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

[XienZo]

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.

Well, thats WHY we use Akuma. If someone pulls out a ban criteria and claims MK doesn't fall under it, someone else can point out that Akuma doesn't fall under the criteria, even though Akuma is CLEARLY banworthy and gamebreaking.

He's like our "control" for ban criteria.

 

[IrisKong]

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.

But im sure that the people who do place in the top 10 will have meta as there secondary and will be using him once or twice to help get to the top. It doesnt matter how ofte they use him, they still did. Although you are right, Lee was mainly Luca and that makes me happy.

 

[Yuna]

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?

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, let's ban things simply to make things more fun. Have fun plunging the Brawl community deeper into the abyss.

I mean, what's wrong with banning Snake, anyway? I hate Snake. He's really campy, Snake-dashing is mad annoying and there's no possible reason for his U-tilt to be that fast and that strong. Let's ban him, too. I mean, what would we lose by banning him besides one single character banned for ridiculously stupid and subjective reasons?

Yes, because telling people to "intentionally give yourself a worse chance of winning" is so much better.

Hey, you want diversity, you go create diversity. There are several characters with very slightly lower chances of winning than Meta Knight.

With Meta Knight gone, there'd still be characters with very slightly higher chances than everyone else people would still flock to them.

Plenty of games have characters such as MK and the metagame didn't collapse onto itself because of it. But we could always just ban things, I guess. Why actually try when we can ban things we just don't like.

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.

No. Because Akuma's air fireball literally breaks SSF2T. Some characters cannot move against Akuma. Akuma demolishes the game itself. MK simply beats everyone slightly (some worse).

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.

Way to distort and strawman!

 

[BentoBox]

I need to move to Cali.

 

[XienZo]

Yes, let's ban things simply to make things more fun. Have fun plunging the Brawl community deeper into the abyss.

I mean, what's wrong with banning Snake, anyway? I hate Snake. He's really campy, Snake-dashing is mad annoying and there's no possible reason for his U-tilt to be that fast and that strong. Let's ban him, too. I mean, what would we lose by banning him besides one single character banned for ridiculously stupid and subjective reasons?

Oh, but are you trying to ban things that YOU hate, or the things that the COMMUNITY hates? How do we know the majority of the community hates Snake? True, we don't know for SURE that the majority hates MK, but its possible, no? We can look into it more, right?

I mean, I personally don't think a majority of the community would all hate one single character for the same ridiculously stupid and subjective reasons, but if you can prove otherwise, then you have a point.

 

[GoldenGlove]

Yuna was convinced that air tripping existed. Therefore Yuna has no credibility in any argument related to Brawl in any way, ever.

 

[Yuna]

Well, thats WHY we use Akuma. If someone pulls out a ban criteria and claims MK doesn't fall under it, someone else can point out that Akuma doesn't fall under the criteria, even though Akuma is CLEARLY banworthy and gamebreaking.

Yes, throwing out random "facts" always works so well.

Please tell me of these numerous ban criterias which are, apparently, quite valid for a ban on MK which "we" decry as invalid yet they are also criterias which clearly make Akuma ban-worthy.

And, no, simply sharing traits with Akuma does not make someone ban-worthy. Because that would force us to ban one jillion Top Tiers. You have to share the clearly gamebreaking and banworthy traits.

Leave the rhetoric that's clearly designed to confuse the less informed into being swayed by emotions to the right-wing religious whackjobs. Or at least do a better job at it.

 

[BentoBox]

A better SF-related comparison would be Old Sagat.

 

[Cirno]

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?"

The same people that were associated with their characters are still associated with their characters. If you were Tier whoring back then you were using Snake, now you are using MK.

Doesn't seem like too much has changed to me.

"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."

Even if he did have bad matchups he'd still be the best choice as your secondary as he is the best character in the game. Marth and MKs matchups are nearly identical save against each other, Marth v DDD and v Snake. If MKs matchups are that bad against the cast then so is Marth.

If you are playing to win the only reason you'd play a character other than the top tier is preference. I agree, what's the problem with this?

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.

If you guys are happy and we're happy, why are we arguing over a ban?
(:

Seriously though, I'm still waiting for someone on the Pro-ban to show me this 'truth' Xyro speaks of. I even tried watching your videos since I assume thats the only reason why you main MK , but they really hurt the pro-ban more than anything.

But how do you know that by limiting people's options in one aspect, more options won't become available elsewhere?

Because the same options will still be available.
MK doesn't make any character unviable that isn't already through other characters.
I thought atleast Marth v MK at high level was unwinnable, but I've been proven wrong.

Limiting options to get more options doesn't even make any sense taking this into aspect.

It's like say if you have an a-d multiple choice question and you take away a will more letter appear.

So, then why don't we prevent whatever action human nature does to limit diversity? Like choosing Metaknight?

Why should we be dictators of the select screen?

Why don't we do that to ICS? and Olimar? and G&W? and DDD?

The effect they have on characters viability is worse than MKs in plenty of cases and would be a better idea if we're going for diversity (not all but maybe one or two)


A lot of times it seems like anti-ban is saying "Too amny people play MK, and I don't like fighting him even if he is beatable and not my characters worst matchup so we should ban him."

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.

What would we lose from banning Olimar /DDD/ICs ?

Nothing would go wrong, the same goes for other characters. People would be pissed, but get over it. But what do we gain from banning him or any other character that the metagame is dependent upon?

And as far as I understand, the majority of the community is in favor of the MK ban. It's only the percentage of pro-ban that are presenting debatable reasons that is small (over centralization, breaks the counter pick system, ect.).

 

[XienZo]

Yes, throwing out random "facts" always works so well.

Please tell me of these numerous ban criterias which are, apparently, quite valid for a ban on MK which "we" decry as invalid yet they are also criterias which clearly make Akuma ban-worthy.

Oh, its quite a misunderstanding; the point is that a ban criteria is invalid if according to the ban criteria, Akuma is totally legal.

And, no, simply sharing traits with Akuma does not make someone ban-worthy. Because that would force us to ban one jillion Top Tiers. You have to share the clearly gamebreaking and banworthy traits.

Of course. But the converse and inverse are true, no?

Leave the rhetoric that's clearly designed to confuse the less informed into being swayed by emotions to the right-wing religious whackjobs. Or at least do a better job at it.

All right, I'll work on it.

Because the same options will still be available.
MK doesn't make any character unviable that isn't already through other characters.
I thought atleast Marth v MK at high level was unwinnable, but I've been proven wrong.

Limiting options to get more options doesn't even make any sense taking this into aspect.

It's like say if you have an a-d multiple choice question and you take away a will more letter appear.

Oh, MK certainly didn't make any character unviable because of his matchups AGAINST them. But he certainly made them OBSOLETE through his superior success rate, no?

Why should we be dictators of the select screen?

Why don't we do that to ICS? and Olimar? and G&W? and DDD?

The effect they have on characters viability is worse than MKs in plenty of cases and would be a better idea if we're going for diversity (not all but maybe one or two)[/quote]

Who do ICs and Olimar and G&W and DDD make OBSOLETE? Who said matchups are the only things that could lower another character's usage?

What would we lose from banning Olimar /DDD/ICs ?

Nothing would go wrong, the same goes for other characters. People would be pissed, but get over it. But what do we gain from banning him or any other character that the metagame is dependent upon?

We lose relatively nothing from banning Olimar OR DDD OR ICs. We lose more if we ban Olimar AND DDD AND ICs, since thats three times the options lost. However, it IS possible that we will, in fact, make more characters viable by banning them.

 

[Yuna]

Yuna was convinced that air tripping existed. Therefore Yuna has no credibility in any argument related to Brawl in any way, ever.

I said that I was pretty sure I did something that looked like an air trip thrice during my first few hours playing since I randomly was dropped out of the sky and landed on my behind, something you only do when you trip.

I never said we had conclusive evidence. Also, what the hell does this have to do with anything? Sounds like a desperate attempt to discredit someone because you have to arguments to counter their valid arguments with.

Oh, but are you trying to ban things that YOU hate, or the things that the COMMUNITY hates? How do we know the majority of the community hates Snake? True, we don't know for SURE that the majority hates MK, but its possible, no? We can look into it more, right?

The majority is not always right. The majority once wanted slavery, hated black people and wanted women to not have any kind of civil rights no matter what creed, color or sexuality.

Obviously, they were wrong then. It doesn't really matter what the majority wants unless the majority can argue for why we should do things the way they want.

If the majority is so starved for a tournament scene free of Meta Knight, the majority is free to hold its own tournaments with MK banned. The SBR ruleset is merely a proposed ruleset.

Just because the SBR, which makes absolutely zero attempts at "policing" the scene, doesn't list "Meta Knight is banned" as a rule doesn't mean you can't ban him. After all, since a clear "majority" apparently wish him gone for perfectly valid reasons (other than "We hate him! Especially facing him!"), it shouldn't be very hard to start holding Meta Knight-free tournaments and still rack up hundreds of attendees per tournament, now should it?

 

[Red Arremer]

A better SF-related comparison would be Old Sagat.

Who wasn't banned.

 

[Cirno]

Oh, MK certainly didn't make any character unviable because of his matchups AGAINST them. But he certainly made them OBSOLETE through his superior success rate, no?

Would you expect something different as the tier list goes higher?


Why choose Olimar when you can choose DDD?

He does much better against a majority of the cast, his success rate is much much better and his crouch is the best crouch in any fighter ever? Not to mention his matchup against the most popular character is better.

 

[Yuna]

A better SF-related comparison would be Old Sagat.

Who is only soft-banned... and only in Japan.

Fine. Argue that MK should be soft-banned in Japan. I'm sure the Japanese Brawl community is all ears.

Oh, its quite a misunderstanding; the point is that a ban criteria is invalid if according to the ban criteria, Akuma is totally legal.

A criteria not being enough to ban a character does not make Akuma legal if he happens to share that attribute.

MK has no disadvantageous match-ups is not a valid argument for banning him. Just because Akuma happens to not possess any disadvantageous match-ups either does not make it an argument for making him legal. Because he is banned for other reasons entirely.

Now if you can show us that the reasons actually used for banning Akuma also apply to MK, then I'll listening. Otherwise, you're just distorting people's posts and splitting hairs because you're out of valid arguments.

Oh, MK certainly didn't make any character unviable because of his matchups AGAINST them. But he certainly made them OBSOLETE through his superior success rate, no?

And this matters how?

Obsolete = Fallen into disuse/No longer widely used

Just because people aren't using other characters as much as MK does not mean we must ban him if you can still win entire tournaments using other characters. You just want to control who plays what now. You don't like the fact that many people choose MK and instead of trying to win with someone other than MK (which is perfectly reasonably possible), you want to ban him.

 

[XienZo]

The majority is not always right. The majority once wanted slavery, hated black people and wanted women to not have any kind of civil rights no matter what creed, color or sexuality.

I believe thats majority of people who WEREN'T slaves, black, or women didn't want them to have civil rights, naturally. Luckily, both MK users and non-MK users can express their beliefs here.

If the majority is so starved for a tournament scene free of Meta Knight, the majority is free to hold its own tournaments with MK banned. The SBR ruleset is merely a proposed ruleset.

Just because the SBR, which makes absolutely zero attempts at "policing" the scene, doesn't list "Meta Knight is banned" as a rule doesn't mean you can't ban him. After all, since a clear "majority" apparently wish him gone for perfectly valid reasons (other than "We hate him! Especially facing him!"), it shouldn't be very hard to start holding Meta Knight-free tournaments and still rack up hundreds of attendees per tournament, now should it?

Of course, I believe SBR supports trying out non-MK tournaments.

Then you throw in human nature of going along with majority and the whole system breaks down.

 

[Kamikaze*]

Answer me this: Why is his dominance an issue?

 

[BentoBox]

Who wasn't banned.

Who is only soft-banned... and only in Japan.

Fine. Argue that MK should be soft-banned in Japan. I'm sure the Japanese Brawl community is all ears.

I never said he was banned o,o? He simply shares traits with MK in that he clearly dominates and a decent fraction of the community want him gone. Hence, the soft-ban (which was still broken in numerous occasions ).

If people are going to compare MK to any character in the SF series, it should be O.Sagat, not ST Akuma.

 

[XienZo]

A criteria not being enough to ban a character does not make Akuma legal if he happens to share that attribute.

DId I mislead again? It doesn't affect whether Akuma is legal or not. We look if a proposed ban criteria causes Akuma to be banned. If it doesn't, than its not legitimate since if they adopted that ban criteria, Akuma would be running free. Nothing more than that. Nothing specific about SSBB or MK or matchups.

MK has no disadvantageous match-ups is not a valid argument for banning him. Just because Akuma happens to not possess any disadvantageous match-ups either does not make it an argument for making him legal. Because he is banned for other reasons entirely.

I wasn't referring to match-up stuff at all. I was merely explaining HOW Akuma is used in arguments like this.

Now if you can show us that the reasons actually used for banning Akuma also apply to MK, then I'll listening. Otherwise, you're just distorting people's posts and splitting hairs because you're out of valid arguments.

I don't believe I was the one arguing that, but if I was, then I admit that it doesn't apply to MK. Either way, that wasn't what I was trying to address.

And this matters how?

Obsolete = Fallen into disuse/No longer widely used

Just because people aren't using other characters as much as MK does not mean we must ban him if you can still win entire tournaments using other characters. You just want to control who plays what now. You don't like the fact that many people choose MK and instead of trying to win with someone other than MK (which is perfectly reasonably possible), you want to ban him.

Is it perfectly reasonably possible if you have the play-to-win mindset? Why WOULD you pick someone else?

Would you expect something different as the tier list goes higher?


Why choose Olimar when you can choose DDD?

He does much better against a majority of the cast, his success rate is much much better and his crouch is the best crouch in any fighter ever? Not to mention his matchup against the most popular character is better.

Yup, there shouldn't really be a reason to pick Olimar over DDD looking at matchups only. But what about the fact that people play better with some character than others?

Because of the reason Amazing Ampharos put it so nicely:
Meta Knight might be the best character in the game, but he isn't the best character for several people because of his playstyle not fitting to them.

Although you might be able to just train and become good enough, your Meta Knight will never reach the level you could reach with your other character (granted, I mainly mean viable characters here) simply because he doesn't fit your style. Because you can't play with Meta Knight like you would play with Snake or Dedede or GaW.

Maybe you'd pick someone else because they're fun and just as tournament viable as MK?

Saying that, "there's no point in using anyone but the best character," just transfers to every fighter, and would transfer to Snake if MK was banned. I could use the exact same argument for Snake if MK is banned because there'd be no point in using anyone else, correct? Of course, Snake is somehow different in this aspect...

^What they said.


Now, the issue with MK is that the advantage is great enough to overcome "personal" advantage with some characters. Look at Overswarm and ROB. You have to be at Anther and Boss's level of "specialty" with certain characters to overcome MK's natural advantage.

 

[Red Arremer]

Is it perfectly reasonably possible if you have the play-to-win mindset? Why WOULD you pick someone else?

Because of the reason Amazing Ampharos put it so nicely:
Meta Knight might be the best character in the game, but he isn't the best character for several people because of his playstyle not fitting to them.

Although you might be able to just train and become good enough, your Meta Knight will never reach the level you could reach with your other character (granted, I mainly mean viable characters here) simply because he doesn't fit your style. Because you can't play with Meta Knight like you would play with Snake or Dedede or GaW.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Maybe you'd pick someone else because they're fun and just as tournament viable as MK?

Saying that, "there's no point in using anyone but the best character," just transfers to every fighter, and would transfer to Snake if MK was banned. I could use the exact same argument for Snake if MK is banned because there'd be no point in using anyone else, correct? Of course, Snake is somehow different in this aspect...

And still, why MK is banworthy in the first place hasn't been brought up in a while. All that's been discussed the last couple of pages is tournament diversity and how it would increase by banning MK, which frankly doesn't matter if the character arguably isn't broken to begin with.

 

[Yuna]

I never said he was banned o,o? He simply shares traits with MK in that he clearly dominates and a decent fraction of the community want him gone.

Then why even bring it up? Old Sagat is just a dominating character in SSF2T outside of Japan. And AFAIK, you're pro-ban. Why would you even bring it up as a conversation piece since it's just more evidence for us not to ban MK?

You were trying to draw a link between Old Sagat's soft-ban in Japan only to MK's "need for ban".

Hence, the soft-ban (which was still broken in numerous occasions ).

In Japan!

 

[Yuna]

Is it perfectly reasonably possible if you have the play-to-win mindset? Why WOULD you pick someone else.

You're demanding character diversity. You want to force people to adopt character diversity.

Well though luck. People will flock to the easiest path to victory, always. The best you can do is create a false sense of diversity when people pick the best character and quite possibly a secondary to deal with their bad match-ups. Good luck with that.

 

[Red Arremer]

Now, the issue with MK is that the advantage is great enough to overcome "personal" advantage with some characters. Look at Overswarm and ROB. You have to be at Anther and Boss's level of "specialty" with certain characters to overcome MK's natural advantage.

No.

You don't have to. You just have to know what you have to do against Meta Knight, know the matchup and whatnot.
MK's advantages against the cast are not even worth such a big mention, because it's always only a slight advantage.

 

[XienZo]

You're demanding character diversity. You want to force people to adopt character diversity.

Well though luck. People will flock to the easiest path to victory, always.

But normally, people have character diversity for reasons covered by Spadefox and AvaricePanda.

However, MK overcomes those reasons, and limits character diversity by the very nature of the magnitude by which he makes other characters obsolete.

No.

You don't have to. You just have to know what you have to do against Meta Knight, know the matchup and whatnot.
MK's advantages against the cast are not even worth such a big mention, because it's always only a slight advantage.

Oh, no, I didn't mean AGAINST Metaknight. Overswarm mentioned some time ago that it was so much easier to win AS Metaknight, basically making his ROB obsolete, even though he preferred ROB's playing style.

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

:flame:
I need to look at this from the other viewpoint every now and then. I've spent too much time looking at it from the anti-ban point.

But still, it's the side that I feel strongest with right now.

I'd like to ask people why they still bring up Akuma and SF2. Metaknight in Brawl and Akuma in Street Fighter 2 can't really be compared for two big reasons.

The first, and foremost reason: Super Smash Bros. is a fighting game unlike any the world has ever seen. The concept of actually killing your enemy does not exist in Brawl. Your goal is to try to knock them off of the edge of the map. Instead of murder, you are to be commiting Ring Outs. In Street Fighter, amoung many other games, you are to outright kill, slaughter, murder, and desicrate your foe, most of the time with Ring Outs not even in the equation. Brawl involves making comboes by doing one move, then doing another, then doing another, each move independent on the others, but still comboes in that they chain together well. Most other figting moves make comboes based on strings of commands, with each set of commands being concretely prerequizite to the next, with some cases the move not even occuring if performed incorrectly.

Simpy Put, Brawl and SF are two completely different creatures. You can't compare Apples and Cheese.

And, more character specifically:Metaknight is the best character in the game. Akuma is the best character in the game. That is about the only thing they have in common. Metaknight is the best, but he is still beaten by a handful of people, and most other matchups aren't that bad in the other characters favor. Those that are truly dangered by Metaknight are beaten by plenty of others, and quite typically worse. Akuma beats down everyone. Matches against Akuma aren't hard fought matches. They aren't ones that with the right amount of skill, that the good characters can deal with it. Akuma ***** people like Micheal Jackson ***** little boys (we can see you under the Captain Falcon Mask, Micheal. You aren't fooling anyone by calling it the "Falcon Dive"). Akuma's projectiles and moves are devistating to the point where Akuma was banned with very little discussion, and it was permanent. It is impossible to defeat Akuma. It is not impossible to defeat Metaknight. You know, the fact that there was very little argument against the Ban on Akuma is probably pretty good proof too. Metaknight is the best, but he has close rivals. Akuma is above the best. He actually is a demon of SF, where as Metaknight is just the king of Brawl. This is the 3rd time we've voted on banning Metaknight, and still, the vote is pretty evenly divided (add a 4th button allowing those who just want a temporary ban, and see how much that 50% gets choped by). Akuma's banishment has become an unspoken rule.

Simply put:The situations for the characters are completely different. Metaknight is the King of Brawl. Akuma is the Chuck-Norris of Street Fighter.


On another note, guys, stop FIGHTING eachother over this. We are sharing views, facts, opinions, ideals, experiences, information, knowledge, and intelligence over this. And this is a very important decision. We shouldn't be battling eachother. We can be civilized...
:flame:

 

[rehab]

There's a couple of top players in Japan that bust out O Sagat occasionally anyway, and when it once took the best Chun in the world to stop a single proficient Ryu player from winning a 3-on-3 tournament with Akuma by himself, that ban got tightened the crap up.

Soft bans will always be meaningless everywhere.

Edit: there was one post on this page when I wrote this what the hell guys

 

[Red Arremer]

Oh, no, I didn't mean AGAINST Metaknight. Overswarm mentioned some time ago that it was so much easier to win AS Metaknight, basically making his ROB obsolete, even though he preferred ROB's playing style.

That's why he lost to a Sonic. <_<

 

[BentoBox]

Then why even bring it up? Old Sagat is just a dominating character in SSF2T outside of Japan. And AFAIK, you're pro-ban. Why would you even bring it up as a conversation piece since it's just more evidence for us not to ban MK?

You were trying to draw a link between Old Sagat's soft-ban in Japan only to MK's "need for ban".


In Japan!

I didn't even vote because I do not see the point, nor do I even care anymore.

Why bring it up?

BECAUSE I CAN!

And yes, it is "evidence" for the anti-ban to use. That was the point.

 

[XienZo]

That's why he lost to a Sonic. <_<

Meh, humility of losses isn't quite the same as the quantity...

...but its interesting how Sonics pwn random MKs....

 

[Cirno]

Is it perfectly reasonably possible if you have the play-to-win mindset? Why WOULD you pick someone else?

You feel more comfortable with or know how to use another character better.

The most obvious example that people use ( which I hate to do myself because it feels like I'm disrepecting him as a player) is OS.

A ROB main who placed better as ROB, switched, and ended up placing worse. And MK is obviously better, his learning curve is smaller than ROB's, and he's been playing him for quite a while now. Why doesn't he place better or even the same?

I think if he would've stayed ROB he'd have done much better against that Sonic.

Yup, there shouldn't really be a reason to pick Olimar over DDD looking at matchups only. But what about the fact that people play better with some character than others?

Now, the issue with MK is that the advantage is great enough to overcome "personal" advantage with some characters. Look at Overswarm and ROB. You have to be at Anther and Boss's level of "specialty" with certain characters to overcome MK's natural advantage.

Why use Overswarm?

He does worse now than before with MK as far as ranking.

Then you contradicted yourself saying MK is so great he beats these personal advantages and then name Anther and Boss ? Pika atleast goes even or close to even, but Luigi and Mario are 35:65s and he dominates tourneys full of MKs? TOURNEYS? With an S?!

And this is competitive Brawl were talking about, if we don't expect players to be at Anther's and Boss' level then we're not doing it right.

This is why pro players hardly debate and only reply with get *****.

Meh, humility of losses isn't quite the same as the quantity...

...but its interesting how Sonics pwn random MKs....

xDDDDDDDDD

I know!

Every time I hear about something like that or see sonic in general, I practice a bit more on mine.
(:

But it's really not all that surprising. All of Sonic's matchups are winnable. And Sonic v Marth is 60:40 in my opinion. G&W is a pain though.

=__=;;

 

[Falconv1.0]

People still actually care about OS and how he had a piss fest and switched to MK. That's kinda ****ing funny to me, but kinda sad at the same time.

Also, he lost to a Sonic.

 

[bobson]

Overswarm is one of the best arguments for anti-ban.

Well, one of the funniest, at least.

 

[1048576]

You're demanding character diversity. You want to force people to adopt character diversity.

Well though luck. People will flock to the easiest path to victory, always. The best you can do is create a false sense of diversity when people pick the best character and quite possibly a secondary to deal with their bad match-ups. Good luck with that.

You don't think it's better to play SSBB than SSBMetaknight? I think part of being skilled should be learning more than one character to cover your bad matchups. You think the only requirement should be "be good with the best character with no bad matchups" Eh.

 

[Dantarion]

I won a tournament this weekend.
I didn't lose a single game all day. But then something happened in the final match that kinda disapointed me.

Double Blind pick. I had been playing Snake/DK all day. Opponent has been playing G&W/Luigi all day.

I say "Hey, I won't be at a disadvantage if I pick MK" and pick MK. Opponent also picks MK.

I won, but I really didn't like the fact that I had this "crutch" to fall back on where there was absolutly no way I could be at a disadvantage. Sure, I could have probably won with DK or Snake, but choosnig MK meant that I had absolutely NOTHING to worry about. It didn't matter what stage, it didn't matter what character my opponent choose, I was going to head into battle confident that I wasn't going to be at any disadvantage other than my own skill level.

The closer I feel like the match is going to be, the more I feel like I have to bust out my MK. My Snake might be my best, but my MK is overall my best character, even though I still consider myself a DK main.

If there was no MK, I would have to look at a wider variety of characters to learn, because instead of being able to fall back on MK every single time I feel threatened, I have to gamble and maybe bring out my G&W if I think my opponent is gonna go DDD, etc.

I would actually have to play more characters. That sounds like fun. I could probably main MK and do better than I do now. But I don't like MK. I don't like playing as MK. Not because he is best, I just don't like his playstyle. I like big hits(DK) and traps(Snake), but I find myself wanting to play MK more an more, because it is SO much easier to play well.

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

:flame:
If people don't work with who they naturally are good with, they will never realise the best of their potential. I remember when I was first starting, I wanted to ask the Lucario boards if it would be acceptable for me to main Lucario and then have Metaknight as my Secondary, since Marth, Wario and Game@watch are all easier to beat with Metaknight than with Lucario. I had no shame in it, especially since I've always loved Metaknight (Kirby games were da bomb once upon a time). But the discussion got so statistical orriented, a few people even started saying that I should reverse the characters that I use. That's when I realised that people were about to and were trying to lump me in with people who think Metaknight is just an end all answer, and that sacrifice their souls to use him to win. I decided that I would just train myself, and in a few months, see if I still needed that advantage. I learned over time that I actually suck with Metaknight compared to some of my other characters, and that I'd have definitely been an idiot if I had moved from someone who was as natural to me as walking to someone as foreign as Mom's Apple Pie at Iraq. There are lots of people who get scared and think that they have to use Metaknight to win, but it's really just a phase, and they'll grow up and realise who they really are good with, and how to win properly with them. Most of the people that stick with him and actually get good and are known with him were those that had him from the start, and that actually do like maining him.

I'm trying to get a friend of mine to join the boards, but I'm scared he'll just be viewed as one of the people who are still immature and switched over to Metaknight. He's always liked him, along with G@W. Anything I can do to help him?
:flame:

 

[Yonder]

I say we should not ban him, unless the WHOBO incident soon becomes the average tourney.

There's my anwser.

 

[Egg Fu Yung]

I cant believe there are this many whiny babies on SWF . . . MK is hella legit, deal son.

 

[Some_Kind_of_JokÈ?]

can i change my vote?

 

[XienZo]

You feel more comfortable with or know how to use another character better.

The most obvious example that people use ( which I hate to do myself because it feels like I'm disrepecting him as a player) is OS.

A ROB main who placed better as ROB, switched, and ended up placing worse. And MK is obviously better, his learning curve is smaller than ROB's, and he's been playing him for quite a while now. Why doesn't he place better or even the same?

I think if he would've stayed ROB he'd have done much better against that Sonic.

Yeah, he might have made a bad choice...

Why use Overswarm?

He does worse now than before with MK as far as ranking.

Cuz I wasn't paying attention.

Then you contradicted yourself saying MK is so great he beats these personal advantages and then name Anther and Boss ? Pika atleast goes even or close to even, but Luigi and Mario are 35:65s and he dominates tourneys full of MKs? TOURNEYS? With an S?!

And this is competitive Brawl were talking about, if we don't expect players to be at Anther's and Boss' level then we're not doing it right.

This is why pro players hardly debate and only reply with get *****.

Um, yeah, thats the point, Boss is so good that he can win tourneys with a non-high tier character. I wasn't referring to "vs MK" as Boss's Mario/Luigi vs someone else's MK, but more for Boss choosing to use Mario/Luigi over MK.

Well, if we write the rules SOLELY for people Boss's and Anther's level, than why do the rules matter for the rest of us at all?

 

[|RK|]

Well, thats WHY we use Akuma. If someone pulls out a ban criteria and claims MK doesn't fall under it, someone else can point out that Akuma doesn't fall under the criteria, even though Akuma is CLEARLY banworthy and gamebreaking.

He's like our "control" for ban criteria.

No, we cannot use Akuma. Does anyone READ my posts? I gave the definition of broken and proved that Akuma falls under the criteria while MK does not. Let's try again:

1. broken

1. (General) Something/Someone that is so good in a particular context that it eclipses saecond place.

2. (Games) A game object or facility that is too good to exist. It is so powerful that it is unbalancing and hence breaks the game. Every winning player has to use this to be competitive.

Entymology: The power cards from Magic The Gathering (Black Lotus, Time Walk, Ancestral Recall, all Moxen, etc) were so powerful and unbalancing that they were eventually banned from tournament play because they BROKE the game.

Bobby Fisher is a completely broken chess player.

MK isn't too good to exist.
Akuma is.
MK is not unbalancing nor dos he break the game
Akuma does.
MK does not have to be used to be competitive
Akuma does.

STOP. USING. AKUMA.