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

[Nic64]

Also, something I think is very relevant to the tournament going community. Almost none of us would rather watch the end of a smash tournament (which most of us do) that is metaknight dittos 90% of the time (which it often is). And yes, this is important IMO.

It's all perspective, I think I prefer MK ditto's to most other high tier matchups, like most games featuring Falco/Olimar/IC's and a few others are like unwatchable to me.

they should place the ban in the midwest region only, it's not like it would do anything but make overswarm lose. lol

he was so much better as a ROB main though lol

speaking of OS and unwatchable high tier matchups, classic video right here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxgOkRyG3ho

 

[animeblitzballa33]

I dont see what a temp ban would do. There is only one outcome that could happen and that is other characters now win more tournies. A temp ban wont open our eyes to anything new or unexpected. We already know how it will turn out. It wouldnt "prove" anything. There is no test that can happen. It simply needs to happen or not.

 

[da K.I.D.]

why can't SBR just ban MK for a certain period just to test it. with over half the people complaining about it. it'll give us some good insight as too what could happen if he was perma banned

I would also like to see this

Because I don't want to see a billion "UNBAN MK" threads.

1. you think it would be that much worse than the crap ton of "how is MK NOT broken" threads? your screwed either way me thinks, so thats not really good reasoning.

2. i dont think people would whine too much if people just said lets not play MK for 3 months and see what happens.

since you have a predetermined amount of time, there would be no need for whining since it would be known how much time they have to wait.










i just had something of an epiphany.

People say that if you ban MK for a period of time than people are not going to be prepared to fight him when he comes back.

but if he was universally banned and than brought back, wouldnt it follow the same logic to say that people wont be prepared to play AS him and thus will do worse when he comes back?

but if you say no the MKs are going to practice and get into shape after he is unbanned, or that they will still play with him in friendlies and such during the ban, than who are they playing/training with? the people that they are going to be playing in the tourneys. so in that case, It wouldnt make sence to say that people will be unprepared because they would be the ones getting the MKs back up to snuff.

 

[bobson]

The main argument that I heard from well-respected members were that items actually appear closer to whoever's losing. I'm sort of skeptical on that, but if its true, it throws out the whole argument.

People throw this idea around a lot, but I've never seen any solid evidence toward it and anecdotally (I play with items a lot) I've never seen it happen.

 

[ShadowLink84]

What you guys dont understand is hat the SBR RECOMMENDS.
The TO's may or may not act on those recommendations.

 

[AvaricePanda]

No one's commented on my really long argument.

...

._.

Also, temp banning is honestly a crap decision and gets nothing accomplished, I'll go more in depth later but right now it's late and I need to sleep.

 

[BluePeachy100]

I dont see what a temp ban would do. There is only one outcome that could happen and that is other characters now win more tournies. A temp ban wont open our eyes to anything new or unexpected. We already know how it will turn out. It wouldnt "prove" anything. There is no test that can happen. It simply needs to happen or not.

I think this is a very good point. If it needs to be done, and there are no if, ands, or buts about it. If it doesn't there's no need for a temp ban. It as been proven on many occassions that Meta Knight can be defeated, it all depends on player skill, because frankly, people have taken a crap on the tier list time and time again in the past. Meta Knight is no exception on this fact. If there's a good Meta Knight player, and there's a great Toon Link player, the player skill will make all the difference, hence the Toon Link would win, end of story.

And IMO, Meta Knight isn't as "broken" as they say he is. Sure he's fast as hell, but there are still weak points that can be exploited, just as every other character has. Let's not forget hsi weight, being the 4th lightest(correct me if I'm wrong) character on the game, he can easily be killed at relatively low percents. Given the MK player isn't a camper, or somethign to that effect.

In short, I don't think he should be banned, because there can be a good MK player, but there can always be someone who is better and can beat that MK player.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Saying that MetaKnight has no risk is debatable, as certain matchups on certain stages, (vs. Diddy on FD, vs. Snake on Halberd) could be argued risky, as the matchup itself. Plus, in the future, matchups can easily get better. Take, for example, quickly evolving Diddy. Some may argue this quote from Alphazealot in a thread in the Diddy boards.

Those situations are stage/character co-dependent. Metaknight can strike FD, rendering the overall match-up with Diddy still in his favor for the first match(currently. I'll get to your "potential" argument in a minute). As for Snake on Halberd, Halberd is not a common starter stage, so the only way that the Snake is going there is after the first match, meaning that the Metaknight player would have already won the first round (Only an unskilled Metaknight player would select a stage that gives his/her foe a decided advantage). Also, after the stages have been played they can't be used again unless chosen by the opposing player, rendering them situational at best. This puts the the stage/character co-dependent match-ups in the realm of improbable possibility, and therefore not viable for looking at the match-up advantage as a whole. Remember, my argument deals with the whole picture, not limiting itself to small details.

Although yes, I'll agree that he has the least risk out of all characters. Saying no risk, however, is naive. Risk does not only come in matchups that aren't in your favor. Diddy vs. ICs is slightly in Diddy's favor, although Diddy still has a lot of risk going into the match; getting grabbed three times equals death. Same thing for MK with his arguably even matchups. You still need to show more skill than your opponent to win these match-ups.

My argument about risk has to do with overall match-up and stage advantages, not single moves or situations. The other characters have disadvantages inherent against other characters in the game that are not stage reliant (the type of advantage which, as I pointed out above, doesn't matter). Therefore, there is an inherent "risk" in playing them. Metaknight does not have this. As I stated in the post, which I just noticed you have posted below for me (at least I think its mine. I made that post at, like 4:00am )...

Overall, Meta-knight doesn't have to worry about being at a disadvantage within the realm of possibility. By Eyada's logic, the person that makes the correct choices shows the best skill. The player with the most choices has the advantage. Therefore, since meta-knight has no match-ups within the realm of reason that are anything less than even, he holds no risk as a character choice.

As to your post about character potential; potential doesn't exist in the now. Potential may or may not be fulfilled. Unless you bring up how Diddy has an inherent advantage on meta-knight that isn't stage dependent, then you haven't refuted my argument. That said, if something is found and "risk" is introduced into Metakight as a character, he joins the other characters in the "low risk/ High reward" category and the ban criteria isn't met. Until this happens, my argument still stands.

People will use the best character in the game, this is expected of any fighter. However, you have to realize if it's because the character's brokenness is actually forcing people to have to use him or not.

Take a look at Ankoku's list, for instance. MK is at the top, with almost double the points Snake has. However, Snake has slightly over double the points that 3rd place, D3, has. In the instance of MKs ban, we're likely to see this same shift that Snake's placements are over double the next character's. By this argument, both would be banned. But Snake clearly isn't banworthy.

Brokenness has nothing to do with my argument. I even stated that in the lower part of the post if I'm not mistaken. Sorry if I didn't, though.

As to you're assertion about Snake, I suggest you read my exchange with RK and the other posts that are related to it a few pages back. I'll give you an overview, though. Snake is not ban worthy, because he is not the "dominant option" of the remaining characters. Marth, DeDeDe, Snake, etc. are all "low risk/high reward" characters. With the removal of Metaknight, there is no longer a clear-cut "best character", Eliminating the problem.

A character's "brokenness" is not the sole factor of why people choose the character; there are many other factors. As you and many others have said/seen, MK is often used as a secondary when he isn’t always the best option against the certain match-up. Generally, more tournaments are hosted in New Jersey and SoCal, regions where MK is a very common character and top MetaKnights win generally every tournament they go to (M2K, DSF, Tyrant). Wins count much more than top placements in points on Ankoku’s list, and when generally every tournament that M2K goes to with MK, he wins, that’s a large influence. Plus, you have the arbitrary outlier tournaments like ChuDat’s Dojo, where everybody went MK for the lols.

My evidence wasn't the top spots, it was the community as a whole. And again, brokenness is not my argument.

No. MK has low risk, but this does not limit diversity or competitiveness, and in turn does not constitute a ban, for reasons that I have explained.

He has no risk as a character choice, for the reasons I listed in my post and above. This makes him the logical best choice. That, using Eyada's criteria, makes him the dominant choice and ban-worthy. On a side note: If one of the other characters in the game became a "zero risk/High reward" character, then neither that character or Metaknight would warrant a ban. There would be two options, meaning there would no longer be a dominant option.

First off, in even matchups, skill is the major, determining factor as to who wins a match. If you aren’t more skilled than your opponent in an even match-up, you aren’t going to win. That being said, MetaKnight has no free matches where he “auto” wins, because of his arguably even matchups.

Secondly, matchup debates are very subjective, along with matchup numbers. Hylian has asked specifically…what do the numbers even mean? He’s contested that while they’re a general indicator as to how the matchup is, they are in no ways specific or concise. Why?

Take, for example, the Diddy vs. Marth match-up. Marth demolished Diddy offstage, most Diddy mains acknowledge this. However, what isn’t acknowledged is how much this matters to the matchup or the matchup numbers. Some believe this to be very detrimental to the matchup. Others feel that Diddy has a decent enough recovery to get back without it impacting him at all. Some believe that Marth shouldn’t get you offstage enough for this to be a huge factor. And even if they all agreed on one thing, how many points is that for Marth’s favor? 5? 10?

This is why, with close match-ups, it’s hard to unanimously agree what the matchup is, as there are all of these different opinions. To some, these matchups could be slightly in Metaknight’s favour, while to others, they could be slightly in their character’s favour.

But in general, even match-ups do matter in this argument. Even matchups mean that a character doesn’t get a “free” win, and the character has to be more skilled than his opponent to win.

My argument has nothing to do with Metaknight having a "win" button. If it did, then I would be arguing that he was broken, which again is not my argument.

I agree with you about how match-up numbers aren't the end all. However, I wasn't basing my argument just on the numbers, but also community consensus. You even said yourself earlier in your post that the Diddy boards agree with Metaknight holding the overall advantage (which is what my argument is based on). Even if there are individual situations where MK can be at a temporary disadvantage, Metaknight still holds the overall advantage. The Match-up numbers represent community consensus. In light of that, I would like to say that I have not seen any of the boards say as a community that their character holds the overall advantage. They either say that it is truly even, or slightly in Metaknight's favor. Before I go on, I would like to point out that an overall advantage in Eyada's terms would be having more "options". So even if the other characters go even at best and have a disadvantage at worst, no other character in the game has more "options" then Metaknight. By this logic, Metaknight is the logical best choice as a character, which is the basis for my argument. Sorry if I'm just repeating myself.

You and I have different opinions of what breaking the stage CP system means. Quite a bit of characters don’t have bad stages, or only have one notably bad one that can simply be banned. Many characters who don’t have bad stages, only worst stages, have bad stages against certain match-ups. FD, PS1, PictoChat, and SV, aren’t good stages for MK against the Diddy match-up. RC isn’t a good stage for Diddy against the Kirby/MK matchup, although it is an arguably good stage against the Snake matchup.

I don't think I can refute that. I don't know what I would need to refute though. You just explained how stage advantage works.

I’ve already talked about my opinion on even matchups and how these are debatable and such.

As have I.

What you stated didn’t have much at all to do with making other characters non-viable. While he helps make other characters not the best options, the character themselves can still be viable depending on the matchup and their willingness to use a secondary.

When I think of making a character unviable, I think of D3. Why? He literally forces 5 characters to HAVE to choose a secondary in order to win. These characters drop in viability because no matter what, if you lose the first match against a DK/Bowser/Mario/Luigi/Samus, you can CP D3 and essentially automatically win a set because of the infinite chain grab. MK, while he has good matchups against the rest of the cast, does not force characters to choose secondaries in the way that D3 does.

Also, I noticed you’ve said multiple times in your argument that MK was the most logical choice. However, MK is never the essential choice in order to win.

Look at Eyada's ban criteria again. A lot of this post is beginning to look like miss communication. He isn't ban worthy because he makes any one character nonviable. He is ban worthy because he is the dominant choice, limiting diversity.

Well it’s nice to actually see a concise argument. I didn’t quote everything because they didn’t all pertain to your argument. If I miss your response to this because the thread moves insanely quickly, feel free to PM me.

Edit: @people saying they don't want to see MK dittos.

What's so wrong with MK dittos? They're a subjective opinion; some people do like seeing them (as long as they don't play super defensively and plank all the time). What makes seeing MK dittos at the end of a tournament any worse than seeing Snake vs. Falco, D3 vs. Diddy, Wario vs. MK, etc?

You shouldn't use, "No one wants to see MK dittos at the end of tournaments" as an argument. You should use, "MK dittos ARE at the end of tournaments" as an argument.

Diddo. I was worried no-one was ever going to read my argument. I would suggest going over Eyada's ban criteria again before the next round. It may clear up a few things about my argument, since that is what the argument is based on. Oh, and the last part of your post? Priceless.

 

[CR4SH]

If everyone is on the same skill level. And you pick meta, and they don't, you win. No matter what character or stage they pick, you win. That's dumb.

 

[BluePeachy100]

The chances of everyone being on the exact same skill level are very low.

 

[Ripple]

The chances of everyone being on the exact same skill level are very low.

true, but since there is a lack of ATs IMO there is a limit as to how good someone can get. if that happens then people will be even and then meta wins

 

[Swordplay]

just a quick question....

How much will the BR take these results into consideration?

 

[CR4SH]

Plenty of people are close enough that matchups really really matter. In fact, IMO they're the next most important deciding factor behind player skill.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Plenty of people are close enough that matchups really really matter. In fact, IMO they're the next most important deciding factor behind player skill.

It's not an IMO. Why do people call the counterpick system the most relevant thing in brawl?

 

[Brinzy]

I use Zelda against Meta now because it's no worse than 60/40 I believe. ZSS does much worse than that at the highest level of play right now.

I agree 100%, but of course this just gets written off as being biased.

 

[Pancakesyo]

question.

so if Mk loses the vote


what is he banned from?

all tournys?

 

[Tarmogoyf]

so if Mk loses the vote


what is he banned from?

all tournys?

He lost 2 votes on this before. The vote isn't going to actually decide anything.

 

[Nic64]

true, but since there is a lack of ATs IMO there is a limit as to how good someone can get. if that happens then people will be even and then meta wins

brawl isn't a technical game, most of its mental, there isn't much of a limit to how much better than you someone can be short of them actually having ESP and knowing your every move in advance, prediction is an extremely important skill for any fighting game, it's not just "hit the buttons faster and more accurately than your opponent"(certainly being able to do so helps though)

Plenty of people are close enough that matchups really really matter. In fact, IMO they're the next most important deciding factor behind player skill.

I disagree, but if that were the case, the game wouldn't be worth playing competitively at all because it would be "whoever lucks out in round 1 wins because of CP advantage". If matchups are so important that player skill is frequently brushed aside, the game itself is broken and banning one character isn't going to fix it.

 

[Minwu]

3 phantom pages now..

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

The point of the examples is to show that while Mk is nearly ungimpable, there are several characters who fall into that area as well. Considering he was just naming attributes, I foudn it would be beter if I pointed out something similar.
In short, big dea, he has great attributes, big deal, how does it affect the metagame?

Point out characters that share the same attributes doesn't show that mk isn't a problem all it does is show that other characters share his strengths. There are other characters that are great off stage like him, none are his equal, but it doesn't end there he has many other things going for him as well.

lol string theory.
Gravity comes FROM ANOTHER UNIVERSE

*facepalm* it was special relativity which disproved newtons theory of gravity and then quantum mechanics which disproved general relativity.

I'm not even sure if string theory disproves general relativity (since quantum mechanics doesn't have a theory of gravity) IIRC it actually finds a way to make it work

 

[Teh Brettster]

*facepalm* it was special relativity which disproved newtons theory of gravity and then quantum mechanics which disproved general relativity.

I'm not even sure if string theory disproves general relativity (since quantum mechanics doesn't have a theory of gravity) IIRC it actually finds a way to make it work

*facepalm* Gravity exists because Meta Knight says so. (Puts his opponents at more of a disadvantage.)

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

omg MK is the true T.O.E.!

Inui said that earlier in the topic Snake has an advantage over MK.

Oh, and despite MK being the dominant choice, there's always the chance of facing a Wario or a Snake. That means that because of the evenness, MK can still be outmatched.

The point is that MK can be beaten, right? Eyada's argument is diversity.

Now, there is still an abundance of characters that 3/4 of the community still do use.

With people like Overswarm, they mess up the numbers and cause this destruction of the community. There are many people who if they used MK, they'd have risk, because they can't use him. Me, for example.

I'm pretty sure inui is wrong about the snake match up. Snake only stands a chance of MK has to approach but when he does the match up quickly becomes a huge up hill battle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHe7FmMa38w&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRIE6b1bnhs&feature=channel_page
Of course Inui did say that the 2nd best snake in the world had no idea what to do in the match up so maybe hes on 2 something.

What you guys dont understand is hat the SBR RECOMMENDS.
The TO's may or may not act on those recommendations.

It's true that the SBR only recommends a ruleset but they still hold great influence. When el paso hosted it's first major tournament big texas names that we wanted to attract refused to travel here if we didn't follow a strict sbr rule set. Alas if we want a successful tournament we have to conform to the SBR's rules.

 

[CR4SH]

I disagree, but if that were the case, the game wouldn't be worth playing competitively at all because it would be "whoever lucks out in round 1 wins because of CP advantage". If matchups are so important that player skill is frequently brushed aside, the game itself is broken and banning one character isn't going to fix it.

Well, it kinda is that way...

If two players are fairly equally skilled, in a tournament set, if you win the neutral, you pretty much won the match. Since your cps are more than likely wins for you in an equally skilled match. If you play DK, and I win the neutral, you'll take me to japes or LM (I play luigi btw). If I'm basically on your level, I won't often beat you on those matches with this character setup. After that I'll probably take you to frigate, which is a very difficult situation for you. Thats kinda the way the cp system works. Or take for example a player I'm very familiar with, he goes by infern angelis. He's an excellent "Ike main" by which I mean he more often than not plays snake. However, if you don't beat him on the neutral, you basically lost. Because unless you play a character that can beat ike on pirate ship, and you're way better than he is, he'll take you to pirate ship or corneria, and ****ing **** YOU THERE. Ike on pirate ship is one of the rare stage/character combinations that I think beats MK btw (it doesn't beat snake nearly as badly btw). Actually, I can't think of another one.

The other option is that if you take me to a stage I can't win on (luigi on luigi's lol) or play a character matchup I just can't do (luigi vs marth/meta/gw/d3) I have to switch characters to try and make it work. This leads to something of a paper/rock/scissors battle of "who does he play? where can I take him? what's my advantage?". Because If you take luigi to japes with DK and I just happen to side falco, lol glhf with that.

The problem is, this **** does not work with MK. If you lose to MK, you take him to your best stage with your best character and hope for the very best, because it's essencially a replay of the first game. MK does not have bad matchups or bad stages. So you're at very most, going to get an even playing field with him (DK on brinstar would be somewhat even). If you play really well, and win, you get to go to MK's counterpick, which is likely RAAAAAAAAAAAPE. If you live in the midwest, like I do, you get taken to distant planet, and get shuttle looped all day. Other places you might get taken to frigate and get gimped, LM and get tornado'd to 80, Norfair and not be able to touch him, etc.

So in matches, really, in brawl, if you lose the neutral, 7 or 8 times out of ten you lose the set. Thats just the way it is.

Unless you're playing meta, in which case, 3 times out of ten you get to take him to the third game. At this point you get the opportunity to pull off a ****ing miracle. Good luck.

 

[Inui]

Of course Inui did say that the 2nd best snake in the world had no idea what to do in the match up so maybe hes on 2 something.

Yup, DSF is quite horrible at it. He's been wasting his Snake's power and potential by doing MK dittos! The fool!

I'll unleash my Snake on Dojo at APEX...

That sounds so gay.

But it's cool, cuz he's pretty cute. I'd hit it.

 

[Jikko]

i so hope MK doesnt get banned, ive recently just got the hang of him and he is so fun and its hard to play as anyone else now, i guess we'll see wat happens after Genesis...

 

[Eddie G]

i so hope MK doesnt get banned, ive recently just got the hang of him and he is so fun and its hard to play as anyone else now, i guess we'll see wat happens after Genesis...

Although I respect your decision for a character, that's called being spoiled sir.

 

[Countcocofang]

What I want to know is, at what point in the future, in what state would tournaments have to be in that a ban on Metaknight be warranted?
When he's the top 50% of people in the tournament? When no one can beat him? It really isn't any of these things at all.
Metaknight will be BANNED when people stop going to tournaments with Metaknight in them, plain and simple. When tournament runners will HAVE to tailer to a large majority of players who have themselves deemed Metaknight too good for use, things will change.
Metaknight will have to destroy more tournaments while more tournament runners will have to experiment with meta-free tournaments for a change to occur. If there is a demand for such tournaments, the supply is sure to follow and one day Metaknight could simply be banned.

If Metaknight has the potential to create such a paradigm shift in brawlers is yet to be seen; if Metaknight players continue to grow as they are now it could happen in the near future...

 

[Master Raven]

lol so much for the pages being fixed.

 

[Blad01]

Now that Marth has two others disadvantaged match-ups (DDD and Snake), I can't really see the anti-bans arguments anymore...

 

[ShadowLink84]

It's true that the SBR only recommends a ruleset but they still hold great influence. When el paso hosted it's first major tournament big texas names that we wanted to attract refused to travel here if we didn't follow a strict sbr rule set. Alas if we want a successful tournament we have to conform to the SBR's rules.

Don't misunderstand, I am not saying that they do not have influence. However many among the community seem to refer to teh SBR's ruling as the final word of authority.
While their influence is great, they have never said those rulings must be followed cause they have no means, or reason to enforce them.

Which is part of why what stages being allowed can vary slightly.

Considering the controversy of this subject, it is very possible for TO's to hold tournaments with MK being legal. Of course it also depends on how many TO's also agree with each other since in the El Paso incident, iiirc, they were among the few to have such a different ruleset.

 

[Nic64]

Now that Marth has two others disadvantaged match-ups (DDD and Snake), I can't really see the anti-bans arguments anymore...

who said anything about marth?

now? this is news?

he's a perfectly defeatable character for a pretty decent number of other characters. Just because he has the advantage doesn't mean that your own skill isn't still the main reason you win or lose.

 

[thrillagorilla]

who said anything about marth?

now? this is news?

he's a perfectly defeatable character for a pretty decent number of other characters. Just because he has the advantage doesn't mean that your own skill isn't still the main reason you win or lose.

I see you throwing the word skill around...

Please read Eyada's post. It'll give new light to the concept. Also keep in mind that it isn't pro-ban or anti-ban, so it won't waste your time to look at the very least.

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

 

[saviorslegacy]

Even JJ supports MK being banned......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl4Ih1f5aY8

 

[thrillagorilla]

Even JJ supports MK being banned......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl4Ih1f5aY8

This is why you always make praises to the River God before playing on this stage. I suggest Wario u-tilts.

Oh, right. New page. Blah blah blah my post.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7269717&postcount=3405

 

[MorphedChaos]

Right now I'm trying a new strategy vs MK as Wario on Norfair, with aircamping, and if it works readily, MK will have a DISADVANTAGE matchup vs Wario on some stages like norfair, so keep your fingers crossed.

 

[Nic64]

Namely: An option in a competitive game can be justifiably banned when banning that option results in a net increase of diversity within the game.

So when are we banning Snake, Falco, and DDD too? I think you could reasonably fit pikachu under this criteria now as well, lmao.

 

[thrillagorilla]

So when are we banning Snake, Falco, and DDD too? I think you could reasonably fit pikachu under this criteria now as well, lmao.

Read my post. I explained why this isn't the case. Also...

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.

There are more than two non-dominant options in Snake, DeDeDe, Marth, etc., allowing for diversity. Again, this is ban criteria, not a pro-ban argument. My post is the one that's the pro-ban argument, and I honestly don't mind if it's shot down.

Edit: One more thing. For something to be ban-worthy, it needs to meet all the criteria, not just one part.

 

[WeXzuZ]

For me, it seems like the reason WHY Meta Knight should be banned, is because of his meta game that has evolved exceptionally well - probably because of the hype that he got before the game was even released.
If you look at an unhyped character's specific forum, you might notice that his/her board has less discussions, less advanced techniques or anything usable for meta game evolution.

To prove parts of the argument before, I will ask you one thing: How bad did you get owned by a Meta Knight in the early days of Brawl? And how bad is it now?
The difference is there, and that is because of the advanced techniques that are being found at the time of writing - people are growing better and curious of what happes if you do this and that with their respective main character(s). It SEEMS that Meta Knight got a good amount of hype and band wagoning on him, so that his unknown techniques could be exploited/used, could be found faster.

Conclusion: Meta Knight is a newcomer who has been very popular among people who wanted to play him. A couple of these people being "pro" players who investigate and analyse. These kind of people are rare, and you will notice that some of the character boards did not even finish their matchup charts. What does this tell us? That people have not even discussed/investigated this topic yet, and thus it is an unfinished job, just like the possible viable techniques needed.
Let us continue to learn of our Brawls, understand the characters, use this experience, analyse it and THEN we will be able to tell if Meta Knight should be banned, or not.

 

[Lord Exor]

Meta Knight's meta game has hardly evolved in months. It's been that way for a long long time now. He's just that good.

 

[Zankoku]

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.

Stop right there. In saying this you are implying that the final option in determining whether you win or not is all in the character pick. Skill is not measured in character choice, it is measured in actions when actually playing. If Meta Knight is indeed the only viable character, he still has a multitude of viable options when actually being played.