. If you're pro-ban, you immediately fall under what their general decisions influence, which supports your being pro-ban.

Unless... I've been mistaken and you're not pro-ban.

Pro-ban has been arguing for the longest time that MK is "too good", and needs to be banned in order for the metagame to flourish, or for the tourneys to have more attendance, or "maximizing diversity (thank you Yuna)", or fixing the counterpick system... Whatever they said, it all comes down to MK being a "too good" character. Unless you're not part of the pro-ban community but a community you yourself consist of, I cannot look away from the fact that their major decisions also fall on your shoulders for not influencing them into changing their views, or structuring their arguments... Anti-ban is much more in-line as far as I can see, we're all agreeing with our other anti-ban companions, if you might want to call them THAT.

 

[Brinzy]

Wait a few months for more tournaments to happen, then we'll talk.

That's how it works. We wait a few months and then we talk.

 

[Jski]

Sry nick name i use for meta knight.

 

[demonictoonlink]

Is anyone having the weird thing where it shows there are more pages, but there really aren't?

 

[salaboB]

Is anyone having the weird thing where it shows there are more pages, but there really aren't?

Yeah, I heard there had been some massive post deletions that broke it earlier.

It's happening to everyone.

 

[demonictoonlink]

Thanks a lot. Good to know ^^

 

[thrillagorilla]

That's how it works. We wait a few months and then we talk.

Talk about what? Banning or not banning Metaknight? Like we have been for the past... oh, never mind.

@salaboB: I looked over the next few posts after my last post before I left, and I didn't see an answer to my question about how you see fairness and competition to be related. I saw that you are still online, so I figured I'd ask again.

 

[Delvro]

Have you ever tried getting a Democrat or a Republican to consider the other view? No, they just try to figure out how to spin it in their favor.

Pro and Anti banners are much the same way.

I think this MK argument ended 350 pages ago.

 

[SuSa]

*points out Bwett forcing Dojo to run him to time at a College station tourney(where Dojo went undefeated), winning 180% to 198%*

I think Dojo wasn't playing his best here.

He had another tourney where he lost to a snake (Razer) and he seemed to not be playing at optimum level, he normally is a LOT of **** though.

That's because it was Razer.


Sick of people saying a player wasn't playing to their best just because they lose every once in a while.

(Like M2K vs Ally... wow, Ally won in their.. second? tourney match where M2K won the first time... seems... and 1/2 still doesn't show who's the better player)


Sorry. Just getting bothered by this. I don't think I saw the Razer vs Dojo matches so I may not be one to comment. But Razer is good and I wouldn't be surprised that he won.



On Topic:

I was Pro Ban for a really long time. Starting to change my mind as I'm finding MK an easier and easier matchup the more I play it.

It's still a pain - but I'm not getting 3-0'd not killing the MK more then twice the entire set and having 1-2 minute matches. -_- (I'd win pretty much every other match until I face an MK)

May I john? I say it was MK anxiety. lol

 

[salaboB]

@salaboB: I looked over the next few posts after my last post before I left, and I didn't see an answer to my question about how you see fairness and competition to be related. I saw that you are still online, so I figured I'd ask again.

Pretty sure I answered you the next time I posted after I saw your post, which may have been a ways further down given how fast the topic moves.

Iirc, I decided my choice of wording was poor. Beyond that I had more explanation for what I was going for but it's not really worthwhile to go into it again.

I was Pro Ban for a really long time. Starting to change my mind as I'm finding MK an easier and easier matchup the more I play it.

You main Snake, if your icon is accurate. You should be finding it about a 50:50 matchup, given the right stages -- your skill almost directly against your opponent's.

 

[ShadowLink84]

The significance of the tourney isn't that MK's didn't take all the top spots, but that the best MK mainer, BEST MK MAINER, couldn't find victory no matter how hard he tried.

I am sorry what? See people keep spinning this like m2k tried his hardest and lost at his best.
We all know that just isn't true. Even if it was, that doesnt change his overall record where he is beating everyone else. Stop using m2k. Its the same as they used NL when he beat m2k with diddy.

Everything else is good though.

Are you the whole pro-ban community? Or are you some separate person, who's neither anti, pro, or in-between? If the majority of a community agrees on one thing or decide to wait out for an example of their point to appear, it applies to EVERYONE in their community, or else they would've left said community and made a better one.

No it does not. Why are you trying to justify your assumption?
I guess I can say all the anti-ban arguments are dumb then ebcause the majority of the people here go, "Metaknight is not broken you scrubs."
We do not judge an individual based on the side that he is on. That is argumentum ad hominem. Arguing against someone due to their source.

So why are you trying to justify your assumption when obviously you wer ein the wrong and did not address HIS statements.

you act as if the majority dictates the viewpoint of a persons argument which it does not.

stuff

No no no no ****ing no.This is one of my little pet peeves.
Why are you trying to justify your assumption based upon the majority of pro-ban arguments?
You have pro-banners saying MK is OMFG broken because of shuttle loop.
Does this mean we should address that argument when speaking to a pro ban individual?

NO.
The arguments made by the majority does NOT reflect upon the individuals argument.

He can be perfectly pro-ban even though his justification is different from the majority.
Address those arguments, stop trying to refute an argument he has not made!

Otherwise, i'll simply do the same to anti-ban arguments where the majority go "stfu scrub."
I guess that falls upon anti-bans shoulders as well? Hmm?

 

[thrillagorilla]

Have you ever tried getting a Democrat or a Republican to consider the other view? No, they just try to figure out how to spin it in their favor.

Pro and Anti banners are much the same way.

I think this MK argument ended 350 pages ago.

It depends. If it is an actual politician, then I disregard them on principal. If it is a person affiliated with one party or another, then yes you can. It depends more on the person than the party that they are affiliated with though.

The argument is on going. Is there anything new being discussed as of the moment? Not really. The only thing that has happened has been a reversal of the HOBO tourney results. Apex is an indication that the Metaknight vs. Snake MU is even at worst for Snake (an indication is not a proof in and of itself). Who knows. We may see a drastic decrease in Metaknight activity and an increase in Snake activity after this. Genesis will be the next big indicator (again, not a proof in and of itself). I'm currious to see how and if the Apex results will effect the community make-up.

@salaboB: Sorry to hear that. If you don't want to discuss it, though, I won't force the issue. NP.

 

[SuSa]

Pretty sure I answered you the next time I posted after I saw your post, which may have been a ways further down given how fast the topic moves.

Iirc, I decided my choice of wording was poor. Beyond that I had more explanation for what I was going for but it's not really worthwhile to go into it again.

You main Snake, if your icon is accurate. You should be finding it about a 50:50 matchup, given the right stages -- your skill almost directly against your opponent's.

I rate it 55:45 but it's one of my personal bad matchups with Snake.

I get in the air and I die from any good MK.... been working on that....


Strangely enough I CP a character that has a 20:80 with MK and I do better.

 

[CRASHiC]

I heard Mew2King was drinking. Is this true?

 

[Sky`]

Unless the vote is a landslide...

A Decision to Ban MK Shouldn't be passed.

 

[cutter]

He was drunk




















...when he played Melee.

 

[Dark.Pch]

I heard Mew2King was drinking. Is this true?

M2K got drunk on saturday durning melee so he got DQ for not being there on time. He got his money back for entering melee though.

sunday he was just fine. So there was no excuse for him losing to ally. I think people need to give more respect and credit ti Ally. Ally did some risky and insane **** that worked and got him the win. and made it out of many risky situations. He did what he had to. M2K did play his best too.

also the tournament results, look at the top ten or 20 even. Look at the characters that made it there.

With the top 20 results and Ally beating M2K, this debate should be done with already. EC showed that MK does not need to be banned.

What more proof do people need. this should be wraped up already.

 

[salaboB]

@salaboB: Sorry to hear that. If you don't want to discuss it, though, I won't force the issue. NP.

Well, in summary since you're asking so nicely: If someone wishes to not use MK, they're immediately at a disadvantage against anyone who does. Any other single character in the game you can get away without having as one you use, because you can make up for it by picking X or Y instead for a given situation. But there's only one character that gets the overall matchups and benefits MK does. So the unfairness of MK is that if you don't play him, no other character mastery will provide the advantage that simply having him in your selection of tournament viable characters provides, and you'll always be at that automatic disadvantage to someone that can pull him out during tournament play.

Is it a large disadvantage? No. But I think it's enough to justify removing that character and levelling the playing field. And yes, that's my opinion, this is simply a line in the sand.

Really, all bans or not are lines in the sand, even Akuma -- the line just got so close that everyone recognizes the character needed banning. MK's strengths are nowhere skewed enough for traditionalists to even consider banning him, and that's simply a fact I recognize.

What more proof do people need. this should be wraped up already.

This isn't proof of anything except that good Snake players can beat good MK players.

The proof (At least that I've been arguing on) is based on MK's matchups with the rest of the cast, as well as the matchups of the high tiers. Change the accepted matchups so MK doesn't match what I just described earlier in this post, and you'll have the proof you need to convince me he doesn't need banning.

 

[P. O. F.]

I find it really ****ing funny and in fact, stupid how people are stating "Ally beat M2K" Wow, that is amazing. He beat him with the SECOND best character in the entire game and MK's TOUGHEST match up. Wow, that is truly something outstanding and remarkable. Because Snake does not have the second best ground game and the most broken disjointed hitboxes at all.

Why are you people still on this subject? Don't ban MK. Ban Ally, he's broken.

You're stupid.

I have changed my mind on this topic.

I think the real problem is that MK feels broken because there are SO MANY **** MK's, and many pro MK's compared to other characters.

No, definitely not the case. There are about a million Fox mains in Melee and about every pro player uses him. He's not broken.

No one should work harder than the other person who mains the other character.

We should try to make the game as balanced as it could be.

A good point. What makes Meta Knight stand out as being a broken character is the fact that EVERY CHARACTER IN THE GAME has to change their approach and play style when they play Meta Knight. Snake can't be aggressive, that's ****ing sad. The second best character in the game has to camp? That's stupid. Also, DDD is ARGUABLY one of the top five characters in the game. All Meta Knight has to do in that matchup is throw, tornado, and any form of kill move. A good 80% of the cast has nothing they can do against the tornado.

Marth has counter or upB
olimar has up b
Falco has lasers
Toon link and link-bombs
Samus-zair


I mean come the **** on, when you have a thread named "Things that stop the tornado" you know the character is stupid. LOL

Using the splitting system of the tier list is a very bad argument.

The SBR-members decided to split the tiers based upon the gaps in the average voting score. If you check out the jumps in between the digits from one tier to the next, you will notice bigger differences than to the numbers before.

Also, don't dare to say that Meta Knight is "perfect" because he got a voting score of 15 - cause that 15 just means that everyone agreed on Meta Knight being the best character in Brawl.

I could give a crap what the "Smash Back Room" thinks about anything personally, because half of them are Meta Knight mains and a main reason why he is not banned is because of them. It's all politics.

Because of Apex, I'm now Not sure, Genesis will be the deciding factor for me.

Pro bans are going to be waiting for genesis.

We shouldn't have to wait for Genesis.

EVERYONE KNOWS HOW STUPID META KNIGHT IS. EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO MAIN HIM KNOW HOW RETARDEDLY GOOD HE IS.

If Meta Knight does not get banned then I should just bandwagon with half of the brawl community and just main him too because I sure could use the extra cash by being the dumbest character in the smash video games. Any person with half a brain can use meta knight and do well.

 

[Kewkky]

No it does not. Why are you trying to justify your assumption?
I guess I can say all the anti-ban arguments are dumb then ebcause the majority of the people here go, "Metaknight is not broken you scrubs."
We do not judge an individual based on the side that he is on. That is argumentum ad hominem. Arguing against someone due to their source.

That is what practically the anti-ban side points at... MK being NOT broken. It was the root of our whole argument tree, that's where we all branched apart and tried to prove in different ways, wordings, etc... Some people got it, others didn't.

Why would anti-ban NOT want to ban something that's broken? We're clearly saying MK ISN'T broken, and that he can be beat if people dedicate lots of time to the MK matchup... And the majority (if not all) DOES say that he isn't broken (in the anti-ban side)...

So why are you trying to justify your assumption when obviously you wer ein the wrong and did not address HIS statements.

Ok I admit I jumped the gun. I might have mixed up the message while thinking of what to reply, and followed my train of thought... But still MK shoudln't be banned.

you act as if the majority dictates the viewpoint of a persons argument which it does not.

How can a republican be a republican, if he shares conservative views? He will still be labeled under the republicans' decisions for BEING a republican.

No no no no ****ing no.This is one of my little pet peeves.
Why are you trying to justify your assumption based upon the majority of pro-ban arguments?
You have pro-banners saying MK is OMFG broken because of shuttle loop.
Does this mean we should address that argument when speaking to a pro ban individual?

NO.

The point of arguing is refuting all the opposing side's points, and convincing them that your viewpoint is THE correct one... Unless arguing is simply two angry people shouting at each other, which wouldn't be as attractive as persuasive conversations/discussions.

The arguments made by the majority does NOT reflect upon the individuals argument.

He can be perfectly pro-ban even though his justification is different from the majority.
Address those arguments, stop trying to refute an argument he has not made!

They may not reflect upon him, but they DO have their weight. The point of arguing (at least in my eyes) is refuting all of pro-ban's points and trying to prove them wrong. If I fail to prove them wrong then it's my fault, and we'll just have to wait for people like Yuna to appear and make obscenely long posts and multiple tiring replies in order to explain something that could've just been said in one sentence.

My purpose was to refute what he was saying, AND refute anything else that he might want to say (or anyone else) by ALREADY inputting my arguments before the statements were made. I know he didn't say stuff that I argued about, I'm not dumb. I said it BEFORE anyone else would reply with one of those points in order to speed things up.

Otherwise, i'll simply do the same to anti-ban arguments where the majority go "stfu scrub."
I guess that falls upon anti-bans shoulders as well? Hmm?

Anti-bans who go "stfu scrub" are doing it in one of two ways:

1) giving a (or lots of) point(s) to read and the other side to understand, so the other side could have their arguments destroyed and eventually shut up for lack of fodder in which to keep the fire alive, OR

2) skipping the arguing and going to the point: shutting them up with insults, and lacking in viewpoints which would back up their "stfu"s better than what they're doing...

... I'm trying to do it in the first statement's way. You could do whatever you desire, it IS your voice you're voicing.

 

[Abortion Doc]

Christ, POF, get the sand out of your vag.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

You're stupid.

Way to insult someone on the internet for obvious sarcasam.

 

[Brinzy]

This isn't proof of anything except that good Snake players can beat good MK players.

The proof (At least that I've been arguing on) is based on MK's matchups with the rest of the cast, as well as the matchups of the high tiers. Change the accepted matchups so MK doesn't match what I just described earlier in this post, and you'll have the proof you need to convince me he doesn't need banning.

I find it really ****ing funny and in fact, stupid how people are stating "Ally beat M2K" Wow, that is amazing. He beat him with the SECOND best character in the entire game and MK's TOUGHEST match up. Wow, that is truly something outstanding and remarkable. Because Snake does not have the second best ground game and the most broken disjointed hitboxes at all.

That's not the point.

The point is that MK is fairly beatable, and you don't have to be leagues better than your opponent to do it with a character that is not MK. "Oh no, he still might have an advantage." "Oh no, it's the second best character." The point is that you can beat MK with someone other than MK, which some of the pro-ban argued against but have been disproven time and time again, with APEX being the most up-to-date proof that NOT JUST MK can defeat MK (and a top MK at that).

The point is that MK is fairly beatable.

EDIT: Also, Snake's ftilt and utilt are not disjointed. They're just big, powerful hitboxes. You can clash with them.

 

[salaboB]

How can a republican be a republican, if he shares conservative views? He will still be labeled under the republicans' decisions for BEING a republican.

I'm officially declaring myself an Independent. My platform on the MK issue is one of banning for community health rather than banning simply for brokenness.

Vote salaboB in '09!

Spoiler

Seriously, how else can I support banning MK but not get tied to the "pro-ban community" in your head...

Edit:

My purpose was to refute what he was saying, AND refute anything else that he might want to say (or anyone else) by ALREADY inputting my arguments before the statements were made. I know he didn't say stuff that I argued about, I'm not dumb. I said it BEFORE anyone else would reply with one of those points in order to speed things up.

You missed the bit before the "AND". That's really the problem.

 

[SuSa]

I find it really ****ing funny and in fact, stupid how people are stating "Ally beat M2K" Wow, that is amazing. He beat him with the SECOND best character in the entire game and MK's TOUGHEST match up. Wow, that is truly something outstanding and remarkable. Because Snake does not have the second best ground game and the most broken disjointed hitboxes at all.

Meta Knight is not always winning. Look at (pulling a blank)'s thread you can see Snake is closing on Meta Knight - Ally vs M2K isn't their only example.

A good point. What makes Meta Knight stand out as being a broken character is the fact that EVERY CHARACTER IN THE GAME has to change their approach and play style when they play Meta Knight. Snake can't be aggressive, that's ****ing sad. The second best character in the game has to camp? That's stupid. Also, DDD is ARGUABLY one of the top five characters in the game. All Meta Knight has to do in that matchup is throw, tornado, and any form of kill move. A good 80% of the cast has nothing they can do against the tornado.

You need to look at the Anti-Tornado list. It's more like a good 5% of the cast has nothing they can do reliably against the tornado. So what if they have to change their playstyle? Most every character requires a different playstyle. The main part of camping against MK with Snake - is Snake does not have to approach, so why approach? Rather; you should be forcing MK's approach. MK has no projectile, and has a great defensive game. So why not camp?


I mean come the **** on, when you have a thread named "Things that stop the tornado" you know the character is stupid. LOL

Many boards have a "thing that stops x move" thread. Look at the Peach boards. "How to deal with annoying moves" or what-not. Does that make 80% of the cast "stupid"?


I could give a crap what the "Smash Back Room" thinks about anything personally, because half of them are Meta Knight mains and a main reason why he is not banned is because of them. It's all politics.

There are also those who do not main MK are also against the ban. (IIRC: Panda plays Snake. I do believe he is Anti-Ban)

We shouldn't have to wait for Genesis.

EVERYONE KNOWS HOW STUPID META KNIGHT IS. EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO MAIN HIM KNOW HOW RETARDEDLY GOOD HE IS.

That could explain the 48% to 40% vote - which is a really close vote. Seems the Pro-Ban group is full of a lot of people who don't know how to deal with MK (which I used to be in - extremely PRO BAN. He is stupidly good; although I believe not bannable good)

 

[gallax]

MK is beatable. hes should not be banned.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Well, in summary since you're asking so nicely: If someone wishes to not use MK, they're immediately at a disadvantage against anyone who does. Any other single character in the game you can get away without having as one you use, because you can make up for it by picking X or Y instead for a given situation. But there's only one character that gets the overall matchups and benefits MK does. So the unfairness of MK is that if you don't play him, no other character mastery will provide the advantage that simply having him in your selection of tournament viable characters provides, and you'll always be at that automatic disadvantage to someone that can pull him out during tournament play.

Is it a large disadvantage? No. But I think it's enough to justify removing that character and levelling the playing field. And yes, that's my opinion, this is simply a line in the sand.

Really, all bans or not are lines in the sand, even Akuma -- the line just got so close that everyone recognizes the character needed banning. MK's strengths are nowhere skewed enough for traditionalists to even consider banning him, and that's simply a fact I recognize.

This isn't proof of anything except that good Snake players can beat good MK players.

The proof (At least that I've been arguing on) is based on MK's matchups with the rest of the cast, as well as the matchups of the high tiers. Change the accepted matchups so MK doesn't match what I just described earlier in this post, and you'll have the proof you need to convince me he doesn't need banning.

I'm aware of most of that argument. I used it to form a pro-ban argument a while back. It does give Metaknight a tactical advantage on the rest of the cast, which is why he is considered the best in the game. I don't personally believe it to be grounds for a ban anymore, though. You are stating your opinion on whether or not this is grounds for a ban, and though I don't agree, I can't fault you for holding an opinion.

I did have another question, if you would allow. You said you needed proof that the MUs had changed or would change. What kinds of proof would you need?

Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it.

 

[Kewkky]

You missed the bit before the "AND". That's really the problem.

How can people refute what you say, if you refute what THEY say? "Snake beating MK" isn't just "Snake beating MK". It means someone else BESIDES MK can go toe-to-toe with MK, and Apex has proven it. That lowers the bar from "Choose MK to counter MK" to "Choose MK or Snake" to counter MK.

Diddy, Wario and whoever else aren't as close to the MK matchup as Snake is, so... yeah. That's two characters that are at the top of the metagame now, not just 1.

The fact that MK has good matchups across the boards just means he's the best character... But that's not a good enough reason to ban him. Top level players can get around most MKs with their characters, even when it's in their disadvantage, much like Snake vs DDD, DDD vs Falco, Falco vs Marth...

... And before people start saying "DDD vs Snake is closer to even!", that's not the point. The big numbers are still DDD's numbers... Unless you are also saying that MK's matchups against Diddy, Wario and Snake are on the same boat as "Snake vs DDD"... Matchups getting better until they're even.

In Melee, what can we say about Fox, Sheik and Marth, but that those overran tourneys in their own time (and still do)? If other characters go even with MK, the scene isn't that much different from Melee... MK being the "Melee Marth" of Brawl.

 

[salaboB]

That could explain the 48% to 40% vote - which is a really close vote. Seems the Anti-Ban group is full of a lot of people who don't know how to deal with MK (which I used to be in - extremely PRO BAN. He is stupidly good; although I believe not bannable good)

From what I've heard, while the tornado has many attacks that can deal with it a good MK can make sure to only use it when the opponent isn't in position to actually do so. So the anti-tornado list, while a good resource, is often impractical to take advantage of.

And now for the fine text:
I think you meant pro-ban.

Also, I'd like to point out that the tornado being "unbeatable" has no bearing in my argument (Before Kewkky comes and debunks it to prove my entire, unrelated point about banning MK wrong) as I'm basing it on the matchups themselves -- which should take into account the tornado being one of MK's moves, but should also take into account his opponent knowing how to fight it as best they can.

How can people refute what you say, if you refute what THEY say? "Snake beating MK" isn't just "Snake beating MK". It means someone else BESIDES MK can go toe-to-toe with MK, and Apex has proven it. That lowers the bar from "Choose MK to counter MK" to "Choose MK or Snake" to counter MK.

If I refute what they say and they can't refute what I say, I win. Welcome to Debate 101.

In any case, I never said Snake didn't have a good chance against MK, so again you've missed refuting my point.

 

[Master Raven]

Was gonna reply to POF's post but Susa already did.

I also just want to say that M2K losing to Ally isn't quite the same as M2K losing to NL at Esticle. M2K lost to NL from lack of Diddy experience. In the case of Ally, M2K has PLENTY of Snake experience, and still lost.

 

[SuSa]

From what I've heard, while the tornado has many attacks that can deal with it a good MK can make sure to only use it when the opponent isn't in position to actually do so. So the anti-tornado list, while a good resource, is often impractical to take advantage of.

And now for the fine text:
I think you meant pro-ban.

Also, I'd like to point out that the tornado being "unbeatable" has no bearing in my argument (Before Kewkky comes and debunks it to prove my entire, unrelated point about banning MK wrong) as I'm basing it on the matchups themselves -- which should take into account the tornado being one of MK's moves, but should also take into account his opponent knowing how to fight it as best they can.

Wow I fail. Meant Pro-Ban. thanks for the catch.. *goes to edit*


I take advantage of the list often, although I haven't really faced any MK who has memorized the list and knows not when to use tornado basing it off they're chances of being hit out of it.

Also his fairest matchup is not Snake - it's himself. (In my personal opinion)

 

[P. O. F.]

Ok, but we have seen numerous tournament results in the past where MK has been dominating tournaments steadily.

Oh yeah, and Meta Knight does not have a 50-50 match up.

Oh yeah, and hes good on EVERY STAGE. I forgot to add that too.

I used to be a Meta Knight main. (Ask anyone in CT) I haven't used him in tournament in roughly 5-6 months. Sorry, I wanted to stop being a bandwagoner.

I can say that if I had not used Meta Knight I probably would not have beaten half the people I played. I knew I was winning because of the insane priority, speed, and KO moves that I had. I knew Meta Knight was stupid even when I used him. If I got into any tough situation I knew I could just tornado my way out of it. A good Meta Knight will not give anyone any breathing room. That is why he's stupid...hes always in your face.

I mean lets just look at a couple other characters for a sec

Snake-struggles against DDD, (chain throws) Falco, (chain throw) Pikachu and Donkey Kong.

Marth-DDD, Meta Knight, Snake, ROB

GAW-Toon Link, Marth, Meta Knight

Despite how amazing all of these top characters are, they all have flaws just like Sheik, Marth, and Fox did in Melee or how

Mileena was stoppable in Mortal Kombat II
Jin had bad match ups in Tekken 4
Sagat is VERY BEATABLE in SF IV
Ivy is beatable in Soul Calibur II

Meta Knight has no bad match ups.

 

[Kewkky]

If I refute what they say and they can't refute what I say, I win. Welcome to Debate 101.

Guess I wasn't clear enough.

By "how can I refute what you say if you keep refuting what others say?", I meant that if your mind is set on finding the best way to prove to people that MK warrants a ban, you won't understand fully the point that other people are trying to make. And like I (apparently) keep failing to undertsand what you're saying and I keep saying I DO understand, you'll keep failing to understand what we're saying and you'll keep saying that you understand.

And yes, it's an assumption. I know the anagram. I still felt the need to say it.

PS: went to sleep. I got class at 7:30am, plus gotta get ready for finals. I can't keep staying up till 2:00am. ::leaves::

 

[salaboB]

Wow I fail. Meant Pro-Ban. thanks for the catch.. *goes to edit*


I take advantage of the list often, although I haven't really faced any MK who has memorized the list and knows not when to use tornado basing it off they're chances of being hit out of it.

Also his fairest matchup is not Snake - it's himself. (In my personal opinion)

Oh, I probably should have mentioned while I was replying before - I do agree that many on the pro-ban side are there because they just don't know how to handle MK and a couple of his moves. Part of the problem with MK as a character though is that even when you do "know" how to deal with him, you're pulling at best even (And only on certain stages)

Guess I wasn't clear enough.

By "how can I refute what you say if you keep refuting what others say?", I meant that if your mind is set on finding the best way to prove to people that MK warrants a ban, you won't understand fully the point that other people are trying to make. And like I (apparently) keep failing to undertsand what you're saying and I keep saying I DO understand, you'll keep failing to understand what we're saying and you'll keep saying that you understand.

I understand well enough, the problem is you're busily trying to disprove the entire pro-ban side while quoting me. If you want to convince me of things, argue specifically against what I say, not what I might say in the future. Here's a good quote, you can start with answering it if you have something:

If someone wishes to not use MK, they're immediately at a disadvantage against anyone who does. Any other single character in the game you can get away without having as one you use, because you can make up for it by picking X or Y instead for a given situation. But there's only one character that gets the overall matchups and benefits MK does. So the unfairness of MK is that if you don't play him, no other character mastery will provide the advantage that simply having him in your selection of tournament viable characters provides, and you'll always be at that automatic disadvantage to someone that can pull him out during tournament play.

Is it a large disadvantage? No. But I think it's enough to justify removing that character and levelling the playing field. And yes, that's my opinion, this is simply a line in the sand.

Oh, and I just noticed this earlier post:

The point is that MK is fairly beatable, and you don't have to be leagues better than your opponent to do it with a character that is not MK. "Oh no, he still might have an advantage." "Oh no, it's the second best character." The point is that you can beat MK with someone other than MK, which some of the pro-ban argued against but have been disproven time and time again, with APEX being the most up-to-date proof that NOT JUST MK can defeat MK (and a top MK at that).

Accepted as a given. Does that make you feel better?

 

[Brinzy]

For the umpteenth time, having no "bad" match-ups, alone, is not a good enough reason to ban a character. It just means that you're dealing with a very good character.

MK's number 1 in tournament records, but he's not, by any means, overwhelming the top 8 in most tournaments. Yes, there are some tournaments where he dominates at, but you're also dealing with the best character in the game, and a lot of players winning these tournaments just happen to be excellent players as well.

Oh, and I just noticed this earlier post:

Accepted as a given. Does that make you feel better?

If it is a given, then why are people (maybe or maybe not you, I don't know) trying to say, "Oh, but that was Snake, so it doesn't mean as much"? People wanted non-MKs to take on the best MKs. They did just that. Why is the pro-ban side trying to marginalize that by repeatedly going "SNAKE! SNAKE! SNAAAAAKE!"?

 

[salaboB]

For the umpteenth time, having no "bad" match-ups, alone, is not a good enough reason to ban a character. It just means that you're dealing with a very good character.

MK's number 1 in tournament records, but he's not, by any means, overwhelming the top 8 in most tournaments. Yes, there are some tournaments where he dominates at, but you're also dealing with the best character in the game, and a lot of players winning these tournaments just happen to be excellent players as well.

For the umpteenth time...

This is all fact except for the ban criteria (That's opinion). Good job, I accept everything else entirely.

I still believe MK should be banned, see the self quote in my previous post if you haven't figured out my justification for why yet.

 

[SuSa]

Ok, but we have seen numerous tournament results in the past where MK has been dominating tournaments steadily.

Oh yeah, and Meta Knight does not have a 50-50 match up.

Oh yeah, and hes good on EVERY STAGE. I forgot to add that too.

Oh and just for everyones information, I used to be a Meta Knight main. (Ask anyone in CT) I haven't used him in tournament in roughly 5-6 months. Sorry, I wanted to stop being a bandwagoner.

The metagame has changed since the past, and is still developing (at a pretty good rate too, seeing lots of "new" things in my what.. 2 week break?) (Birthday week + Mothers Day weekend)

So Meta Knight vs Meta Knight must be like 80:20 in favor of Meta Knight?

I actually here there is a stage he does poorer on. Which depending on your definition of "good" can make him "average" on the stage.

5-6 months can be a huge metagame change. If you haven't played him in that long - you may not know how closer matchups like Wario, Snake, and Marth have become as we have found better ways of handling the matchup. (See: Fiction vs MK's and Ally/Razer vs MK's)

Oh, I probably should have mentioned while I was replying before - I do agree that many on the pro-ban side are there because they just don't know how to handle MK and a couple of his moves. Part of the problem with MK as a character though is that even when you do "know" how to deal with him, you're pulling at best even (And only on certain stages)

So he requires a bit more work to beat? I don't feel thats a bannable offence.

 

[salaboB]

So he requires a bit more work to beat? I don't feel thats a bannable offence.

Yes, but it's actual playing work -- you're always going to end up at a disadvantage when fighting him unless you have an alt that you can counter his CP stage with that also gets a 50:50 (Assuming you have someone that goes 50:50 against him on the neutral stage as well). That's basic logic.

So it's not just more work learning the matchup, but if someone not using MK fights an MK they will have to simply put more effort into it to win than the MK player. This is no matter what they do, or which character they use. The only time this isn't true is if they've mastered at least 2 characters, one of whom goes 50:50 against MK on the MK player's chosen counterpick stage. That's what, double the effort of the MK user just to get an even match and let it be skill vs skill? And you feel that's reasonable?

 

[SuSa]

If you're tired of it - switch to MK.

If enough people do that I'm sure the Pro-Ban group would have a stronger argument if 99% of all MK matches turned into MK vs MK.

However, I fail to see many people doing this at all. Rather - they learn the matchup with their character; well enough to win (unless they get 'stage-gayed' where their character does absolutely horrible) then they lose a match, then still have a chance in the third game with their counterpick (one of which they would choose a stage they have an advantage in I'd hope - or their character does good on)

So no, you don't need to have mastered 2 characters. Just 1, and put up a good fight.

 

[P. O. F.]

The metagame has changed since the past, and is still developing (at a pretty good rate too, seeing lots of "new" things in my what.. 2 week break?) (Birthday week + Mothers Day weekend)

So Meta Knight vs Meta Knight must be like 80:20 in favor of Meta Knight?

I actually here there is a stage he does poorer on. Which depending on your definition of "good" can make him "average" on the stage.

5-6 months can be a huge metagame change. If you haven't played him in that long - you may not know how closer matchups like Wario, Snake, and Marth have become as we have found better ways of handling the matchup. (See: Fiction vs MK's and Ally/Razer vs MK's)




So he requires a bit more work to beat? I don't feel thats a bannable offence.

My friend plays Meta Knight. We now have figured out that dair > fair because it makes people trip and that can be followed up with dash attacks, tilts, or a re grab. Now, people also do not SPAM d smash but they save it for a quick kill move.

I found the part where you said "Well, I hear Meta Knight may not be amazing on this stage..." to be pretty funny. Thanks for supporting my point further sir. You might as well have said, "I know, meta knight is amazing on every stage man."

Also, last I checked every single mirror match in the history of fighting games is 50-50. I meant 50-50 against other characters in the cast.

Susa-It really boils down to this:

If you make a mistake against a good MK, you lose a stock.

You also cannot attack meta knight while he is recovering half the time. Most moves cannot stop the neu a from shuttle loop, side b, or tornado.