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

[Brinzy]

he didn't vote, he just said he'd voice his opinion, and people who don't care are probably the most reliable in that regard as 90% of everything else in this thread is biased and meant only to serve someones agenda one way or the other

I never assumed he voted. I was just criticizing something he said, which would lead to having an opinion on something you don't really care about (as in, zero care as opposed to very little care).

Why would they be more reliable? If you were talking about pure votes, sure, one could be biased, but those who have more weight in voting have shown that they aren't very biased at all. Why would you ask a third party what to do when they're apathetic?

 

[Exceladon City]

I never assumed he voted. I was just criticizing something he said, which would lead to having an opinion on something you don't really care about (as in, zero care as opposed to very little care).

Why would they be more reliable? If you were talking about pure votes, sure, one could be biased, but those who have more weight in voting have shown that they aren't very biased at all. Why would you ask a third party what to do when they're apathetic?

If it made you feel better to know an answer, I'd be against the ban.

 

[Delvro]

If this keeps up the yes-ban might lose their majority soon

 

[Hence]

No, absolutely not.

Never.

Brawl wouldn't be the same without Meta Knight.
Hell, I'd probably stop playing.

 

[Ryusuta]

If this keeps up the yes-ban might lose their majority soon

I seriously doubt that. Even adding a third option hasn't caused the "Yes" option to lose its majority. In fact, in a relative sense, it has a GREATER majority over the "No" option.

 

[Xyro77]

You misunderstood my question. The results of all three of these polls haven't changed significantly. SBRB (in typical fashion) has ignored all three of the polls. There's really no point in repeatedly running the same poll over and over again, especially if the results don't change and are ignored anyway. It's just an excuse to continue bickering.

Im going to be honest with you. BEFORE i was let into the sbr i thought the EXACT same way(why are they making poll after poll and not doing anything). We now that i am a part of the sbr i realize why. We need MASS amounts of data all ALL kinds of issues over a long period of time. PLEASE believe that WE are watching each poll day after daya nd we are reading ALL of yall views. TRUST ME. This poll would not have been made a 3rd time if the issue wasnt semi serious.

 

[Yanoss1313]

That would be incredibly pointless and possibly even damaging in some situations. This poll may not mean too much, but if you ever go to vote for senators or presidents or something, please don't just pick someone because "you don't care." Just stay home.

idc = no vote plz

sadly, not an option around where i live (Australia) i got a fine because i missed a local election that i didn't even know about >.< stupid compulsary voting!

 

[Brinzy]

What in the ****.

I would be pissed.

 

[Ryusuta]

Im going to be honest with you. BEFORE i was let into the sbr i thought the EXACT same way(why are they making poll after poll and not doing anything). We now that i am a part of the sbr i realize why. We need MASS amounts of data all ALL kinds of issues over a long period of time. PLEASE believe that WE are watching each poll day after daya nd we are reading ALL of yall views. TRUST ME. This poll would not have been made a 3rd time if the issue wasnt semi serious.

If there were some oversights for the SBRB, I would give you the benefit of the doubt. But unfortunately, they hold all discussion behind closed doors, so no one can indicate flaws in their logic. They are (definitely) not infallible human beings, and there are people whose opinions I trust on this game as much or much MORE so than members' that don't belong to SBRB.

Unless I have some indication about what SBRB is doing and why they're doing it, I'm afraid I really can't give any credence to their decisions being logical.

I've been saying this from the start: if you would like private discussion without the unwashed masses interrupting, make the forum read-only like the debate hall for non-members. That way we can make SURE that you guys aren't just throwing darts blindfolded to make your decisions.

 

[OmegaXis]

No. Stop BAWWING. Meta Knight isn't that difficult to find a way around. I can at least not get three-stocked by an MK as wolf.

 

[Eddie G]

No. Stop BAWWING. Meta Knight isn't that difficult to find a way around. I can at least not get three-stocked by an MK as wolf.

First point is unnecessary. Second point is subjective. Third point...the MK that you play must not be that skilled if they're not ****** the matchup.

Try again.

 

[Xyro77]

If there were some oversights for the SBRB, I would give you the benefit of the doubt. But unfortunately, they hold all discussion behind closed doors, so no one can indicate flaws in their logic. They are (definitely) not infallible human beings, and there are people whose opinions I trust on this game as much or much MORE so than members' that don't belong to SBRB.

Unless I have some indication about what SBRB is doing and why they're doing it, I'm afraid I really can't give any credence to their decisions being logical.

I've been saying this from the start: if you would like private discussion without the unwashed masses interrupting, make the forum read-only like the debate hall for non-members. That way we can make SURE that you guys aren't just throwing darts blindfolded to make your decisions.

There is over sight in the SBR in a way. Notice on the front page of this site there are abot 20-30 new purple names? Remember seeing names that were purple and now arnt? We get rid of the ones who lurk/do not input in our discussions.

And as for the Level of intellegence in the sbr. Just look at who we have in there:

We have MANY of the greatest TOs in SMASH HISTORY(Kishprime/kishsquared/Xryo/Chibo/The mages/ and more that i cant remember).

Statistics/results experts: ALphZealot/Ankoku/SamuraiPanda.

PRO PLAYERS. M2k, Azen, Dojo, Santi, Overswarm, Dazwa, Le Thien, ChillinDude, ChuDat, NinjaLink, Edreese......the list goes on.


We have covered our bases and rest assured that why i say we have the best minds avalible working on any give subject, we really do.

 

[ShadowLink84]

.



No, there's still, and forever will be, that chance of winning; it's just very unlikely. Simply, a banned MK never has that chance to begin with.

how about melee where Mewtwo has an absolutely garbage matchup against Marth?


You didn't see Taj ****** the **** out of m2k's Marth now did you?
Secondary is a necessity

Even if a character has only one 7-3 matchup, or one 8-2 matchup you STILL need a secondary because of that one matchup which WILL be played in a set.

Realistically speaking, you have no choice but to have a secondary, because you WILL run into your worst mtchup and running into your worst matchup requires you to be much better than your opponent.

 

[xDD-Master]

Yes - 538 - 50.14%
No - 409 - 38.12%
Not Sure - 126 - 11.74%

We're shortly before that Yes will have less then 50% .______.

 

[Xyro77]

Yes - 538 - 50.14%
No - 409 - 38.12%
Not Sure - 126 - 11.74%

We're shortly before that Yes will have less then 50% .______.

relax, yes will not lose. TOO many people see the truth.

 

[ShadowLink84]

relax, yes will not lose. TOO many people see the truth.

 

[-Ran]

The longer the poll, the less meaningful the results. Smashboards would do better to announce a week in advance that they are having the poll, and hold it for one day.

 

[deepseadiva]

Realistically speaking, you have no choice but to have a secondary, because you WILL run into your worst mtchup and running into your worst matchup requires you to be much better than your opponent.

I can barely follow this thread...

But again, I can only repeat myself. Taj at least had the option of the attempt, while if he used MK during the ban, the option is never there to begin with.

 

[xDD-Master]

Let us ask the Magic Conch Shell if we should ban MK or not

 

[Brinzy]

how about melee where Mewtwo has an absolutely garbage matchup against Marth?


You didn't see Taj ****** the **** out of m2k's Marth now did you?
Secondary is a necessity

Even if a character has only one 7-3 matchup, or one 8-2 matchup you STILL need a secondary because of that one matchup which WILL be played in a set.

Realistically speaking, you have no choice but to have a secondary, because you WILL run into your worst mtchup and running into your worst matchup requires you to be much better than your opponent.

And with all of this said and done, banning a character still = 0.

Sorta, maybe, probably, practically, possibly, virtually 0 =/= definite 0

 

[ShadowLink84]

I can barely follow this thread...

But again, I can only repeat myself. Taj at least had the option of the attempt, while if he used MK during the ban, the option is never there to begin with.

Repeating yourself does not good because as we saw, he MUST have a secondary otherwise, he would not win a tournament in which a marth of equal or even slightly lesser skill appeared.

God forbid he ran into a great Marth early in the tournment, he wouldn't get a **** thing.
So he MUST use a secondary if he plans to use mewtwo, because its just THAT bad.

That goes for any character with a hard counter (which is most of low tier if not all).
You should not be fighting a Marth using Ganondorf. you WILL lose unless you are MANY times better.

And with all of this said and done, banning a character still = 0.

Sorta, maybe, probably, practically, possibly, virtually 0 =/= definite 0

it was towards a point he was making about the MK users being forced to use someone else.
Not necessarily the ban debate which I am sick of really.

What the MK user wants does not matter.
Nor does it matter what any other character mainer wants.

What is important is that this ban is done so that the metagame does not revolve around one character.

 

[Brinzy]

it was towards a point he was making about the MK users being forced to use someone else.
Not necessarily the ban debate which I am sick of really.

In that case:

Being able to use your character in some match-ups but being "forced" to use another character in really bad match-ups >>> not being able to use your character in any match-up while being forced to learn others in general, not just bad match-ups

 

[PCyph]

I'm still not understanding why less drastic measures such as restrictions or handicaps aren't being considered.

Why does it have to be all or nothing exactly? Am I missing something?

 

[Praxis]

I'm still not understanding why less drastic measures such as restrictions or handicaps aren't being considered.

Why does it have to be all or nothing exactly? Am I missing something?

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned.html
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/cheating.html

A ban must be enforceable, discrete, and warranted.

Enforceable

Sometimes, a tactic can be hard to detect. If you can’t reliably detect something, you certainly can’t enforce penalties on it. In a fighting game, a trick might make a move invulnerable that shouldn’t be, but actually detecting every time the trick is used might be nearly impossible. Or consider a real-time strategy game, where a trick might give your units a few more hit points than normal, but again, detecting this might be nearly impossible in a real game. If something is to be banned from tournament play, it must be reasonably easy to identify when it happens or to prevent it from ever happening at all.

Also in a fighting game, a move might be “unfairly” unblockable, but only when that move is executed in a certain situation with precise 1/60th of a second timing. Did the player execute it during that “unfair” time window? Or 1/60th of a second late? Perhaps he accidentally executed the move at the unfair time through sheer luck. Is he to be penalized? Imagine trying to enforce a rule that states “You may usually use move X, but there’s 1/60th of a second where you may not use move X.”

Discrete

The thing to be banned must be able to be “completely defined.” Imagine that in a fighting game, repeating a certain sequence of five moves over and over is the best tactic in the game. Further suppose that doing so is “taboo” and that players want to ban it. There is no concrete definition of exactly what must be banned. Can players do three repetitions of the five moves? What about two reps? What about one? What about repeating the first four moves and omitting the fifth? Is that okay? The game becomes a test of who is willing to play as closely as possible to the “taboo tactic” without breaking the (arbitrary) letter of the law defining the tactic.

...


Here’s an example of a completely defined game element. In the card game Magic: The Gathering, if a particular card is deemed to be too good, then it is possible to ban it. One can define completely that “that card cannot be used.” There is no fear of players still “sort of” using it, in the same way they could still “sort of” repeat the moves from the fighting game, or “sort of” camp for 2 minutes 59 seconds above. The card is a discrete entity that can feasibly be banned.

Restrictions on gameplay are not enforceable and often not really defineable either.

As for handicap, that is a valid discussion, but then the problem of deciding a reasonable handicap arises (and remember...a small handicap doesn't even hurt that much, as it prevents the character from being chaingrabbed).

A ban is the most clearly defineable and enforceable method of solving the problem.

 

[Brinzy]

Handicaps are a horrible, horrible idea for many reasons. Here's one reason:

First match: my Zelda vs. someone who picks DDD. I win the match.

Second match: he picks MK, but now gets a handicap on him. Nevermind how much this handicap is. The fact of the matter is that now I turn a match-up that wasn't complete **** on me in the first place to one that's heavily in my favor because I could just CP a stage that's very good for me and camp with Zelda or Sheik. If he manages to take a stock, I can do it again immediately because he's on a handicap.



Restrictions are also not a good idea because they ignore skill level and go by character 9though even one that would potentially go by skill level is not good).

 

[Ryusuta]

There is over sight in the SBR in a way. Notice on the front page of this site there are abot 20-30 new purple names? Remember seeing names that were purple and now arnt? We get rid of the ones who lurk/do not input in our discussions.

That's not an oversight. That's just a changing of hands.

And as for the Level of intellegence in the sbr.

I didn't say anything about the intelligence level of the SBR.

We have covered our bases and rest assured that why i say we have the best minds avalible working on any give subject, we really do.

Even the best minds can be working on the complete wrong track. The SBR's methodology has been questionable at best and there is STILL next to no rationale behind any of the conclusions SBR arrives at, except for the scant details they feel they might throw our way.

Take both versions of the tier list so far, for example. There has been no consistency whatsoever in the tier placement of characters, other than a vague notion that this character might seem to fit somewhere around a certain area. In other words, the SBRB could vote in ANY direction for ANY reason. How does that make any sense? And that was the ONLY information we were given on how the list was formed.

The same applies here. We don't know what rationale you're using for whether Meta Knight should be banned or not. For all we know, you might be talking about keeping him legal because you like his rainbow-colored outfit! We don't know! How on earth are we supposed to trust decisions like that?

Yes, there are some very impressive credentials inside of the SBRB. But at the same exact time, there are equally impressive credentials from non-members as well.

And more importantly than that, it's not - and I can't stress this enough - NOT the credentials of the person making a statement that mean anything, but the validity of the statement itself. The phrase for claiming otherwise is argumentum ad hominem, or "argument against the man." In other words, when you say that someone is right or wrong because it's coming from a specific source, you immediately invalidate the actual content of what's being said.

When do we get to hear all of the information behind the polls and decisions? Are people really just content with the "Because we said so," declaration for everything to come out of SBRB? It's baffling to me, it really is. The ONLY reason I could think of for SBRB to be totally blocked off for non-members is that you want to make it a private club to feel important and special rather than to make serious decisions.

I mean, no disrespect intended to you personally or anyone else in the SBRB that's listening, but I've explained this numerous times, and I feel like I'm not getting through to you guys on this. No oversight + no accountability = no validity.

 

[Syde7]

On the subject of counters and such:

I main ROB, so- I admit that on the surface my desire to ban MK may be biased. However, its important to note that ZSS has a relatively easy infinite on ROB that results in an automatic stock loss if the player perfects it (and the set-up is the only part that's difficult that I've heard from ZSS mains. Once you start it, its easy to continue).

The result is that it makes the ZSS/ROB matchup basically hopeless. It swings it to something along the lines of a possible 7-3 or 8-2. But, I'm not seeking, or even desiring to ban ZSS. Nor am I advocating banning the infinite (though if it happened to get banned, I wouldn't be upset =P), or even considering the whole "limit it to 3-5 in a chain" (which again, if it happened, I certainly wouldn't be opposed.)

I also am not advocating banning GaW because of the horrible match-up (in the neighborhood of 35-65).

The reasons?

I do have counterpick options, both in terms of stages AND characters against these characters (outside of MK). Against MK, I have neither, and therefore the "well your character gets ***** by MK so of course you want him banned" becomes irrelevant- because the stance is based on that I have the inability to counterpick him as I would OTHER characters that "**** mine so hard"

Therefore, though there is a personal bias- it is entirely separate from the arguments that I make advocating the ban of MK. While I admit that one could argue: "You've made your decision BASED on personal bias, and are just backing it up with facts" I would retort that the facts I present stand up WITHOUT the personal bias. Facts are facts, regardless as to why they are presented. The fact that I personally would rather see MK banned than a character that can automatically take a stock from me at ANY time, should evidence that personal bias is not a factor.

While the aforementioned statement DOES refer to one specific matchup, it is presented so as to show my objectivity when taking my position.

 

[ShadowLink84]

In that case:

Being able to use your character in some match-ups but being "forced" to use another character in really bad match-ups >>> not being able to use your character in any match-up while being forced to learn others in general, not just bad match-ups

That was, rather confusing wording. XD

Degrees is irrelevant, because in both cases someone is being forced out of their character no?

 

[Inui]

A lot of the pro-ban side is biased based on their character's match-up with MK or their own terribleness against MK...

I'm not saying the anti-ban side doesn't have bias, but I definitely don't see as much.

I doubt that even 25% of the anti-ban voters are MK mains.

 

[|RK|]

First point is unnecessary. Second point is subjective. Third point...the MK that you play must not be that skilled if they're not ****** the matchup.

Try again.

I don't get why it is that the MK has to be horrible whenever someone does something like the example you attempted to counter. Can't the Wolf player just be good? Sheesh. Once again, player skill accounts for a lot. If M2K decided to try out Captain Falcon, he'd likely not get three stocked as well. He might even win against us. Player skill, people, it exists.

 

[Brinzy]

That was, rather confusing wording. XD

Degrees is irrelevant, because in both cases someone is being forced out of their character no?

In one case, you're forced out because you have a **** match-up in front of you.

In the other, you're forced out because of a rule.

Rules apply to everything. Not all of your match-ups will be ****.

 

[Syde7]

A lot of the pro-ban side is biased based on their character's match-up with MK or their own terribleness against MK...

I'm not saying the anti-ban side doesn't have bias, but I definitely don't see as much.

I doubt that even 25% of the anti-ban voters are MK mains.

This may be true: but...because I doubt that 25% of MK mains are willing to give up the HUGE advantage it gives them in almost every possible scenario. Because I doubt that 25% of MK mains can separate their love of winning markedly easier from the facts at hand. Because I think that 75% of the MK mains use him as a crutch.

 

[Praxis]

On the subject of counters and such:

I main ROB, so- I admit that on the surface my desire to ban MK may be biased. However, its important to note that ZSS has a relatively easy infinite on ROB that results in an automatic stock loss if the player perfects it (and the set-up is the only part that's difficult that I've heard from ZSS mains. Once you start it, its easy to continue).

The result is that it makes the ZSS/ROB matchup basically hopeless. It swings it to something along the lines of a possible 7-3 or 8-2. But, I'm not seeking, or even desiring to ban ZSS. Nor am I advocating banning the infinite (though if it happened to get banned, I wouldn't be upset =P), or even considering the whole "limit it to 3-5 in a chain" (which again, if it happened, I certainly wouldn't be opposed.)

I also am not advocating banning GaW because of the horrible match-up (in the neighborhood of 35-65).

The reasons?

I do have counterpick options, both in terms of stages AND characters against these characters (outside of MK). Against MK, I have neither, and therefore the "well your character gets ***** by MK so of course you want him banned" becomes irrelevant- because the stance is based on that I have the inability to counterpick him as I would OTHER characters that "**** mine so hard"

Therefore, though there is a personal bias- it is entirely separate from the arguments that I make advocating the ban of MK. While I admit that one could argue: "You've made your decision BASED on personal bias, and are just backing it up with facts" I would retort that the facts I present stand up WITHOUT the personal bias. Facts are facts, regardless as to why they are presented. The fact that I personally would rather see MK banned than a character that can automatically take a stock from me at ANY time, should evidence that personal bias is not a factor.

While the aforementioned statement DOES refer to one specific matchup, it is presented so as to show my objectivity when taking my position.

IMO, this is a major factor. I'm in the same boat; I believe Peach vs MK to be 65:35 once the MK truly understands the matchup (luckily, few do).

G&W's equally bad (65:35), but hey...we can counterpick him.

MK? Who do I counterpick? G&W doesn't make my character unviable, because I can pick a second. But if MK is legal, it not only makes my character unviable, it utterly screws over anyone with a bad matchup on him because they cannot counterpick.


I actually usually win MK dittos, so MK is now my second, just to beat MK (though I go Peach when I don't think they know the matchup, and usually win because I know exactly what to do). :/ This, to me, is absurd.

 

[Ravin]

To counterpick MK Praxis, you have to pick a different color Metaknight.

 

[Veggi]

You know what would be nice, though? If the MK is allowed to have a choice. Perhaps something simple, like giving up counterpicking and/or stage banning rights for the ability to play as Meta Knight (Opponent would be able to choose both stages after the random, thereby preventing Rainbow Cruise insta wins and other shenanigans on other MK-favorable stages.)

This way, the Meta Knight mains are allowed to stay, and they're still the best character in the game, but they can't automatically win a set anymore simply because they are so great on certain counterpicks, and by negating their stage bans, it gives other characters a viable chance, as some characters have very even matches with Meta Knight on certain stages (usually Final Destination). Simple methods like these probably should be looked into before a ban.

This idea seems like it should be looked into. I'd like to add some things though, the MK main has to use MK for the entire set so he can't skip over the rule, then there would be Dave's rule so that they can't pick the same stage again after the MK loses on it. This way, I don't think MK would break the counter pick system, MK has no bad matchups as of now, but then the stage counterpick system would be enforced twice as hard against him.

As a DK main, a majority of the tourneys I look at ban all of his good stages, but I don't mind almost at all despite it giving me a disadvantage. I'm guessing MK mains would feel similar. Using this method, MK doesn't wreck the counterpick system, which from my understanding, is the main reason for wanting a ban. In addition, MK mains get to keep the character they've played as for a year.

I can't help but feel there might be a flaw though.

 

[UltiMario]

I would like to simply state that if Captain falcon was this broken, nobody would vote to ban him.
It's just hate for the Masked Puffball.

 

[Nic64]

To counterpick MK Praxis, you have to pick a different color Metaknight.

Same color Meta Knight is even better, maybe a hard counter!?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

A lot of the pro-ban side is biased based on their character's match-up with MK or their own terribleness against MK...

Dumb. No one has a good match-up vs MK. It isn't like it's possible for that guy who has a 60:40 on MK to come out in support of a ban, because no one has that. Try again.

 

[Nic64]

Dumb. No one has a good match-up vs MK.

True, but there is a big difference between Snake/Wario/Diddy vs MK and, lets say, ROB or Marth. The first three have a good chance even if it's still disadvantaged.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Dumb. No one has a good match-up vs MK. It isn't like it's possible for that guy who has a 60:40 on MK to come out in support of a ban, because no one has that. Try again.

Sigh. Man, that's funny.