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

[Arturito_Burrito]

Don't ban metaknight

Ban planking and move on.

planking is only broken with certain members of the cast though like metaknight for others they simply make match ups easier like mario vs DDD or ganon vs falco.

 

[rockmaniac88]

it seems like he needs to be banned, this is the 3rd thread regarding the subject?

over 50% say yes all 3 times?

how high would any other character's: "should ________ be banned?" poll be?

20% maybe?

the crazy amount of response this topic gets clearly says something about his status. I understand that the smash community has some whiners, but for over 50% to be whining over and over is a statistic that no other character can even touch.

over half the people smashing would rather play without him around.

look to your left. look to your right. more than one of those people don't want metaknight around.

have some respect

 

[RMelee]

definitely! (for now...)

I agree that Mtaknight should be banned from tournament play. I personally like Metaknight but ever since people started playing as him no one elses metagame has ever increased as fast as his. But i think its unfair for a character to be banned forever so just until others catch up=)

 

[ShadowLink84]

I agree that Mtaknight should be banned from tournament play. I personally like Metaknight but ever since people started playing as him no one elses metagame has ever increased as fast as his. But i think its unfair for a character to be banned forever so just until others catch up=)

So ban Metaknight so that the othe characters metagame will develop, just without the existence of MK?

 

[|RK|]

For those who don't feel like reading the full argument, a grossly oversimplified, lazy, slightly inaccurate version of the logic is basically:

Diversity = the available viable options; more diversity = more options; more options = more possibility for skill; and more skill = more competitive, because skill = competitive. Apply the transitivity principle and you get Diverse = Competitive. (And yes, you also get that not Diverse = not Competitive.)

Then, once the fact that "diverse" = "competitive" has been established, it is obvious that "making a maximally competitive rule set" is the same as saying "making a maximally diverse rule set".

And the ban criteria comes from the idea that banning is used to maximize competitiveness. Competitiveness = diversity. Therefore, banning is to maximize diversity. Maximizing something means to increase it as much as possible, hence the criteria that a ban must result in increased diversity.

If you disagree with reasoning behind that, read the full argument. The full argument is not as imprecise, lazy, or flawed as that little summary is.

This post is already really long, so I will not put the explanations why this system supports items and certain stages being banned; however, if anyone cannot see why that is so, just post and I will respond with the explanations.

The full, rigorous argument is the following:

/* Defining a competitive game/*
1.) A game is considered competitive if the outcome of the game is determined by meaningful decisions made by the players; as opposed to being determined purely by luck or by random decisions which lack any sort of logical basis.
2.) Any option that can reasonably result in victory is considered to be a "viable" option.
3.) Any option that cannot reasonably result in victory is considered to be a "non-viable" option.
4.) Having only a single viable option in a game means that players must always choose that option in order to win.
5.) Therefore, games with only one viable option do not allow players to make meaningful decisions.
6.) Therefore, multiple viable options to choose from in a game are required before players can make meaningful decisions.
7.) Therefore, a competitive game must have multiple viable options.
8.) Therefore, the outcome of a competitive game is determined by players making meaningful decisions concerning various viable options within the game.

/* Defining Skill /*
9.) The ability of players to deliberate and then meaningfully decide between multiple viable options in order to maximize the possibility of victory is called "skill".
10.) Therefore, the outcome of a competitive game is determined by skill.

/* Defining Diversity and showing a relationship to Skill /*
11.) The number of viable options available for players to base their meaningful decisions upon in a competitive game is called "diversity".
12.) By definition, the larger the amount of viable options a game has (i.e., the greater the diversity), the larger the amount of meaningful decisions players will have to make concerning those options.
13.) Therefore, by the definition of skill shown in (9. and 10.), a game with greater diversity will provide more opportunities for players to show skill.
14.) As a corollary, a game with lesser diversity will provide less opportunities for players to show skill.

/* Defining Competitiveness and showing its relationship to increased Diversity /*
15.) By definition of the word "competitiveness", a game's level of competitiveness is determined by how much competition it fosters.
16.) Following from (1. and 10.) and the definition of the word "competitive", a game being resolved by skill between players is a competition.
17.) By definition, a game being resolved by a greater amount of skilled exchanges between players is a greater amount of competition.
18.) Therefore, a game which encourages greater amounts of skill encourages greater amounts of competitiveness.
19.) An increased amount of diversity causes an increased amount of skill, as shown in (13.)
20.) Therefore, increased diversity causes increased competitiveness.

/* Defining Overcentralization and showing the relationship between Competitiveness and decreased Diversity. /*
21.) If a single viable option in a game renders a sufficient majority of, but not all, other options non-viable, that option is said to be "overcentralizing".
22.) By definition, an overcentralized game has less diversity.
23.) Following from (15. and 16.), and by logic similar to (17.), a game being resolved by a lesser amount of skilled exchanges between players is a lesser amount of competition.
24.) Therefore, a game which encourages lesser amounts of skill encourages lesser amounts of competitiveness.
25.) As shown in (14.), less diversity means less skill.
26.) Therefore, decreased diversity causes decreased competitiveness.
27.) Therefore, overcentralization causes decreased competitiveness.

/* Defining Completely Dominant and showing its relationship to Skill /*
28.) If a single viable option in a game renders all other options non-viable, that option is said to be "completely dominant".
29.) A game with a completely dominant option does not allow for meaningful decisions, as shown in (4. and 5.)
30.) By definitions shown in (9. and 10.), skill cannot exist without the ability to make meaningful decisions.
31.) Therefore, the outcome of a game with a completely dominant option is not determined by skill.

/* Identifying the conditions necessary for a game to lack Skill and Diversity, and showing that they are logically equivalent. /*
32.) As shown in (28., 29, 30., and 31.), a game with a completely dominant option does not allow for skill.
33.) By the definition of "skill" shown in (9.), a game with zero viable options does not allow for skill.
34.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not allow for skill.
35.) By the definition of diversity shown in (11.), a game must allow for meaningful decisions among viable options in order to have diversity.
36.) Therefore, as follows from (4. and 5.), a game with a completely dominant option does not have diversity.
37.) Similarly, a game with zero viable options does not have diversity.
38.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not have diversity.
39.) Therefore, games with less than two viable options do not have skill or diversity.
40.) Therefore, a lack of skill and a lack of diversity have logically equivalent necessary conditions.
41.) Therefore, a lack of skill necessitates a lack of diversity; and a lack of diversity necessitates a lack of skill.
42.) Therefore, a game with no diversity cannot have skill; and a game with no skill cannot have diversity.

/* Showing the conditions necessary for a game to have Skill and Diversity, and showing that they are logically equivalent. /*
43.) As a corollary to (34.), a game with two or more viable options does allow for skill.
44.) As a corollary to (38.), a game with two or more viable options does allow diversity.
45.) Therefore, a game with two or more viable options allows for both skill and diversity.
46.) By the definition shown in (9.), a game with two or more viable options necessarily has skill.
47.) By the definition shown in (11.), a game with two or more viable options necessarily has diversity.
48.) Therefore, a game with two or more viable options necessarily has skill and diversity.
49.) As shown in (13. and 14.), the quantity of skill and diversity in a game are mutually determined.
50.) Therefore, the presence of skill and the presence of diversity have logically equivalent necessary conditions.
51.) Therefore, the presence of skill necessitates the presence of diversity; and the presence of diversity necessitates the presence of skill.
52.) Therefore, a game with diversity must have skill; and a game with skill must have diversity.

/* Using the logical equivalence of Skill and Diversity and the relationship between Skill and Competitiveness to show the relationship between Diversity and Competitiveness. /*
53.) As shown in (42. and 52.), the logical conditions required for skill and diversity are equivalent.
54.) Therefore, by logical equivalency, the presence or absence of skill implies the presence or absence of diversity; and the presence or absence of diversity implies the presence or absence skill.
55.) Therefore, skill is necessary for diversity, and diversity is necessary for skill.
57.) As shown in (15. and 16.), skill is necessary for competitiveness.
58.) Skill and diversity are logically equivalent.
58.) Therefore, by logical equivalency, diversity is necessary for competitiveness.
60.) As shown in (20. and 26.), increased or decreased diversity causes increased or decreased competitiveness.
61.) Therefore, the diversity of a game determines the competitiveness of the game.

/* Showing that the purpose of a Competitive Rule Set is to maximize the competitiveness of the game. /*
62.) The goal of competition is to test the players' skills to the maximum extent possible in order to determine a winner.
63.) A Competitive Rule Set is a rule set meant to facilitate competition.
63.) The goal of a competitive tournament is to facilitate competition.
64.) Therefore, the goal of a competitive tournament is to facilitate testing the players' skills to the maximum extent possible in order to determine a winner.
65.) Doing things that unnecessarily hinder one's attempts to do something is bad.
66.) Therefore, making a Rule Set that hinders the ability of one's tournament to effectively test the skills of players is bad.
67.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should facilitate competitive tournament play to the maximum extent possible.
68.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should maximize competitiveness.

/* Showing that the relationship between Diversity and Competitiveness leads to the conclusion that Tournament Rule Sets should maximize Diversity. /*
69.) As shown in (61.), the diversity of a game determines the competitiveness of the game.
70.) As shown in (68.), a Competitive Rule Set should maximize competitiveness.
71.) Therefore, maximizing diversity causes a maximization of competitiveness.
72.) Therefore, a Competitive Rule Set should maximize diversity.

/* Establishing a justifiable ban criterion under a Competitive Rule Set. /*
73.) As shown in (72.), the goal of competitive rule making is to maximize diversity.
74.) Banning is part of competitive rule making.
75.) Therefore, the goal of banning is to maximize diversity.
76.) Banning anything in the game means a loss of diversity.
77.) Banning everything in the game leaves a total of zero diversity.
78.) Not banning something means that diversity is maintained.
79.) Therefore, not banning anything is the best method of maintaining maximized diversity in an already maximally diversified game.
80.) Not banning something that is making other options non-viable means that maximum diversity is not being maintained.
81.) Banning something that is making other options non-viable means that those options will become viable as a result of the ban.
82.) By definition, if a ban results in a net increase of diversity then that ban contributes to maximization of diversity.
83.) By definition, if a ban results in a net decrease of diversity then that ban contributes to non-maximization of diversity.
84.) By definition, if a ban results in neither a net increase nor a net decrease in diversity then that ban contributes nothing to diversity.
85.) By definition, the only way to maximize something is to increase it.
86.) Therefore, only bans that increase diversity help maximize diversity.
87.) Therefore, only bans that increase diversity are justified.

/* Done /*

I'll bite. How does more options = more competitive. If competition is a display of skill, then doesn't that mean it actually takes less options to show true skill? By this reasoning, we could jump into skillsets as well. The higher tiers, especially Meta-Knight, have the most options. The lower tiers have less. This means that true skill is shown through higher tiers, as more options = more skill, correct? This also means that only higher tiers are competitively viable, since lower tiers have very little options. So by this logic, higher tiers = competitive, and by the same token, lower tiers = not competitive. That means that only bans that remove characters with little diversity are justified. If what you said of characters is not true of skillsets as well, what we have here is that your argument is a fallacy in and of itself.

 

[Dark.Pch]

If the SBR bans meta, I'm gonna quit

20 bucks says you wont be the only one.

 

[ShadowLink84]

20 bucks says you wont be the only one.

An individual who quits due to being forced to change their main is not really worth it.

 

[hungrybox]

good thing i main a penguin

and i like melee better

AKUMA!!!

 

[Kewkky]

I still think that this thread needs to be TEMPORARILY closed, so that all of the different sides (Ban, AntiBan, TemporaryBan) can get into groups, gather information, and talk amoungst themselves about the biggest points on each side, and then come together and try to convince the "Not sure" side that their viewpoint is right.

Switch what I underlined with the word "each", and will agree with you 100.1%.

I'm tired of reading different posts by different people, each person arguing about a different point, no real track as to what kind of argument is being discussed at the moment. I'd much rather have it so each community would gather up, share info and points of view, then return with one, two or three posts explaining all the valid arguments they might have, while the other side defends and counterattacks their points. Having a public argument with people who haven't read the last two-hundred pages barging in and resurfacing points already talked about only makes things worse.

I'm just gonna answer whenever someone has an argument I want to answer to, because they proved a pro-ban argument worthy of debating rather than picking each thing that has been mentioned before and saying it all over again. I'm tired at how everything is so out-of-control, I'm sure there are people ignoring extremely good, big posts just to read the small ones that have nothing at all to say. I mean, kamikaze's post had more replies towards it than most of the smarter, longer posts here and there.

 

[|RK|]

Do I get a response sometime this year :/

 

[solecalibur]

Come to think of it maybe with all fairness why dont we just ban metaknights B button he will be as high teir as B

 

[Brinzy]

An individual who quits due to being forced to change their main is not really worth it.

I would challenge this statement. If people who quit because their main is banned from tournaments are not worth it, then it would not be taken into consideration and you would not see this argument made, ever. Losing part of your competitive community is something that should not be taken lightly and simply cast aside, no matter how someone who threatens it delivers the message.

 

[DtJ XeroXen]

An individual who quits due to being forced to change their main is not really worth it.

I'd quit if I was forced to not use Mario. Does this mean I'm not worth anything to this community?

If many of these people were putting practice in like I have been with my main, I completely and honestly understand why the **** they would quit, I've only started playing competitive Brawl since like, November, and I've already got at least a good week(combined hours or so) or more practicing my main. This doesn't count tournaments where I'm pretty much playing all the time.

How would you feel if people said you couldn't use your main anymore?

 

[IC3R]

Hmm, what's up with this thread. 221 is the last page, but it shows to 224. Odd.

Methinks the other mods deleted some ******** posts?

Also, that chibi Absol avatar is win.



Also, Eyada wins the thread.

 

[Kamikaze*]

I'd quit if I was forced to not use Mario. Does this mean I'm not worth anything to this community?

If many of these people were putting practice in like I have been with my main, I completely and honestly understand why the **** they would quit, I've only started playing competitive Brawl since like, November, and I've already got at least a good week(combined hours or so) or more practicing my main. This doesn't count tournaments where I'm pretty much playing all the time.

How would you feel if people said you couldn't use your main anymore?

Exactly. If a game comes to a point where it bans a character and strips individuals of the hard work the they have put into the character, it is absolutely stupid and not worth playing anymore.

 

[Eyada]

Sorry for the delay. I'm actually very busy at the moment. I thought that it would take people a long time to read it and formulate a response to it, so I had hoped to just let it "cook" here for a bit while I finished some housework.

I'll bite. How does more options = more competitive.

Is this question being posed after reading the summary or after reading the full argument? If the summary seems insufficient (which it probably should given how much I had to torture the logic of the argument in order to post a "short" version of it), reading the full argument will make that very clear.

Reading the argument from (1.) to (20.) is sufficient to show the answer.

If competition is a display of skill, then doesn't that mean it actually takes less options to show true skill? By this reasoning, we could jump into skillsets as well. The higher tiers, especially Meta-Knight, have the most options. The lower tiers have less. This means that true skill is shown through higher tiers, as more options = more skill, correct? This also means that only higher tiers are competitively viable, since lower tiers have very little options. So by this logic, higher tiers = competitive, and by the same token, lower tiers = not competitive. That means that only bans that remove characters with little diversity are justified. If what you said of characters is not true of skillsets as well, what we have here is that your argument is a fallacy in and of itself.

Will edit in full response as soon as possible.

edit: working on some housework, will edit asap.

Edit yet again: Ok, I've just been enlisted as part of a manhunt for a missing housecat who apparently decided to go for a stroll somewhere, and I still have some actual school work I need to do tonight, and I still haven't finished the crap I need to fix around the house because everyone has been freaking out about the cat.

Can you please just go through the rigorous argument and find all of the premises that you think are invalid and make a list of them? (A list of the numbers, like (1.), (17.), and so forth.) I will get back to this thread tonight if I can, otherwise I will read it tomorrow and address any criticisms presented. Please though, list points from the rigorous argument and why they are invalid so I can respond in the most efficient manner possible.

Eyada, by chance, are you a college student/graduate?

... If so, did you major in philosophy? I'm asking this because that argument you presented was written in a very good style and one similar to that of many philosophical ideas.

Yes, I'm a college student.

And I'm a philosophy junky.

 

[Kamikaze*]

Good for you? Do we really need these kind of people in competitive Smash anyway?

Do we need to ban characters from competitive smash anyway?

 

[bobson]

How would you feel if people said you couldn't use your main anymore?

I'd switch to Metaknight. :3

 

[Kamikaze*]

An individual who quits due to being forced to change their main is not really worth it.

A game that forces you to change your main is not really worth it. Especially since I've been using him for ten ****ing months.

 

[AvaricePanda]

it seems like he needs to be banned, this is the 3rd thread regarding the subject?

over 50% say yes all 3 times?

how high would any other character's: "should ________ be banned?" poll be?

20% maybe?

the crazy amount of response this topic gets clearly says something about his status. I understand that the smash community has some whiners, but for over 50% to be whining over and over is a statistic that no other character can even touch.

over half the people smashing would rather play without him around.

look to your left. look to your right. more than one of those people don't want metaknight around.

have some respect

The problem with this statement is that not everybody who's posting in this thread has such clear arguments as Eyada, Joker, Raphael, Inui, and others. Many of the people who voted don't know much about the issue at hand.

It's like politics. Literally everyone whines about politics and how the President is always screwing up something or whatever, when in reality most of these people know hardly anything about politics. I don't debate about politics because I know that I know hardly anything, and I'm not going to waste my time pretending that I do.

Majority rule is not always correct.

Eyada, if I read correctly, then I agree somewhat with the statements that more diversity=more competitive. However, I disagree that diversity is the only argument of banning something, unless you're counting other arguments as things like, "Because X character is so broken, he is played more, wins more, and restricts diversity."

Woo ambigious English language.

If I'm understanding this right, then you can't count only diversity as an argument to ban or not ban a character. By this logic, then Snake should be banned too, right? According to Ankoku's ranking list, MK has almost twice the points of Snake, while Snake has slightly over double the points of D3. Banning them both would bring more diversity to the rest of the overall cast.

However, that can't be the sole reason for banning a character. Does the dominance "automatically" come with the two characters, or can it be countered as it is? AKA, why do MK and Snake have these high spots? Because they're just that much better? Or can they be countered?

MK has arguably even matchups, meaning the better skilled player can win the match. Snake has even matchups and some not in his favor (most notably D3). Both of these characters do not get "automatic" wins, and generally have to be more skilled than their opponent to win. Against Diddy, Snake, and Wario, MK has an around even matchup, and other people can easily just use the CP system to CP characters to make the matchup even too.

I wish I could think of a better way of saying this...but MK doesn't automatically get these spots. He isn't miles ahead of everyone else, therefore he places much better and limits diversity. But then, why is he so far ahead?

There's another character with relatively no bad match-ups except MK himself, and his name is Marth. However, he has less than a sixth of the points that MK has. MK shouldn't be that far ahead of Marth if you're thinking purely matchup based, right?

I honestly think there are misconceptions concerning MetaKnight. Quite a bit of people switch to him because their old main wasn't that tourney viable, and they place much better. Generally more tournaments are in places like New Jersey, SoCal, and Houston, places where top or just good placing MKs are like M2K, Inui, Dojo, Infinity, DSF, Tyrant...to name some off the top of my head. Plus, you have tournaments like ChuDats BiWeekly, where everyone went MK for the lols except for a couple of people; things like this have to be considered. You can't take the tournament rankings at face value.

My entire point with this is that I think there's a considerable amount of points that goes to MK because of these factors. He is the best in the game, and he will have more points than the rest, that's understandable. But his tournament dominance isn't purely because he's good, because he's beatable for really anyone, if you CP to get a near even matchup.

...I kind of rambled.

 

[hotgarbage]

*snip*

Hm! Fascinating read. It's good to see posts like these that provoke thought and move the discussion forward.

 

[Brinzy]

Yes, I'm a college student.

And I'm a philosophy junky.

I knew it! Go philo majors!

(even though I haven't applied much of anything to this thread)

 

[EvolveOrDie]

+1 for Eyada

As long as my eyes were telling the truth i agree with your argument concerning skill, diversity, and competitiveness. Unfortunately, I can already see that many people will not understand what is the true meaning of a viable option and choose to present arguments that are based around any little thing being considered an option.

 

[solecalibur]

A game that forces you to change your main is not really worth it. Especially since I've been using him for ten ****ing months.

It takes even more effort and more "training" to work around metaknight and its hard to prove but even projectiles dont seem to get through some of his attacks as he just "eats" them

 

[Panix]

I voted "yes".

It's not so much that mk metagame has advanced above and beyond because the best of the best main him, nor the fact that he is overpowered. It's actually quite simple.

1. MK has 5 jumps, a glide, shuttle loop that leads into a glide and also attacks while moving him out of harms way. Your not "gimping" metaknight anytime soon, and if you did or think you did, then he was at a high percent, which isn't gimping.

2. Each of his glide attacks are lagless (when utilized near the floor) and lead into a Dsmash or grab (which makes MK that much more unpredictable.

3. His Dsmash kills at a low percent, which is rare for light characters. (also comes out in 2 frames, which in terms is extremely fast)

4. His tornado has building priority, it's priority changes as the move is initiated.

5. His Side B has priority, recovery uses, mind games, and actually if you land the last hit, you can launch somebody.

6. His spacing is perfect, short hopped bairs+fairs can go unpunished, dtilt has so much range that only a small few can compete with it's reach it also trips, which leads into a grab. his dair+hop can go unpunished, his uair comes out in like 2 frames and ends in 5 (don't quote me), ftilt comes out quick and if the first one hits the last three are guaranteed to hit.

7. His Uair is amazing, if you land one at low percentages, you can land another 3 and finish it with a Up+B which is depressing because thats 30-40% because he landed one attack. You can also uair someone to the top of the stage and tornado, which is a low percent KO.

8. His edguarding is the reason why I voted yes on banning him, there is just no way you can avoid his edgegame UNLESS you out predict the MK. Good MK's follow a certain pattern on edguarding. They don't just run up and start attacking, they bait air dodges, bait laggy attacks, and sometimes just start attacking right away. unless you can outthink that MK he will keep you on the edge for a long time. if he lands a uair he can usually land a up+b which will ko at low percents.

9. His up+b can be reversed, and used OoS. which gets them out of trouble.

10. planking, I really don't want to say much on this, but I'm sure you guys understand this portion.

11. His side+Dpad makes him say "fight me" which is intimidating and lowers my moral. Instantly after seeing and hearing this taunt I feel smaller then Metaknight.

12. Counter-picks, metaknight lacks one,

13. Even match-ups, metaknight lacks one.

Metaknight is just everything you want in a character, speed, ko ability, flight, combo ability, grab's that lead into psudo-combo's, priority. just look at the overall picture. He's the best, he lacks a counter-pick if you want to go professional then just pick MK.

thats my issue.

 

[ShadowLink84]

It takes even more effort and more "training" to work around metaknight and its hard to prove but even projectiles dont seem to get through some of his attacks as he just "eats" them

His attacks have laser priority so they dont eat projectiles.

1. MK has 5 jumps, a glide, shuttle loop that leads into a glide and also attacks while moving him out of harms way. Your not "gimping" metaknight anytime soon, and if you did or think you did, then he was at a high percent, which isn't gimping.

Sonic can homing attack, side B and make it to the edge withut ever needing to use his spring.
pit has 3 jumps and a glide and his ^b.
Kirby has his jumps, jiggly has her jumps.

2. Each of his glide attacks are lagless (when utilized near the floor) and lead into a Dsmash or grab (which makes MK that much more unpredictable.

He has different glide attacks?
Let alone that the trajectory sends you up so he cannot follow up with the Dsmash or grab even at low percents considering ou can DI.

3. His Dsmash kills at a low percent, which is rare for light characters. (also comes out in 2 frames, which in terms is extremely fast)

It does not kill at low percents.
It also comes out on frame 5.

4. His tornado has building priority, it's priority changes as the move is initiated.

Priority doesnt build. it takes on special move priority In the air, it is subject ot clanging with alot of moves and then hits the opponent because of the aforementioning clanging. On the ground it follow a 10% rule where it cancels upon clanging.

5. His Side B has priority, recovery uses, mind games, and actually if you land the last hit, you can launch somebody.

Many multihit moves beat out drill rush.

6. His spacing is perfect, short hopped bairs+fairs can go unpunished, dtilt has so much range that only a small few can compete with it's reach it also trips, which leads into a grab. his dair+hop can go unpunished, his uair comes out in like 2 frames and ends in 5 (don't quote me), ftilt comes out quick and if the first one hits the last three are guaranteed to hit.

Okay and? So far you are naming his characteristics rather than saying how those characteristics break the game.

7. His Uair is amazing, if you land one at low percentages, you can land another 3 and finish it with a Up+B which is depressing because thats 30-40% because he landed one attack. You can also uair someone to the top of the stage and tornado, which is a low percent KO.

Sonic can cause 32% damage off of one single attack.
43% if done correctly.

A for the tornado, you can DI and avoid dying from it IIRC. Hence why most MK's shuttle loop.

8. His edguarding is the reason why I voted yes on banning him, there is just no way you can avoid his edgegame UNLESS you out predict the MK. Good MK's follow a certain pattern on edguarding. They don't just run up and start attacking, they bait air dodges, bait laggy attacks, and sometimes just start attacking right away. unless you can outthink that MK he will keep you on the edge for a long time. if he lands a uair he can usually land a up+b which will ko at low percents.

many characters have a good enough recovery that ensures they wont get gimped very often.
While it is true they will take damage,

9. His up+b can be reversed, and used OoS. which gets them out of trouble.

Everyone's can be reversed and used OOS.
Let alone Marths is better in terms of OOS.

12. Counter-picks, metaknight lacks one,

Yun

13. Even match-ups, metaknight lacks one.

Fix this sentence.
Again Yun

Metaknight is just everything you want in a character, speed, ko ability, flight, combo ability, grab's that lead into psudo-combo's, priority. just look at the overall picture. He's the best, he lacks a counter-pick if you want to go professional then just pick MK.

thats my issue.

So he is really friggin good so he is ban worthy? tsk tsk

 

[thrillagorilla]

His attacks don't work the same as lasers. If they did, the mother boys would be able to absorb them and the spacies would be able to reflect them.

Edit: Oops, didn't see context. I was posting something else, saw the thread had moved on by about 10 posts, decided to scrap it and reply to your post without thinking about it. Sorry.

 

[IC3R]

thrillagorilla ninjaedited me D:

 

[ShadowLink84]

no problem thrillagorilla

 

[PK-ow!]

For persons responding to Eyada's post, especially Dotcom: Keep in mind that the only kind of answer that respects the argument Eyada has put down is one that actually provides or specifies a flaw in the argument; i.e., a flawed step.
(It appears that as I wrote this post, this reminder became less important. Good.)

I read it over and it's deliciously deductive up to the third section... but then you get into some things that I don't think you could symbolize in a formal logic. Not without bringing in further premises.

Still, it is strong, if we just look at it as philosophical work.

Pretty much says that if you know it's to be expected that MKs will dominate the top spots when the top players of other characters aren't there, you can never say that MK should be banned. Some of these players are on entirely different continents. Should we ban a character now, as a fateful joke, new information could be published that changes the tiers in a single sweep, making everything we established as broken mundane and outdated. Oh, and he's hoping we are considering, with all of our expertise, that with the new people coming to MK pump overall knowledge into MKs minds, and is the beginning of the game degenerating around him. If it comes to MK being a phenomenon, of course.

Oh, and there is no such thing as an anti-ban argument. It actually is just defense against the points of the pro-ban argument, because anti-ban is status quo. You defend status quo, or you attack it for change.

Simple enough. (Amirite?)

... right up until the second last sentence of the first part. I'm hoping that the people in the SBR who look at this, keep in mind that if a certain condition is true, then that just is what it means for the game to degenerate around Meta Knight i.e. for him to overcentralize the game.

That condition is, a conjunction of sentences, claiming the existence of: a state-of-affairs of Meta Knight not having any worse than neutral matchups; and, a sort of massive, self-feeding migration of players into him, and a lack of energy going into anyone else, with these two things of a sort making it just impossible by numbers for other chars to ever demonstrate anything in tournaments to change their matchup; and further description, as I elaborated up to that point in the post.

The idea is, to call to attention that one of the conjuncts in this condition, if true, rules out the possibility of seeing the kinds of things I believe I have read some others saying is their "threshold" for persuasion on the issue.

Thanks, RK Joker.


The other issue is not about status quo. Perhaps in some super-constrained sense that refers to the "status quo" of the impartial onlooker's beliefs, but that isn't what status quo is supposed to mean.

It's about the fact that, the sort of thing which a debate to ban something in a competitive fighter game is, is one where "X should not be banned" is an assumption for each thing X; a starting point.

It is hypocritical if it involves double standards. A player who does not take advantage of the counterpicking system might not be switching characters when at a disadvantage simply because he feels comfortable with the match-up or for whatever else reason. Even if they could have CPd, they didn't, and went into a MU knowing full well the odds were against them. Those players either do not really care about the CP system or it really isn't at the core of the smash series, like everyone claims it to be.

Your second sentence is true. But I do not see in which order I am supposed to take these sentences as a justification for any one of them.

For that matter, the first sentence suggests to me you don't know what a double standard is. Indeed, the general problem with double standards is that people (i) have them, and then (ii) practice them. Say I have a double standard regarding decency laws, between men and women. The problem here is if I'm not a hypocrit and someone gives me the power of Law to do something about it.

Indeed, most cases of double standards are not hypocritical. So, your first sentence is no good as a premise. As a conclusion of some argument, I don't see support for it.


I should say I'm afraid I don't see what the third sentence has to do with the issue, and I'm certain I don't know what the fourth sentence does to help you. If your 'or' is inclusive, the sentence is logically equivalent to "If it's not the case that those players do not really care about the CP system, then it really isn't at the core of the smash series, like everyone says it is." (where "those players" refers to precisely whoever you meant it to). The only way this sentence can play in an inference to that the CP system isn't at the core of this game, is if you show 'those players' "really do care" about the CP system.


With me being thus lost, in the other two paragraphs I see nothing but more of the same "hypocrisy" ad hominem.

(Your post is on page 217)

 

[Shaya]

Everyone's can be reversed and used OOS.
Let alone Marths is better in terms of OOS.

While Marth may have made Up B out of shield a reasonably 'famous' tactic in Brawl. It's relatively useless. No one does a multi hit move on Marth's shield ANYMORE.
Meta Knight's grounded up B comes out 2 frames later, yet has A LOT MORE RANGE, is basically unpunishable, and of course has glide attack to follow up from it...

Marth's is better as a combo breaker because of the invincibility frames; MK's is better in just about every other way except damage (but MK's kills better too).

 

[Rango the Mercenary]

Unbelievably high priority for every attack, tactics require excruciating levels of defensive play compared to any other character one would fight*, completely dominates the tourney scene,

*Playing defensively against particular characters in fighting games is about as normal as it gets. For example, in Street Fighter IV, you would pit Ryu against most people and he would go after them. But against Zangief, you would camp Hadokens and sweeps while keeping your distance.

Unfortunately, MK makes things different since all of his moves go through the moves of anyone else, his Mach Tornado is fast, damaging, and safe, his Drill Tornado is safe, his Shuttle Loop has the most priority and is both hard-hitting and safe, and Dimension Cape even has an exploit when used properly. Plus, given his air game, he makes edgeguarding much easier than any other character.

I say remove him, see what happens in tournaments, observe the character variety, the opinions of players on all three sides (for MK, against MK, and neutral), see how well the MK players do without MK, and make a topic regarding these situations at the tourney scene to see what changes in the Brawl atmosphere.

 

[Panix]

Sonic can homing attack, side B and make it to the edge withut ever needing to use his spring.
pit has 3 jumps and a glide and his ^b.
Kirby has his jumps, jiggly has her jumps.

Alright, let me see sonic stay in the fray without having to worry about where he is positioned to get back onto the stage, meta knight can sit under the stage, go off screen to bait aggressive attacks and make it back without a care, let me see pit and jiggly do that.

He has different glide attacks?
Let alone that the trajectory sends you up so he cannot follow up with the Dsmash or grab even at low percents considering can DI.

He has diffenrent glide attacks? No, I used that term out of context, I meant his regular glide attack and his Up+B glide attack because you can use them in succession.

And Metaknight can easily Up+B>Glide atk>D smash without being punished until after the D smash (if all attacks hit the shield)

It does not kill at low percents.
It also comes out on frame 5.

lol wut? Dsmash Does very much kill at low percents for a light character, any light character that can kill snake reliably at 110% with a smash means it kills at low percents, also. let me see another character AS LIGHT as MK that has two powerful, quick, sometimes unpunishable smashs.

Frame data you got me. But sorry for being 3 frames off.

Priority doesnt build. it takes on special move priority In the air, it is subject ot clanging with alot of moves and then hits the opponent because of the aforementioning clanging. On the ground it follow a 10% rule where it cancels upon clanging.

okay

Many multihit moves beat out drill rush.

So? I wasn't really implying that his Side+B is an amazing attack, i was inferring that it's an amazing recovery, and has mind games involved. you can go under the stage, pretend your going for the right ledge, then side b and grab the left ledge.

Okay and? So far you are naming his characteristics rather than saying how those characteristics break the game.

Okay and? what are you talking about? some people rely on one, maybe two if they are lucky as an approach, Metaknight has Fairs, Bairs, Dtilts, Ftilts, Fsmash, Dair, all that have perfect spacing.

Sonic can cause 32% damage off of one single attack.
43% if done correctly.

I didn't know that anyone can have such a large gap of dmg off a single attack, not even ikes Fsmash can do that much. And sonic isn't much of a power hitter last I checked. I hope your talking about something else.

A for the tornado, you can DI and avoid dying from it IIRC. Hence why most MK's shuttle loop.

DDD, Bowser, and other heavies cannot, which still makes my point vaild.

many characters have a good enough recovery that ensures they wont get gimped very often.
While it is true they will take damage,

only ones I can really think of is GnW, Pika, ROB, Marth and......? But i wasn't really talking about gimping, i was talking about his superiority over EVERYBODY. The dmg accumulated just trying to get back onto the stage is ridiculous.

Everyone's can be reversed and used OOS.
Let alone Marths is better in terms of OOS.

Alright, I know everyone can, But snakes Reversed Up+B won't help much. Marths is better in terms of combo breaking, metaknights is still better.

So he is really friggin good so he is ban worthy? tsk tsk

Really friggin good is not the term. Sagat in SF4 is really friggin good, but a good dalphism or vega can still beat him. Now MK vs half the cast is a unfair fight, to the point where amazing low tier players who vrs mediocre MK's can lose because of a bad match. He is bann worthy, I love him to death, He is probably the second sickest character in brawl (next to snake) But he's broken. you know it. I know it. SB's knows it.

 

[Kamikaze*]

I don't even give a **** anymore. Go ahead and ban that ****** bat knight if you want. As long as I've been using him, I still can't even beat ****ing sonics anyway.

 

[Sky`]

Cultivate your hunger before you Idealise

This might help.
Or it might not.

But if it helps you...

Fiction was Against the Ban.

Up until the last tournament.

And how he changed his mind, due to what happened. Not even planking, just sheer exploitation of MK.
​

Motivate your anger, and make them all realise...
​

​

 

[Shaya]

I don't even give a **** anymore. Go ahead and ban that ****** bat knight if you want. As long as I've been using him, I still can't even beat ****ing sonics anyway.

Dude, quick question.
How does Meta Knight being banned effect you?

Do you go to tournaments regularly? Do you play this game seriously? Do you play this game competitively for more than just 'fun'? (Remember, winning is hella fun, but I'm not referring to that type here).

Because if MK is banned, you can still play your friendlies all you want. If you aren't a [serious] competitive player this doesn't effect you AT ALL.

The argument of "i played him for ages *sad face*" is a bit audacious. Remember: The REAL REASON for doing this would be to make a better competitive environment/game. If you can't like Brawl as a competitive game without a character, then well, I repeat, are you playing this game competitively?

Also, wait, Sky, are you saying Fiction is pro-ban now?

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

Sonic can homing attack, side B and make it to the edge withut ever needing to use his spring.
pit has 3 jumps and a glide and his ^b.
Kirby has his jumps, jiggly has her jumps.

well you aren't going to be gimping them either, seriously what was the point of that? Are you going to go off on some weird if this is the reason your banning MK then we should ban jigs and sonic too line of reasoning?

 

[Kamikaze*]

Dude, quick question.
How does Meta Knight being banned effect you?

Do you go to tournaments regularly? Do you play this game seriously? Do you play this game competitively for more than just 'fun'? (Remember, winning is hella fun, but I'm not referring to that type here).

Because if MK is banned, you can still play your friendlies all you want. If you aren't a [serious] competitive player this doesn't effect you AT ALL.

The argument of "i played him for ages *sad face*" is a bit audacious. Remember: The REAL REASON for doing this would be to make a better competitive environment/game. If you can't like Brawl as a competitive game without a character, then well, I repeat, are you playing this game competitively?

Now that I realize I suck, it really doesn't affect me. What's why I stopped giving a ****.

 

[Jupz]

I don't want him to be banned because hes so fun to use

 

[Sky`]

Dude, quick question.
How does Meta Knight being banned effect you?

Do you go to tournaments regularly? Do you play this game seriously? Do you play this game competitively for more than just 'fun'? (Remember, winning is hella fun, but I'm not referring to that type here).

Because if MK is banned, you can still play your friendlies all you want. If you aren't a [serious] competitive player this doesn't effect you AT ALL.

The argument of "i played him for ages *sad face*" is a bit audacious. Remember: The REAL REASON for doing this would be to make a better competitive environment/game. If you can't like Brawl as a competitive game without a character, then well, I repeat, are you playing this game competitively?

Also, wait, Sky, are you saying Fiction is pro-ban now?

Cultivate your hunger before you Idealise

Yes. yes I am.​

Motivate your anger, and make them all realise...
​

​