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

[Yuna]

I may be remembering this wrong, but wasn't sheik banned for a month or two?

You are remembering it catastrophically wrong.

Also, regarding "breaking" the counterpick systems. Wow, how horrible. Let's ban Peach for breaking the "No Items"-system. Or ban Jigglypuff for being virtually literally impossible to ever kill by preventing her from making it back to the stage (i.e. gimping). Ban any character who has a technique which can be chained which violates the holy testament of DI (DI has no effect). Ban ICs for a myriad of reasons, one of which is being two instead of one character.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

You are remembering it catastrophically wrong.

Also, regarding "breaking" the counterpick systems. Wow, how horrible. Let's ban Peach for breaking the "No Items"-system. Or ban Jigglypuff for being virtually literally impossible to ever kill by preventing her from making it back to the stage (i.e. gimping). Ban any character who has a technique which can be chained which violates the holy testament of DI (DI has no effect). Ban ICs for a myriad of reasons, one of which is being two instead of one character.

You're stretching, but still, continue to do what you usually do and be loud and obnoxious in order to try to make everyone look bad.

 

[PikaPika!]

You are remembering it catastrophically wrong.

Also, regarding "breaking" the counterpick systems. Wow, how horrible. Let's ban Peach for breaking the "No Items"-system. Or ban Jigglypuff for being virtually literally impossible to ever kill by preventing her from making it back to the stage (i.e. gimping). Ban any character who has a technique which can be chained which violates the holy testament of DI (DI has no effect). Ban ICs for a myriad of reasons, one of which is being two instead of one character.

And you seem like a huge douchebag therefore your argument is invalid.

 

[Yuna]

You're stretching, but still, continue to do what you usually do and be loud and obnoxious in order to try to make everyone look bad.

I'm just using bad logic to counter bad logic. Meta Knight has no bad match-ups and no stages that are considered bad for him. Thus, he is "breaking the counterpick systems" and must therefore be banned. Seriously, this is apparently a legit argument used time and time again in the debate of whether or not to ban Meta Knight.

The argument is that since Super Smash Bros. is apparently built up around certain pillars which are considered, by some, to be sacred, breaking any of these necessitates a ban. It's not that Meta Knight is too good, so good he cannot be beat (because most people abandoned that bogus angle ages ago when they realized this to not be true), it's that he's too different and forces us to play the game differently.

This same argument was used (unsuccessfully) to try to ban D3's infinites, claiming that since DI had absolutely no effect on it, it deserved to be banned. No. Prove things are "too good" and need to be banned. Simply being different is no reason to ban things. That's just intolerance and lack of flexibility.

Thus, I argue, that since Peach is currently the only character capable of spawning items (item-like projectiles do not count), she breaks the system since the system currently "bans" items. Thus, we must ban her Down B or ban Peach herself. Really, this is just as logical as banning Meta Knight for being so different there's no effective counterpick against him.

Now you can argue that his lack of counterpicks makes him so good he's virtually unstoppable and the odds are way too skewed in his favour to allow him to not be banned. But that's another thing entirely from arguing that simply breaking the counterpick system is enough to at least partially legitimize a ban.

 

[Mic_128]

I'm just using bad logic to counter bad logic. Meta Knight has no bad match-ups and no stages that are considered bad for him. Thus, he is "breaking the counterpick systems" and must therefore be banned. Seriously, this is apparently a legit argument used time and time again in the debate of whether or not to ban Meta Knight..

The argument isn't "Meta breaks the counterpick system" but "Meta has no real bad matchups except himself, no real stages that he has a disadvantages in, in fact the only downside he has is that a lot play Meta"

That's the reason to ban, and to me it's a fair point. Don't try and be a wise-guy and claim it's "because of counterpick breaking"

ban Jigglypuff for being virtually literally impossible to ever kill by preventing her from making it back to the stage (i.e. gimping).

Ironically, Meta fills this catagory too.

 

[Muzga]

The argument isn't "Meta breaks the counterpick system" but "Meta has no real bad matchups except himself, no real stages that he has a disadvantages in, in fact the only downside he has is that a lot play Meta"

That's the reason to ban, and to me it's a fair point. Don't try and be a wise-guy and claim it's "because of counterpick breaking"



Ironically, Meta fills this catagory too.

So mic.... youre one of them?

So essentially youre saying that because metaknight is formadible offensively and defensively in all situations he should be banned? is that it?

Because i was under the impression that to ban a character you needed more basis for it then just "Great all round."

 

[Yuna]

The argument isn't "Meta breaks the counterpick system" but "Meta has no real bad matchups except himself, no real stages that he has a disadvantages in, in fact the only downside he has is that a lot play Meta"

Why do you think it's reasons enough for a ban to simply have no disadvantages, completely ignoring the fact that he's not so far above everyone else he's really, really hard to beat (he isn't)?

That's the reason to ban, and to me it's a fair point. Don't try and be a wise-guy and claim it's "because of counterpick breaking"

Funny. A lot of people actually make the argument that simply breaking the counterpick system is enough to be considered a reason for a ban. In fact, they made it just a few pages ago, which is what prompted me to write that post regarding the subject! I was simply to lazy to quote the post I was responding to.

Ironically, Meta fills this catagory too.

And? Jigglypuff would still need to be banned.

 

[Ulevo]

Don't try and be a wise-guy and claim it's "because of counterpick breaking"

Um. People make that argument all the time. He has a legitimate point.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

And it all comes back down to the idea to try to get some test cases going.

 

[Mic_128]

Funny. A lot of people actually make the argument that simply breaking the counterpick system is enough to be considered a reason for a ban.

Um. People make that argument all the time. He has a legitimate point.

I guess that's what I get for not reading the threads in here about it. "Breaking counterpick system" is not a reason to ban, with that wording.

Why do you think it's reasons enough for a ban to simply have no disadvantages, completely ignoring the fact that he's not so far above everyone else he's really, really hard to beat (he isn't)?

List me these characters that can consistently beat Meta, not just a few random matches spread around the entire tournament scene. Please.

And? Jigglypuff would still need to be banned.

Which will never happen, dur.

So mic.... youre one of them?

I'm on the fence, not that it affects us much if at all anyway. Now if we can get Toon Link banned...

So essentially youre saying that because metaknight is formadible offensively and defensively in all situations he should be banned? is that it?

him being the best offensive character, the best defensive character, has one of, if not the best recovery, has no real stage disadvantages, no real negative character matchups, to the point where many high level players abandon their main to go Meta when they come against Meta in a tournament....I'd be leaning towards seeing how banning, even temporarily, would affect things.

 

[Yuna]

List me these characters that can consistently beat Meta, not just a few random matches spread around the entire tournament scene. Please.

The fact that the vast majority of the best Brawl players in the world have flocked to Meta makes it very hard to show proof of some of the best Meta Knight players in the world consistently being beaten by characters other than Meta Knight himself.

Also, how consistently would this have to be? And how do we really gauge whether or not two people are of roughly equal skill level? I could find evidence of X-player beating MK as a character other than MK and you could reply with "Not equal skill level!"

Also, that is not what you argued. You argued that simply having no counters was enough. I argue that if you can prove that Meta Knight is so good he cannot be consistently beaten when you people of roughly equal skill level meet up with a character other than himself, with the odds far too skewed in his favor, then I will favor a ban.

This is what you originally argued:
Meta has no real bad matchups except himself, no real stages that he has a disadvantages in, in fact the only downside he has is that a lot play Meta"

This is not "Meta Knight is not being defeated consistently by any character other than Meta Knight himself". You can't just make a statement and when questioned about said statement change it into something else entirely.

Which will never happen, dur.

I was using it as a point to illustrate how ridiculous the opposition's arguments were, dur.

him being the best offensive character, the best defensive character, has one of, if not the best recovery, has no real stage disadvantages, no real negative character matchups...

Yes. And? You can have all of that and still not be so good you have to be babnned. Plenty of characters have this in plenty of games (minus the whole "stage disadvantage"-thing).

to the point where many high level players abandon their main to go Meta when they come against Meta in a tournament...

Wow, he's popular! Wow, people tierwhore! Unheard of! It's not like this happens everyday in every single fighting game community besides quite possibly the Guilty Gear community!

 

[Dantarion]

We know he isnt unbeatable. The problem is that the game is beginning to REVOLVE around him, and only him. For me at least, this is less about "breaking the counterpick system" and more about "breaking the competitive community"

 

[Muzga]

We know he isnt unbeatable. The problem is that the game is beginning to REVOLVE around him, and only him. For me at least, this is less about "breaking the counterpick system" and more about "breaking the competitive community"

That argument is flawed. you are arguing to ban the most popular character in the game and saying that because it breaks the community?
Banning metaknight would break the community if metaknight is the most popular character!!

 

[Yuna]

We know he isnt unbeatable. The problem is that the game is beginning to REVOLVE around him, and only him. For me at least, this is less about "breaking the counterpick system" and more about "breaking the competitive community"

IMO, popularity is not a legit reason for a ban.

 

[Toby.]

That argument is flawed. you are arguing to ban the most popular character in the game and saying that because it breaks the community?
Banning metaknight would break the community if metaknight is the most popular character!!

Tbh I find this argument pretty flawed as well. It didn't break the community when ridiculous amounts of people dropped their mains to pick up metaknight, and yet it would break the community if all the metaknight mains had to choose a different character?

'Popular' is a strange word to use as well. It implies that people use metaknight because he's simply their favourite character, rather than because he's so crazy good. Of course there are MK players who use him because he's the most enjoyable (although clearly since people like to win they would find MK enjoyable), but given that so many players have flocked to metaknight and rejected their favourite characters I think its foolish to think these same people would magically quit brawl now that reason they had to leave their facourite character behind is gone.

Just thought I'd point that out.

 

[Mic_128]

The fact that the vast majority of the best Brawl players in the world have flocked to Meta makes it very hard to show proof of some of the best Meta Knight players in the world consistently being beaten by characters other than Meta Knight himself.

Also, how consistently would this have to be? And how do we really gauge whether or not two people are of roughly equal skill level? I could find evidence of X-player beating MK as a character other than MK and you could reply with "Not equal skill level!"

So basically you're conceding that despite your claims that he is beatable, you can't give me any characters who can consistently beat Meta with proof?

Also, that is not what you argued. You argued that simply having no counters was enough.

No, having no counters isn't enough to ban. Having no counters on top of everything else he has going for him, I can see why people would want to ban him, yes.

I argue that if you can prove that Meta Knight is so good he cannot be consistently beaten when you people of roughly equal skill level meet up with a character other than himself, with the odds far too skewed in his favor, then I will favor a ban.

Wow, he's popular! Wow, people tierwhore! Unheard of! It's not like this happens everyday in every single fighting game community besides quite possibly the Guilty Gear community!

People are abandoning their top tier mains (Falco, Snake) because they stand a better chance playing Meta against Meta. It's become to remain competative, you must play Meta at some point.

This is what you originally argued:
Meta has no real bad matchups except himself, no real stages that he has a disadvantages in, in fact the only downside he has is that a lot play Meta"

This is not "Meta Knight is not being defeated consistently by any character other than Meta Knight himself". You can't just make a statement and when questioned about said statement change it into something else entirely.

If I have, I apologize, but I stand by both those statements.

I was using it as a point to illustrate how ridiculous the opposition's arguments were, dur.

And the fact that you just messing around managed to illustrate yet another major meta plus?

Yes. And? You can have all of that and still not be so good you have to be babnned. Plenty of characters have this in plenty of games (minus the whole "stage disadvantage"-thing).

Examples please? I don't really keep up with any other fighting game scenes, but I'd like to know what ones are in the same position.

That argument is flawed. you are arguing to ban the most popular character in the game and saying that because it breaks the community?
Banning metaknight would break the community if metaknight is the most popular character!!

If it becomes that you have to play Metaknight in order to win/place high, than the community is already broken.

We know he isnt unbeatable.

True. The question however, is he constantly beatable? Meta might be beaten 5 times, but does it matter when he wins 95 times first? In Melee fox was top of the top, but he was still beaten by others often.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

IMO, popularity is not a legit reason for a ban.

His popularity is more of a result of how good he is than a reason to ban him.

Sorry, but if we're to continue to ban Smash Balls, items, and some stages, then a Meta Knight ban is a perfectly acceptable thing to talk about.

What it comes down to is this: he is the answer to every problem you could possibly have, which is imbalanced, and not just a little, but heavily. If he was eliminated, we'd have a situation similar to the one we had in melee, where the top 5-6 characters (in this case, 10-15 characters) would go well enough against each other. Whether or not you think that's a good enough reason for a ban is what this comes down to. I do. Half the community at least does. Hell, even Play to Win, the competition bible does. Ever read the subject on bans? MK fits perfectly.

Now I'm not totally unreasonable so I'll level with you: a lot of what I just said isn't "technically" logical. Appeals to popularity and authority, etc. But what we have here is a community that has made several illogical concessions to better foster a competitive environment. Why? Because we recognize that the game we play is not fit for competition without changes to the way it's played by party-goers and casuals.

Characters are not sacred things. It doesn't matter how many people are playing the game. It doesn't matter how many people are playing Meta Knight. If items and stages are fair game, so are characters. The second you stop thinking about characters as being things that need to be preserved unless absolutely necessary (and I'm sure the only time you'd be for a ban was if MK was Akuma level or crashed the game when loading it) then you start to see where we're coming from. He's not important. He's a detriment.

And hell, we have more than a bunch of whining complaining scrubs anyway. We have pro players like Snakeee coming out in support for at least a temporary ban. We have at least part of the SBR in support as well. We have data supporting it, too, such as overwhelmingly one-sided tournament results across the board. This isn't just a parade of whining, no matter how much baloney you spew forth while pretending we're all just *****ing for the sake of it.

 

[actionblackbird]

I herd that one tournament had 7 mk in a row...
mk dittos are boring
the char is boring.
it planks
and stuff.

 

[bobson]

Oh goodie, Yuna finally showed up.

 

[Muzga]

So basically you're conceding that despite your claims that he is beatable, you can't give me any characters who can consistently beat Meta with proof?



No, having no counters isn't enough to ban. Having no counters on top of everything else he has going for him, I can see why people would want to ban him, yes.





People are abandoning their top tier mains (Falco, Snake) because they stand a better chance playing Meta against Meta. It's become to remain competative, you must play Meta at some point.



If I have, I apologize, but I stand by both those statements.



And the fact that you just messing around managed to illustrate yet another major meta plus?



Examples please? I don't really keep up with any other fighting game scenes, but I'd like to know what ones are in the same position.



If it becomes that you have to play Metaknight in order to win/place high, than the community is already broken.



True. The question however, is he constantly beatable? Meta might be beaten 5 times, but does it matter when he wins 95 times first? In Melee fox was top of the top, but he was still beaten by others often.

Are you saying that from experience?
The last time i checked i was the only half-decent mk main in perth
Nawwwww, mic hates me

 

[Keen]

Ban him, see how it goes. We lose nothing by trying a temp. ban.


I main MK.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Oh man Yuna's up in this *****. Now I'm happy for being here.

 

[PCyph]

Alright, I want to quickly address some trends I'm seeing in this thread.


- A temporary ban for the purpose of getting other metagames up to speed will NOT work. All it will do is improve MK's metagame because people will still be working with him behind closed doors and we will have a massive flood of unseen MK's all at one time once the ban is lifted. This is a terrible idea.

- A temp ban to "see how it works" will most likely yield the same results.

- I read a quote saying "they chose to ban Old Sagat to promote diversity and make the competitive game better". THIS is what we should be looking at, he is not unbeatable BUT will banning him make the whole entire competitive scene better? Will it promote growth? Maybe even more mainstream popularity. In my opinion yes but this is the question people need to answer.

- The whole "well the best players would still win" argument is also stupid because of the reason listed above.

The reason we want to ban metaknight is simply because his zero bad matchups make it unnecessary for a player to need or want to choose any other character. This opens the floodgates for massive amounts of MK players, which leads to less diversity and overall a worse competitive environment in my opinion.

EDIT: tl;dr version:

The real question you need to ask is not whether or not he is unbeatable, it is whether or not the banning of Meta Knight will improve the competitive scene as a whole, the same question SF players asked themselves about the ban of Old Sagat.

 

[PCyph]

IMO, popularity is not a legit reason for a ban.

Sorry for double post but,

popularity stemming from an(in my opinion) easier, and better character to play, could be considered a legit reason for a ban. Taking into consideration that we want to make the competitive scene the best it can be.

 

[Nic64]

- I read a quote saying "they chose to ban Old Sagat to promote diversity and make the competitive game better". THIS is what we should be looking at, he is not unbeatable BUT will banning him make the whole entire competitive scene better? Will it promote growth? Maybe even more mainstream popularity. In my opinion yes but this is the question people need to answer.

If you're going to treat this as a valid reason for banning a character, the list of viable characters would also be much larger if you banned Snake, DDD, GAW, Olimar, and Falco too.

 

[PCyph]

If you're going to treat this as a valid reason for banning a character, the list of viable characters would also be much larger if you banned Snake, DDD, GAW, Olimar, and Falco too.

Not at all, NONE of those characters have ZERO bad matchups or stages.

If you are playing to win there is no reason to not choose metaknight other then "brawl cred". This is what is dragging the game down. As long as there is at least a HANDFUL of possible choices, the game will be MUCH more diverse and exciting.

In theory of course.

 

[Nic64]

Not at all, NONE of those characters have ZERO bad matchups or stages.

If you are playing to win there is no reason to not choose metaknight other then "brawl cred". This is what is dragging the game down.

I didn't say those characters are overcentralizing, I said removing them would vastly increase the number of viable characters because, along with Meta Knight, they completely shut down more characters in ridiculous ways, like playing DK is just pointless when you could encounter a DDD player even if they're way worse than you they'll probably win. That's why I didn't include wario, diddy, or marth on that list in spite of them also being great characters, because I don't feel like they completely shut down many characters like DDD/Snake/Falco especially do. It's arguable that the overall competitive scene would be better off without *all* of these characters.

 

[PCyph]

I didn't say those characters are overcentralizing, I said removing them would vastly increase the number of viable characters because, along with Meta Knight, they completely shut down more characters in ridiculous ways, like playing DK is just pointless when you could encounter a DDD player even if they're way worse than you they'll probably win. That's why I didn't include wario, diddy, or marth on that list in spite of them also being great characters, because I don't feel like they completely shut down many characters like DDD/Snake/Falco especially do

Thats why people have secondaries,

with MK you don't need a secondary, you just need more Metaknight.

By the way I like this debate on this page, not a flame or a bad name to be found

 

[Yuna]

'Popular' is a strange word to use as well. It implies that people use metaknight because he's simply their favourite character, rather than because he's so crazy good.

No it doesn't. You can be popular for my reasons, one of which being the best character in the game. It's no coincidence that the best characters in any Competitive game is always the most frequently used ones.

You can be very popular and a "crazy good" character without breaking the game to such a point where you need to be banned.

 

[Mic_128]

Are you saying that from experience?
The last time i checked i was the only half-decent mk main in perth
Nawwwww, mic hates me

Hey, we've got the best set of mains in our neck of the woods. A lot of tasty variety :D

 

[Eddie G]

Oh man Yuna's up in this *****. Now I'm happy for being here.

*Facepalm*

Don't be such a fanboy...

 

[PCyph]

Look, we play a game that isn't designed to be played competitively. We acknowledge that (or we should). Even if you played melee competitively, you had to acknowledge that the game wasn't designed to be played that way. As such, we make changes or concessions to the game in order to preserve a competitive atmosphere. We ban items, certain stages. We set a stock limit and use a (mostly arbitrary) time limit. We impose restrictions on sudden deaths (for instance, the Bowser and Ganondorf rules). These are not game rules, these are things we made up because we thought they would be better for competition.

Why are we not playing the game with all items and smash balls on? Why are we not doing epic tourney matches with a 2 minute time limit on Rumble Falls? The answer is because they don't foster the competitive atmosphere we have come to expect from the game.

We play a game that was not designed for competition. Meta Knight belongs in the same place the rest of our concessions that don't foster healthy competition do: on the ban list.

On an unrelated note, from my short time here this man and Yuna, and others posting right now in this thread are probably my favorite posters.

Well thought-out posts with valid points and good discussion.

ILY GUIZE

 

[Keen]

Sorry, dumb question but.. wtf is a Meta Knight?

 

[Nic64]

Thats why people have secondaries,

with MK you don't need a secondary, you just need more Metaknight.

By the way I like this debate on this page, not a flame or a bad name to be found

So you use DK in game one and they use DDD, they win easily. Then you go Falco and easily win game 2. Then they pick Ice Climbers and destroy you in game 3...the net result is the same even with switching to your secondary, you lost because you main DK or possibly even worse, you lost just because of luck. If banning one character because they're too good and dominate too many isn't out of the question why not ban all of the characters responsible for the largest number of matchups worse than 65:35? Less unwinnable matchups = better competitive environment where even some low/mid tiers could stand a chance even if still seriously handicapped, and with these characters you even have would be high tier characters like DK that are unviable.

Also you don't really need a secondary for characters like Snake or Wario, their worst matchups are still winnable, so you'll still see these kinds of characters attract the most players.

(note that I'm not seriously advocating banning half of the top/high tier, just playing the devils advocate here, if banning one character is ok solely to make the game more enjoyable for more people, why stop there?)

 

[Brinzy]

For those who keep bringing it up: a potential increase in diversity is the stupidest ****ing reason to ban a character.

 

[Red Arremer]

So, what do you expect the tournament results to look like if MK is gone? Whom will we see? Will we see Low Tier characters suddenly prevail highly? Note that I'm not speaking of incredibly talented LT players like Xyro (I would love to know how well he would do if he wouldn't play Samus =O).

I foresee almost no change in variety. Instead of many MKs, we'll have mostly Snakes, some Dededes, Warios, GaWs, Diddys or Marths. Especially if the good players of those characters are playing in those tournaments. Wow.

And how is that very different to what we usually see?

 

[xDD-Master]

No 50% MK in the Top anymore.

For me, a big difference.

 

[GHNeko]

So, what do you expect the tournament results to look like if MK is gone? Whom will we see? Will we see Low Tier characters suddenly prevail highly? Note that I'm not speaking of incredibly talented LT players like Xyro (I would love to know how well he would do if he wouldn't play Samus =O).

I foresee almost no change in variety. Instead of many MKs, we'll have mostly Snakes, some Dededes, Warios, GaWs, Diddys or Marths. Especially if the good players of those characters are playing in those tournaments. Wow.

And how is that very different to what we usually see?

Tounrey results will probably look like this.


Snake/Falco/Marth are winning tourneys.

Counters for Snake spring up. Counters for Falco spring up. High Tiers already counter Marth.

Counters for Snake counters spring up. Counters for Falco counters spring up, and this basically repeat itself.

 

[Red Arremer]

I doubt it will make such a big difference, really. Of course, the Meta Knight players will be gone, but those will still place, this time though with Snake or D3. And since those characters place well, too, I really have my doubts that the results will look so extremely different, really.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I doubt it will make such a big difference, really. Of course, the Meta Knight players will be gone, but those will still place, this time though with Snake or D3. And since those characters place well, too, I really have my doubts that the results will look so extremely different, really.

Slippery. Slope. Fallacy.