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

[Falconv1.0]

This is a terribly ignorant post. We want the best players to be winning. If the best players are playing MK right now, then we want them to keep winning. The point of the ban is to promote competitive growth and diversity in tournament results, not to change the players that are placing in the tournaments.

You're missing the point. If MK is the reason people are winning, and not their skill, then the ban was worthwhile. If not, it's all really just artificial to me.

 

[Steel]

Temporary ban to see how it works out imo.

 

[ShadowLink84]

This is a terribly ignorant post. We want the best players to be winning. If the best players are playing MK right now, then we want them to keep winning. The point of the ban is to promote competitive growth and diversity in tournament results, not to change the players that are placing in the tournaments.

The best players are the best because of their skill not their character.
The top 3 for SF2 remained the top 3 even after Akuma was banned.

Anyway this is proof MK should be banned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBL5GqXbmuU

Even the game hates MK

 

[Yanoss1313]

The best players are the best because of their skill not their character.
The top 3 for SF2 remained the top 3 even after Akuma was banned.

Anyway this is proof MK should be banned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBL5GqXbmuU

Even the game hates MK

lol, that video is the biggest LOL sauce! thats happened to me more times than i'd like to recall >.<

 

[Brinzy]

CP Corneria for MK. 90:10 your favor.

 

[Turbo Ether]

I'm noticing an uprising of Wario players recently. Maybe we can help quell the MK flood. Though, I've been playing Snake/Wolf for most of Brawl, and have had not really had an issue with non-M2K MKs. I think Wario may potentially have an even better matchup against MK, than Snake does.

 

[Emblem Lord]

Akuma was banned for fear of what may come actually. There wasn't nearly as much concrete evidence to ban him as there is to ban MK though.

For the record, MK IS dominating tournies. And he IS overcentralizing the metagame. I talked to Damdai recently, who was the guy trying to get Akuma banned by playing him and abusing his BS. He said he was VERY happy with the ban and that HDR is simply a better game without him.

Damdai just wanted a better more balanced game overall and he knew it was in the SF's communties power to make competitive HDR into that better game.

 

[Shaya]

A temporary ban for the purpose of experimentation.

the hypothesis, or what's being tested isn't:
"Meta knight's broken, it's the only reason people win"

IT IS:
"If Competitive Brawl did not include Meta Knight, would it be a better competitive game?"

People are not going to be able to definitely say yes or no to 'it is', unless they actually see what happens. And a one off 'mk banned' tournament isn't sufficient. No one is bothering to develop a metagame where a player can't rely on meta knight for a match up, or something along those lines. ETC ETC.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Any chance of HDR getting a balance patch? I'm guessing no.

 

[iLink]

I'll make one note.

If there's a significant change in who's winning at MK banned tourneys, I'd be ok with his ban. If not, then uh, way to ****ing go and change nothing lol.

This.

If we see a significant change in tournament placement, we will know if it was the player skill or just MK being.... well MK

 

[Praxis]

This.

If we see a significant change in tournament placement, we will know if it was the player skill or just MK being.... well MK

This is dumb. MK's not a magic bullet. The top players are still BETTER THAN YOU, and they'll still win.

Rather, we should see a lot more diversity, and maybe a few shifts in players.

 

[Emblem Lord]

Let me just ask something.

In a game not made for competitive play, nay a game where the developers themselves trie their hardest to make the game unfit for competitive play where stages and items and even STRATEGIES (planking/ledge camping) must be banned for the game to be competitive. Is it really such a stretch to think that you might need to ban a character too?

 

[Metro Knight]

So, this is the third time we have voted, and it is the third time the vote said ban Meta Knight.

Everyone should just swap to Brawl+ and we work on rebalancing the game, since Nintendo failed so hard at balancing it in the first place.

 

[Lord Chair]

So, this is the third time we have voted, and it is the third time the vote said ban Meta Knight.

Everyone should just swap to Brawl+ and we work on rebalancing the game, since Nintendo failed so hard at balancing it in the first place.

Because we all have modified Wiis.

 

[Messiano]

Let me just ask something.

In a game not made for competitive play, nay a game where the developers themselves trie their hardest to make the game unfit for competitive play where stages and items and even STRATEGIES (planking/ledge camping) must be banned for the game to be competitive. Is it really such a stretch to think that you might need to ban a character too?

Amen.

And Nintendo didn't make this game for competitive play it is a party game even if you hate to admit it and it pains you its a party game.

So we as the "Competitive Community" need to make some tweaks ourselves

Brawl+ Needs a lot more time before it will be anywhere near some thing consider

"Fully balanced"

 

[Judo Chop Action Super Buddha]

lol ban hahahaha wow

 

[GHNeko]

*snip*"

*snap*

This is not a B+ thread. Stop talking about it here.

EDIT: On topic: At this rate, MK is really going to damage the community as well as the metagame of Brawl. If we all keep fighting like this over this character and dont come to a final conclusion soon, who knows what will be of the community in a year or two. ._.

 

[Fletch]

This is not a B+ thread. Stop talking about it here.

Ya, let's talk about a much better game. Melee anyone?

But seriously, I think there's still a couple of players playing other characters successfully at this point that Metaknight does not yet warrant a ban. Maybe in the future, but as of now I wouldn't argue that he's the only viable option. Yes he breaks the CP system, but maybe there's more of a problem with that rather than the character. It's really hard to say at this point, but banning right now would kind of be a scrub thing to do, and the Brawl community is already looked upon very poorly without banning a character that they have deemed unfair... So in conclusion, maybe in the future, but with other characters still being somewhat represented, I still think he doesn't warrant a ban. If you all think he is so broken, maybe you should switch to MK and prove it.

 

[Messiano]

This is not a B+ thread. Stop talking about it here.

EDIT: On topic: At this rate, MK is really going to damage the community as well as the metagame of Brawl. If we all keep fighting like this over this character and dont come to a final conclusion soon, who knows what will be of the community in a year or two. ._.

Guy, I was responding to someone else suggesting brawl+ as the ultimate solution

Ok kid.

 

[Dekar173]

Ya, let's talk about a much better game. Melee anyone?

But seriously, I think there's still a couple of players playing other characters successfully at this point that Metaknight does not yet warrant a ban. Maybe in the future, but as of now I wouldn't argue that he's the only viable option. Yes he breaks the CP system, but maybe there's more of a problem with that rather than the character. It's really hard to say at this point, but banning right now would kind of be a scrub thing to do, and the Brawl community is already looked upon very poorly without banning a character that they have deemed unfair... So in conclusion, maybe in the future, but with other characters still being somewhat represented, I still think he doesn't warrant a ban. If you all think he is so broken, maybe you should switch to MK and prove it.

I used to be you, except Melee was called CS 1.6 back then, and Brawl was called CS:S. Then my game's competitive community died. Not because of it being a bad game, or anything like that, but because the game was old, and no one new wanted to pick it up.

 

[Fletch]

I used to be you, except Melee was called CS 1.6 back then, and Brawl was called CS:S. Then my game's competitive community died. Not because of it being a bad game, or anything like that, but because the game was old, and no one new wanted to pick it up.

I still play a little bit of CS 1.6 and TFC over TF2... No excuses, play the better game, there will always be people to play, and usually only the best/hardcore ones stick around anyways so its better competition.

 

[Brinzy]

****ing wall of Melee.

 

[Ravener]

Well, i dunno if MK should be banned coz i mean its not like his unbeatable or anything but he is extremely broken. Anyway what will happen if the majority of the ppl want MK to be banned?

 

[Swordplay]

Let me just ask something.

In a game not made for competitive play, nay a game where the developers themselves trie their hardest to make the game unfit for competitive play where stages and items and even STRATEGIES (planking/ledge camping) must be banned for the game to be competitive. Is it really such a stretch to think that you might need to ban a character too?

You know what, I never thought of it that way.


We've already banned over half the game

Think of the things we have banned and not banned.


We have banned.

Items
Stages
All-Non Stock settings
All-Special Brawl Settings
Specific Game Play Techniques (Meta's infinite dimensional cape for example)

We have not banned

Characters





Can I ask a similar question?

Why have we so easily banned nearly every aspect of the game but we arn't willing to cross into one category? Characters.
What is the reason for the hesitance and resistance?
Why were we so able to throw away those other categories?

I hope you won't say gameplay is broken because plenty of people are just going to come out and say MK breaks game play.

Is there another reason?

 

[PK-ow!]

@Swordplay: Short answer? Because Character Select is a privileged dimension of fighter games. Gurus could make clear why.

A temporary ban for the purpose of experimentation.

the hypothesis, or what's being tested isn't:
"Meta knight's broken, it's the only reason people win"

IT IS:
"If Competitive Brawl did not include Meta Knight, would it be a better competitive game?"

Someone needs to demonstrate why this isn't the case.

Competition isn't just about picking up a competitive game. The 'history' of the game - of players being connected to it and each other through ongoing continuous development, is important.
Since 'history' implies some importance of being "historically notable," for the academic discipline of the same name, which I don't want, I'll introduce the term "transtemporal identity," picking out how "the game" is a thing for which it matters how it persists through time, rather than all relevant things being decided "in the present."

The issue is not about what the game is, it's

"If it would be a better path of competition, a better transtemporal identity to this game, for us to ban MK now, then to go on for the next 6 months without that."

Only a definition of game that allows for a connection of the game to its past and future, can make sense of the other principles of competition.

If things are as they seem, then I'd certainly agree Brawl without MK was better. I wish to my not-so-dark, kinda charitable abyssal overlords, that Brawl had just not included MK from the beginning. But it didn't. I joined up with a Brawl that does have him, as a competitive gamer. And in so doing, I accepted that I would have to follow certain rules, for that competition to prove something.


But I said someone else should argue this out, 'cause I'm **** tired.

Oh wait-

Anyway this is proof MK should be banned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBL5GqXbmuU

This matter is settled.
*votes Yes*

Spoiler

omg I'm kidding

 

[Dekar173]

I still play a little bit of CS 1.6 and TFC over TF2... No excuses, play the better game, there will always be people to play, and usually only the best/hardcore ones stick around anyways so its better competition.

I take it you're a pub player.

Hackers run rampant in CS 1.6, just like it did in the Valve world before it was shut down and completely ported to Steam.

It's no different in the competitive scene, hackers run rampant in any scrimmage, taking away any and all fun that can be had from the game :/

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Mew2king would still win the majority of tournaments regardless of whether or not MK is banned. But he uses MK because it gives him the best chance of winning, and you need that when you literally play the game for a living.

 

[Toneh]

counter-strike 1.6 didnt die haha.
There is an Insaneee amount of players that play in pubs and competitively.

There are alot of hackers though in random public servers and scrims bc valve stopped updating their anti-cheat yearsss ago.

So your best bet is to join an online league like cevo (www.cevo.com)

Or play in pugs (pick up games) that have an anti cheat client which is updated constantly (www.esportsea.com) They have 1.6, source, and tf2 recently added.
ESEA is where its at.

If you just want to check out news on competitive leagues, try www.gotfrag.com

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

You have to understand a lot of us who don't want to ban Meta Knight don't want to ban a lot of other things. Here's my position on banning stuff.

Items: Items are not something I consider "banned". Peach can generate Beam Swords, for instance, and we allow her to use them or anyone else who can steal them from Peach to use them. The thing with items is that we have to set the items to something. The only setting that is in any way special from the others is all on with medium frequency since that's the default. We know that to be incredibly degenerate and random, and I would like to propose that with that setting there's no reason to use any character who is not either a Star Fox character or Sonic. Even more, we know the deciding factor of matches with certain items on (such as golden hammers or super spicy curry) is "whoever gets the broken items to appear next to them wins". Some items might be fair, especially with the spawn rate of "low", but at this point we have entered the realm of arbitrary. We made the arbitrary choice of all items set to "off" with the spawn rate set to "none". This isn't banning anything more than ISP does (ISP being an interesting exploration of other possible item settings). I suppose there are probably hundreds of fair item settings, and for the sake of having standardized rules, we have to pick one. I don't see where a foul was committed here.

Time mode, Coin mode, stock counts other than 3, timers other than 8 minutes

This all is in the same boat. In theory, 2 minute time is the default which should get some special concern, but that not only strips out some important elements of gameplay (such as Pokemon Trainer's fatigue system), but it leads to sudden death, an extremely random tiebreak system, with unacceptable frequency. In general, time mode (and coin mode) always favor extreme camping near the end of the timer which is just plain unsatisfying if nothing else, and time mode is extremely apt to produce ties when players of similar skill play. It's obvious we need some other setting, and 3 stock 8 minutes happens to be our arbitrary choice. Some regions use 3 stock 7 minutes which I feel is a bad choice since it defies the standard (having standardized rules is VERY important for a competitive game) and produces more "sudden death" situations which was one of the main reasons we decided to avoid 2 minute time mode in the first place.

Special brawl

This is getting a bit silly. We could also have homerun contest tournaments. We could have races to see who can complete break the targets map 4 with Ike the fastest. We could even have high score contests in subspace emissary. Special brawl is a completely different mode that I don't feel is particularly more a part of the game we are competing in than break the targets. For a parallel with a non-smash game, consider Soul Calibur II with special weapons. You could play that competitively if you wanted, but it's an extra mode that is just plain outside of the game everyone is actually looking to compete in. Using the basic mode as the standard is the simplest solution, and it accomplishes the very important goal of keeping the community as close to a standard as possible.

Stages

Due to our counterpick system (which we had to implement since the game suggests no reasonable method for selecting stages), it DOES make sense to talk about stages being banned. Some of us (like me) argue that any stage that does not either induce character bias to a very large extreme or that introduces so much variance in a match that play between high level players of similar but non-equal skill will have extremely unpredictable results. Seriously, if we want this game to be playable, we have to ban the Temple. It just has to be done. We don't have to ban Norfair though. We don't have to ban Distant Planet either even. We could seriously get away with not banning Port Town Aero Dive. Heck, I even suggest we should explore Rumble Falls and Big Blue; whether they're broken or not isn't terribly obvious. I favor most stages being legal, and I'm not the only one (most of you would probably have a heart attack if I posted my ideal stage list). Some just plain have to be banned; in competitive games in general, truly broken things have to be banned. Some of us want to ban only stages that are either extremely obviously broken or that have very strong evidence that proves them broken.

As an aside, I favor not using custom stages in tournaments because, by the nature of being custom, they work strongly against the formation of standardized rules. Also, if a post I read a while back was correct, custom stages have the funky problem that Olimar takes an inordinate amount of time to pull pikmin on them which is exceptionally unfair to him (not enough to ban them by itself, but given how they are already so anti-standard, them being fundamentally unfair to Olimar just makes them totally out of the realm of reasonably legal to me).

Tactics

The only tactics I favor banning are Meta Knight's infinite dimensional cape and running away forever with under the stage tactics. The IDC is obviously completely broken since it renders Meta Knight permanently invincible. He could just get a lead and then use it forever and win. Instituting limits on it doesn't really address the fact that as much invincibility as you want basically whenever you want is beyond fundamentally broken; you have to ban what's broken. The under the stage stuff is basically this. Certain characters (even someone as innocent as Jigglypuff) can move under stages really fast and basically make over half of the stages in the game into loop stages. If we allow this tactic, we are basically forced to either allow the game to be completely degenerate or to ban almost all of the stages, including Battlefield, Final Destination, and Smashville. Other stalling tactics that keep the player under the stage indefinitely (such as Mr. Game & Watch's under the back fin of the ship stall on Pirate Ship) are also obviously broken; being able to remain under the stage indefinitely is pretty much the same thing as the IDC (permanently being in a state where the opponent can't hit you except with the caveat that a select few characters can do something about it). I do NOT favor banning planking; there is not overwhelming evidence that it is broken (the evidence needed would be major tournaments with the best players being consistently dominated by planking and then further evidence that the game is degenerate when planking is the best tactic). I do NOT favor any infinites being banned, be they wall infinites (and remember, I'm perfectly okay with stages like Corneria and Onett being legal), King Dedede's standing chaingrab, the Ice Climbers anything, that goofy Zero Suit Samus thing that only works on R.O.B., etc. I favor some rule to force the infinite to end eventually (since it's again basically permanent invincibility), but I have no problem with combos leading to death from arbitrary percentages consistently since it hasn't proven to be broken.

As you can see, I only favor rules necessary to move toward a standardized ruleset and rules that ban things that are either extremely obviously broken (loops on stages, permanent invincibility, etc.) or things that have proven to be truly broken through extensive and rigorous testing (my personal testing suggests to me that Pirate Ship and Mushroomy Kingdom 1-1 probably will fall into this, but I am unsatisfied with the amount of extreme seeking testing on them so far). I see that plenty of people do well with characters other than Meta Knight (Meta Knight only wins about one out of every four tournaments, especially not that radical when you consider that the best player uses him just about exclusively and that that counts people using multiple characters in a way that is going to skew the numbers in Meta Knight's favor). My own experiences involve me beating people I consider good that use Meta Knight in tournaments and losing to people who use characters most people consider very bad in tournaments so it's really hard for me to believe that he's really even on a different level from the rest of the cast at all. Therefore, I'm opposed to banning him on principle. I believe it's completely consistent with my positions on everything else. I really don't like banning things in general, and Meta Knight is no different.

 

[Kaybee]

I take it you're a pub player.

Hackers run rampant in CS 1.6, just like it did in the Valve world before it was shut down and completely ported to Steam.

It's no different in the competitive scene, hackers run rampant in any scrimmage, taking away any and all fun that can be had from the game :/

As a CAL Invite alumni I can tell you that your perceived hackers are almost certainly legit. People really are that good.
L2aim.

This is of course considering you are playing in a controlled environment with some form of AC (be it PB or something proprietary) and running a demo. And of course we all know pubbing doesn't mean anything so one would assume you are at least dabbling in some form of open league (CEVO Open, CAL-O).


As for my Meta Knight input. I am no stranger to competitive gaming. I have played in the top FPS leagues for years and have seen my fair share of rule sets and bans. MK should be banned.

Heres why:
He breaks the CP system. Anyone who disagrees please show me a stat that proves otherwise. Numbers aren't subjective, no arguments.

To those purists who are anti ban on the grounds that "He's in the game, leave it alone." Thats not reasonable. Certain characters can stall, yet that tactic is banned. Smash balls are the game yet I'm pretty sure everyone realized that in order to foster a healthy and truly competitive scene we'd have to throw those away.

To the poster who is posing the question "Can we ban him because we feel like it?" the answer is yes. We banned Norfair because we felt like it. CAL banned the FG42 in vCall of Duty because we felt like it. It's OUR game, we can do what we like with it. A pro MK is beatable, just like a pro CoD player with an FG42 is, however like MK there is no CP for that FG42 besides another FG42. You will have to rely on pure talent to overcome that obstacle, no built in strategy that is integral to ALL competitive games.

The players that are concerned that their time and efforts learning MK will be wasted when they need to learn a new main are BSing just a bit. Lets face it, a truly great player can be potent with almost any member of the brawl cast under certain circumstances. The core tactics learned while playing Meta Knight will transfer pretty seamlessly to other characters. One month of practice at a high level and players like Tyrant and M2K will be completely dominant with Marth or whoever they chose to pick up.

To those that say MK keeps characters like Snake, D3, ROB and well..... the REST OF THE CAST in check at tourneys are correct. Good observation but this is a bad thing. We want diversity and a true CP system in place. The other top tier members have counters and therefore we will see diversity. Until some of our greats let go of MK we may never find out that great Captain Falcon AT that ***** Marth hardcore... O.K. wishful thinking I know, but you get my point.

Bottom line is; WE DON'T HAVE TO LET THE METAGAME CENTRE ON MK!
It's our game, we can do what we like with it.



Also I'd like to thank Praxis for some of the most intelligent and insightful posts in both this thread and others regarding this topic.

 

[Cirno]

Very rational posting

I'll address your comparison to Street Fighter IIIs, which I've sadly only played casually, not competitively (Chun-Li's strong punch = <3 ).

Get into SF4 while you can. The game's amazing.
x)



Beware of Zangeif.
O_O;;

There's a few things to note. First of all, when there are multiple characters with no bad matchups, the situation isn't so bad (example; Fox and Marth).

Not so bad, but still bad huh?


Dunno about Marth, but I know people used to always argue over Fox's matchups seeing as certain character could mess him up just as bad as he could to everyone else considering you were smart enough.

Number of Characters, And Their Matchup Distribution

This is the least important difference, but there are twice as many characters in Brawl, making MK's dominance even more notable as more variety should be expected.

I also want to note that, from my understanding, Yun has an even matchup with Makoto, and Chun-Li actually has a LARGER advantage on every character in the cast than Yun does, with her only disadvantage being to Yun.

Meaning, if you play any character except Yun, Chun-Li is probably a worse matchup for you than Yun is. And finally, Makoto has no bad matchups except Chun-Li. Makoto, Yun, and Chun-Li are in the same tier because of this. Yun does not clearly dominate. Nobody suggests MK is in the same tier as the characters below him (except Inui).

Essentially, the top three are for the most part equal, something nonexistant in Brawl. It's closer to Melee Marth/Fox/Sheik trio (Chun-Li being the Sheik).

The Chun-li and Yun situation is very similar to what we have here.MK is only a few characters worst matchup. Most characters are wrecked by another character much worse, or just as bad by Marth. If I find that matchup chart for 3rd Strike I'll post it so you can see how similar it is to the one we have here.

The biggest difference being that Marth has two disadvantaged matchups,( debated aswell but not down to the wire like MK v Snake, more so and so thinks it's even)but if MKs counters ends up( after debate is finalized) in Wario/Snake's favor it will be more of a web than a trio. But that would fix the problem of his no bad matchups anyway huh?

We also have to take into consideration this is the 2nd tier list, made to reflect how well character were placing and at that time Ankoku's ranking list had MK far above any other character, where as he and Snake now share a place,with Wario climbing towards them both rapidly, even though MK has far more representation than both of them. We may be getting closer to trio that's near equal in dominance, but the way things look as of me typing this it may not include MK. Don't hate me for crossing my fingers though.
;D

Just throwing this out there though,as far as dominance in Melee, this might be surprising to many people because of the variety we had, but Marth was more dominant in Melee than MK is in Brawl. I think Ankoku had his current dominance in his his sig, I'll have to ask if this still hold true.

Stage Counterpicking

Smash Bros uses stage counterpicks to increase or decrease matchup advantages. Being able to counterpick a stage beneficial to your character, or poor for your opponent, enables you to reduce a disadvantage in a matchup. Other fights do not have this.

Metaknight breaks BOTH counterpicking systems (characters and stages) by not having a bad stage, either.

As far as characters there is still debate going on. Currently on Snake and Wario.

And as far as stages, several characters only have one bad stage, which banned allows them the same stage immunity as MK. Wario even sharing in some of his best stages.

Going deeper into that he does have stages where his usual prowess is lessened, being Yoshi's Island (Melee), Green Greens, and Final Destination or his survivability is decreased that of Norfair and Halberd.

Not a bad stage like Corneria is for Jiggly (especially v G&W -- disgusting matchup)
But not a neutrals or advantages either. And many character have 'bad' stages to a similar effect.

FD is supposed to be a bad stage for Luigi. The ceiling is higher which is where he gets most of his kills, but it's not like Rainbow Cruise for Peach.


Going off of what I said earlier though, if it comes down to Smash's unique stage counterpicking that makes him broken, shouldn't we input measures to fix that before banning?

Thanks to DDD all of what would have been his worst stages were eliminated.

Hitstun.

This is the most critical, IMO. Consider the difference hitstun makes. If you can read your opponent, even with a disadvantaged character, you only have to catch one mistake and you can punish it with a combo that takes away a significant portion of your opponent's HP, or even a super. Zero deaths exist.

In a game without significant hitstun, punishing one mistake (unless it's with a gimp, which virtually never happens to MK) is rarely enough to turn the side. You have to punish consistent mistakes. Which means that matchup gaps are MUCH MORE VISIBLE- you have to catch EVERY mistake, and when a character is capable of showing as few flaws as MK, that often means outplaying him by a wide margin.

A 6-4 disadvantage in Street Fighter < a 6-4 disadvantage in Brawl.

This is definitely the most critical. I can't even respond to this,besides saying I see your point. Yun having the advantage every character but one is in no way like MK having an advantage over all but one.

HDRemix Akuma was banned because he still destroyed everyone with an option no Turbo character is supposed to have, a 100% safe jump in.

This sound like what alot of people thought the tornado was for MK until a list with several moves for every character that beats it came out.

None are as epic as Jiggz' inner rest though.

The guy trying to get him banned, a former (and present) Zangief player also manned up and proved his **** and beat some dominators like Justin Wong to argue a case to get him banned.

This also sounds like something that happened with Brawl. The player being Overswarm. I remember him saying something about him being able to frame trap or something like that using d-tilt and f-tilt but I never saw it myself.

In anycase, sounds like the HD tourneys are going to be pretty fun. I might have to start practicing.

Some interesting parallels I found:
-Character is unanimously agreed upon as the best in the game.
-Character has advantage over most other characters, goes even with a few, and has only one possible disadvantaged match-up. (Some claim it to be a 40-60 disadvantage, many others claim it to be 50-50, and some maintain that it is, in fact, 60-40 or worse.)

Do you know if they were saying this before or after they found out Akuma had that 100% safe jump in because if after those numbers seem pretty ridiculous.

Still, it's important to remember that none of that provides outright justification for a MK ban in and of itself. There are similarities, true, but MK is not Akuma, and Brawl is not HDR. Whatever is best for Brawl should be the guiding factor here; not what others have done. I only posted this because numerous people have sporadically referenced Street Fighter and Akuma all throughout this debate, so I thought this information would be interesting to some people here. If it isn't relevant, feel free to remove it. (Or ask me to do so.)

It's always good to reference success to help guide though.
Thanks for the info.

[repost]

Yes we can. We more than any other gaming community deserve to ban what we feel like, since we basically made Smash Bros what it is. From development of ATs to the style the majority plays in ( short hop approaches and the like). Brawl wasn't even supposed to be a fighting game, with it's random elements and half the disc being story mode video, but look at where it is now. It's no melee but it's worth putting time,effort, and money into for the fun and challenge we get in return.

If majority rules, then I guess it's bye bye MetaKnight. I can't say I'll be as upset as the people who said they'd quit Brawl if he is removed (lulz), but I will give a big sigh as he's the funnest character to play for me.

The best players are the best because of their skill not their character.
The top 3 for SF2 remained the top 3 even after Akuma was banned.

Anyway this is proof MK should be banned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBL5GqXbmuU

Even the game hates MK

Roffles.
Roffles indeed.
(:

If I could, I'd change my vote from "no" to "not sure."

Haha, I know how you feel.

 

[Muzga]

Oh my god, I honestly cant believe you people are still debating this,
Metaknight should not be banned. in the last year, nothing has changed.
Metaknight is the most tournament viable character option. He is the "Best character", nobody is debating that.

The difference is that you people who just can't get used to, work around and adapt to the matchup treat it as though 100% of the time, the matchup is unwinnable.. Those of you who treat metaknight as an auto-win really need to open your eyes. I am a metaknight main; pretty much the only one in my city. I have been a part of the brawl scene since the game came out, and i have never one a tournament. That says nothing about my skill, but rather the ability of the people i am surrounded with to adapt to metaknight. This is the same for most metaknight mains; we are misunderstood

In fighting games there is always a best character. In Most fighting games most people choose the best character if they want to win. That makes the best character also the most popular character. This isnt exclusive to brawl, but rather it is just common sense. The argument that the most popular character should be banned seems a bit redundant to me, because if people who play metaknight only choose to play metaknight because he's undeniably the best character will end up moving to the next best character. Another logical step.

The problem with polls like this is that although banning metaknight is a popular option, it is atsthetically wrong to ben metaknight. Metaknight is the best and most popular character, by banning him you are forcing people who have mained him from the beginning to switch their mains. I and many other MK mains would feel screwed by this.

These polls should make no difference because there are so many people who would vote yes because they "hate metaknight". There is too much bias in this community.

 

[Kaybee]

I feel this deserves to be reposted.

Original poster Praxis

The WHOBO results are merely being used as an evidence of a problem that was brought out months ago and is unlikely to go away soon.

Metaknight, having no bad matchups, and arguably no even matchups as well (Snake and Wario are the only ones that can be argued, and Wario can't deal with planking at all and has bad stages and Snake is likely in MK's favor- judging from M2K vs Ally and my discussions with Ally on the topic, as well as the fact that the top MK's outplace the top Snakes), cannot be counterpicked, and is, in fact, his own worst matchup.

Play a character with a poor matchup on Metaknight? On any other character, the answer is to counterpick. Develop a set of secondaries to deal with your bad matchups. With Metaknight in the picture, this becomes bleak. You can simply get good at the matchup, but you can't count on being able to beat the top Metaknights in the country that know your character's matchup as well as you know theirs.

Best solution? Switch to MK, or second MK. It removes all of your bad matchups, including MK himself.

Is it any coincidence that the vast majority of the top players main or second MK? FICTION CP's MK on some matchups. DEHF takes MK on DSF at times. Then, of course, there's DSF himself, as Snake/MK.

We're going to keep seeing more and more MKs, as players realize that by switching from their mains to MK, they lose their bad matchups and see an improved performance in tournament results. Players with characters with bad MK matchups almost have no choice but to switch to MK- look at the dwindling numbers of ROB players.


MK is a cancer. He vastly overcentralizes the metagame by removing a counterpick system, and it's better for the metagame to remove him.

And then what next? Though it sounds farfetched now, we might be thinking differently. MK does keep some characters in check. Without him, Falcos will run rampant. Think about it. Does your Non MK main beat Falco to it's entirety? Soon we will be singling out other characters who make top eight. When those top placings are infested with another character, will we then be having a discussion to ban him/her?
I've considered this heavily, actually, and I don't believe it to be a problem. With MK banned, a counterpick system develops, as a lot of the other top characters that have reasonable matchups on MK are lucky enough to have counters that don't make it past MK.

Falco has disadvantaged matchups to Pikachu (buffered 90% CG anyone?), Ice Climbers (see FICTION vs DEHF), Kirby, and Lucario at the very least. Interestingly, all of these characters are vastly underrepresented in the tournament scene.

Snake? Dedede, Olimar (forces him to approach), Pikachu (buffered CG pushes this over from even), Wario, ROB, and Falco all can be argued to have an advantage, and others may go even (ZSS? DK? Diddy?).


Dedede? Olimar, Falco, Pikachu (again the new buffered CG), and Ice Climbers.

Game & Watch? Snake, Marth, Diddy.


All of the top characters have counters! Interestingly, heavily underused characters like Pikachu, Kirby, and ICs would do very well in this environment, functioning as the counters for some heavily used characters. A counterpick system means players would play more characters and further develop the metagame, and we'd have a thriving, varied metagame.

Originally Posted by Sky` View Post
Dunno.

SK92's Falco beat TKD's IC's.

Pretty badly.

And DEHF's lost to FICTION's.

I'm also happy to see yet another great post on the subject. This time by Cirno. Don't be intimidated by walls of text. Those posts often contain a lot of real thinking by the person that took the time to type it all out!

 

[Nic64]

I'll make one note.

If there's a significant change in who's winning at MK banned tourneys, I'd be ok with his ban. If not, then uh, way to ****ing go and change nothing lol.

So people who've been maining MK for months are supposed to just suddenly pick up another character and do just as well with them as people who have been using their characters for far longer, or else a ban is warranted? I could understand if there was a temp ban and things hadn't changed after a month or two, but how can you make judgements like that on random side events being held right now?(although I think that such a ban is ultimately pointless, I don't think anyone is really arguing that the character is that overpowered as much as just overcentralizing, which already is or is not cause for a ban, depending on your perspective)

Let me just ask something.

In a game not made for competitive play, nay a game where the developers themselves trie their hardest to make the game unfit for competitive play where stages and items and even STRATEGIES (planking/ledge camping) must be banned for the game to be competitive. Is it really such a stretch to think that you might need to ban a character too?

There's always plan B, ban Brawl!

 

[Cirno]

i'm Also Happy To See Yet Another Great Post On The Subject. This Time By cirno. don't Be Intimidated By Walls Of Text. Those Posts Often Contain A Lot Of Real thinking by The Person That Took The Time To Type It All Out!

>: D

Eye'm the strongest!

 

[Yuna]

No, absolutely not.

Never.

Brawl wouldn't be the same without Meta Knight.
Hell, I'd probably stop playing.

I seriously doubt that. Even adding a third option hasn't caused the "Yes" option to lose its majority. In fact, in a relative sense, it has a GREATER majority over the "No" option.

IIRC, all polls regarding banning (Meta Knight, D3's infinites, etc.) on SWF all enjoyed a great majority for the "Yes"-side at the start of their lifespans but as time wore on and more debate raged (read: More facts were shared with the masses and more lies and misconceptions refuted), the "No"-side slowly caught up.

IIRC, both previous "Should Meta Knight be banned" polls had the "Yes"-side leading by 10+% at some time or another and both ended with the "Yes"-side with a slim majority of 5%.

Keep in mind that I am a player who, in almost every single Brawl tournament I've been to, have lost either in Winner's or Loser's to a Meta Knight, and who is still against the ban. Because I look at the facts objectively and try to not be selfish when voting for things that will affect the entire community.

If you consider roughly 55:45 quite a bit. I don't.

You do realize this is the logic they are employing, right? They ***** and moan about how unbeatable MK is despite him having 55:45s. So, yes, in their book, 55:45 is "a lot".

 

[Yuna]

IMO, this community consists of wusses and whinos.

"Wah, wah, there's this character with no bad match-ups! The worst you can do is 50-50 him!". One jillion S Tiers laugh in your faces. Well, boo hoo. Competitive gaming is not about maximizing variety. Meta Knight does not limit variety to such an extent there are very few playable characters.

In fact, he doesn't even destroy many characters (who aren't already low tier) that badly. Pick up a secondary if you insist on maining a character he destroys. This community is way too ban-happy. Anything seen as remotely "broken" gets at least 5 threads and a poll dedicated to the subject of whether or not to ban it within weeks of its discovery.

The only reason why Meta Knight is dominating as much as he is (besides the obvious: he's a really good character) is because people choose to main him. So you're not banning the character because he's too good, you're banning him because he's too popular. A character proves him-/herself to be really good. What is the logical progression? A lot of tierwhores flock to him/her, bloating his/her tournament results.

This poll should have zero impact on the outcome of the debate since the vast majority of those involved on both sides of the debate are far too biased, ignorant and/or misinformed on the subject to vote fairly and objectively.

Anyone remember the good old Melee days when Sheik, Fox and then Marth (they each had their own periods where they shone far brighter than everyone else) dominated the tournament results? We didn't ban them. I guess we were just smarter back then.

And to those whining about how the match-up gaps are wider in Brawl: Rewrite the gaps or just stop making so many mistakes. A match-up should be written with the following in mind:
In a match of two players of roughly equal skill level making roughly the same number (and extent) of mistakes, what will the ratio be?

So, no, do not assume MK will make only 4 mistakes while the opponent will make 12. Assume they will make the same number of mistakes (and the mistakes will be of the same sort and to the level on the "You suck!"-scale).

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

IMO, this community consists of wusses and whinos.

"Wah, wah, there's this character with no bad match-ups! The worst you can do is 50-50 him!". Well, boo hoo. Competitive gaming is not about maximizing variety. Meta Knight does not limit variety to such an extent there are very few playable characters.

In fact, he doesn't even destroy many characters (who aren't already low tier) that badly. Pick up a secondary if you insist on maining a character he destroys. This community is way too ban-happy. Anything seen as remotely "broken" gets at least 5 threads and a poll dedicated to the subject of whether or not to ban it within weeks of its discovery.

The only reason why Meta Knight is dominating as much as he is (besides the obvious: he's a really good character) is because people choose to main him. So you're not banning the character because he's too good, you're banning him because he's too popular.

Anyone remember the good old Melee days when Sheik, Fox and then Marth (they each had their own periods where they shone far brighter than everyone else) dominated the tournament results? We didn't ban them. I guess we were just smarter back then.

Sorry, you whine more than anyone here.

 

[Yuna]

Sorry, you whine more than anyone here.

At least when I whine, I have legitimate reasons to do so and I back up my whining with facts and not lie and revisionist history.

 

[PikaPika!]

Anyone remember the good old Melee days when Sheik, Fox and then Marth (they each had their own periods where they shone far brighter than everyone else) dominated the tournament results? We didn't ban them. I guess we were just smarter back then.

I may be remembering this wrong, but wasn't sheik banned for a month or two?