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

[Inui]

Japan's best player uses Pit, IIRC, so that's why he's so overrated over there...

 

[adumbrodeus]

Japan's best player uses Pit, IIRC, so that's why he's so overrated over there...

Rain secondaries Pit?

I thought Rain was their best player and was a Falco player.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Japan's best player uses Pit, IIRC, so that's why he's so overrated over there...

I know, that kinda clouds everything over there, but just because of that it doesn't mean Pit is the best. M2K being the best and playing MK is not the reason MK is the best.


(Not directed at you Inui, I agree with you).

 

[Pez55]

. If choosing MK as soon as your main gets beaten so that you can win the rest of the match isn't overcentalization around one character, I don't know what is.

It's not overcentralizing, it's having faith that Meta Knight can beat another character over your main.

 

[Master Raven]

MK's disjointed attacks have a weird transcendent property except for his glide attack so he can't actually cancel Pit's arrows, but he can go through them with the tornado.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

MK's disjointed attacks have a weird transcendent property except for his glide attack so he can't actually cancel Pit's arrows, but he can go through them with the tornado.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Well, using Nado ***** them, so that works.

 

[Botnik]

It's not overcentralizing, it's having faith that Meta Knight can beat another character over your main.

If this becomes the sole aim and focus of players' decisions in choosing their character then yes, it constitutes overcentralizing. It's putting a detrimental emphasis on one character over all others.

Oddly enough the anti-ban people have been saying the right thing all along, but they don't realize that it actually hurts their argument. Why play anyone else if you get an all-around advantage with Meta Knight? The risk of being soft or hard countered is too great, so if you're playing to win the logical choice is Meta Knight.

 

[.AC.]

Odd how some people here think that MK doesn't fit the overcentralization criteria. If choosing MK as soon as your main gets beaten so that you can win the rest of the match isn't overcentalization around one character, I don't know what is.

Think about it. Items are banned because they overcentralize. The emphasis becomes placed on getting to the items before your opponent does. It's a completely different game than no-item Smash. The same logic applies to Meta Knight. Take him out of the equation and you have a completely different game with very different pick mechanics. Taking him out basically frees up all of the other characters that aren't played due to people just picking him instead of risking getting soft or hard countered.

And if tournament results don't already reflect that, they probably will in the future as Brawl's metagame becomes more advanced.

mk does not fit the overcentralization criteria as he is not completely overcentralizing the game to the point where he is the only viable option.If people decide to switch to him after their main character loses its probably because they belive it will give them a better opportunity to win.As for tournament results go he wins about ~25% of tourneys,which is obviously not overcentralization to the point where he needs to be banned.

 

[Pez55]

If this becomes the sole aim and focus of players' decisions in choosing their character then yes, it constitutes overcentralizing. It's putting a detrimental emphasis on one character over all others.

Oddly enough the anti-ban people have been saying the right thing all along, but they don't realize that it actually hurts their argument. Why play anyone else if you get an all-around advantage with Meta Knight? The risk of being soft or hard countered is too great, so if you're playing to win the logical choice is Meta Knight.

Yeah, I'm just gonna drop it now.

 

[Master Raven]

The only thing that matters is whether MK has at least one even matchup (on multiple stages).

If Ally can at least continue to go close to M2K consistently in tourney + other top Snakes going back and forth with top MKs, then that's fine enough for me to not ban him. ADHD's doing a good job keeping the Diddy/MK matchup close too.

It doesn't matter if some random guy is gonna pick MK in the middle of a set as a crutch because if you're good and know how to fight MK, he's going to get beaten anyway.

 

[.AC.]

The fact that people choose mk to prevent being CP´d does not make them automatically win. Besides people not realizing that mk does not have advantages on all stages depending on character,such as ICs and diddy on FD etc.

 

[Botnik]

mk does not fit the overcentralization criteria as he is not completely overcentralizing the game to the point where he is the only viable option.If people decide to switch to him after their main character loses its probably because they belive it will give them a better opportunity to win. As for tournament results go he wins about ~25% of tourneys,which is obviously not overcentralization to the point where he needs to be banned.

Tournament results are not a good standard for obvious reasons. Player bias and situational considerations have many effects. I could hold 20 tournaments where Captain Falcon won every single one of them. Would you take that as objective evidence of Captain Falcon being a good character?

We should be instead looking at the theoretical side of it, since overcentralization hasn't happened in an actual tournament setting yet (which is my point). Meta Knight has characteristics that should obviously categorize him as valid for a ban.

The only thing that matters is whether MK has at least one even matchup (on multiple stages).

If Ally can at least continue to go close to M2K consistently in tourney + other top Snakes going back and forth with top MKs, then that's fine enough for me to not ban him. ADHD's doing a good job keeping the Diddy/MK matchup close too.

It doesn't matter if some random guy is gonna pick MK in the middle of a set as a crutch because if you're good and know how to fight MK, he's going to get beaten anyway.

Once again, nobody gives a hoot about random guys. What you should be concerned with is two players playing at the top of the metagame. And the reality is that Meta Knight has (arguably) virtually no disadvantageous matchups.

So the question remains: if you're playing to win, why are you not playing Meta Knight?

 

[Steel]

Botnik joined like today and is already amazing.

 

[PikaPika!]

That was because I was adressing the roster size being brought up. I didn't read the whole posting history because it's late here and I'm still a bit pissed off by PikaPika.

Hahahahaha

 

[Tony_]

Tournament results are not a good standard for obvious reasons. Player bias and situational considerations have many effects. I could hold 20 tournaments where Captain Falcon won every single one of them. Would you take that as objective evidence of Captain Falcon being a good character?

We should be instead looking at the theoretical side of it, since overcentralization hasn't happened in an actual tournament setting yet (which is my point). Meta Knight has characteristics that should obviously categorize him as valid for a ban.

Such as? I don't see a **** thing wrong with him. MK is fine where he is.

Once again, nobody gives a hoot about random guys. What you should be concerned with is two players playing at the top of the metagame. And the reality is that Meta Knight has (arguably) virtually no disadvantageous matchups.

So the question remains: if you're playing to win, why are you not playing Meta Knight?

Not EVERYBODY plays to win mind you.

Also, Sagat in SFIV has no match-ups and dominates the top spots in Japan. He is just like MK, very powerful, but not powerful enough to the extent that the metagame will be damaged.

 

[Sosuke]

Tony, we're talking about the competitive side of a game.

Just keep that in mind.

 

[Master Raven]

Once again, nobody gives a hoot about random guys. What you should be concerned with is two players playing at the top of the metagame. And the reality is that Meta Knight has (arguably) virtually no disadvantageous matchups.

Ally beat M2K 3-1 at Apex. Both players are at the top of the current game with their respective characters. It's possible that Ally is adapting to M2K's style (since they've only played about what, 2-3 times in tourney prior?). Since the best Snake beat the best MK, it's evidence (not proof yet) that Snake may go even with MK, and even if MK technically doesn't have disadvantageous matchups, going even is good enough because it's a matchup that can truly go to the better player, not the one playing MK.

So the question remains: if you're playing to win, why are you not playing Meta Knight?

It's not like MK is the first character in a fighting game to not have disadvantageous matchups. You might as well say **** you to the character roster in a game like Guilty Gear and go Eddie. >_>

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Not EVERYBODY plays to win mind you.

Also, Sagat in SFIV has no match-ups and dominates the top spots in Japan. He is just like MK, very powerful, but not powerful enough to the extent that the metagame will be damaged.

Like Sasuke said, we're discussing the competitive aspects of Brawl, and I don't see the point of anyone entering a tourney without playing to win, that doesn't make sense.

Meta does damage the metagame, because he makes some characters COMPLETELY inviable.

 

[Botnik]

Such as? I don't see a **** thing wrong with him. MK is fine where he is.

Hmm, you must have forgot the whole spiel about having no disadvantageous matchups. Let me remind you.

He has no disadvantageous matchups. At least not in any quantifiable way that matters.

Not EVERYBODY plays to win mind you.

If you're a competitive player, then you most certainly should be. If not, what are you doing discussing competitive Smash?

Also, Sagat in SFIV has no match-ups and dominates the top spots in Japan. He is just like MK, very powerful, but not powerful enough to the extent that the metagame will be damaged.

I assume you mean no bad matchups in that first sentence. And even then your argument still doesn't make sense. You're not taking an important aspect of matchups into consideration: space.

It all depends on the space between characters and their respective tiers. If Sagat were as far away from the next character in the SFIV tier list (which happens to be Ryu) as Meta Knight is to the rest of the cast in Brawl, you might have a point. But he's not. Sagat is only about 1 point ahead of Ryu in some of his matchups; 2 at the most, and only for a few. The rest of the matchups are like that, only in a descending order.

http://www.eventhubs.com/guides/2008/oct/17/street-fighter-4-tiers-character-rankings/

Brawl has a very different counterpick system, which needs to be taken into consideration when discussing things like overcentralization. Which Meta Knight clearly does. On top of that, you ban him and that frees up character variety by a surprising amount. None of the other characters have the same level of advantage in all matchups that Meta Knight has.

 

[Deathcarter]

I went back and compiled the more detailed statistics for the major tournaments. I should point out that claims that his level of dominance were at any point unknown are silly since the data is publicly available. Predicably, he didn't do so well if you define "well" as demonstrating himself to be broken in any way whatsoever.

To be clear, I considered major tournaments only which I defined as tournaments with at least 90 entrees that occurred in 2009. Here are the results...

Of the 11 major tournaments that were won by someone using only a single character, Meta Knight won FOUR. Snake won two, and five other characters each won one (Diddy Kong, Mr. Game & Watch, King Dedede, Zero Suit Samus, Lucario). Of the number of characters placings total among tournaments won by multiple characters, Meta Knight only gains one placing out of the six (to be more clear, there were actually three tournaments that were won by people using two characters, and the combinations were Marth/Snake, Wario/Ice Climbers, and Meta Knight/Snake). At absolute best, Meta Knight wins 4.5/14 tournaments of this size; in other words, he wins about 32%. Discounting splits moves him all the way up to about 36%. Snake, including splits, is worth about 21% and "other" is worth about 46% (rounding error accounts for the other 1%).

Let's do a similar analysis of 2nd. Meta Knight again has 4 2nd places by himself while Snake has 2, but this time six other characters have a single 2nd place (Diddy Kong, Mr. Game & Watch, Falco, Wario, Pikachu, Luigi). The splits this time were Meta Knight/King Dedede and Wario/King Dedede. Meta Knight is again worth 32% with Snake taking 14% and "other" taking 54%.

I'll cut to the chase and post the full stats.

Meta Knight:  (1st: 4, 2nd: 4, 3rd: 2, 4th: 2, 5th: 3, 7th: 5, 1st*: 1, 2nd*: 1, 3rd*: 4, 4th*: 4, 5th*: 2, 7th*: 2)
Snake: (1st: 2, 2nd: 2, 4th: 1, 5th: 2, 7th: 2, 1st*: 2, 3rd*: 2, 4th*: 1)
Diddy Kong:  (1st: 1, 2nd: 1, 3rd: 1, 5th: 2, 7th: 2, 4th*: 1, 5th*: 1, 7th*: 1)
Mr. Game & Watch:  (1st: 1, 2nd: 1, 4th: 1, 5th: 1, 7th: 1)
King Dedede:  (1st: 1, 4th: 1, 5th: 3, 7th: 1, 2nd*: 2, 3rd*: 2, 7th*: 1)
Zero Suit Samus: (1st: 1, 5th: 1, 7th: 2, 3rd*: 1, 5th: 1)
Lucario: (1st: 1, 5th: 1, 3rd*: 1, 4th*: 1, 5th*: 2)
Falco:  (2nd: 1, 5th: 2, 3rd*: 1 4th*: 1, 5th*: 1, 7th*: 1)
Wario:  (2nd: 1, 5th: 1, 7th: 1, 1st*: 1, 2nd*: 1, 3rd*: 2, 4th*: 1, 7th*: 1)
Pikachu: (2nd: 1, 7th: 1, 4th*: 1)
Luigi: (2nd: 1, 7th: 1)
R.O.B.: (3rd: 1, 4th*: 1, 5th*: 1, 7th*: 1)
Sonic:  (4th: 1, 7th: 2, 7th*: 1)
Lucas: (4th: 1, 3rd*: 1)
Donkey Kong: (4th: 1, 7th*: 1)
Samus:  (4th: 1)
Marth:  (5th: 2, 7th: 1, 1st*: 1, 3rd*: 2)
Pit: (5th: 1, 4th*: 1)
Toon Link:  (5th: 1)
Ness: (5th: 1)
Kirby: (7th: 1)
Ice Climbers:  (1st*: 1, 3rd*: 1, 4th*: 1, 7th*: 3)
Zelda & Sheik: (3rd*: 1)
Pokemon Trainer: (3rd*: 1)
Peach: (3rd*: 1)
Wolf: (5th*: 1)
Fox: (7th*: 1)

21 characters are represented among those who placed by themselves, and 27 are represented among characters represented at all. Given that there are only 36 characters, that's not bad. As you might notice, while Meta Knight does the clear best, it's REALLY spread out after 2nd place. Those who are just impressed by a big margin might think it's representative of poor balance (look at how much higher that one place is than any single one of the others!), but an actually rational view of it shows that's not the case at all (would it be better if only 2-3 characters took all of the placings from the lowest 24?). Also remember that these are MAJOR TOURNAMENTS. Even one single placing means a lot. It's easy to look at Kirby and go "only one 7th means Kirby sucks", but consider that that Kirby player had to beat at least 82 other people performance wise with only Kirby to go that far. Any character who can enable someone to do that can't be that bad.

If you still don't believe me about how this isn't that bad at all, look at the data from the 2007 MLG events for melee put into this format.

Marth: (1st: 7, 2nd: 2, 4th: 1, 5th: 2, 7th: 1)
Falco: (1st: 1, 2nd: 4, 3rd: 1, 5th: 2, 7th: 5)
Ice Climbers: (1st: 1, 2nd: 3, 3rd: 4, 5th: 2)
Fox: (3rd: 2, 4th: 3, 5th: 7, 7th: 5)
Captain Falcon: (3rd: 1, 4th: 2, 5th: 2, 7th: 2)
Jigglypuff: (3rd: 1, 5th: 1)
Sheik: (4th: 1, 5th: 1, 7th: 1)
Peach: 4th: 1, 5th: 1)
Samus: (7th: 3)

Of the 9 events, Marth won 7 with Falco and Ice Climbers each snagging one. Those three are also the only characters to ever get 2nd. Of the remaining places left for the rest of the characters, Fox gobbles up a pretty massive number of them. This isn't a statement that melee is a bad game or is horribly balanced or anything; it's just a statement that at the highest levels you tend to see extreme disparity in character performance. It's really true in any fighting game; even if the best is only a little better than the others, the best will come out on top in the long run with all else being equal (when in reality cultural factors are likely to draw the best players to the best characters which further skews results in favor of the best characters). The fact that you see so many random characters still getting top 8 in major tournaments in Brawl is indicative of extremely healthy character diversity.

To be blunt, if you think Meta Knight needs to be banned, major tournament results are not a helpful factor. They are a factor you need to explain away.

AA killed of my entire argument. Then again, what wouldn't you expect from the only person aside from Yuna on the anti-ban side who actually shows a consistent level of intelligence in this thread, imo?

Seriously, this thread needs to be closed, never to resurface again (unless new pro-ban evidence surfaces that can actually give the side a good argument). It is merely redundant at this point.

Thank you for the clarification, its much appreciated.



I brought it up because it isn't fair to ask M2K to post here knowing full well what will happen. I'm sorry if I came of as rude for saying it, it wasn't intentional.

All right, I was a little agitated as no one can observe emotion over the internet. This makes me feel a lot better.

It isn't debatable whether Metakight is the best character in the game or not, so why does this line of questioning have relevance to the discussion at hand? Who is arguing that there are characters that are near the same tier as Metaknight? Also, if it is a recent thing, how can you use old tourney data as evidence against something that was recently discovered?

One, MK dominating is not strange. MK dominating to that much more of an extent than the other Top tiers, considering the gap in ability between MK and the top tier was much smaller than the gap in tournament success between the characters in question, was what I was inquiring on.

What I really wanted to know was if something like this was normal in competitive fighters or was Brawl an anomoly? AA answered my question so I do need to discuss it further. At this point, I am only arguing about misunderstandings in my last argument.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Odd how some people here think that MK doesn't fit the overcentralization criteria. If choosing MK as soon as your main gets beaten so that you can win the rest of the match isn't overcentalization around one character, I don't know what is.

Think about it. Items are banned because they overcentralize. The emphasis becomes placed on getting to the items before your opponent does. It's a completely different game than no-item Smash. The same logic applies to Meta Knight. Take him out of the equation and you have a completely different game with very different pick mechanics. Taking him out basically frees up all of the other characters that aren't played due to people just picking him instead of risking getting soft or hard countered.

And if tournament results don't already reflect that, they probably will in the future as Brawl's metagame becomes more advanced.

Because the word has a VERY SPECIFIC definition in competitive gaming.

Basically, it is Sirlin's section "warranted" in "what should be banned", part of his book, Play to Win. Note that the crucial section extends into the next page in this format, which is "cheating".

Overcentralizing basically means that section, or has come to mean it, in other words reducing the game to the point where it's "play this character or lose" or "use this tactic or lose" or very near that point. The end-point of this, in other words the least influence the character can have an still be banworthy (after the metagame is extremely mature) is described by the old sagat standard.

So ultimately, he has to render at least half the cast non-viable, does he do that? I highly doubt that, based on the information we have, there are a couple of notable characters that he renders non-viable, such as ROB. He also completely negates Marth's existence, but only the most virulent pro-ban personality would say that he renders half the cast non-viable.

AA killed of my entire argument. Then again, what wouldn't you expect from the only person aside from Yuna on the anti-ban side who actually shows a consistent level of intelligence in this thread, imo?

Hey, you're mean!

Seriously though, there definitely is more then just those two.

 

[Alus]

why are you not playing Meta Knight?

Umm..., Metaknight does not always have the best advantage against a character? For example:
Why pick MK vs diddy when you can pick olimar vs diddy? It is little things like this. I am sure that there are plenty of other reasons, but I think this is a important factor.

60/40 does not mean that you are down to a 25% chance of winning + skill. Skill still decides the game, and human error takes place more than you would think.

Not that either would matter anyway, as long as no one is forced to choose MK.

 

[Sawdust]

Like Sasuke said, we're discussing the competitive aspects of Brawl, and I don't see the point of anyone entering a tourney without playing to win, that doesn't make sense.

Meta does damage the metagame, because he makes some characters COMPLETELY inviable.

I support the pro ban argument, but im gunna play devil's advocate for a moment and say that D3 and arguably G&W make more characters COMPLETELY inviable

also the bowser matchup is changing since the infinite grab release was discovered. Granted it is quite difficult to do (i think you have an 8 frame window or so to do everything) but if people can master this it will change the matchup in bowser's favor. (it is possible it is now escapable somehow i haven't checked in a while)

However infinites are banned in a lot of places, so if you ban all infinites you'll also have to ban this one. And I am also in the ban infinites camp, (Houston uses the 5 grab rule, which i think is fine).

But yeah if you also ban infinites then he does have entirely positive matchups, which is bad. Some people say that the ban is only worthwhile because he completely centralizes the tournament scene, which is false. However, I believe one of the main reasons he has not taken over the tournament scene is because quite frankly, he's a douche. People don't like to play against him, and some people (I'm not saying they are correct) will view you as less of a man if you use metaknight. This causes several top level players to not use him.

Also citing one tourney result of the best snake winning over the best metaknight isn't really valid since there are ton of factors that affect ONE match, which was the only difference between them. Just yesterday one of the two best diddy kongs in houston lost to a link (granted it was a friendly, but a competitive one). Does this mean the tier list is all upside down?

Hint: No

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I support the pro ban argument, but im gunna play devil's advocate for a moment and say that D3 and arguably G&W make more characters COMPLETELY inviable

Except that MK makes some characters (yes less than D3 and GnW) inviable AND is the best character.

Just FYI for everyone, I'm anti-ban I just argue pro-ban because it's more fun.

 

[Alus]

I support the pro ban argument, but im gunna play devil's advocate for a moment and say that D3 and arguably G&W make more characters COMPLETELY inviable

also the bowser matchup is changing since the infinite grab release was discovered. Granted it is quite difficult to do (i think you have an 8 frame window or so to do everything) but if people can master this it will change the matchup in bowser's favor. (it is possible it is now escapable somehow i haven't checked in a while)

However infinites are banned in a lot of places, so if you ban all infinites you'll also have to ban this one. And I am also in the ban infinites camp, (Houston uses the 5 grab rule, which i think is fine).

But yeah if you also ban infinites then he does have entirely positive matchups, which is bad. Some people say that the ban is only worthwhile because he completely centralizes the tournament scene, which is false. However, I believe one of the main reasons he has not taken over the tournament scene is because quite frankly, he's a douche. People don't like to play against him, and some people (I'm not saying they are correct) will view you as less of a man if you use metaknight. This causes several top level players to not use him.

Also citing one tourney result of the best snake winning over the best metaknight isn't really valid since there are ton of factors that affect ONE match, which was the only difference between them. Just yesterday one of the two best diddy kongs in houston lost to a link (granted it was a friendly, but a competitive one). Does this mean the tier list is all upside down?

Hint: No

And this means what?

 

[Sosuke]

Umm..., Metaknight does not always have the best advantage against a character? For example:
Why pick MK vs diddy when you can pick olimar vs diddy? It is little things like this. I am sure that there are plenty of other reasons, but I think this is a important factor.

And you know who your opponent is going to chose every time?
Go MK and you don't go wrong. You don't need to pick your opponents WORST match up to beat him. If you pick MK, he won't have an advantage on you. Thats it.

 

[Flayl]

Bowser's pivot grab thing on MK isn't an infinite, so nobody will ban it.

 

[Master Raven]

Also citing one tourney result of the best snake winning over the best metaknight isn't really valid since there are ton of factors that affect ONE match, which was the only difference between them. Just yesterday one of the two best diddy kongs in houston lost to a link (granted it was a friendly, but a competitive one). Does this mean the tier list is all upside down?

Hint: No

Did that Diddy have any good Link exp? And Ally vs M2K was not just one match, it was a 3/5 set, with Ally losing only one game, and M2K has LOTS of Snake exp.

On a sidenote I'm for infinites as long as they're at least escapable or you're able to cripple/disable them somehow.

 

[Steel]

Did that Diddy have any good Link exp? And Ally vs M2K was not just one match, it was a 3/5 set, with Ally losing only one game, and M2K has LOTS of Snake exp.

It was ONE set and you're saying Snake vs MK is probably even?

-_-

People are placing far too much emphasis on one set where Ally obviously outplayed M2K. We all know he's beatable, doesn't mean he shouldn't be banned though.

 

[Master Raven]

It was ONE set and you're saying Snake vs MK is probably even?

-_-

Better than saying it absolutely is.

 

[Masmasher@]

Hey those marth tournament wins are mostly based off of ONE person playing marth. Ether ken playingf marth in his era or m2k playing marth in his era (which he still is).

Also stop using that cause SFIV sagat has no bad matchups and hes not banned BS. he isnt winning as many tournamnets. Or do i have to remind you that that game WAS MEANT TO BE A FIGHTING GAME.

 

[Alus]

And you know who your opponent is going to chose every time?
Go MK and you don't go wrong. You don't need to pick your opponents WORST match up to beat him. If you pick MK, he won't have an advantage on you. Thats it.

wait...you are not aiming for a guaranteed win?

 

[Sosuke]

wait...you are not aiming for a guaranteed win?

Do you even know what you're saying?

 

[Alus]

Do you even know what you're saying?

I am saying that I would be aiming for the greatest advantage i could take.

60/40 still means that if your opponent knows the machup more than you do, than i imagine that it is common that...well... you still lose.

 

[brinboy789]

Except that MK makes some characters (yes less than D3 and GnW) inviable AND is the best character.

Just FYI for everyone, I'm anti-ban I just argue pro-ban because it's more fun.

he makes some chars unviable? who?

edit: singlehandidly. of course he makes some low tiers unviable, but so do like the entire top of of the tier list

 

[Palpi]

Didn't emblem lord say SFVI wasn't meant for competitive play?

And who are the 2 best diddy's in houston? lol...

 

[Botnik]

Because the word has a VERY SPECIFIC definition in competitive gaming.

Basically, it is Sirlin's section "warranted" in "what should be banned", part of his book, Play to Win. Note that the crucial section extends into the next page in this format, which is "cheating".

Overcentralizing basically means that section, or has come to mean it, in other words reducing the game to the point where it's "play this character or lose" or "use this tactic or lose" or very near that point. The end-point of this, in other words the least influence the character can have an still be banworthy (after the metagame is extremely mature) is described by the old sagat standard.

So ultimately, he has to render at least half the cast non-viable, does he do that? I highly doubt that, based on the information we have, there are a couple of notable characters that he renders non-viable, such as ROB. He also completely negates Marth's existence, but only the most virulent pro-ban personality would say that he renders half the cast non-viable.

How about we consider the tournament win percentages after we cut out the characters that Meta Knight supposedly makes unviable?

MK: 25%
Snake: 11% (35%)
Diddy: 8% (43%)
DDD: 8% (51%)
Wario: 5% (56%)
G&W: 5% (61%)
ZSS: 5% (65%)
Falco: 5% (70%)
Marth: 3% (74%)
Sonic: 3% (77%)
ICs: 3% (80%)
Lucario: 3% (83%)
Luigi: 3% (85%)
ROB: 2% (88%)
Pikachu: 2% (90%)
Lucas: 1% (91%)
DK: 1% (93%)
Pit: 1% (94%)
NINE OTHERS: 6% (100%)

The red are the supposed negated characters, while the blue are soft-counters. And this isn't even the entire roster; this is just the viable section.

I propose that for all intents and purposes, a large enough portion of the cast is rendered virtually unviable just by MK's existence in the metagame. Nobody has yet to answer my question: if you are playing to win, why are you not playing Meta Knight?

Unless your opponent is playing a non-MK character and you have the option to pick with a hard counter, there's no reason not to. And neither you nor your opponent would be in that situation if you had both picked Meta Knight. In order to maximize your chances of winning, you need to realize that the least risk involves playing with him from the very start, since you don't know who your opponent is going to pick in double blinds. The chances of getting soft or hard countered are vast in Brawl compared to Melee due to the nature of the characters, so the logical choice is to stick with Meta Knight. Trying to set up makeshift disadvantageous matchups using stages along with characters that are merely less disadvantaged against him is a waste of time and energy.

 

[Alus]

Didn't emblem lord say SFVI wasn't meant for competitive play?

No idea,

but i would believe him if he said so...

*mumble*

 

[Steel]

Didn't emblem lord say SFVI wasn't meant for competitive play?

Uhhh, no? He believes the exact opposite >_>

SF4 was actually designed for competitive play. Smash wasn't.

 

[Palpi]

Must've been someone else then.