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

[Martel Hammer]

This is crazy. The votes are all piling up in favor of pro-ban. Guess we have to wait till Genesis.

 

[Shaya]

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

Everyone sucks, doesn't mean you aren't allowed to get better. What I'm out to say is, is that brawl as a competitive game needs refinement, and meta gone may be one of them; playing this game competitively could become a lot better for -everyone- with MK banned (and it could not... but not the point). ALSO, this decision is not just to make all the great players who don't use meta or whatnot be happy; other players of various skills can be positively and negatively effected as well.

1. We play this game because of the characters.
2. We play this game competitively because of the above.
3. We continue to play this game competitively because it can be competitive.

As time goes on, you enjoy the game due to 'point 3', more than point 1 or 2. Yes the community reels you in hook, line, and sinker due to points 1 and 2, but you're going to stay in the long run because of 3.

Also, LOL, Sky, did Fiction post in here with his reasons?

 

[GHNeko]

Point 3 is the only reason why I play Smash. LOL.


The competitive rush is like crack. I cant get enough of that ****. At all.

 

[Jski]

Something i would like to know would the creators of this game take notes if smash comments start to ban characters? If so it seems worth it in the long run i do not know so much about the short run but that one big assumption.

 

[-Ran]

Something i would like to know would the creators of this game take notes if smash comments start to ban characters? If so it seems worth it in the long run i do not know so much about the short run but that one big assumption.

No, they won't. The competitive community is only a tiny fraction of their money. It would require a ton more R&D for a game to satisfy us. =v

 

[Jski]

No, they won't. The competitive community is only a tiny fraction of their money. It would require a ton more R&D for a game to satisfy us. =v

Guess there always brawl + where the community can fix the problems them self lol.

 

[Lord Viper]

Guess there always brawl + where the community can fix the problems them self lol.

☆ **** Brawl+!!! So far the people that were in tourney's that host Brawl+ said that it was much more enjoyable than Brawl so far. I will say this, we will have to see how far Brawl will go if Meta Knight is no longer available and see if people will host more Brawl+ tourney's because of that, (if he get's banned, which I'm strongly against). ☆

 

[Jski]

☆ **** Brawl+!!! So far the people that were in tourney's that host Brawl+ said that it was much more enjoyable than Brawl so far. I will say this, we will have to see how far Brawl will go if Meta Knight is no longer available and see if people will host more Brawl+ tourney's because of that, (if he get's banned, which I'm strongly against). ☆

Your right, so what may end up happening in that the remove of meth from Brawl will lead to the growth of Brawl + now is this good or bad? (its getting too late for me will look at this thread a bit lator on)

 

[Dantarion]

Stop talking about Brawl+. As much as I LOVE it, this thread is about Metaknight's dominance in the Brawl community. Don't let yourselves get offtopic.

 

[Masmasher@]

negligently[/i] twisted my words, in your mind, to arrive at your own personal view of the scenario. Hence, "lazy".

Please question what you read, but also your own motives as you read them.

There is no "anti-ban argument". No one has to argue "that MK should not be banned" as some kind of position that might or might not become appealing to onlookers. EDIT: No one need even argue "that: not: MK should be banned."

They simply need to defend the negation - or, non-acceptance - of the claim that MK should be banned, by refuting all arguments to its effect.

It's up to one side to provide a sound argument that MK should be banned; and "the other side" is just the crucible of skepticism and logic that keeps the unsound arguments in check, 'burning' away the volatiles (untruth) to be left with pure, precious metal (truth).

Burden of Proof is laid down for us in clear terms: "Nothing should be banned without a reason."

Continually summarising this thread under these bivalent headers shows only another lingering misunderstanding in this debate: one of the debate itself.


Anti-ban needs only to 'argue' one thing:

"I have no reason for that belief."

PK-OW

I only mentioned my agreement with your statement above in the first sentence. The rest wasnt manipulation of your words but simply my own thoughts on the matter. I should have separated the 2 better. In this piece of the quote you mention here. You state that the other side simply needs to say no and not accept. I agree with that. Though the rest was my own statments about the anti bans side varying criteria. On that note if i'm still saying it wrong could you please tell me what you saying instead of flaming me.

 

[Dekar173]

Link: unwinnable.
Mario: unwinnable.
Ganondorf: unwinnable.
CF: unwinnable.
Sheik: unwinnable.
Squirtle, Ivysaur: unwinnable. (therefore, theoretically, even if Charizard is winnable, PT is going to be punished for transformations)
Bowser: unwinnable.
Ike: unwinnable.
Ness: unwinnable.
Fox: unwinnable.
Samus: unwinnable.

The instant an MK main actually LEARNS the MK v Diddy match-up, it's in MKs favor. Oh wait, Le_THieN is already a well known top Diddy, who is picking up MK.
MK is a direct, undebateable CP to Marth.
MK v Snake? Gimp, gimp, gimp, gimp.
MK v D3? Atomsk would swear on his mother this match-up is dead even, hell he might even go so far as to say DDD has the advantage. He is incorrect.
MK v Kirby? MKs hardly punishable arsenal of moves kills at even lower percents against
MK v Jiggs? fluffball 1 and fluffball 2
MK v Luigi? BigLou entirely gave up on this match-up.
MK v Sonic? WHOBO.
MK v DK? MK may be the least of DK's worries, but it's definitely an uphill battle against this disgusting little gremlin.
MK v ZSS? Snakeee loves the MK. Not the match-up.
MK v Lucas? Get gimped Mother boy. PK Love is no match for Sakurai's darling.
MK v ROB? Overswarm loves this match-up, let me tell you.
MK v Wolf? WHOBO.
MK v Wario? Ask Fiction.
MK v Toon Link? Ask Santi.
MK v Peach? Ask Kos-Mos.
MK v Falco? MK gimps Falco like landmines gimp war vets.
MK v Lucario? WHOBO.
MK v Pit? WHOBO.
MK v Olimar? May as well be Falco.
MK v ICs? Lol MK is the "go to" CP for them. Nana can't handle the Infinitely Dimensional Ceck of MK.
MK v GnW? WHOBO.
MK v Yoshi? WHOBO.
MK v Pikachu? A 60% situational CG isn't much against someone you can't force a grab against.
MK v Zelda? You're yanking my chain, you don't honestly think your Zelda stands a chance, do you?!?!



MK isn't bannable though. Nope. He's just the best character, who's the least comboable, ungimpable, with the best spot dodge, roll dodge, and air dodges, two already banned tactics, his own tier, his own match-up thread in every single character board, and is even on the dead center of the character select screen (which couldn't possibly be a hint at the possibility that some obvious favoritism went into his development.)

IMO, we can give MK mains until Genesis to keep him. Then we start fresh (as the tournament's name would suggest) with MK banned.

 

[-Ran]

☆ **** Brawl+!!! So far the people that were in tourney's that host Brawl+ said that it was much more enjoyable than Brawl so far. I will say this, we will have to see how far Brawl will go if Meta Knight is no longer available and see if people will host more Brawl+ tourney's because of that, (if he get's banned, which I'm strongly against). ☆

I just hosted a Brawl+ Tournament. Let's see...

1. It was impossible to get more than two set ups.[No one wants to hack their Wii.] This made it, the side event with an incredible 12 people in it take 4 hours.

2. Many players remarked that it was simply TOO easy to begin to create combos. Many of them had played Melee, and were dumbfounded by how easy it was to play. Even I, someone who just plays Brawl feel that it is too easy without a suitable tech window in the game.

3. Brawl + is going to have to tweak, many many things. Shiek's pretty broken with F-Tilt [sucks in due to knock-in] to grab to fair, to edge guard. Lee Martin was pulling of death combos in only an hour of play. I was pulling off 80% combos with Mario in friendlies, a Luigi player was comboing into Shoryuken.

Though it was fun to see combos, the short falls easily outweighed that. I can tell that Brawl + is no where near where it needs to be to continue to be a side event at my tournament.

 

[Lord Viper]

☆ Heh heh, I guess there are people that dislike the idea for this to make into a tourney. I'm glad I'm not the only one. I won't post here much because there's noting for me to say but not to ban someone that I clam that's not broken but is too good. ☆

 

[choknater]

Dekar, what are you talking about? Sheik ***** Metaknight. 90:10.

Also, that note about Genesis sounds discouraging lol... If the Metaknight mains do well, their character gets banned? How depressing.

 

[Kinzer]

A lot of money at line though, if MK gets banned you can just let him get banned, take the winnnings, and find another hobby or something.

 

[choknater]

True that Kinzer.

A song just came in my head:

She works hard for the money so you better treat her right!

 

[.AC.]

lol people claiming without anything to back it up that certain mk matchups are unwinnable.

 

[CR4SH]

A lot of money at line though, if MK gets banned you can just let him get banned, take the winnnings, and find another hobby or something.

Lol, true. Also funny.

On a side note, ban mk.

On another side note, luigi-mk is a really really DUMB matchup. On stage it's bad, but not the end of the world. Off stage, it's seriously the end of the world. Any MK with matchup knowledge and a brain will chase you far off the stage and take your second jump, which equals a stock. GG.

 

[.AC.]

Lol, true. Also funny.

On a side note, ban mk.

what is it with people these days not backing up their arguments/opinions.

 

[CR4SH]

what is it with people these days not backing up their arguments/opinions.

I've done that, in this thread and others. ATM I'm just being vocal.

 

[.AC.]

I've done that, in this thread and others. ATM I'm just being vocal.

ok,didnt notice

 

[choknater]

luigi's tornado recovery is too good though

 

[CR4SH]

luigi's tornado recovery is too good though

If you let luigi recover, his recovery is WTFgood. However, if you choose not to let him recover, it's pretty bad. Everything has a startup, everything is slow, everything has terrible priority. The exception is his upb, which has quick startup and good priority, but GARBAGE range.

 

[Cirno]

I've already refuted the "popularity" claim.

Eye disagree sir.

One of the primary, valid methods of identifying overcentralization is analysis of tournament results lists over a long period of time. If a certain character, when considering the overall average of all results to help mitigate the impact of player skill, can be seen to consistently dominate those results, that character can be said to be overcentralizing the game.

I'm afraid I disagree. As you stated in the first sentence analyzation of tourney results is one of the the primary methods. If it were the sole method then this concept could hold true, but there are several other methods that can be used instead of and or with result analyzation. In fact, I don't even believe we can use tourney results analyzation as more than a 'heads up' to possible problems.

If we use your example where top DDDs consistently beat top DKs, it will appear that DDD is overcentralizing the metagame, when infact no one is being forced to focus on DDD aside from their individual matchups. If several people were to merely pick Olimar and play him proficiently and better than the DDDs, the results would again change.

A more common and efficient way of deciding whether something is overcentralizing the metagame is asking: " Do I have to do this in order to win?"

In the case of broken characters, tactics, and other wise, you will often find the answer for this is 'yes'.

So, if the average of all tournament results looks like this:

Meta
Meta
Meta
Snake
Meta

then there is overcentralization in the metagame.

Yet, you respond to that and say that such a result is merely a display of "popularity" rather than overcentralization.

It's more likely to be popularity than overcentralization using all the primary methods we have to determine it.

Since tourneys give us the option of choice even in a play to win environment you can never determine if something overcentralizes by the results. The analyzation of such is merely as I stated earlier, more of a 'heads up' than deciding factor of overcentralization.

If DDD could legally goon farm and started taking all the top spots, the results would not tell you whether or not he was overcentralizing, just that alot of people were playing him.

After that heads up, you see he is goon farming, and thus in order to win ever against DDD you would have to focus on either on getting those parts or stopping him from getting those parts.

This amounts to the claim that "If a large number people play a character, that character will dominate the tournament results due solely to the fact that a large number of people play that character." You are saying that the reason MK has so much success is not because he is overcentralizing the game; rather, it is due to the large number of players using him. Therefore, if a character is popular, according to your logic, tournament results lists will simply show that popularity, and are insufficient to prove overcentralization.

That claim is easily proven false.

Yes your claim is. Simplified into a simple popular = win equation, the idea that popularity is one of the causes for a character's success is easily defeated with logic.

Captain Falcon is popular, you can get knee'd a thousand times over and it will never get old because the Smash community loves him. But he is not a good character. If all the MK players switched to CF he would show up more, but players of equal skill with better characters would often top the averages and mix in.

As I understand it however, anti-ban is not claiming MK only has so much success due to popularity. He is also the best character, he also has multitudes of great players not to mention the best, he is in many's opinion extremely fun to play as. Without his massive popularity he would still place relatively high (think Melee Marth's results) but because he is popular his results are given an extreme boost.

Where as a normal amount of players maining one character( MK in below example) for a community would bring back results like:

MK
Snake
MK/DDD
Wario
Diddy
MK


When that Snake player and Wario player decide they prefer MK for whatever reasons they have (commonly being just a safer/better option) then you have results like Whobo.

Imagine the top 25 players in the nation. Imagine that all of them except for 5 suddenly start using Donkey Kong. This means that Donkey Kong is popular.

Not really.

20 players is hardly popular. Even considering they are top players, they don't count as more people than anyone else. All that means is those 20 more players like DK, which is pretty understandable as he's amazing, one of his taaunts looks like he is saying "I UNNO? ):", and has winnable matchups across the board as long as the infinite is banned.

Try 45- 65 percent of players world wide like MK probably has.

Imagine that the other 5 players use DeDeDe. According to your proposition, due to the fact that Donkey Kong is so wildly popular, he should dominate the tournament results. However, it is clear that the top 5 would consistently be

D3
D3
D3
D3
D3

because DK cannot consistently beat DeDeDe.

There are several things very seriously wrong with this example.

• 5 top Triple D players dominating tourneys just because 20 top players are suddenly using DK? Are there no other top players in the universe who use perhaps Diddy, or Pikachu, or MK?
  
• Even in an example where we only had those top 25 player, did they all travel around with each other or something? Several player consistently beat MK and main other characters, if they all traveled around together the results would look incredibly different.
  
• These are supposed to be

  analysis of tournament results lists over a long period of time

  aren't they"? It might be acceptable if this were major tournament results average, but just tourneys in general ? Impossible. Unless those top players can travel to (and together mind you) a large majority of tournaments formed. DDDs representation isn't going to be large enough to dominate result in such a way, even in point 2's alternate universe.

Oh and consistently beating DDD with DK is all a matter of whether the infinite is banned, as it's a 60:40 or better in terms of equal skill IMO. Very winnable, especially if you're considered a top player.

I hear Bum hardly ever loses, and I'm sure there are some DDD's in NY.

Imagine that all of the Donkey Players instead switch to Jigglypuff and the remaining 5 players use Mr. Game & Watch. Again, the more popular character would not be present in the tournament results because Jigglypuff cannot consistently beat G&W.

See my last response and replace appropriate characters.

G&W v Jiggz is one hell of a matchup I agree though.

Ban corneria immediately.


The main thing you should be getting from all of this, is that popularity does have an effect on the results tourneys give us. Even in your unlikely examples, you can see that popularity is effecting the results people expect and want to see. Combined with a characters attributes, and the backing player skill, popularity of a character is in part what drives the results we receive.

Akuma in the SFHD Remix was clearly the best character (though in the end he still broke the game with a completely safe jump in), but he was not placing because no one wanted to play as him ( these were not official tournaments though from what I understand).

The same scenario could be imagined with numerous character combinations, all with the same logical conclusion. Namely: popularity does not necessitate or predict tournament dominance.

Agreed. I don't know why you tried to simplify the concept into pure popularity anyway. This isn't a running for home coming queen or anything, this is a competition of skill. Popularity is only a factor in the whole shabang bang.

Popularity cannot logically be shown to lead to tournament dominance. Only absolute popularity, meaning that everybody uses the same character, leads to tournament dominance.

No items. Captain Falcon only. Final Destination.

Even thats kind of iffy since, as the only desired character he wouldn't really be dominating results, as he'd have no competition. No one to show his moves besides the mirror.

Since absolute popularity is not present in the Brawl community, tournament results cannot logically be attributed to popularity.

Single handedly no.

I don't think anyone claimed that.
Looking above, you just kinda straw-manned what we said by taking other factors out of the concept we suggested.

As this simple bit of logic shows, tournament results are not driven by popularity. They are driven by the ability of a character to win.

And several other factors obviously, since on paper MK loses to Snake, Wario, and Pikachu.
And then at the highest levels of legal character ability it will be IC's .

So, it follows that your claim that the result

MK
MK
MK
Snake
MK

could possibly be attributed purely to popularity is a completely absurd idea, because the results lists are not driven by popularity, they are driven by the ability of characters to win. So when the average of all tournament results show that Meta Knight is dominating, it has nothing to do with popularity, and everything to do with the fact that MK's ability to win is resulting in an overcentralization of the metagame.

Through out this entire post I spoke mainly for the antiban, but I'm pretty sure Yuna never said anything similar to purely or absolute especially in such a random variable as popularity. I'd like a quote just for wows and lulz if you don't mind.

Now, whether or not the actual average of all tournament results really shows that MK has such a dominance is open to debate; but your assertion that popularity has anything to do with it is completely false.

According to rankings MK and Snake are dominant with Wario coming up fast.

Your assertion that popularity has nothing to do with it is completely false.

Look at the rankings. Wario has no bad stages, and has better matchups than Diddy, his worst matchups are not only winnable and debatable, but the worst matchup of the most popular character discouraging their appearance( as if that wasn't enough to prove popularity has a place in results) -- BUT Diddy is about 100 more points higher than him in rank.

Why?

Wario obviously has a greater ability to win. If the game is as dependent on matchup numbers as people say, he should be right above Snake. It's pretty simple if you think about it:

There are more players for the characters ranking above him. Character popularity will always play a big part in determining results as it is essentially the players themselves. How can you take them out of a tourney equation?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I meant to add this to my response to your other huge post, but this is already long enough.
I'll wait a bit for someone else to take a crack at it before I respond.

From what I skimmed through however, I''ll be giving more opinion than arguing a point.
We'll see though.

 

[M@v]

Link: unwinnable.
Mario: unwinnable.
Ganondorf: unwinnable.
CF: unwinnable.
Sheik: unwinnable.
Squirtle, Ivysaur: unwinnable. (therefore, theoretically, even if Charizard is winnable, PT is going to be punished for transformations)
Bowser: unwinnable.
Ike: unwinnable.
Ness: unwinnable.
Fox: unwinnable.
Samus: unwinnable.

No match is unwinnable. Also, Some of those guys are some of the better MK fighters out there. (Bowser/Fox).

 

[CR4SH]

Bowser is great at mk. Fox? I certainly havn't seen anything that makes me think the matchup makes any sense to actually play.

 

[CR4SH]

Eye disagree sir.

Sorry if this double posts, but I don't think it will.

Are you the cirno I know? The wolf play from lex? Because if you are I'll read that whole post. Otherwise I'll probably skip it.

Edit: **** it did double post. My bad, I thought this thread was moving faster.

 

[Cirno]

Sorry if this double posts, but I don't think it will.

Are you the cirno I know? The wolf play from lex? Because if you are I'll read that whole post. Otherwise I'll probably skip it.

Probably not.

Feel free to skip, I expected a majority to anyway. I'm only looking for that specific poster and anyone who feels they can refute the points I stated anyway.

 

[Eddie G]

what is it with people these days not backing up their arguments/opinions.

Yeah let's just regurgitate everything that's been said in here for the past 200+ pages. That will really help. Honestly, why does it even matter if people do or don't back up their arguments at this point? All it has been is straw-manning, bickering, and demands for "proof". This is all rather pointless.

I vote that he should go after Genesis concludes, whether he dominates it or not. I'd rather have it as a marking point instead of a dependent variable in the ban issue.

 

[Cirno]

I vote that he should go after Genesis concludes, whether he dominates it or not. I'd rather have it as a marking point instead of a dependent variable in the ban issue.

Oh my, how very revealing~

; )

 

[Dekar173]

I thought it was brazenly obvious as to why these match-ups are unwinnable. If MK knocks you off the stage, that's -1 stock. Unless if there's some magical new way to recover, those 12 characters are doomed against a top MK.

Sure, there are others out there that invalidate certain match-ups under CERTAIN conditions (DDD ***** DK... if we allow the walking chaingrab, which shouldn't be allowed in the first place.)

Which of those is winnable against top MKs?

Bowser has a grab release against MK, that's his saving grace. What use is it if MK stays out of reach?

Fox is one of the better characters against MK? Really? Is Fox one of the more gimpable characters? Ok then, it's not winnable.




Note: if MK is banned, starting after Genesis, it gives top MK players THOUSANDS OF HOURS to practice away with a new character (something they have probably already done if they're at the top level of play.)

 

[Irsic]

I'd just like to point out that in the Lucas vs. MK matchup getting gimped is really not the Lucas players fear. Like...at all, really.

 

[.AC.]

I thought it was brazenly obvious as to why these match-ups are unwinnable. If MK knocks you off the stage, that's -1 stock. Unless if there's some magical new way to recover, those 12 characters are doomed against a top MK.

Sure, there are others out there that invalidate certain match-ups under CERTAIN conditions (DDD ***** DK... if we allow the walking chaingrab, which shouldn't be allowed in the first place.)

Which of those is winnable against top MKs?

Bowser has a grab release against MK, that's his saving grace. What use is it if MK stays out of reach?

Fox is one of the better characters against MK? Really? Is Fox one of the more gimpable characters? Ok then, it's not winnable.




Note: if MK is banned, starting after Genesis, it gives top MK players THOUSANDS OF HOURS to practice away with a new character (something they have probably already done if they're at the top level of play.)

you should not be assuming these matchups are unwinnable just by saying that if they get knocked off the stage its a -1 stock.you are claiming they are unwinnable just by one thing that is so easily avoidable at high level play.then arent those matchups unwinnable against other characters who can easily gimp them,not just mk,you shouldnt be claiming a marchup unwinnable just for a single character flaw.

 

[Dekar173]

I'd just like to point out that in the Lucas vs. MK matchup getting gimped is really not the Lucas players fear. Like...at all, really.

Ledge hugging ***** tether grab, zap jumping gives you vertical but leaves you off stage, which is still horribly dangerous territory, then he eats your thunder with his true form through use of the dreaded "neutral-B"

If the MK you're playing isn't gimping you on a consistent basis, they're not really trying to.

AC, I don't think high level play occurs anywhere in Tijuana. That's just an educated guess but I think it holds true.

 

[Cirno]

I thought it was brazenly obvious as to why these match-ups are unwinnable.

It'd be much more agreeable if you said those were your personal matchup results. Results say otherwise.

If MK knocks you off the stage, that's -1 stock. Unless if there's some magical new way to recover, those 12 characters are doomed against a top MK.

Not really new but DI really helps in recovery. MK's best option near the top corner blast zone (assuming you even went that far) is an uair to nair since it can force air dodges and cover them quite well. But up high, all you need to do is fast fall towards the stage. There's not much he can do besides reverse shuttle loop and try to catch you in recovery lag if you used it to get back.

Most of those character were unviable anyway, so it's not that big of a deal that MK should do well against them, even then most had worst matchups elsewhere. Though if you are talking top player vs top player the matchup numbers aren't going to look as accurate.

Sure, there are others out there that invalidate certain match-ups under CERTAIN conditions (DDD ***** DK... if we allow the walking chaingrab, which shouldn't be allowed in the first place.)

Which of those is winnable against top MKs?

65:35 is possible and has been done on occasion. 60:40 is very winnable. If not, we should see a whole lot more people counterpicking, and MK would be the only viable character.

The only character MK really hurts is Marth. As the other get it jusst as bad or worse from other characters.

Bowser has a grab release against MK, that's his saving grace. What use is it if MK stays out of reach?

Bowser outreaches MK. This is why you always see him on him heavy instead of spacing like they would against Wario/Sonic.

Not to mention OOS UPB out prioritizes Tornado, Drill, and just slides pass SL.

Fox is one of the better characters against MK? Really? Is Fox one of the more gimpable characters? Ok then, it's not winnable.

So is Falco but thats 55:45 isn't it?

I'm not as familiar with this matchup as I am with the others since my Fox usually gets Pikalamed, but I'm sure Fox does poorly simply because his option against tornado can only be used when MK approaches with it. Which is now idiotic as EVERY character has several options to beat it.

Note: if MK is banned, starting after Genesis, it gives top MK players THOUSANDS OF HOURS to practice away with a new character (something they have probably already done if they're at the top level of play.)

Yeah, if it happens MK mains won't like it but it won't be all surprise surprise for the best of them. I'd like to see what tricks M2k's DDD has up it's sleeve. And I'm curious as to what character would get the majority of ex-MK players: Marth, DDD, or Snake.

 

[CR4SH]

Which is now idiotic as EVERY character has several options to beat it.

I'll take this opportunity to cry and reply simultaneously. Luigi has a couple aerials through the very top (the one place he's vulnerable to everying) very well timed to beat it. Also, a sweet spotted usmash on the very first startup frames will stop it. In other words luigi has no options ::

If you were the cirno I know, there would be no question. So good luck with your argument. I wish you well, whichever way you go.

 

[Cirno]

I'll take this opportunity to cry and reply simultaneously. Luigi has a couple aerials through the very top (the one place he's vulnerable to everying) very well timed to beat it. Also, a sweet spotted usmash on the very first startup frames will stop it. In other words luigi has no options ::

If you were the cirno I know, there would be no question. So good luck with your argument. I wish you well, whichever way you go.

Take advantage of those platforms for quick nair drops. MKs rarely pick boards without platforms. I use rising nado to just escape most of the time though. Gotta watch how high you go though, because you will eat a aerial or shuttle loop if you go too high.


This other Cirno sounds like they might be a genius also incredibly strong. Almost the strongest. Thanks for the luck, I'm more trying to find the truth than anything since I wouldn't be devastated over an MK free game, I just don't think he needs to go.

Here's to hoping I can earn the same respect that other Cirno has someday~

 

[PK-ow!]

PK-OW

I only mentioned my agreement with your statement above in the first sentence. The rest wasnt manipulation of your words but simply my own thoughts on the matter. I should have separated the 2 better. In this piece of the quote you mention here. You state that the other side simply needs to say no and not accept. I agree with that. Though the rest was my own statments about the anti bans side varying criteria. On that note if i'm still saying it wrong could you please tell me what you saying instead of flaming me.

Okay, then that's true.

So yes, you should mind your spacing. Your statements really do become misattributions to me with the way you wrote them.

I can go back and edit some explanation into my post if you'll change yours.


As for flaming. . . I believe a person can criticize others for character faults on the internet and not be unjust. Some persons' definitions of "flaming" make this analytically semantically impossible, but I choose to ignore those. I do take note of the people, of course. I hope you don't have such a definition.

I believed you to have grievously warped my words, and by a cause which I believed would lead to harm later, i.e., the character fault. I told you directly. It was also necessary for me to be vigilant about interpretations of my writing for the first while, to prevent future discussion from failing to refer to it, due to misconception.

That is my reason for what I wrote.

 

[ShadowLink84]

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.

Woah woah woah.
A multihit move is not required for you to OOS DS on someone.
It depends on the range.
Hence why no matter how well i space Sonics Bair, OOS DS will smack me every time

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...

Actually I saw recently someone who shielded the shuttle loop and Uair immediately afterwards and struck the MK.
Shuttle loop comes out on the same time but Marth has more frames of invincibility.

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).

Meh I find Marth is better defensive wise while MK's is just overall better.
hence why i said OOS wise.

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?

Wow, really, why do people read so deeply into things?
The point of the matter was to show that just because a character is good isn't enough to facilitate a ban.

So MK gimps people, so he can recover.
It is the effect of those abilities, not just the abilities in themselves.
How soooo incredibly broken they are within the context of the game rathe than MK just having 5 jumps.

 

[thrillagorilla]

OK. After going over Eyada’s post a few time, I’ve created an argument for banning Metakight by his standards. For those of you that haven’t read the post, it can be found in the below link. Please don’t read my argument unless you have read Eyada’s post in its entirety.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7266367&postcount=3287

This is likely to be a very lengthy wall of text, so please keep that in mind before reading on. If you see any holes in my argument, I want to hear them. I don’t mind being proven wrong, because then I’ll know in the future what is correct. Just keep in mind that I will be requiring you to back up your counter arguments. Any counter arguments based on opinions rather than well thought out theories that can be proven or at the very least backed up with facts will be refuted. That being said, I’ll begin my argument.





According to Eyada’s criteria, a character must be the limit diversity with it’s presence to warrant a ban. Metaknight fits this description, and I’ll list out why along with evidences.

The argument will begin with the claim that Metaknight has no disadvantaged match-ups. Although this in and of itself would look like it wouldn’t be a problem, it is if you look at the game as a whole. Metaknight is the only character without bad Match-ups. Snake, Mr. Game & Watch, Falco, King DeDeDe, Marth and Diddy Kong all have disadvantageous match-ups, even if only slightly. This puts these characters in a different category than Metaknight. The top tier characters I listed are what you would call “low risk/high reward” characters. They offer up multiple advantages and benefits, but there are small risks involved. These risks take the form of both stages and opposing characters.

Example:

Snake is facing R.O.B. on Jungle Japes. In this instance, Snake is facing a character that can defeat his camping tactic on a stage that hinders a few of his other options, such as DACUS. In this instance, he is disadvantaged. Another situation would be facing a King DeDeDe on the Rainbow cruise stage. The likelihood of either of these scenarios happening is low, but it is still within the realm of reasonable possibility.

Metakight on the other hand fits into a different category. He is a “zero risk/high reward” character. This is shown through his match-ups and stage advantages. Though it is debated, Metakight at worst goes even with a few characters and has an advantage against the rest of the cast. This means that no matter the situation, Meta-knight will never enter a fight where he has the disadvantage. This is even further solidified by the lack of stages that put him at a disadvantage against any character. In other words, there is no risk in playing as him, making him a better option than any of the other characters in the game. This includes the “low risk/high reward characters”. Even if the benefit of using one of the other characters is slightly higher, the risk outweighs the benefit, because there is an option where there is no risk involved.

According to Eyada’s assertions, if there is a clear best option, people will take it. If this is true, Metaknight would be the best choice, and will therefore be chosen more frequently than any other option. If you look at tournament turn-out, you will see this is true. Even if Meta-knight is not the top placer in every tournament, he is more represented than any other character at a majority of them, fitting the description. This would include matches where he was used as a counter-pick. Even if there was a better option for the immediate situation, Metaknight is the safer and more logical choice in the long run.

Conclusion: Metaknight over centralizes the game due to lack of risk, which in turn limits diversity/competitiveness, which in turn constitutes a ban.






Before I close, there are a few arguments that I have anticipated to my post that I would like to point out and either refute before they come up, or allow that in the event these are true, they would contradict my theory.






· Metaknight has bad match-ups

For a match-up to be bad, there would have to be a noticeable disadvantage for the opponent to prey upon in a match. In the most hotly contested match-ups with Metaknight, I have not seen this to be the case. I was reading the thread on the Metaknight boards about the most likely candidate for an advantaged match-up, Wario, and saw the discussion point to the match-up being slightly in Metaknight’s favor. I have seen talk on the boards of Snake having an advantage, but the posts I have seen are by non-snake mains. Also, even if either of these match-up were even, it wouldn’t disprove my point. To disprove it, Meta-knight would have to have a disadvantaged match-up or reduce the advantage he has on at least half the other characters to even. Until that point would be reached, Metaknight is still the logical choice.




· Metaknight doesn’t break the Counter-pick system and/or he isn’t the only one that breaks it.

If you read my post carefully, you will see that he does; he just doesn’t break it in an obvious fashion. I’ve had a couple of posts back and fourth with AvaricePanda on this thread, and he has pointed out that Wario breaks the stage aspect of the counter-pick system due to having no disadvantaged stages. I haven’t talked with the Wario mains about it to confirm, but even if it is true, Wario doesn’t break the character aspect of the counter-pick system. Since Meta-knight breaks both, he is still the obvious better choice.





· “X” character can still win.

It doesn’t matter that a character can win against Metaknight. If this is your counter-argument, read my argument more carefully and look at the larger picture rather than just nit-picking. You can’t refute the theory of Relativity using Quantum Mechanics theory, which is essentially what you would be trying to do. I’m not claiming that other characters can’t win, and it isn’t even my argument for the ban.





· Not everyone is using Metaknight. If he was the obvious best choice, wouldn’t everyone use him?

There are any number of reasons why a person won’t choose Metaknight. I, for instance, don’t because I don’t like the play-style. It doesn’t fit my personality, and I won’t do as well as Metaknight as I would Kirby or Donkey Kong. Other people don’t for the same reason. Because of personal preferences, people can’t always unlock Metaknight’s true potential. This doesn’t mean that the potential isn’t there, however. This also can be construed as a pro-ban argument. If Metaknight is the obvious best choice, the diversity is limited because people who don’t play him well are at a disadvantage against those that are. Even if the players are equal in terms of “skill,” a fair match will never be reached due to the handicap. Keep in mind that this doesn’t deal directly with my argument anyway.





· Would it be fair to make the Metakight mains give up their main?

The simple answer is no. On the other hand, is it OK for the Metakight mains to expect the Marth mains to give up their main? No. This is a roundabout argument that doesn’t have anything to do with what my argument was even about. What’s worse, it deals entirely with opinions, which can’t be argued properly or proven to begin with.





· Metaknight is just popular, so you can’t use tournaments as evidence.

Even if people aren’t consciously realizing it, some of them are choosing Metaknight because he is the best choice. Others do it blatantly. There are also some that play the character “just because they like him”. If you look at popularity, though, you would realize that it comes and goes in waves. The Metaknight “craze” hasn’t slowed down at all within the past year. It is proof of him being the dominant choice. Better yet…

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7236357&postcount=2341

Read this. It explains it far better than I could.





· Melee…

That was Melee. I loved the game. Still do. It has nothing to do with my argument or the subject at hand.





· Street Fighter…

See above.





· I don’t agree with Eyada’s post.

That’s nice. Why? If you don’t provide evidences as to why, then your disagreement is based on nothing but what you were feeling at the time you read it. For that matter, take your disagreements up with Eyada, not me. Keep in mind that he didn’t post it for pro-ban, he posted it so that there could be criteria for a ban if needed. Also, his source material was Sirlin, so keep that in mind.





· Just get better.

What… is that? I’ve seen it before, but I have no idea what to do with it. How in the world can you even know if I need to get better or not? Also, it has nothing to do with my argument.





· Metaknight doesn’t make the other characters non-viable.

Yes, he does. If there were another character that had multiple advantageous match-ups and evens with the rest of the cast (MK would have to fall under one of the even match-ups) then there would be two “zero risk/ high reward” characters to choose from, allowing for diversity to continue. As it stands there isn’t, so logic still dictates Metaknight to be the logical (dominant) choice.





· This argument has been refuted multiple times.

No, it has been "silenced" by the large number of “arguments” that I have mentioned above. It also wasn’t based on Eyada’s ban criteria. I’ve been keeping up with this thread pretty well since day one, but there is always the possibility that I missed something. If so, please post a link or a re-post. Thanks in advance.






If you are still reading by this point, I commend you. Thanks for sticking it out with me. I hope I haven’t been rude with any portion of my post. If so, let me know via pm how I was and I’ll edit. The same thing goes if you see holes in my argument. If you point them out and support why I am incorrect, then I’ll happily retract my statements. I may argue the point with you for a few posts, though. No hard feelings or flames on my part, and I hope I can expect the same in return.

@Eyada: If I’ve misinterpreted your criteria, please let me know. I apologize if this is the case.

On a personal note: I’ve said this in a lot of posts, but just in case you haven’t read it I’ll state it again. I don’t like the idea of banning things. If a ban proves necessary, though, I can live with it. One more thing. This argument doesn’t make me pro-ban. I’m not sure where I stand yet, I just formulated this argument out of Eyada’s criteria. If its soundly refuted, I won’t mind going anti-ban until proven otherwise. Thanks for reading. I'm going to bed.