-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Should Metaknight be Banned? ***Take 3***
- Thread starter SamuraiPanda
- Start date
- Status
Yes, ADHD can do that to you.
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
^^ are you talking about the player, or the mental irregularity at this point?
Brinzy
Godfather of the Crimean Mafia
I think he was making a crack at the mental irregularity.
Red Arremer
Smash Legend
... *sighs* *repeatedly slams head against wall trying to ignore this* *succeeds with the loss of several brain cells* *continues*
tocador
Smash Lord
This is win rofl.
I only think we can say MK has a advantage at a MU when we oficially decide how do we make MU's. Cmon, MU nowadays are what people THINK should happen in a theory and etc.... There is no concrete proof of MK vs Diddy/Snake/Wario/[insert other char here] is even or 55-45 or etc....
So as long as we dont have the right deffinition of MU, this whole ban-mk-stuff is completly useless.
Da-D-Mon-109
Smash Lord
:flame:
I have another question. And one of my friends calls me stupid for this, but still, I feel the need to ask.
People are willing to support camping.
People are willing to support spaming.
People are willing to support planking.
People are willing to support infinite chain grabs that can turn specific matchups as bad as 10-90.
People are willing to basically do anything and everything it takes to win.
But using Metaknight is apparently a federal offense.
I'm still on the fence on this issue, not voting either way until I hear a good enough reason why, but I find this weird. People do anything else to win, but aparently using Metaknight (which doesn't guarantee victory) leads to the Ultimate John"you only won because you used MetaKnight!"... and yet that John seems to be acceptable...
I dunno, I just find that weird. Can someone explain that?
:flame:
I have another question. And one of my friends calls me stupid for this, but still, I feel the need to ask.
People are willing to support camping.
People are willing to support spaming.
People are willing to support planking.
People are willing to support infinite chain grabs that can turn specific matchups as bad as 10-90.
People are willing to basically do anything and everything it takes to win.
But using Metaknight is apparently a federal offense.
I'm still on the fence on this issue, not voting either way until I hear a good enough reason why, but I find this weird. People do anything else to win, but aparently using Metaknight (which doesn't guarantee victory) leads to the Ultimate John"you only won because you used MetaKnight!"... and yet that John seems to be acceptable...
I dunno, I just find that weird. Can someone explain that?
:flame:
I would like to add my opinion on the Meta Knight situation...
Personally, I HATE the idea of the tier list. As said a hundred times by a hundred different people, all it does it convinces players to overplay certain characters ( meta, snake, marth, falco, d3, GaW) and overly neglect others(Ganon and Jiggs and the captain). That being said, it is obvious that captain falcon is nothing compared to what he was and Meta Knight has the edge and is the best character in the game. This is being said without taking the skill of the ploayers in question into account, but if equally skilled players played eachother, and one was meta knight, he would have the edge in several ways. Characters like Snake and falco are still difficult but nearly as much as Meta. Its sad that when you look at tournys, Meta is the only thing you see in the top ten aside from maybe 1 or 2 slots. You dont see a mixed amount of "top tier" characters, just meta. Removing him from tourny play would allow for more diversity even though people will still see pretty much only "top tier" characters ranking. It would look similar to this....
1. Snake
2. GaW
3. Snake
4. Falco
5. Wario
As apposed to..
1. meta
2. meta
3. meta
4. meta
5. Falco/meta
I know its already been said but I though I would throw my opinion out there. I dont kow if banning him will happen, in fact I doubt it will, but it would become a more interesting metagame without everyone having to worry about facing 12 meta knights in a 16 person tourny.
Personally, I HATE the idea of the tier list. As said a hundred times by a hundred different people, all it does it convinces players to overplay certain characters ( meta, snake, marth, falco, d3, GaW) and overly neglect others(Ganon and Jiggs and the captain). That being said, it is obvious that captain falcon is nothing compared to what he was and Meta Knight has the edge and is the best character in the game. This is being said without taking the skill of the ploayers in question into account, but if equally skilled players played eachother, and one was meta knight, he would have the edge in several ways. Characters like Snake and falco are still difficult but nearly as much as Meta. Its sad that when you look at tournys, Meta is the only thing you see in the top ten aside from maybe 1 or 2 slots. You dont see a mixed amount of "top tier" characters, just meta. Removing him from tourny play would allow for more diversity even though people will still see pretty much only "top tier" characters ranking. It would look similar to this....
1. Snake
2. GaW
3. Snake
4. Falco
5. Wario
As apposed to..
1. meta
2. meta
3. meta
4. meta
5. Falco/meta
I know its already been said but I though I would throw my opinion out there. I dont kow if banning him will happen, in fact I doubt it will, but it would become a more interesting metagame without everyone having to worry about facing 12 meta knights in a 16 person tourny.
Ismael
Smash Ace
Da-D-Mon-109
Smash Lord
:flame:
I actually thought that was quite humorous.
:flame:
I actually thought that was quite humorous.
:flame:
Red Arremer
Smash Legend
Oh God, here it comes.
lol. So you think the tierlist is magic that the SBR members cast on your Wii as soon as you read it, making Falcon magically the worst character in the game, and MK the best? I seriously laughed at that part because Falcon and co. are bad even without the tier list.
Yes, that's what matchups and the tier list say. It's an information on theorycraft on how certain people think a match would end, respectively how good character X is.
What do you mean? lol. Ask Dedede players. If anyone says he thinks MK is a harder matchup than Falco, then you may give me a punch in the face.
lol BS
Diversity is not an argument.
Diversity is not an argument.
Diversity is not an argument.
Diversity is not an argument.
Diversity is not an argument.
Diversity is not an argument.
Diversity is not an argument.
Diversity is not an argument.
Diversity is not an argument.
Diversity is not an argument.
Diversity is not an argument.
Diversity is not an argument.
Diversity is not an argument.
Diversity is not an argument.
Diversity is not an argument.
Diversity is not an argument.
Do you people finally understand?
Yea, let's throw always the same arguments out over and over again so this discussion becomes an endless loop of cycling discussions olololol
Are you Cassandra?
And 12 is 75% of that tournament you name. That's BS, again. A more realistic digit would be 6 MKs in a 16 people tournament.
Falconv1.0
Smash Master
You're actually probably one of the few people who didn't at the least find it silly.
Maybe you should leave. =D
And lol Irish kong you need to lurk moar.
Stupidity. It's make what the world go around. Just take a look at these past few pages and look at the pro-ban-side's argument.
Da-D-Mon-109
Smash Lord
:flame:
You said that what I said was logical! I feel special now! Yay for me!
But in all seriousness, I think that this this thread should be temporarily closed down for now. It's not that I don't mind the community having a say in the matter, but I went back and listened to the SBR's broadcast, and thought "Wow, these guys do fully know what they are doing and saying!" ... Well, of course they would, or they wouldn't be in the SBR. But I wonder... why can't we do that? Seriously, and I think I said this idea before, but lets have everyone on each side get together, and talk. Maybe open a thread for each different side "Pro Ban, Temporary Ban, Anti Ban", and let only those who want said option to occur talk. Then, aftrer a while, the senior members of each group get together, and discuss all of the avenues together, much in the way the SBR did. And then, once all of those avenues get explored, with all of the information presented, we re-open the vote, once people have read through the discussion, and then let them vote again. That way, people know as many sides of the discussion as possible, and that the true votes are as intelligently performed as possible.
I wanted to ask Panda-San if he would talk to me, but I didn't tell him about the idea yet, since his little marker said he was out. People aren't going to do this, but I feel it's better than everyone just stating one or two points and then arguing with eachother.
And I believe I should put the following in my signature.
"I know I'm addicted to Brawl. The Metaknight Vote is more important to me than the last Presidential Election."
I actually do feel that way. Should I quote that and put it in my signature?
:flame:
You said that what I said was logical! I feel special now! Yay for me!
But in all seriousness, I think that this this thread should be temporarily closed down for now. It's not that I don't mind the community having a say in the matter, but I went back and listened to the SBR's broadcast, and thought "Wow, these guys do fully know what they are doing and saying!" ... Well, of course they would, or they wouldn't be in the SBR. But I wonder... why can't we do that? Seriously, and I think I said this idea before, but lets have everyone on each side get together, and talk. Maybe open a thread for each different side "Pro Ban, Temporary Ban, Anti Ban", and let only those who want said option to occur talk. Then, aftrer a while, the senior members of each group get together, and discuss all of the avenues together, much in the way the SBR did. And then, once all of those avenues get explored, with all of the information presented, we re-open the vote, once people have read through the discussion, and then let them vote again. That way, people know as many sides of the discussion as possible, and that the true votes are as intelligently performed as possible.
I wanted to ask Panda-San if he would talk to me, but I didn't tell him about the idea yet, since his little marker said he was out. People aren't going to do this, but I feel it's better than everyone just stating one or two points and then arguing with eachother.
And I believe I should put the following in my signature.
"I know I'm addicted to Brawl. The Metaknight Vote is more important to me than the last Presidential Election."
I actually do feel that way. Should I quote that and put it in my signature?
:flame:
Yes!
Unban Akuma, because Akuma vs. Akuma is still skill based, and it doesn't matter if every match would just be Akuma vs. Akuma.
Diversity is not an argument.
Unban the IDC for MK, because MK vs. MK would still be skill based, and it doesn't matter if every match would just be MK vs. MK. Even with the IDC MK can be beaten if you're significantly better than your opponent, so the argument that he's not as broken as Akuma still holds true. Who cares if MK would then be the only true tournie viable character for winning, after all:
Diversity is not an argument.
Or are you just saying this even after it got debunked because you have nothing else to defend your belief that MK shouldn't be banned?
Do you not realize that the only reason to ban a character (Edit: Or a character's move, like the IDC) is so that they don't overcentralize the metagame? The reasons you identify for why they'll overcentralize the game are brokenness, etc. but the entire point is to prevent too significant a loss of diversity.
You are completely wrong. Diversity is in fact the entire argument.
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
just a few corrections
Technially, even though people still do it, Planking is banned in most big tourneys.
infinites are banned for the most part as well.
you say that diversity is not a valid argument.
But, does that mean that you accept, understand, and agree with the fact that the game would be more varied without MK?
just asking.
Hey now...
Dont try and throw that crap out here like there arent people who make dumb arguments against the ban too. I throughly admit that there are dumb people that agree with me, but there are an equally proportionate amount of dumb people the argue against the ban as well
Technially, even though people still do it, Planking is banned in most big tourneys.
infinites are banned for the most part as well.
Question Id like to ask about this...
you say that diversity is not a valid argument.
But, does that mean that you accept, understand, and agree with the fact that the game would be more varied without MK?
just asking.
It can actually range dependin on your area, but Id say that a realistic number would be 7-9 people that play Mk (not MK mains, just people that play him in tourney because its easy to do so.) which is more or less 50%
Hey now...
Hey now...
Dont try and throw that crap out here like there arent people who make dumb arguments against the ban too. I throughly admit that there are dumb people that agree with me, but there are an equally proportionate amount of dumb people the argue against the ban as well
Red Arremer
Smash Legend
There is a difference in viability of other options and "Boohoo, I dun wanna fight Top Tier characters ;-;".
Yes. Instead of 7 Top Tier characters, we'll see 6 Top Tier characters placing, with the one or another High Tier character thrown in.
"Infinites are banned for the most part"? Am I to assume you are claiming that infinites are banned at most tournaments? Please name said tournaments.
I'm sorry, did you read the post I quoted (not my quote, the post I quoted)? He had a very specific inquiry.
One_With_Sumthing
Smash Apprentice
Diversity is not the argument, it's the proof for the argument. The argument is that MK invalidates every other character, or at least the majority of them. The truth is, the majority of the characters are already invalidated by the other top tier characters. MK is bad enough to the point that to ban MK and leave the other top tier characters unbanned is hypocrisy.
Note: I use the term "invalidate" loosely, not to its absolute meaning.
Look at the tourny results, its in no way BS.
The tier system may in fact be correct, but the fact that it is out there makes the metagame completly different than what it would be without it. Its the same principle as Magic the gathering and the top decks. But in magic you have a sideboard to help combat other decks, in Smash you do not, which makes it that much harder to take care of these kinds of problems. And it is about diversity, if you dont want to believe that then thats fine. I undrstand you would be upset as Im guessing you play MK. so this is an argument that wont end.
The tier system may in fact be correct, but the fact that it is out there makes the metagame completly different than what it would be without it. Its the same principle as Magic the gathering and the top decks. But in magic you have a sideboard to help combat other decks, in Smash you do not, which makes it that much harder to take care of these kinds of problems. And it is about diversity, if you dont want to believe that then thats fine. I undrstand you would be upset as Im guessing you play MK. so this is an argument that wont end.
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
well, my opinion is more like "boohoo, I dun wanna fight God Tier characters"
It only follows that if stupidity makes the world go round it'll be going round on both sides.
Well, improved diversity is the end goal of a character ban. What causes the loss of it are all the attributes people argue over (Is he "broken" enough, can he be "beaten", etc.) but the only thing that shows if it's needed or not is whether enough other characters are used in competitive play.
Of course, in some communities having no diversity (Only one viable character) may be acceptable -- and then there won't be much reason to ban anyone.
Red Arremer
Smash Legend
What tourney results? WHOBO? God. Please... How can people still be so dumb?
lol idiotic assumptions. I utterly suck with Meta Knight. If I were to play him, I would get *****. A lot.
There is no High Tier character outside of Marth whose worst matchup is Meta Knight.
Brinzy
Godfather of the Crimean Mafia
If diversity is main argument for the pro-ban side, then you guys are ****ed.
There is no High Tier character who is safer to choose when you can be counterpicked than Meta Knight.
It's the main point, why else (In this atmosphere) would you ever ban a character except to improve the diversity of the competition?
You certainly wouldn't ban one that can get beaten easily just because it's annoying to fight, so there's little other reasons than overcentralization (ie, loss of diversity.)
Thats not my opinion, I dont mind fighting Snake, just MK.
And if meta knight did get banned (doubtful) Not all the old MK players would go to snake, it would spread through out the other 6 top tier characters i
Red Arremer
Smash Legend
Yes. Meta Knight is safe. But he is - in no case outside of Marth when it comes to viable characters - the best choice. You will have a harder match against, for instance, Dedede if you play Meta Knight than you would have if you played Falco.
Its not just WHOBO, and I bet at Genisis, unless people purposfully dont play MK to prove a point, meta will be in the top 10 at least 4 times there as well.
If calling me idiotic makes you feel better thats fine, I could care less.
MK may not be there WORST matchup, but it probably is still a irritating/difficult matchup regardless.
If you're picking first and your opponent isn't a one hit wonder, you can't choose Falco and know you'll be facing DDD.
Metro Knight
Smash Ace
yes
10yestobanningMK
10yestobanningMK
You're trying to create diversity by limiting people's options. Meta Knight's existence does not force people to abandon diversity. People simply choose to because they want the easiest route to victory. This will always happen.
We should not ban things because we want to make the game more diverse. We should only ban things if they're actually limiting diversity (severely) by their very nature. Meta Knight's very nature does not limit diversity. Human nature limits diversity.
Why are people whining about diversity instead of trying to do something about it? Why not go out there and try to win as a non-MK character yourself? There are plenty of characters with a relative good chance of winning tournaments which do quite well against Meta Knight.
So it's not really a complaint about having to play as MK to win, it's a complaint about having to face MK in tournaments. People simply do not like it and therefore wish to ban him. I'll tell you this: I hate MK with a passion. I face plenty of them at every tournament I enter, even anime convention tournaments full of casual gamers.
I still do not support the ban.
Other communities just recognize the fact that human nature will always make people flock to characters which have easier routes to victory. If you want diversity, create it yourself.
Nobody said MK is "easily beaten". "Not being easily beaten" =/= needs a ban.
And we're still arguing over-centralization due to popularity. How about you actually prove how unbeateable or at least super-hard-to-beat MK is for once. And not by pulling up tournament results. Use actual arguments based on the metagame, match-up data and video evidence.
"MK took Top 3 at X tournament" doesn't really mean much if WHOBO was attended by the top 3 Meta Knights in the world with the best the competition could muster was "Top 2" of X-character (a few) and "The Best Samus" (pft!).
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
It's more like
"Hey, remember when everyone played a different character and they were associated with their character? Good times. What happened to that?"
"Every character in the game has bad matchups. MK doesn't, making him the p,erfect secondary to use for your bad matchups! It also seems to be that MK isn't just going even, he's doing BETTER against almost all the cast! The only reason you'd play a character other than MK is for an extremely one-sided matchup (like picking Olimar against Ike or D3 against Samus).... or for preference alone."
The response originally to this was
"Okay, so he's top tier. No big deal, we had that in Melee."
The new response from the ban-MK side is
"HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
but the anti-ban side can't hear us over all the tornados.
Red Arremer
Smash Legend
lmao! OF COURSE there will be Meta Knights placing. GOD. Do you think that players like Mew2King and Dojo will switch their mains just to please you? Seriously, you must be joking. lol
At least 4 times placing in the Top 10. I can't believe it.
Look: what I'm saying is that playing Meta Knight is never the best option a player has when facing an opponent. That is all I want to say. Meta Knight's matchups are never so bad that they're absolutely unwinnable and he ***** them over and over again, so they can't stand a chance at all.
There is ONE exception: Marth.
How often do I have to tell you that? I think I already told you 3 times.
God, I have to quote this. This posting is so awesome... I would main it if it was a character in Brawl and sig it if it wasn't so long. <3
Did I ask them to change there mains? No, quit putting words in my mouth, it makes you looks way dumber than I ever could. To be honest this argument will never ever end. I highly doubt MK will be banned and frankly its not going to ruin my smashing experience. Im just bored at work and discussing something I enjoy.
Red Arremer
Smash Legend
Saying that MK places X times in the Top 10 warrants a ban is still very very dumb.
I'd understand it if it was like:
"If MK places at least 8 times in the Top 10 with many of the other characters' top players there". Then, yes, I could imagine taking tournament results into account.
But WHOBO is not a valid argument warranting a ban - if it is for the mere fact that it had 4 out of the 5 best Meta Knight players, and almost none of the top players of other Top/High tier characters.
I'd understand it if it was like:
"If MK places at least 8 times in the Top 10 with many of the other characters' top players there". Then, yes, I could imagine taking tournament results into account.
But WHOBO is not a valid argument warranting a ban - if it is for the mere fact that it had 4 out of the 5 best Meta Knight players, and almost none of the top players of other Top/High tier characters.
But how do you know that by limiting people's options in one aspect, more options won't become available elsewhere?
So, then why don't we prevent whatever action human nature does to limit diversity? Like choosing Metaknight?
Cuz, whining still has a chance of doing something, and more importantly, we don't have to do anything. Its super efficient: although you're getting almost nothing done, you're using up even less effort relative to actually going to tourneys.
Yeah, thats pretty true. But why are we being so masochistic about it? I mean, if we do ban him, what do we lose? Our "honor" for being "scrubs" by banning anything that simply doesn't please the majority of the community? I never quite understood what would go wrong if we DID ban him.
Yes, because telling people to "intentionally give yourself a worse chance of winning" is so much better.
Your argument can also be applied to unbanning Akuma. If all the best players simply choose to play other characters, Akuma's dominance wouldn't be a problem (The best players can beat Akuma users, I believe) and thus Akuma didn't need banning -- people simply would choose him if he were available, but that's a flaw in human nature not a flaw in the game.
This is just silly. You can't say "It's just human nature, go give yourself worse chances of winning." and expect people to do it. What you should be saying is, "Taking human nature into account, how do we create the most diversity?" And that has an easy, obvious, and overall sane answer: Ban Meta Knight. Then you're not telling people to go be stupid, and you get more diversity in character selection.
Ok, well when Genisis happens and 8/10 of the placings are meta, wil you see my point? becuase i bet something like that will probably happen, and if not, the numbers wont be far off. Guess we will wait and see, I have a feeling Genesis will unvail a few things for other characters that will shake up things a bit though so who knows.
Red Arremer
Smash Legend
I doubt that MK will be that strong in Genesis' case. Why? Because there'll be players like Atomsk or Fiction there, people who play other characters but Meta Knight and still are extremely good.
Also, don't think if something like "X / Meta Knight" stands there that the choices have been equal. Lee Martin at WHOBO has used Meta Knight, in, I think, the matches against CO18, and otherwise has always gone Lucario.
Also, don't think if something like "X / Meta Knight" stands there that the choices have been equal. Lee Martin at WHOBO has used Meta Knight, in, I think, the matches against CO18, and otherwise has always gone Lucario.
AvaricePanda
Smash Lord
Stop comparing Akuma to MK.
Akuma was not arguably banworthy or not. People weren't making multiple polls, threads, and discussion about whether banning Akuma was the better decision. Akuma was clear-cut banworthy and gamebreaking. MK is not.
Diversity shouldn't be the sole basis for an argument of banning MK. I want to know how MK is even banworthy in the first place. A question that I've asked multiple times in this thread, refuted multiple times in this thread, and then got no further response.
Akuma was not arguably banworthy or not. People weren't making multiple polls, threads, and discussion about whether banning Akuma was the better decision. Akuma was clear-cut banworthy and gamebreaking. MK is not.
Diversity shouldn't be the sole basis for an argument of banning MK. I want to know how MK is even banworthy in the first place. A question that I've asked multiple times in this thread, refuted multiple times in this thread, and then got no further response.
- Status