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

[GeN0]

I'm tired of this. This "blabla MK got uber MUs and you don't need to play with other characters" is just wrong. Why would you pick MK to play against a Wario when you can pick Marth? Why would you play an even matchup when you can play an advantageous matchup?

Finally someone who understands. It is very annoying when people go "MK has an even macth up with every there's no point in swicthing BLAH BLAH BLAH Q.Q" Well i secondary Marth with MK so i have an advantage over my semi-bad macth-ups, is that the main idea behind secondarying in the first place

I Main FighterA but he has a bad macth up against FighterB so i'll secondary FighterC

Or

I main fighterA but he has an even macth up with FighterB but i'll swicth to FighterC so i have the adavantage of the macth up and a suprise charachter choice!

Both are good reasons to why most MK mains use secondaries

 

[Masmasher@]

while akuma is the poster boy for banning stuff hes not the abosolute. Others have been banned even being lesser then what he represents .

 

[Tommy_G]

Mortimer, my bad if I misread your post. It seemed a lot like you were arguing that we should ban things in order to further level the playing field. Which we don't do.

To salaboB: does MK fit any of these characteristics?

* Over-centralization (shifts emphasis to a completely new center; i.e. around one character)

* Anti-Competitive (randomness, lag, etc.)

* Prevents competition (freeze glitches, invisible characters, removes characters from the field, etc.)

These are the basic ban criteria. If you don't agree with them, feel free to make a compelling case for an addition.

In my hypothetical world, everyone plays C. Falcon. It's almost as if there are no other characters besides C. Falcon. It's the same Brawl game, except everyone plays Falcon. No match ups are changed, it's all the same, and anyone is free to pick any other character. Convince me how that is not over-centralization and does not need to be banned. (RDK, this isn't only for you, it's for anyone who reads it)
P.S. people aren't over-centralizing on MK anyways.

 

[demonictoonlink]

People need to drop the MK overcentralization... like...now...
I get that a lot of people play him, but there has never been an official tournament of MKs....
What does Meta take up? Maybe 30% of the competition? That does not show overcentralization

 

[salaboB]

In my hypothetical world, everyone plays C. Falcon. It's almost as if there are no other characters besides C. Falcon. It's the same Brawl game, except everyone plays Falcon. No match ups are changed, it's all the same, and anyone is free to pick any other character. Convince me how that is not over-centralization and does not need to be banned. (RDK, this isn't only for you, it's for anyone who reads it)
P.S. people aren't over-centralizing on MK anyways.

This is why I find it hilarious that people are going "Wait for tournament results" to decide whether they want to support banning MK or not -- And when a lot do place, go "See, he needs banning!", but then when not a lot of MKs place, go "See, he doesn't need banning"

They're arguing off a popularity contest with that. If MK needs banning for being too good, he'll need it whether he's dominating tournament results or not -- it could just be some strange world where a majority of the most skilled players have chosen not to play him so the tournament results won't reflect the realities of character balance. If he doesn't need banning for being too good, then even if he took the top 10 places at every tournament he still wouldn't need banning -- it would just be some strange world where all the most skilled players had decided that MK was the most fun/best character for them to use, even though he's not banworthy.

Imo, tournament results are not evidence for or against banning MK unless they're being utilized (Over time) to prove theoretical matchup numbers to demonstrate if he's broken or not.

 

[thumbswayup]

Snake beats MK if MK doesn't gimp him

if MK gets a gimp then he wins

it's balanced out and really fun

That's how I feel about the Diddy Snake matchup. I'm the only person who thinks it's even lol. I think if Diddy gets a gimp he wins, otherwise Snake will beat him.

 

[RDK]

I just want to say... that saying is incredibly ignorant.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it". If we as a race lived according to this saying, how far do you think we would have developed. I can tell you that its extremely unlikely that we would have the ability to debate this issue from different parts of the planet, or indeed even to play this game at all.
What that saying suggests is that as long as something successfuly functions how it was designed to, there is no reason to improve it in any way. This is the equivilant of a software developer never updating to add functionality.
Personally the MetaKnight debate doesn't really concern me, on the one hand a ban would probably help to bring more balance to the game but I don't know if it would be enough to warrant the inconvenience to MetaKnight mains.

Also, the way you talk about character choice in this game seems to suggest that all you see is the viablity of a character. What you aren't taking into account is character preference, players do not just choose to main a character based on how competetively viable they are, some base their character choice on preference of playstyle whereas others such as myself choose the character they are most fond of.
You say that " Competitive gaming is meant to be fair to players " but I fail to see how it is fair to the players that they are forced to choose certain characters in order to compete at the highest levels of play.
Personally though I see these arguments centered around balance to be obsolete, through the use of codes we have the oppertunity to improve the balance of the game thereby satisfying both sides of this argument and then some, but instead people have changed the actual game mechanics...

First of all, I'm not going to discuss the potential of things such as Brawl+. It is not tournament standard, and even if TO's decided on attempting to use it in a tournament setting, the exact details of the game (such as which modifications are used, and how much) would be completely arbitrary.

And this is exactly why we try to minimize our tampering with the game as it is. Without explicitly hacking it, we have the game just as Sakurai gave it to us. There are problems with it that effect the competitiveness of Brawl, so we make necessary changes, but only changes that absolutely need to be made. Anything more than that is excess.

Second of all, if you're indeed playing competitively then you should be looking to maximize your winning chances. Pick your character strategically; not on whether or not you like your character's hair color.

Are you going to provide a point for me too just so that you can have something to argue against?

I've already said that I recognize MK won't fit that set of ban criteria and anyone insisting on them will never be convinced by what I'm saying. I have said this repeatedly. I even said it in a response to you, a while ago.

You're not going to get me to disagree with that because MK doesn't fit the "breaking the game" requirements. Honestly, I wish you'd actually start reading the posts that you're responding to and stop trying to "win" the argument you think is going on. You're missing the point repeatedly.

You completely skipped the second half of that post where I asked you to make a compelling case for additions to the criteria. I was basically just laying them out for emphasis.

In my hypothetical world, everyone plays C. Falcon. It's almost as if there are no other characters besides C. Falcon. It's the same Brawl game, except everyone plays Falcon. No match ups are changed, it's all the same, and anyone is free to pick any other character. Convince me how that is not over-centralization and does not need to be banned. (RDK, this isn't only for you, it's for anyone who reads it)
P.S. people aren't over-centralizing on MK anyways.

What are you even saying here? Do you have a point?

In that instance, centralization on Captain Falcon would not be because he's too good of a character and breaks the metagame, but because of character preference. Your example has nothing to do with anything.

 

[salaboB]

You completely skipped the second half of that post where I asked you to make a compelling case for additions to the criteria. I was basically just laying them out for emphasis.

Yes, I did.

Again you demonstrate a failure to understand what you're reading, because I clearly stated MK does not meet your three basic criteria. As long as those criteria are in use, no "additions" will change anything -- the idea of an addition is that what it's being added to remains in effect, and if MK doesn't meet *your* three initial criteria I could add random extras for the rest of my life and it would never change whether MK was bannable or not.

It would have made no sense for me to try to add to them, and would just be a waste of my time -- why are you acting like I then should have? My support for banning MK is based on an entirely different set of criteria, which I have stated before and I will say this much about again: Anyone who will only support a ban of MK for being "too broken" will never like my criteria.

Maybe you want to reword this, that you're asking me for a compelling case for an entirely new set of criteria. But asking me for additions to your criteria when I've already acknowledged that MK does not satisfy the initial requirements is ridiculous.

 

[GeN0]

Yes, I did.

Again you demonstrate a failure to understand what you're reading, because I clearly stated MK does not meet your three basic criteria. As long as those criteria are in use, no "additions" will change anything -- the idea of an addition is that what it's being added to remains in effect, and if MK doesn't meet *your* three initial criteria I could add random extras for the rest of my life and it would never change whether MK was bannable or not.

It would have made no sense for me to try to add to them, and would just be a waste of my time -- why are you acting like I then should have? My support for banning MK is based on an entirely different set of criteria, which I have stated before and I will say this much about again: Anyone who will only support a ban of MK for being "too broken" will never like my criteria.

Maybe you want to reword this, that you're asking me for a compelling case for an entirely new set of criteria. But asking me for additions to your criteria when I've already acknowledged that MK does not satisfy the initial requirements is ridiculous.

Salabo you have peaked my intrest what is YOUR reasoning why MK should be banned in tournament play?

 

[Tommy_G]

What are you even saying here? Do you have a point?

In that instance, centralization on Captain Falcon would not be because he's too good of a character and breaks the metagame, but because of character preference. Your example has nothing to do with anything.

So you agree with me that a character being over-centralized has absolutely nothing to do with him/her being broken. Just because so many people use a certain character, doesn't mean they're bannable, nor does it even mean they're a good character.

 

[noodles]

So you agree with me that a character being over-centralized has absolutely nothing to do with him/her being broken. Just because so many people use a certain character, doesn't mean they're bannable, nor does it even mean they're a good character.

thats actually pretty true. thanks to scrubies link was one of the most used characters in melee XD

 

[princessofsmash]

this thread should be killed...

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

this thread should be killed...

Every day someone says to close this thread and every day no one closes it what dose this tell you?

Well two things 1.it shouldn't be closed because it's a hot topic and 2.your a dumb *** just like all of the others before you

 

[salaboB]

Salabo you have peaked my intrest what is YOUR reasoning why MK should be banned in tournament play?

Man I wish this thread would die and a new one be started so the search feature would work again for actually locating posts.

The briefest form is this: MK should be banned because he provides a safe option that no other character does for initial blind pick and for when you're going to be counterpicked. If any other character in the game also had at worst an even matchup, MK would no longer be banworthy. This means if you don't have MK available at a tournament viable level, you're giving up an advantage you can't get from mastery of anyone else. This means you're forced to use MK or be at a disadvantage (Even if slight), and there is no other character in Brawl that you can't use at least one other character instead of to gain a similar advantage from.

Get rid of MK, and you get rid of the outlier that breaks the pattern that every other character falls under. Even the new best character with MK gone will fit the pattern that the rest do, it's not something MK does simply because he's the best.

 

[Vorguen]

Marth.... with the exception of the Meta Knight matchup.

So if MK gets banned would Marth become the new Meta Knight?

Probably not, since Marth doesn't do excellent on every stages, and still has even matchups that still go 45:55 in some cases.

Meta Knight is beatable, even if he has safe options. He doesn't need to be banned, people are figuring out more and more how to beat him, and more things will continually be figured out about how to do so too.

 

[salaboB]

Marth.... with the exception of the Meta Knight matchup.

So if MK gets banned would Marth become the new Meta Knight?

Probably not, since Marth doesn't do excellent on every stages, and still has even matchups that still go 45:55 in some cases.

Meta Knight is beatable, even if he has safe options. He doesn't need to be banned, people are figuring out more and more how to beat him, and more things will continually be figured out about how to do so too.

Marth has a 40:60 against him from both Snake and DDD, according to the official matchup thread. Even if it's inaccurate, chances are neither are true neutrals (ie, you don't go from a 40:60 to 50:50 without something significant changing, so it's probably a disadvantage of some kind for Marth regardless of outdated info). If it is incorrect and you have evidence to point to for why, could you go tell the Marth boards why they need to change it so we have more accurate data to work off of? Note that DDD is also strong against Snake, so with Snake > Marth, DDD > Marth, Marth >= Everyone else, and DDD > Snake you'd get a nice trio going for who you should select initially if you're wanting "best" (Since people might choose someone that more strongly disadvantages DDD then you'd want Marth or Snake instead, etc.)

As I said, with MK gone there would be nobody left breaking the pattern of having at least a disadvantaged matchup (I *think* everyone has at least two, even if minor).

 

[P. O. F.]

Also, the way you talk about character choice in this game seems to suggest that all you see is the viablity of a character. What you aren't taking into account is character preference, players do not just choose to main a character based on how competetively viable they are, some base their character choice on preference of playstyle whereas others such as myself choose the character they are most fond of.
You say that " Competitive gaming is meant to be fair to players " but I fail to see how it is fair to the players that they are forced to choose certain characters in order to compete at the highest levels of play.
Personally though I see these arguments centered around balance to be obsolete, through the use of codes we have the oppertunity to improve the balance of the game thereby satisfying both sides of this argument and then some, but instead people have changed the actual game mechanics...

This. People should not have to choose a certain character to stand a chance against Meta Knight. I should be able to pick Luigi or Pit and have as good enough a chance to beating a MK almost as much as a Snake or Meta Knight ditto. I should not need to be limited with my character selection. In Tekken I could choose Bryan Fury to beat a Jin and in MCV2 I can go Wolverine to stand up to a Cable. In Smash 64 I can beat a Pikachu with a Captain Falcon. If I go Lucario or lets say Falco against a Meta Knight and go below the stage...I die. Theres no way around it. That's stupid.

That's the whole point I'm trying to make. It's not MK's on stage game or Tornado that makes him dumb....it's his ability to just destroy half of the casts recovery attempts in mere seconds when below the stage. It's just dumb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50S5pS0Frbs&feature=channel_page

Funny. And generally, pretty accurate. LOL.

 

[Flayl]

This. People should not have to choose a certain character to stand a chance against Meta Knight. I should be able to pick Luigi or Pit and have as good enough a chance to beating a MK almost as much as a Snake or Meta Knight ditto.

You are the biggest scrub ever. WAH MY HIGH TIER HAS A BAD MATCHUP WAH. Pit's matchup against MK isn't even THAT terrible.

 

[Biinii]

"I don't want to need to choose scissors to beat paper! I want to beat paper with rock!"

This is not your game. If you want to Pit/Luigi to be more tournament viable, then go play another Brawl. Banning MK has nothing to do with other characters tournament viability. They get ***** below stage not just by MK, its because their recovery is crap.

 

[Master Raven]

This. People should not have to choose a certain character to stand a chance against Meta Knight. I should be able to pick Luigi or Pit and have as good enough a chance to beating a MK almost as much as a Snake or Meta Knight ditto.

 

[OverLade]

YES.

 

[salaboB]

This. People should not have to choose a certain character to stand a chance against Meta Knight. I should be able to pick Luigi or Pit and have as good enough a chance to beating a MK almost as much as a Snake or Meta Knight ditto. I should not need to be limited with my character selection.

This has no influence at all on whether to ban MK or not, because all of the high tier characters do this to certain low tiers and you'd then have to ban a majority of the cast until you got a pool remaining with no significantly bad matchups (It might be banning most of the low-mid tiers, there's nothing that says you have to ban from the top down to make everything fair) This is simply unsupportable for competitive Brawl.

 

[CRASHiC]

As well, I say.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Every day someone says to close this thread and every day no one closes it what dose this tell you?

Well two things 1.it shouldn't be closed because it's a hot topic and 2.your a dumb *** just like all of the others before you

Actually I agree with him. Reason: This thread is ****ed in the database something awful. Make v4 because of the extra three pages.

 

[adumbrodeus]

This. People should not have to choose a certain character to stand a chance against Meta Knight. I should be able to pick Luigi or Pit and have as good enough a chance to beating a MK almost as much as a Snake or Meta Knight ditto. I should not need to be limited with my character selection. In Tekken I could choose Bryan Fury to beat a Jin and in MCV2 I can go Wolverine to stand up to a Cable. In Smash 64 I can beat a Pikachu with a Captain Falcon. If I go Lucario or lets say Falco against a Meta Knight and go below the stage...I die. Theres no way around it. That's stupid.

Bad match-ups exist exist, deal with it.

I dunno about Tekken, but vs a top tier team (because it's 3 vs. 3 in MvC 2) you will get destroyed if you're playing the type of team that includes wolverine.


You also happen to be picking one of the worst possible positions, with good DI you should not be under the stage period, and most characters can destroy you if you're under the stage anyway. Heck, even Ganondorf will semi-spike most characters into oblivion if they're below the stage. It's not that MK is particularly special in that respect, it's that Brawl generally punishes characters for being there.

 

[Masmasher@]

this thread should be killed...

Its comments like this that make me face palm almost worse than P.O.F You already have proven you have no staying power when you waste your vote and say comments like this

princessofsmash: no, and thats what i voted for. there should of been more Kirby characters in the first place anyways.

 

[RDK]

P.O.F., go play Mario Party or something. This is the part where I stop taking anything you say seriously.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

In Tekken I could choose Bryan Fury to beat a Jin.

wtf Bryan ***** most characters in Tekken games 0_o

Also QQ less, dude. What you say makes no sense at all. You should be able to beat MK with Luigi? I hope you know that D3 ***** Luigi a lot harder...so if you're saying MK should be banned because you can't beat him with Luigi you'd have to ban D3 first ... same goes for many characters...I can't beat the ICs with Kirby...ban them. I can't beat Snake with G&W ... ban him. I can't beat Kriby with Fox ... ban him.

Seriously, if you play competitively you have to accept that not all characters are viable. In fact most fighting games have only like 5 viable characters and do fine competitively regardless. If you can't deal with it you should play Wii sports or something like that you ****ing scrub.

 

[Xyro77]

PLEASE FILL OUT THIS SWF SURVEY! THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!!!!

http://www.smashboards.com/announcement.php?f=22&a=165


i really need all of you to fill out this survey. SWF/MLG needs this data. Please answer the question TRUTHFULLY!!!!!!

if the link doesnt work, go to the announcement board on front page of SWF

 

[deepseadiva]

^^^

Although the link doesn't work, find the real one and complain about the Friend Finder! Maybe we can finally get it back! :D

 

[Cinos_Gohegdeh]

I dont think he should be banned... This is stupid... so people are scared of meta-knight.
Doesnt mean he should be banned. Hes not the BEST character... any character can be unstoppable depending on how you use them.

 

[noodles]

no hes definitely the best character

 

[Masmasher@]

I dont think he should be banned... This is stupid... so people are scared of meta-knight.
Doesnt mean he should be banned. Hes not the BEST character... any character can be unstoppable depending on how you use them.

I think you should know by now that its more than being scared to face him.
Oh and make no mistake.....he is the best character.

 

[deepseadiva]

no hes definitely the best character

He obviously meant "best" as in "auto-win."

Geez, no wonder this discussion goes nowhere - always picking and pecking at teeny flaws.

>_____>

 

[RDK]

He obviously meant "best" as in "auto-win."

Geez, no wonder this discussion goes nowhere - always picking and pecking at teeny flaws.

>_____>

No, he's just being stupid. And stupid here means "not smart".

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

He obviously meant "best" as in "auto-win."

Geez, no wonder this discussion goes nowhere - always picking and pecking at teeny flaws.

>_____>

obviously since best and auto-win are spelled so similar and have such close meanings.

 

[Exia 00]

Yes, MK is... tough to play against.

Learn Snake... don't ban him.

 

[deepseadiva]

obviously since best and auto-win are spelled so similar and have such close meanings.

It was clearly the connotation he was going for...

Still, I hate how this thread always compiles into walls of "AHEM."

 

[Vorguen]

I have no quarrels with Meta Knights.



Ban Falco for me though.

>.<

 

[Palpi]

Why for you? lol