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

[Nic64]

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.

and there are also other viable options still with meta knight in the game. Snake, Falco, Wario, Marth, Diddy, Game and Watch, DDD, Olimar and a few others depending on who you ask are all very viable options, the key word is "dominant", which is subjective and arbitrary, it's difficult to objectively say exactly how much a character needs to win to be ban worthy, and this is why this will always be a polarizing issue, no one quite agrees, although IMO MK isn't really even that close, other characters win tournaments all the time, he's not so good that he makes inferior players win all the time.

 

[Shadow 111]

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.

hmmm.. unfortunately if it only works for norfair mks will just ban it against wario... and norfair is already banned at most EC tournaments

 

[|RK|]

Then they're screwed on FD.

 

[da K.I.D.]

hmmm.. unfortunately if it only works for norfair mks will just ban it against wario... and norfair is already banned at most EC tournaments

not to mention that im tempted to saay that MKs edgecamping > anyform of aicamping

 

[MorphedChaos]

not to mention that im tempted to saay that MKs edgecamping > anyform of aicamping

Then we institute the anti-ledge rule, as in you can only grab a ledge 70 times or maybe less in a match, it would give an excuse.

 

[CR4SH]

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..

No, mk evloved because he beats snake. At the begining of the game, if you remember, snake was hossing everyone because he has the best "**** you for approaching me" options. Soon people realized that, when played correctly, MK has the advantage over snake. At that point he became considered the best character, and his metagame exploded.

Then we institute the anti-ledge rule, as in you can only grab a ledge 70 times or maybe less in a match, it would give an excuse.

Yeah, lets just ban bits and pieces of MK until he's not broken anymore. That makes all sorts of sense.

 

[|RK|]

What? The ledge-grab limit wasn't for MK but every character. Keep up, man.

 

[bow master1]

still with this metaknight shouldnt b banned.i dont use him but a lot of people do and its not fare 2 them.

 

[BluePeachy100]

But, given the arguements that everyone has to put up... Is it really fair to everyone who DOESN'T use MK?

 

[bow master1]

But, given the arguements that everyone has to put up... Is it really fair to everyone who DOESN'T use MK?

thats true but ur still not thinking about all the people that do use him.

 

[Zankoku]

Why would the people who DO use Meta Knight be more important than all the people who DON'T?

 

[bobson]

Yeah, lets just ban bits and pieces of MK until he's not broken anymore. That makes all sorts of sense.

Sounds good to me. Let's ban using dsmash against anyone mid tier and below.

Oh, and no gimping more than once a match.

 

[pure_awesome]

Why would the people who DO use Meta Knight be more important than all the people who DON'T?

Because there's more of them.

C'mon man, pay attention.

 

[bow master1]

cause some people r actually good with metaknight and dont cheese or spam with him.seriously u guys only worry about urselves.

 

[Eyada]

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.

Indeed, there are still multiple viable options available even if Meta Knight is the only viable character, due to the diversity within Meta Knight's move set. Thus, a game wherein Meta Knight is the only viable option still qualifies as competitive, because it still allows for skill. (And, thereby, because skill cannot exist without diversity, and diversity cannot exist without skill, and the negative of that is also true, it follows that diversity is also present.)

However, if Meta Knight is the only viable character, that means that the move sets of all other characters are non-viable.

Therefore, the only viable move set in the game belongs to Meta Knight.

Therefore, Meta Knight is suppressing the diversity of all other move sets in the game.

Therefore, Meta Knight's presence in the game is limiting diversity. (Severely.)

It is apparent that diversity consisting of only a single move set is a lesser amount of diversity than the amount that would be present if multiple move sets were viable.

Therefore, a game with only one viable move set has less diversity than a game with multiple viable move sets.

Banning Meta Knight would remove one viable move set while allowing for multiple viable move sets.

Therefore, a ban would result in increased diversity.

Therefore, the ban is justified. (And necessary, if our rule set is to be considered competitive.)

This is why Akuma was banned. Akuma vs. Akuma may still allow for skill, but it is strictly less competitive (i.e., diverse) than the same game where Akuma is banned; thus, in order for the ST rule set to be competitive, Akuma necessarily had to be banned.

 

[bow master1]

Because there's more of them.

C'mon man, pay attention.

no offense pure awesome but thats not the point.

 

[BluePeachy100]

thats true but ur still not thinking about all the people that do use him.

Well, that's true. But still, most MK mains have other characters they're good with, they just use MK like... dare I say it... wimps.

But still, think about it from this perspective, it'slike m2k facing myself in Melee. I would lose, I know that. Tht kind of fight isn't fair, and is really uneven. So let's say it like this, if MK is too good to be in tourneys, then m2k, Mango, SilentSpectre should all be banned from tourneys(tournies?) as well.

 

[bow master1]

Indeed, there are still multiple viable options available even if Meta Knight is the only viable character, due to the diversity within Meta Knight's move set. Thus, a game wherein Meta Knight is the only viable option still qualifies as competitive, because it still allows for skill. (And, thereby, because skill cannot exist without diversity, and diversity cannot exist without skill, and the negative of that is also true, it follows that diversity is also present.)

However, if Meta Knight is the only viable character, that means that the move sets of all other characters are non-viable.

Therefore, the only viable move set in the game belongs to Meta Knight.

Therefore, Meta Knight is suppressing the diversity of all other move sets in the game.

Therefore, Meta Knight's presence in the game is limiting diversity. (Severely.)

It is apparent that diversity consisting of only a single move set is a lesser amount of diversity than the amount that would be present if multiple move sets were viable.

Therefore, a game with only one viable move set has less diversity than a game with multiple viable move sets.

Banning Meta Knight would remove one viable move set while allowing for multiple viable move sets.

Therefore, a ban would result in increased diversity.

Therefore, the ban is justified. (And necessary, if our rule set is to be considered competitive.)

This is why Akuma was banned. Akuma vs. Akuma may still allow for skill, but it is strictly less competitive (i.e., diverse) than the same game where Akuma is banned; thus, in order for the ST rule set to be competitive, Akuma necessarily had to be banned.

honestly Eyada i didnt understand like half the things u said.

 

[xDD-Master]

not to mention that im tempted to saay that MKs edgecamping > anyform of aicamping

Today I got the enlightenment *.*

We just put food on and items on low.

So nobody would ever plank again because your oppenent can just eat the food and would get new %.

Foot isnt that overpowered, especially on low there is like 1 Food per 10 seconds I think (Didnt counted it xD).

For me Food on Low would be the best thing ever happen to the Smashcommunity but I this wont happen anytime XD

It was just an Idea xD

 

[bow master1]

Well, that's true. But still, most MK mains have other characters they're good with, they just use MK like... dare I say it... wimps.

But still, think about it from this perspective, it'slike m2k facing myself in Melee. I would lose, I know that. Tht kind of fight isn't fair, and is really uneven. So let's say it like this, if MK is too good to be in tourneys, then m2k, Mango, SilentSpectre should all be banned from tourneys(tournies?) as well.

sorry could u put that in a simpler way please i've only been here 2 months.

 

[BluePeachy100]

If a good character should be banned from tourneys, all good players should be banned as well.

 

[bow master1]

If a good character should be banned from tourneys, all good players should be banned as well.

and that seems fair 2 u.im not the best brawler in the world and even i know how wrong that is and sounds!

 

[Kinzer]

Sarcasm - It might be a little bit harder to figure out over the internet.

 

[pure_awesome]

Best thread ever.

M2K should be banned from tourneys. He overcentralizes the metagame. If you don't play as M2K, you lose. It's as simple as that.

 

[1048576]

To anyone arguing for the anti-ban position: if your argument reaches the conclusion that Akuma should not be banned, you are using a flawed argument.

We banned Akuma, not the best Akuma player.

 

[Zankoku]

Indeed, there are still multiple viable options available even if Meta Knight is the only viable character, due to the diversity within Meta Knight's move set. Thus, a game wherein Meta Knight is the only viable option still qualifies as competitive, because it still allows for skill. (And, thereby, because skill cannot exist without diversity, and diversity cannot exist without skill, and the negative of that is also true, it follows that diversity is also present.)

However, if Meta Knight is the only viable character, that means that the move sets of all other characters are non-viable.

This should not necessarily lower the viability of Meta Knight's own moveset.

Therefore, the only viable move set in the game belongs to Meta Knight.

Therefore, Meta Knight is suppressing the diversity of all other move sets in the game.

Therefore, Meta Knight's presence in the game is limiting diversity. (Severely.)

It is apparent that diversity consisting of only a single move set is a lesser amount of diversity than the amount that would be present if multiple move sets were viable.

Therefore, a game with only one viable move set has less diversity than a game with multiple viable move sets.

Banning Meta Knight would remove one viable move set while allowing for multiple viable move sets.

You're once again changing your criteria (from "number of options" to "number of some other abitrary criteria, like characters or movesets"). Define your terms more precisely, please.

Therefore, a ban would result in increased diversity.

Therefore, the ban is justified. (And necessary, if our rule set is to be considered competitive.)

This is why Akuma was banned. Akuma vs. Akuma may still allow for skill, but it is strictly less competitive (i.e., diverse) than the same game where Akuma is banned; thus, in order for the ST rule set to be competitive, Akuma necessarily had to be banned.

The entire idea of making a good character is giving that character the ability to limit the opponent's number of viable options. Diversifying from one character to four, while indeed more spread than before, is not as far as you can take your own logic. You might as well ban everything except the middle tiers (bottom and low tiers should be banned because they are less plentiful than the middle tiers, and are thus less diverse). The bounds of your logical statement are flawed and only seem to work because you're setting an arbitrary boundary of "only Meta Knight." Revise your proofs.

 

[CR4SH]

(bottom and low tiers should be banned because they are less plentiful than the middle tiers, and are thus less diverse)

That makes 0% sense. Are you trying to redefine the word diversity?

 

[Eyada]

This should not necessarily lower the viability of Meta Knight's own moveset.

It doesn't.

You're once again changing your criteria (from "number of options" to "number of some other abitrary criteria, like characters or movesets"). Define your terms more precisely, please.

I can see how confusion arose here, and it is entirely my fault; I took a shortcut to make my post more readable, and, strictly speaking, introduced an error into my argument. I replaced the phrase "number of viable options available to a player due to picking a certain character" with the phrase "move set" so that my post would be easier to read. The phrase "move set" is simply shorthand for "number of viable options available to a player during the game due to having selected a certain character". The important part of the phrase is the "number of viable options", and should be retained even when I replace it with a shorter phrase for increased readability.

Hopefully that clears things up.

The entire idea of making a good character is giving that character the ability to limit the opponent's number of viable options. Diversifying from one character to four, while indeed more spread than before, is not as far as you can take your own logic. You might as well ban everything except the middle tiers (bottom and low tiers should be banned because they are less plentiful than the middle tiers, and are thus less diverse). The bounds of your logical statement are flawed and only seem to work because you're setting an arbitrary boundary of "only Meta Knight." Revise your proofs.

My logic could lead to more than banning Meta Knight, in theory; however, an examination of Brawl reveals that it does not, and indeed, cannot do so. In fact, due to the interweaving web of character match-ups found in most competitive Fighting games (including Brawl), strict adherence to my argument results in extremely few, if any, character bans.

The goal is to maximize diversity. Banning any character results in a loss of diversity. That point is extremely important. Banning a character is inherently damaging to the goal of maximizing diversity.

The only time banning a character is justified is when not banning that character causes even more damage to diversity than banning that character would.

I explained this more thoroughly here: Link.

 

[Zankoku]

Is a pool of 9 characters more diverse than 15?
I can see an argument for leaving the bottom/low tiers in because they are not limited enough to become wholly unviable, but the undesired effect of continuing on to ban the other 5 high tiers still remains.

 

[Tyr_03]

Until we see Metaknight players beating players of a noticably higher level who use other mains, I see no reason for the ban. The fact of the matter is that we don't see no name Metaknight mains popping out and beating players like ADHD, Fiction etc. People are not winning just because they decided to pick up Metaknight.

For the most part, Metaknight makes it so that some players who main characters like Luigi for example, have to learn a secondary to fight Metaknight. The counterpick system is designed for this. Metaknight has atleast one even matchup which is the Metaknight ditto. There are plenty of arguments for several other characters, however this undeniable fact in itself shows that he does not "break" the counterpicking system.

Most importantly, the SBR is not the final say on rules for tournaments. If you want Metaknight to be banned, the most effective thing you can do, without question, is to simply host a tournament where you as the TO ban Metaknight. If people like that tournament format it will likely over time become the standard. Whining and crying to the SBR is probably the slowest and least effective method of getting a character banned.

It personally makes no great difference to me. As a Lucas main, if Metaknight gets banned there is one less very difficult matchup that I have to learn. On the negative side, more Marth mains will arise but this could possibly lead to the banning of Marth's grab release chaingrab at some tournaments. Mostly I just don't believe there's any reason to ban Metaknight. Every game has a best character.

 

[Eyada]

Is a pool of 9 characters more diverse than 15?

That depends. How many of those 9 characters are viable, and how many of those 15 characters are viable? Moreover, how much diversity had to be eliminated from the game via bans in order to reach that character pool?

I can see an argument for leaving the bottom/low tiers in because they are not limited enough to become wholly unviable, but the undesired effect of continuing on to ban the other 5 high tiers still remains.

Which 5 characters do you mean, exactly? It'll help this discussion if you list exactly which characters you mean.

Edit: Also, just to make it clear, banning non-viable options is still only justified if doing so causes a net increase in diversity. So banning the entire low tier "just because they suck" is unjustified. It would not result in any increase to diversity; and is, therefore, not a justified ban.

 

[MaNg0]

Are U Guys Complaining About Someone Being Banned??

God Dam Brawl Community


Learn 2 Beat Him.. This Happened With Sheik

Along Time Ago I Think ... But After A While

We Learned 2 **** Her..

Man Up And **** Metaknight

 

[Shadow 111]

Are U Guys Complaining About Someone Being Banned??

God Dam Brawl Community


Learn 2 Beat Him.. This Happened With Sheik

Along Time Ago I Think ... But After A While

We Learned 2 **** Her..

Man Up And **** Metaknight

this :D
gooooo jigglypuff!

 

[pure_awesome]

Sheik never dominated to the extent that MK is dominating, and didn't do so for as long, either.

Sheik's fall from dominance was also strongly linked to the development of wavedashing and L-cancelling among other characters, and it seems fairly obvious that this won't happen in Brawl.

It's not the same situation at all.

 

[bobson]

Thanks for editing your post, you great big jerk. Now this one makes no sense.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I decided to look at the character diversity in Brawl in a different way (actually, I was just trying to prove someone on Gamefaqs wrong and ended up coming up with something too smart to only post there).

The following characters have placed top 8 in a tournament with 90+ entrees since the start of 2009. 90 entrees is my cutoff for a major tournament, and I decided at that number BEFORE looking at the list (so it wasn't picked to specifically maximize what I'd see). The highest place is indicated in parenthesis. If their placement on the list is only due to a split, it will be indicated with an asterisk.

Lucario (1), Snake (1), Meta Knight (1), King Dedede (1), Diddy Kong (1), Mr. Game & Watch (1), Zero Suit Samus (1), Wario (2/1*), Pikachu (2), Falco (2), Luigi (2), R.O.B. (3), Lucas (4/3*), Sonic (4), Donkey Kong (4), Samus (4), Marth (5/1*), Pit (5/4*), Toon Link (5), Ness (5), Kirby (7), Ice Climbers (1)*, Peach (3)*, Zelda & Sheik (3)*, Pokemon Trainer (3)*, Wolf (5)*, Fox (7)*

That is, 7 different characters have won major tournaments by themselves, 21 different characters have placed top 8 at major tournaments by themselves, 10 characters have won major tournaments if you allow secondaries alongside them, and 27 characters have placed top 8 at major tournaments if you allow secondaries alongside them.

The tournament "Road to Viridian City" would have perhaps added more diversity (I didn't look at it after I was done), but it barely missed the 90 mark (it had 89 entrees). NO KOAST was similarly excluded (with 87 entrees). We could also point out that this only includes tournaments in Ankoku's stats so it's possible that major Japanese tournaments would have expanded this even more.

If Meta Knight is killing character diversity in Brawl, I am not seeing it.

 

[Kage Me]

Metaknight has atleast one even matchup which is the Metaknight ditto. There are plenty of arguments for several other characters, however this undeniable fact in itself shows that he does not "break" the counterpicking system.

...The fact that Ditto is his worst match-up shows that he does break the counterpicking system.

o_0;

 

[yummynbeefy]

watttt? how are there page 244 and 245 but were still havent even filled up page 243>?

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

I decided to look at the character diversity in Brawl in a different way (actually, I was just trying to prove someone on Gamefaqs wrong and ended up coming up with something too smart to only post there).

The following characters have placed top 8 in a tournament with 90+ entrees since the start of 2009. 90 entrees is my cutoff for a major tournament, and I decided at that number BEFORE looking at the list (so it wasn't picked to specifically maximize what I'd see). The highest place is indicated in parenthesis. If their placement on the list is only due to a split, it will be indicated with an asterisk.

Lucario (1), Snake (1), Meta Knight (1), King Dedede (1), Diddy Kong (1), Mr. Game & Watch (1), Zero Suit Samus (1), Wario (2/1*), Pikachu (2), Falco (2), Luigi (2), R.O.B. (3), Lucas (4/3*), Sonic (4), Donkey Kong (4), Samus (4), Marth (5/1*), Pit (5/4*), Toon Link (5), Ness (5), Kirby (7), Ice Climbers (1)*, Peach (3)*, Zelda & Sheik (3)*, Pokemon Trainer (3)*, Wolf (5)*, Fox (7)*

That is, 7 different characters have won major tournaments by themselves, 21 different characters have placed top 8 at major tournaments by themselves, 10 characters have won major tournaments if you allow secondaries alongside them, and 27 characters have placed top 8 at major tournaments if you allow secondaries alongside them.

The tournament "Road to Viridian City" would have perhaps added more diversity (I didn't look at it after I was done), but it barely missed the 90 mark (it had 89 entrees). NO KOAST was similarly excluded (with 87 entrees). We could also point out that this only includes tournaments in Ankoku's stats so it's possible that major Japanese tournaments would have expanded this even more.

If Meta Knight is killing character diversity in Brawl, I am not seeing it.

:flame:
It's this kind of information that changes votes. This does destroy the "Metaknight makes other characters unviable" argument, now doesn't it? I'm glad I haven't voted yet, so I could have waited for stuff like this. This definitely makes me want to go ahead and join the Anti-Ban side, but I'm hoping soon for people on the ban side to step their game up.

And Ampharos, you are quite smart. Were you always a mod? I remember when I thought that Big-Blue deserved banishment, and you actually convinced me otherwize. I wonder if you'll be able to swing some of the votes around in this poll as well. And I hope someone quotes this. You mind if I add you? A person is only as good as the quality of his friends, and I hope to become good. Hanging around people like you sure wouldn't hurt me.

I'm honestly still staggering over this. You just ***** a huge part of the discussion, single-handedly. Bravo.
:flame:

 

[Tarmogoyf]

watttt? how are there page 244 and 245 but were still havent even filled up page 243>?

When a post gets deleted, it leaves a "phantom" post behind, so since more than 30 posts were deleted, it makes two phantom pages.