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

[RDK]

Man people are trying really really hard to defend MK and they're providing less and less justification.

See what I did there?

You still have yet to provide me with an example of your ban criteria. Until you do, stop harping on the anti-ban side about how bad their arguments are. They're still miles above any points made by pro-ban.

This is another form of slippery slope argument, and it's entirely unjustified.

You have no evidence whatsoever that people would just "forget" how to fight him - heck, part of at least one anti-ban argument is "People don't know how to fight MK so that's why they want him banned." If they already don't know, how will they know even less so that they'll want the ban put in place permanently?

Now, more reasonable might be if you said it this way:

Then Meta Knight comes back, everyone has forgotten how annoying it was to play against him, and the ban is sealed completely because they had more fun when he wasn't allowed.

Is that true? Well, all the banned MK tournaments have had reports of how much people enjoyed not having to face MK. To see if it holds true would require actually banning him temporarily and seeing what the longer term (ie, more than one tournament in a row) results are.

Which is also stupid. We don't ban characters because "It would be more fun without them". We ban characters because they negatively effect the metagame and overcentralize to the point of ridiculousness.

Less fun is not a warrant for banning.

 

[Mortimer]

He said "whenever possible" in that post. He said he "played as well as he could" in several of his other postings regarding his games against Lain and Ally.

He didn't sandbag. He didn't play at any less rate than his peak.

I'm confused. You say this as though it's fact. Did you watch his matches? You know what it looks like when he's "playing gay?"

If so, cool, I accept that. If not, then you're basing it entirely on what you think he's saying, and he or somebody else who knows needs to chime in and clarify.

 

[salaboB]

You still have yet to provide me with an example of your ban criteria. Until you do, stop harping on the anti-ban side about how bad their arguments are. They're still miles above any points made by pro-ban.

I've given my criteria half a dozen times within the last few days, if you haven't been reading that's not my fault. I may have even given it in response to you once and you simply missed it, I don't recall - I've been answering a lot of people about it.

Which is also stupid. We don't ban characters because "It would be more fun without them". We ban characters because they negatively effect the metagame and overcentralize to the point of ridiculousness.

Less fun is not a warrant for banning.

I never said it was more or less acceptable for a ban, I said it was a more realistic statement.

Please quit trying to argue things I didn't say.

 

[RDK]

I've given my criteria half a dozen times within the last few days, if you haven't been reading that's not my fault. I may have even given it in response to you once and you simply missed it, I don't recall - I've been answering a lot of people about it.

Well would you mind actually posting it in response to my question? Because literally every time I've asked you for it you've responded the same exact way you responded above.

 

[Red Arremer]

I'm confused. You say this as though it's fact. Did you watch his matches? You know what it looks like when he's "playing gay?"

If so, cool, I accept that. If not, then you're basing it entirely on what you think he's saying, and he or somebody else who knows needs to chime in and clarify.

Yes, I watched the videos. And for further clarification, please read these posts:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7371407&postcount=5879
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7371500&postcount=5881
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7372452&postcount=5911

Mew2King has stated at least 3 times in this thread, yet alone other threads on the board, that he was playing on his peak.

There's no need for him or anyone else to "chime in", because THEY ALREADY DID.

 

[Master Raven]

I would think that if M2K had really sandbagged then he should've done so to other characters in the other past national tournies when the MK debate was still heated.

And... Melee1's presence wouldn't matter because he's not a top MK. >_>

 

[RDK]

Mew2King has stated at least 3 times in this thread, yet alone other threads on the board, that he was playing on his peak.

There's no need for him or anyone else to "chime in", because THEY ALREADY DID.

He also stated several times that he explicitly tried not to "play gay". If "playing gay" furthers your chances of winning the match, and you're not doing it, then you're not playing at your peak. You're scrubbing yourself.

 

[Red Arremer]

He also stated several times that he explicitly tried not to "play gay". If "playing gay" furthers your chances of winning the match, and you're not doing it, then you're not playing at your peak. You're scrubbing yourself.

Please link me to the posts in which he states that he didn't play gay against Ally or Lain.
I quote:

you guys are so ****ing stupid. You really believe I would lie to all of you and give up my chance to win a huge tourney in my favorite matchup in the grand finals. I wanted to **** him, but the opposite happened. Oh well maybe next time but I was definitely trying my hardest regardless. Sorry for not being good enough when Ally goes Super Saiyan mode.

 

[salaboB]

Well would you mind actually posting it in response to my question? Because literally every time I've asked you for it you've responded the same exact way you responded above.

If a character being unbanned is destructive to the competitive scene by being clearly the best choice -- you disadvantage yourself if you don't have that specific character as one you can play competitively -- then that character should be banned.

I have argued and never had it successfully rebutted that MK is a pure advantage to have available as one of your competitive options, and thus that if you don't have MK you are inherently disadvantaged against someone who does. If you don't main Snake though, you can main a couple others who cover each other's weaknesses and still be fine. If you don't main <insert character> the same happens. If you don't have MK, you risk getting counterpicked to a disadvantaged matchup that someone who does use MK doesn't face simply by choosing to play him for the needed rounds.

Does this mean MK is unbeatable? No. But it means that in a game where every other character has at least a couple other characters you could play instead for similar strengths MK restricts you to one option if you want what he provides. And that, imo, is enough to warrant banning.

And yes, before you go ranting about it, I already know it doesn't follow the "overcentralization" or "MK is too broken" ban criteria and nobody will care. It follows what I'll call the "level playing field" criteria.

 

[Prawn]

If a character being unbanned is destructive to the competitive scene by being clearly the best choice -- you disadvantage yourself if you don't have that specific character as one you can play competitively -- then that character should be banned.

I have argued and never had it successfully rebutted that MK is a pure advantage to have available as one of your competitive options, and thus that if you don't have MK you are inherently disadvantaged against someone who does. If you don't main Snake though, you can main a couple others who cover each other's weaknesses and still be fine. If you don't main <insert character> the same happens. If you don't have MK, you risk getting counterpicked to a disadvantaged matchup that someone who does use MK doesn't face simply by choosing to play him for the needed rounds.

Does this mean MK is unbeatable? No. But it means that in a game where every other character has at least a couple other characters you could play instead for similar strengths MK restricts you to one option if you want what he provides. And that, imo, is enough to warrant banning.

And yes, before you go ranting about it, I already know it doesn't follow the "overcentralization" or "MK is too broken" ban criteria and nobody will care. It follows what I'll call the "level playing field" criteria.

Advancement of the metagame(ex. The bowser infinite) is going to start to poke holes in the giant advantages metaknight has. Sure, he'll always be top tier(and probably top 1), but there are ways to beat him as we're shown time and time again. A truly "uneven" playing field(worthy of a ban) would mean MKs would have at least 6 or 7 out of every top nine in every national tournament. We are now starting to see trends where a handful of top tiers get top 9, which is the same thing as melee tournaments, where no one *****es about a character.

 

[RDK]

Please link me to the posts in which he states that he didn't play gay against Ally or Lain.
I quote:

Okay, here it is:

I used to only play Brawl for money, for a little while, but I enjoy the game as long as I'm allowed to play MK, and it's not cuz he's the best character cuz I mained him back when everyone said Snake was the best. The other characters are not fun to me. I actually enjoy using MK and ****** people with him, I just had more fun death comboing people in Melee by comparison. I also try not to play gay whenever possible to encourage others to play like that as well. This game can be fun and skill based if you play it properly, which is what I want to encourage others to do too. Win with skill.

And oddly enough he just posted it this morning.

If a character being unbanned is destructive to the competitive scene by being clearly the best choice -- you disadvantage yourself if you don't have that specific character as one you can play competitively -- then that character should be banned.

I have argued and never had it successfully rebutted that MK is a pure advantage to have available as one of your competitive options, and thus that if you don't have MK you are inherently disadvantaged against someone who does. If you don't main Snake though, you can main a couple others who cover each other's weaknesses and still be fine. If you don't main <insert character> the same happens. If you don't have MK, you risk getting counterpicked to a disadvantaged matchup that someone who does use MK doesn't face simply by choosing to play him for the needed rounds.

Does this mean MK is unbeatable? No. But it means that in a game where every other character has at least a couple other characters you could play instead for similar strengths MK restricts you to one option if you want what he provides. And that, imo, is enough to warrant banning.

And yes, before you go ranting about it, I already know it doesn't follow the "overcentralization" or "MK is too broken" ban criteria and nobody will care. It follows what I'll call the "level playing field" criteria.

I see. You're right in saying that I would respond with the broken / overcentralization criteria, because in reality, that is what we use to determine whether or not a character warrants banning.

The SF, SC, GG, Melty Blood, [insert any fighting game community] communities all use this same criteria. There's no reason the Smash community should add criteria that "levels the playing field" just for the sake of variety.

Also, it's relevant to note that without MK, Brawl would have a very different metagame.

 

[swordgard]

Okay, so, what other argument does the proban side have?

"Meta Knight dominates tournaments" <- He didn't dominate at a major tournament where the attendance both of top Meta Knights and non-Meta Knights were high (unlike at WHOBO, where the attendance of top Meta Knights was high, but there were almost no non-Meta Knights). There were 4 people using Meta Knight in the Top 10, out of which only one purely went Meta Knight. Genesis won't look different that much.

"Meta Knight has no disadvantageous matchups" <- Wrong. There's Bowser's Infinite now. And he has several even matchups, as well.

"Meta Knight has no hard counters" <- So do 3 other characters besides Meta Knight (Snake, Kirby and Wario). We'd have to ban all 4 by this criteria, resulting in at least 6 other characters in the need of banning due to their hard counters being banned.

"Meta Knight's moves are broken" <- So are many moves of other characters (Snake's tilts, Dedede's Chaingrabs, etc.).

"Meta Knight is dominating in general" <- 30-40% are dominant, but not to the point where everyone plays him. 70-60% of the tournament placings are still going to other characters but Meta Knight.

"Meta Knight makes [insert amount of characters] unviable" <- Wrong. From Top to Mid Tier, there's three characters that have Meta Knight as hard counter: R.O.B., Peach and Marth. Removing Meta Knight would not make R.O.B. or Peach anymore viable, since they both still have hard counters, which results in only Marth being completely viable then. So we exchange one character with another one?

"Meta Knight breaks the counterpick-system" <- Rather subjective, but eh. He's a safe choice but never the best. He has a disadvantageous matchup, thus you can counterpick him, too. So... No, he doesn't.

What else?

Lets make this clear, bowser has in no way a garanteed infinite on MK. As stated before, for it to be infinite, it needs ground release. WHich means that you need 2 things: Epic math skills to know exactly when to mash, and knowledge that you do not have(how many inputs the opponent has done).


Please answer this asap, i have yet to see anyone refute this.

 

[salaboB]

Advancement of the metagame(ex. The bowser infinite) is going to start to poke holes in the giant advantages metaknight has. Sure, he'll always be top tier(and probably top 1), but there are ways to beat him as we're shown time and time again. A truly "uneven" playing field(worthy of a ban) would mean MKs would have at least 6 or 7 out of every top nine in every national tournament. We are now starting to see trends where a handful of top tiers get top 9, which is the same thing as melee tournaments, where no one *****es about a character.

My stance does not require that MK have a "giant advantage", simply that he provides a better chance to win -- and you can't be counterpicked for it, unlike every other character in the game.

Until he gets at least two disadvantaged matchups (At least one of which from a high tier), his advantage is going to hold.

The SF, SC, GG, Melty Blood, [insert any fighting game community] communities all use this same criteria. There's no reason the Smash community should add criteria that "levels the playing field" just for the sake of variety.

Just because masochists like to hurt themselves doesn't mean we should do the same.

That's not to call the other fighting game communities masochistic - they have what works for them. But if we decide this would be best for us, why should what "everyone else does" make us decide against it?

 

[Red Arremer]

Okay, here it is:

[Overly sized quote of Mew2King]

And oddly enough he just posted it this morning.

AND YET HE DIDN'T SAY EXPLICITELY THAT HE DIDN'T PLAY GAY AGAINST ALLY OR LAIN!!!!!!!

Which is EXACTLY what I am wanting from you. A quote where he says "I didn't play gay against Ally/Lain", or similar.

 

[RDK]

My stance does not require that MK have a "giant advantage", simply that he provides a better chance to win -- and you can't be counterpicked for it, unlike every other character in the game.

Until he gets at least two disadvantaged matchups (At least one of which from a high tier), his advantage is going to hold.

Just because masochists like to hurt themselves doesn't mean we should do the same.

That's not to call the other fighting game communities masochistic - they have what works for them. But if we decide this would be best for us, why should what "everyone else does" make us decide against it?

My question is why are we deciding that what works for SF or GG suddenly doesn't work for us? Every rule we make is in some way, shape, or form modeled after existing competitive fighter rules.

The point is that we have to be practical and consistent about the way we make ban criteria. If we ban a character on the grounds of "leveling the playing field", and somewhere down the line the playing field becomes less level again, we've then made an arbitrary decision based on a subjective criteria.

AND YET HE DIDN'T SAY EXPLICITELY THAT HE DIDN'T PLAY GAY AGAINST ALLY OR LAIN!!!!!!!

Which is EXACTLY what I am wanting from you. A quote where he says "I didn't play gay against Ally/Lain", or similar.

Um, his whole post was in response to people questioning whether or not he was playing gay at Apex. So duh, there's your quote.

 

[NeoCrono]

He played gay against lain the second time they played
Dair camping is gay but it worked.

 

[Darxmarth23]

Well, I think the point is that you're not convincing anyone. I've convinced a couple of people to take up my standard of required evidence to be pro-ban and I'm trying to get more.

No, not at all.

I just didn't like how they were trashing the debate hall and you. That's why I went into that rant and also noted that, "just because debators are good at debate doesn't mean they always use it" and then noted that you're actually a pretty good debator, which is true.

It is my personal opinion from what I know of your posts from the debate hall and related groups that you are a good debator, and I said so. I just realized it got lost in the wall of text.


So yeah, I was defending you, I obviously have no problem with you.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. And thank you for the compliment. And you are one of the best of all of the debaters I've seen so far.

Darxmarth, I apologize. I simply fail to notice how decreasing your usage of debate abilities can help to sway the debate in your favor.

I debate like a debater in the debate hall. Out here I am simply posting, because of the freedom to do so that is permitted to me. You can ignore my posts if they really bug you. But just know that there are different methods to convince someone to a side than posting in this thread. And I am behind the scenes of this method I have come up with, getting the necessary people and information to help me out.

Sir.

 

[swordgard]

I guess I've overread it. This thread moves faster than The Flash, sorry. I can't keep up with all posts (especially if I read them before they get editted). I wonder how many times I have to post that link during this thread. Infinite on Meta Knight:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=233550



What generalizations? I have pointed out the arguments the Pro-Ban side has brought up, and refuted them correctly. I see no generalization. All I say coming from the Pro-Ban side has been said at one point, even if not by the whole side, but by at least a few - I ususally don't bother to respond to scrubs.



Yes.
Yes.
He has a 90-10 on Ganondorf, I believe.
No, they aren't.



They also put Meta Knight next to Lee Martin's name although he only used him in one set.

Its not infinite.

I air break, your ****ed on 3 of the 5 neutrals cause of platforms. There, i stopped your infinite. You cant know how many inputs i did therefore you have to predict for it to be anywhere near infinite. If i ban FD, you have nowhere where its a true infinite. On MKs CP, lol, your doomed, he can go d3 or go RC/any stage which changes. On your pick, with FD banned, your only decent choice is SV so that theres a possibility he wont be on the platform when he air breaks.

Remember that by default MK air break, you need to hit with the mash when he breaks for him to ground release. Learn your stuff.

As said before, for it to be infinite you would require either insane prediction skills, or knowledge you do not possess+very good math calculations+application(in a frame context where each input is -8 frames on the grab time or so if i remember corretly, you need good math to be able to know when hes gonna grab break). Did i mention how your infinite goes slower and slower until it reaches a very slow attack rate? Leaving us thus more chances to escape?

 

[MorphedChaos]

I'd just like for MK not to break the stage CP system, if he had a bad stage, then I wouldn't be pro ban, but since he doesn't have a bad stage...

 

[rehab]

He has enough stages that situationally do more for the other character. Being good enough to not auto-lose when somebody around your level moves their cursor to whatever stage doesn't make a ban.

 

[deepseadiva]

I'd just like for MK not to break the stage CP system, if he had a bad stage, then I wouldn't be pro ban, but since he doesn't have a bad stage...

Green Greens.

 

[Tyr_03]

Swordgard: Once you learn the proper rhythm for pummeling, you can make it so that the opponent always ground releases. It does not matter what the opponent inputs as long as you have this rhythm correct. This is how Marth's grab release CG Lucas and Ness even though we also can air release. You can trust me on this one. The only difficult thing about Bowsers' CG's are that he has to buffer correctly after the opponent ground releases.

 

[betterthanbonds9]

Spadefox's analysis of the major arguments for pro-ban reminds me of my friend who is VERY good at getting A-s and I dont think got a single B, but every grade through high school was A- or B+ besides health and gym where he got As.

How many criteria does he need to be like right on the line for him to be labelled a good student and get banned? And Spade, you bring up the issue of "no hard counters" but what about soft counters? You only mention that MK has even matchups.

And while the DDD chaingrabs are allowed in tournaments there's no chance in Bowser being the perfect counter because lets face it, Bowser needs to beat falco and DDD and quite a few other characters.
--not to mention the infinite is near impossible to do until the infinite rule comes into play (300%)....

 

[Kinzer]

Soft counters are MUs where the opponent has a 55:45-6:4 advantage. I'm not sure if 65:35 is considered a soft counter but it's like at the borderline and so is 55:45 so I can't tell.

Also don't forget IC's for one of Bowser's "*****" MU.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

Is the page counter on this thread broken or something?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Is the page counter on this thread broken or something?

Yes, badly.


Delete enough posts and it happens because technically, the posts still exist in the order that they're given, it's just that they're hidden from normal users (and possibly mods, dunno how smashboards has it set up), that how vbulleton's system works.

The pages are calculated based on total posts, but they're order on the pages based on visable posts, thus the disconnect. It could be fixed by making them visable as "deleted posts".


Also, the reference for the quotes is to total posts, not visable posts, hence none of them work either.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Soft counters are MUs where the opponent has a 55:45-6:4 advantage. I'm not sure if 65:35 is considered a soft counter but it's like at the borderline and so is 55:45 so I can't tell.

Also don't forget IC's for one of Bowser's "*****" MU.

55:45, 50:50 is pretty neutral

65:35 or 60-40 is a soft counter

70;30 and worse is a hard counter.

 

[Yuna]

Why are we even replying to that Sallad Guy anymore? I've replied to his ridiculous "No disadvantageous match-ups and easiest path to victory = must ban!!!111"-argument several times in the past few weeks without him even acknowledging my replies and he keeps grinding on with it, claiming it needs a refutation.

No, it doesn't. It's just your opinion. Why would we have to refute your opinion when history shows us that the doomsday scenario you're trying to paint will not come to pass?

 

[chillindude829]

Years later, and Yuna still bolds random words for seemingly no reason at all.

 

[Pez55]

I sense another argument starting

 

[Yuna]

Years later, and Yuna still bolds random words for seemingly no reason at all.

Obivously, you have bad reading comprehension/memory since I've clearly stated why I bold words, most notably, whenever people ask me why I do it or accuse me of doing it for no reason:
If I bold something, it is either to:
* Emphasize (since emphasis cannot be made clear through writing otherwise, you know, how when you're speaking, you can sometimes emphasize certain works and use intonation to make words sound more/less important?)
* To mark important passages/sentences/words

I bold mostly for emphasis, usually only bolding for importance when someone has failed to get something the first two, three times I tried to explain it to them.

 

[Brinzy]

I don't know why the bolding needs to be explained. That should be common sense, but then again, maybe I just found the reason.

 

[Pez55]

I don't know why the bolding needs to be explained. That should be common sense, but then again, maybe I just found the reason.

It is common sense, some people just don't have that so bolding needs explaining.

 

[Popertop]

WHy does Yuna care how the internet views him?

He is, in fact, a woman.

 

[aeghrur]

chillin just proved you all have no humor.
WAIT, WAIT! Before Yuna tries to logically refute my opinion on the matter, let me tell you that it's my opinion and i could be wrong.

 

[Vorguen]

AND YET HE DIDN'T SAY EXPLICITELY THAT HE DIDN'T PLAY GAY AGAINST ALLY OR LAIN!!!!!!!

Which is EXACTLY what I am wanting from you. A quote where he says "I didn't play gay against Ally/Lain", or similar.

Just to jump in on you guys argument M2K said that he camped as hard as he could against Lain.

Secondly, I think he refers to planking by "gay", because I know him and Dojo made an agreement not to plank each other during WHOBO.

This implies he means not to play gay against people who would not play gay back.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Hey guys.

Stop being ****ing *******es about M2K's matches, right ****ing now plz.

 

[Brinzy]

lol, wrong opinions.

 

[Nic64]

hahha, wow, this thread got even more ******** and I didn't think that was possible.

 

[Prawn]

Hey guys.

Stop being ****ing *******es about M2K's matches, right ****ing now plz.

The smartest thing anyone has said in the last few pages had 3 swears in it.