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

[Melomaniacal]

We all know that the developers intentions don't mean jack anyway.

 

[Sosuke]

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.

Ok
So what you're saying
is that you always want to counter pick your opponents character.

First of all, have fun learning how to play that many characters.
Second, good luck trying to remember all those matchups.

And now to the main point. You do realize that you can't counter pick the first match unless you know which character they are going to use?
And if you DO know, they can just change their character after they see that you're counter picking them.
When happens then? You go double blind. Both the players tell someone else who they're going to pick and stay with.
Guess which character you can pick without having a disadvantage, REGARDLESS of your opponents choice?? You guessed it. MK.

What you're saying only works AFTER YOU LOST THE FIRST GAME.
Then your opponent picks the character first and you're free to counter pick whatever on them. People do this all the time.

But then after that its going to come down to the last game.
Who are you going to pick?
They can counter pick YOU now.
So who?
Whos your safest choice to not get counterpicked?
Hhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Metal Night.


Also, you can still lose knowing more about the matchup then your opponent. lolz.

 

[Palpi]

Did I seriously just type SFVI in a post?

www.shoryuken.com

**** me

It won't happen again.

 

[Masmasher@]

I dont think emblem lord said that........
even if he did (which i highly doubt) it had higher intnetions of being made for competitive play

 

[Palpi]

You really don't read posts do you?

I said it must have been someone else then melo said intentions don't matter.

 

[Masmasher@]

You really don't read posts do you?

I said it must have been someone else then melo said intentions don't matter.

You must not recognize the speed of this thread. while I was making that post they must have posted.

I didnt know till after i posted what i had to say. Then the page refreshed itself...

 

[Palpi]

It was like 4 min. There is a 3 min timer on the refresh rule, sorry.

 

[RDK]

Many very balanced games - mainly Guilty Gear and Japan-only indie games like Monster or Immaterial and Missing Power - have a similar situation with the soft counters (hard counters less so since they're really balanced, lol) being all over the place of the roster. It doesn't make Brawl's roster less varied if it has hard counters for High Tier characters somewhere in Low Tier. If I remember correctly, Donkey Kong, a Low Tier character in Melee, was a counter to the Spacies.

Once again, you're missing the entire point: if you throw MK, Snake, and the other top / high tiers into the mix, you get a very odd arrangement. It throws the entire game mechanic off. Snake puts MK into light submission, while MK has little to no disadvantageous matchups. So in essence the other tiers soft and hard countering each other don't even matter.

And no, DK was not a hard counter to the spacies. Characters like DK, M2, and Pichu could exploit quirks in the top tiers (I.E., fastfalling), but they were definitely not advantageous matchups. I have no idea who told you that but they're horribly horribly wrong.

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.

Making two characters inviable is not valid ban criteria. Try ~50% of the cast.

And if you're going to play Devil's Advocate for the pro-ban side, do a good job. Otherwise you just end up sounding like the real pro-banners. Which is, by the way, stupid.

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.

So what? So does Akuma in SFII. So does Sagat in SFIV. Some of you need to brush up on your competitive fighter history.

We do not ban characters because they have no disadvantageous matchups.

We do not ban characters to create tournament variety.

We ban characters because they overcentralize, or if they make half the cast unviable.

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

Even if it was an infinite, it still doesn't warrant a ban. Do you really wanna dredge up the D3 ban argument?

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

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

Doesn't matter. We're playing it as a competitive game. Again: why the hell are you even in this discussion if you aren't concerned with the competitive aspect of it? I thought we cleared this up pages ago.

And as for Botnik, who thinks he's so smart:

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

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.

Still not half the cast. Character variety does not matter; unless he drastically damages the metagame to the point where it's "Play MK or lose!", he doesn't warrant a ban. This is nothing new, people.

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?

Soft counter does not mean unviable.

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.

If you want to play with MK the entire tournament and no one else out of fear of getting soft and hard countered, be my guest. But to say that everyone should be doing it or they're not playing to win is cosmologically ********. Anyone who's not a ****** can see that your entire argument stems from a false premises.

Yes; if everyone started off with MK out of fear of getting counterpicked, then you might have a point. But until then, you have no grounds for this argument.

 

[Nic64]

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

A lot of people already thought it was even, and previously the earlier m2k vs ally sets had been used to say "no, at the highest level MK ***** snake". But that's ok when pro ban does it.

 

[Sosuke]

I like how RDK assumes I'm pro ban, and not just correcting someone else's post.

 

[Steel]

Doesn't matter. We're playing it as a competitive game. Again: why the hell are you even in this discussion if you aren't concerned with the competitive aspect of it? I thought we cleared this up pages ago.

Seriously?

Holy ****. -_-

 

[Palpi]

Are there any Marth players that anti-ban?

 

[RDK]

I like how RDK assumes I'm pro ban, and not just correcting someone else's post.

My bad then; I thought you were using MK's disadvantageousness (not a word, but whatever) as an argument for pro-ban.

 

[Palpi]

I think people need to understand to differentiate the phrases "do you think metaknight should be banned" and "do you want metaknight to be banned." People let their "needs" sway the vote. Obviously every marth main wants metaknight to be banned, but just because he is Marth's biggest set-back in the tourney doesn't mean he is ban worthy. I had 6 MK in my pool at Apex along with ADHD. I wan't MK banned, but he shouldn't be just because it would make my tourney experience easier.

 

[ShadowLink84]

...so now the reason MK sometimes gets 2nd and 3rd and 4th is because of those almost-top players.
.........and? What's you point?

Really? Are you seriously going to make such a wquestion after i have posted twice concerning it?

Is is somehow okay that a character is allowed to consistently get just first, but the moment some additional people start placing lower with him, that is somehow different?

Wait what?
I am sorry but what the hell are you implying? Where did I say that its different when people place lower with the character?

From what I saw, I said quite implicitly.

"Not only does Metaknight take top spot, he has also shown himself to appear in the top 8 greater than the other characters below him."
From the way you posted, you make it sound like I am talking only about how people place lower with the said character.

I am talking about how not only is MK winning, but is also taking up spots in the top 8 much more frequently than the other characters.
As opposed to Marth in melee who, only has his 7 wins and then in terms of top 8 placings, his actually inferior to several characters.

Are winners supposed to have their character ignored, but no one else?

What are you trying ti imply with this statement?
Stop strawmanning my statement.

MK makes up about ~25% of all results on a national scale. No more, no less.

Correct and, what does this exactly have to do with my statement concerning MK being a more dominating character than Marth? Who actually won tournaments where as Fox hardly won as many.

And if you actually looked at the data rather than making assumptions, you wouldn't have just embarrassed yourself.

OH and if ONLY you had actually learned to deal with your dyslexia you wouldn't look like a total *** for that epic piece of text. (which I must say was interesting to read but a waste of time.)

Where did I ever make the argument concerning Brawl's diversity in the top 8?
NOWHERE!

So I must congratulate you on COMPLETELY wasting my time having tor ad and actually respond to your post.

Now since i have a feeling you simply are not actually reading my post and simply make an assumption of my statements. Let me bold, underline, italic and color my statement.


Metaknight is a character who not only wins, but is a character who is also capable of placing in the top 8. In Brawl, we not only see the top players winning with Metaknight, but we also see Metaknight appearing in the top 8.
Now let us look at Marth. While Marth won many national tournaments, in fact winning toa greater degree than Metaknight has currently, we also must recognize that Marth does not appear in the top 8 to the same degree as Metaknight.
Metaknight not only wins, but he also takes up the top 8 more often than every other character below him.
Marth on the other hand, only outdid other characters in terms of wins.
His top 8 placements were below several characters, notably the spacies.

Metaknight however, not only wins more than every other character, (Like marth did), but he also appears in the top 8 more than every other character. You also have a greater variety of players winning and placing with Metaknight than you did with Marth.

Meaning Metaknight is certainly superior to the rest of the Brawl characters, in comparison to Marth in melee.



There you go. If you notice, there was nothing about character variety, nothing about winners characters being ignored, or ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE POSTED IN RESPONSE TO MY STATEMENTS!

I am certain this won't be the last time that you will reply to me, but hopefully, when you do respond, it won't be an assumption of my statement!

OH and concerning Fox's 24%.
You do realize that Fox does not win national tournaments right?
Look at the results ampharos provided.

SO just blatantly spitting out the percentages is meaningless when it does not take into account the placings of those characters.
Yeah Marth was 19% , but he has far more wins than Fox does.

Read the data rather than just slapping your reply button.

My statement was comparing MK and Marth, two characters who win national tournaments consistently and why even though marth won more, he did not have as much dominance.

 

[Palpi]

You had me confused since you only said melee at the end of your RDK like statement lol@red

 

[adumbrodeus]

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



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.

You seem to be misunderstanding.

In order to make a character non-viable, a character has to be:

1. A hard counter to that character at least (80-20 min would probably be more proper).

2. Has to be either
a. Omni-present enough in the metagame that not being eliminated by this character is near impossible given the hard counter status (even if you're a superior player).

OR

b. the match-up is easy enough that an opponent can virtually pick up the character to beat you.


3. No other character fits these attributes.

4. This pattern has to be backed up by tournament data.


While it's nearly unarguable that metaknight fits attribute number 3 (version a), all of the other attributes have extremely questionable.

For 1, we don't even have a full reliable match-up chart yet, how can we even hope to say that MK hard-counters half the cast or more.

For 3, most characters MK hard counters it doesn't even seem like MK's their hardest match-up anymore, he really seems to be like an empowered Marth in the current metagame, great overall match-ups, but he doesn't kill any characters the worst of any common characters, or there's characters that can obliterate other characters so easily it doesn't even matter.

4, not yet, but there's an empirical match-up chart in progress which basically categorizes win rates in various match-ups at the highest levels of play (in theory). That would be useful for your match-up.


Understand that ultimately I am disinterested in the result of the ban (ok... maybe I would prefer MK to be banned), however I am completely opposed to any ban before the criteria is satisfied.

So, here's your to do list if you want to satisfy the criteria.



Pro-Ban's To Do List



1. Make a better theoretical model for match-ups. The current one really doesn't suffice because it neglects to take into account human error as far as I've observed, possibly a great deal more. I've attempted to help with my thread on "Mindgames Potential", though we still need a concrete understanding of how often a player should fall victim to mindgames, and to what degree before it can be finished.

2. Using the new theoretical model, make accurate match-ups.

3. Illustrate based on the match-ups, that MK makes 50% of the cast +1 nonviable, independent of any other characters.

4. Figure out a reasonable margin of error for tournament results to vary from the theoretical match-ups.

5. Illustrate that empirical results are the same as your match-ups would suggest or within the pre-determined margin of error.


If you can do this (not necessarily explicitly, since a lot of this is data-based, a lot of other people are capable of doing this, so you'll merely need to present the data) I will happily join pro-ban and argue your case. I'm sure a lot of other people will agree at that point and become pro-ban as well, because that would undercut the core of anti-ban.


However, until that's satisfied, I will not join you and you'll notice that the most vocal anti-ban crowd references to these same standards as well, so they will not join you either, so with that you could probably win the debate on this.

Until you do, pro-ban's got nothing.

 

[Masmasher@]

Shadow link is right. alot of people used fox but he hardly wins any national tournaments.

By himself

 

[ShadowLink84]

You had me confused since you only said melee at the end of your RDK like statement lol@red

I tend to have trouble with my computer so I just gave up at that point and figured it would be good enough.
Hopefully the guy will understand rather than coming up with variety arguments for god knows what.

 

[Steel]

I think people are putting too much emphasis on whether or not MK dominates tournaments.

HD Akuma wasn't dominating ****, yet they banned him. They had no real evidence of his tournament dominance, it was out of fear because they looked at his tools and knew exactly what to expect. This logic is widely lacking in the Smash community.

People need to go and look back at the basics, not just meta's crazy stuff.

Look at his range compared to execution speed. He outranges characters such as Marth, but has the attack speed of someone who would lack a weapon. That's an imbalance right there. You shouldn't be attacking within 3 frames while still outranging the majority of the cast. That's just dumb.

His sword can't clash, thus having REAL priority. You can't just stick something out against this guy because he can hit your hand/leg etc if you do. The concept of zoning him kinda goes out the window right there.

The list goes on. He has too many options in many scenarios. Some character's just aren't meant to be competitive. I don't see how some people in this community can't realize this.

 

[brinboy789]

I think people are putting too much emphasis on whether or not MK dominates tournaments.

HD Akuma wasn't dominating ****, yet they banned him. They had no real evidence of his tournament dominance, it was out of fear because they looked at his tools and knew exactly what to expect. This logic is widely lacking in the Smash community.

People need to go and look back at the basics, not just meta's crazy stuff.

didnt they ban akuma immediately? like right after the game was released?

 

[Steel]

Thus them having no real tournament evidence. However, MK's evidence is there, on top of all his other stupid ****.

 

[Masmasher@]

Doesnt matter akuma was a boss character. you had to put in a code to play him. The developers knew he wasnt suited for competitive play. As well as every one else.
Heck he could use the the red fireball repeately to keep someone locked in block stun until time ran out or their health was chipped to 0

 

[Steel]

missing the point.

 

[Inui]

I think people are putting too much emphasis on whether or not MK dominates tournaments.

HD Akuma wasn't dominating ****, yet they banned him. They had no real evidence of his tournament dominance, it was out of fear because they looked at his tools and knew exactly what to expect. This logic is widely lacking in the Smash community.

People need to go and look back at the basics, not just meta's crazy stuff.

Look at his range compared to execution speed. He outranges characters such as Marth, but has the attack speed of someone who would lack a weapon. That's an imbalance right there. You shouldn't be attacking within 3 frames while still outranging the majority of the cast. That's just dumb.

His sword can't clash, thus having REAL priority. You can't just stick something out against this guy because he can hit your hand/leg etc if you do. The concept of zoning him kinda goes out the window right there.

The list goes on. He has too many options in many scenarios. Some character's just aren't meant to be competitive. I don't see how some people in this community can't realize this.

NEO defeated Seibrik and Dojo in MMs with his Marth and didn't lose to MK at all at Apex.

NEO is currently anti-ban and a Marth main.

Follow the hero of Marths.

On top of that, Pierce7d recently switched to anti-ban.

 

[Masmasher@]

missing the point.

may i ask what that is

 

[RDK]

missing the point.

You're actually comparing Meta Knight to Akuma?

Just when I thought pro-ban couldn't get any more illogical.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Doesnt matter akuma was a boss character. you had to put in a code to play him. The developers knew he wasnt suited for competitive play. As well as every one else.
Heck he could use the the red fireball repeately to keep someone locked in block stun until time ran out or their health was chipped to 0

HD Akuma can do that?
I thought it was only SF2 Akuma.

 

[Mew2King]

Doesnt matter akuma was a boss character. you had to put in a code to play him. The developers knew he wasnt suited for competitive play. As well as every one else.
Heck he could use the the red fireball repeately to keep someone locked in block stun until time ran out or their health was chipped to 0

(I don't play street fighter) is this guy (Akuma) really being compared to metaknight?

......

i hate smashboards

 

[Steel]

You're actually comparing Meta Knight to Akuma?

Just when I thought pro-ban couldn't get any more illogical.

Akuma had about 5% to due with my post. This is the second time you've completely misread my posts.

@inui

I think neo is a stronger player than all of them, either that or he knows the match far better than they do. he also recently beat omni. doesn't really change my opinion

 

[Brinzy]

Can we just stop comparing MK to Street Fighter characters?

On top of that, Pierce7d recently switched to anti-ban.

what was his reasoning?

 

[P. O. F.]

I think people are putting too much emphasis on whether or not MK dominates tournaments.

HD Akuma wasn't dominating ****, yet they banned him. They had no real evidence of his tournament dominance, it was out of fear because they looked at his tools and knew exactly what to expect. This logic is widely lacking in the Smash community.

People need to go and look back at the basics, not just meta's crazy stuff.

Look at his range compared to execution speed. He outranges characters such as Marth, but has the attack speed of someone who would lack a weapon. That's an imbalance right there. You shouldn't be attacking within 3 frames while still outranging the majority of the cast. That's just dumb.

His sword can't clash, thus having REAL priority. You can't just stick something out against this guy because he can hit your hand/leg etc if you do. The concept of zoning him kinda goes out the window right there.

The list goes on. He has too many options in many scenarios. Some character's just aren't meant to be competitive. I don't see how some people in this community can't realize this.

You know....I never thought about that. I can't remember the last time I "clanked" with one of Meta Knights moves. I was talking with Dark Pch last night and he lost to a Meta Knight that he felt he should not have lost to (a tourney in CT....bi weekly.) He was playing Unknown Force (A great player nonetheless) but I personally, think and know hes just a better overall player than Unknown. Now, I'm not saying Unknown did not earn his victory or anything of the sort but i'd stake my life on it had he used any other character, he would have been *****. Dark Pch was actually WINNING the match but went off stage and mk did some typical dair crap and killed him. The point is this: Meta Knight is not a PERFECT character but the fact is that all it takes is a simple gimp...and you die. F that.

Also in regards to the Tornado: he was telling me that there are things you can do against the Tornado. You can angle your shield so that it doesn't shield stab you while defending against it. I don't give a flying crap if I can shlield the whole thing...I shouldnt have to "shield" EVERYTIME to stop a specific move in Smash Brothers. That's bull crap.

Every single move in the history of smash brothers clinks with another move or beats it out and it shouldnt have to be to the last resort of friggin olimars upB or Links bombs. That's crap.

 

[ShadowLink84]

(I don't play street fighter) is this guy (Akuma) really being compared to metaknight?

......

i hate smashboards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXne9oOjipw

This is Akuma in SF2.

No he is not being compared to MK.

 

[Steel]

what was his reasoning?

"I **** MK again"

Pierce is awesome, but his reliance on personal experience rapidly changes his opinion one way or another.

@everyone, stop saying I was comparing MK to Akuma. I was comparing one smart community to this one. read the bulk of my post.

 

[Masmasher@]

HD Akuma can do that?
I thought it was only SF2 Akuma.

My bad... When some body mentions akuma in the thread My brain goes to sf2 akuma lol.


By the way the video you linked was hilarious lol.

 

[Tony_]

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.



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

I dunno...maybe for casuals or something? You can have fun while winning too.

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/

Old Sagat is miles ahead of the cast too and is on MK's level by himself.

People have found ways to beat Sagat in that community because no one cries as much as Brawl players do about MK. Seriously, some Brawl players whine until they get what they want. They don't want to find ways around him, they want him banned so they can cry about something else.

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.

Thats nice. I don't take that into consideration though. Why? It's just a tool for pro ban to use when they are losing. For real. Brawl's CP system is no different from most games anyways. The only difference is stage picking. Thats it and with Brawl's broken stages, your better off playing only neutrals with about 2 CP stages.

Falco shuts down two tier levels and almost half of mid tier by himself. MK doesn't even do that, as most match-ups are somewhat winnable by even low tiers and maybe two bottom tiers. Hell Falco even has 90-10 match ups. MK has no 90-10s.

 

[ShadowLink84]

My bad... When some body mentions akuma in the thread My brain goes to sf2 akuma lol.


By the way the video you linked was hilarious lol.

The last part is hilarious, how he falls to fireball walling XD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG1v6YTZWkU

 

[adumbrodeus]

A lot of people already thought it was even, and previously the earlier m2k vs ally sets had been used to say "no, at the highest level MK ***** snake". But that's ok when pro ban does it.

Which is the number one reason to point out that tournament results are are supplimentary, and also that sample size one =/= an argument.


Actually, this really started with the first ban thread, though it's had an interesting history.

Timelinewise (each line denotes a progression of time):

In the beginning when Snake was ****, everyone thought Snake beat MK. I personally noticed that MK's match-ups were better overall, but Snake was beating MK, causing Snake to get top spot, which is why I said, "MK is more banworthy" in response to some people asking for a snake ban.

It's getting on with Snakes reign, and Emblem Lord points out that MK should beat Snake, since all Snake has on him is kill power (which was not strictly true, but at that point in the metagame it was). I began arguing for it as did a few others.

MK surpasses Snake in the rankings, now a light bulb goes off in everyone's head, MK obviously beats Snake.

MK now has no disadvantagious match-ups, the first ban thread occurs.

Midway through the thread, people start asserting that Snake beats MK, M2K at least legitimately believes it at the time.

Midway through the second thread, the idea has gained a lot of force, it sparks a major debate half-way through the thread about who wins that match-up with M2K, Inui, and a few others firmly supporting Snake, and myself and a few others firmly supporting Mk.

M2k fights ally for the first time, he then proceeds to believe that the match-up is even.

During the lifetime of the third thread, MK's perceived match-up dominance decreases considerably. Also, ICs perception jumps considerably.

M2k loses to Ally, now everyone thinks the match-up is even at best.

Present.

Are there any Marth players that anti-ban?

Yes, hello.

At least as long as there's not evidence to the contrary.

I think people are putting too much emphasis on whether or not MK dominates tournaments.

HD Akuma wasn't dominating ****, yet they banned him. They had no real evidence of his tournament dominance, it was out of fear because they looked at his tools and knew exactly what to expect. This logic is widely lacking in the Smash community.

People need to go and look back at the basics, not just meta's crazy stuff.

Look at his range compared to execution speed. He outranges characters such as Marth, but has the attack speed of someone who would lack a weapon. That's an imbalance right there. You shouldn't be attacking within 3 frames while still outranging the majority of the cast. That's just dumb.

His sword can't clash, thus having REAL priority. You can't just stick something out against this guy because he can hit your hand/leg etc if you do. The concept of zoning him kinda goes out the window right there.

The list goes on. He has too many options in many scenarios. Some character's just aren't meant to be competitive. I don't see how some people in this community can't realize this.

Akuma was banned because on a technical level he was dominant enough that it was unnecessary. This is actually precisely the reason why I harp on our community for being over-dependent on tournament results except as a supplement.


Let me see, he had the inescapable raging demon (lob a meaty fireball at them, and they're eating a raging demon, if they block, the raging demon is inescapable). This is an amazingly powerful set-up in light of his invincible start-up on dragon punches and his amazing overall priority. In other words, in the best of cases, a meaty fireball is a trap where you can jump into a very disadvantaged situation, eat a meaty fireball, or eat a raging demon. Granted, you don't have to do it per meaty fireball, but you've got to approach eventually, or let him approach, and in that situation I'd only approach when you block the meaty fireball, wouldn't you? Keep in mind that the ground fireballs have amazing recovery as well, and the air fireball has an enormous hitbox.

That basically gives him 90-10 match-ups over most of the cast, with only a few arguable 60-40s, Ken is the most popular.



MK... a collection of 70-30s and 60-40s mostly, with some almost even match-ups, he just doesn't have the traps Akuma does until you're off-stage.


No, Akuma richly deserves a ban, and while EVO would've been nice as additional evidence, there's more then enough to show that he's far more broken then MK could ever hope to be.

 

[Palpi]

He is obviously no Akuma. He has much more 6-4's then 7-3's anyway.

 

[Steel]

seriously people, ignore the first 1/4 of my post and instead the actual message its sending -____-