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

[Eyada]

Nope, because according to Eyada, even he doesn't know whether or no MK should be banned. Read his post...

To be fair, I hadn't read his argument at the time I posted that.

Edit: And now that I have, I must admit that it looks convincing.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Nope, because according to Eyada, even he doesn't know whether or no MK should be banned. Read his post...

I did. He simply stated that he personally doesn't know if mk falls under those premises. That could be for any number of reasons. I was just kidding around with that comment. Sorry, I didn't mean for it to be taken seriously.

If I was wrong in my posting, though, I wish he would have already refuted it. I don't like the idea of wasting everyone's time with something that isn't correct in the first place.

 

[|RK|]

Hrm, soka...

I still think... that MK shouldn't be banned. Look at... y'know what? Let's wait. Only in two months. Let's work on crushing MK.

EDIT: Don't worry, it's a good argument. I just wish that we were more focused on improving and defeating MK rather than whining about him.

 

[Some_Kind_of_JokÈ?]

*gasp*

Fiction is now pro-ban.... then i am too :D

not that i just follow fictions opinion, but before i was in the "not sure" becuase Fiction always said how Wario could beat MK and it was a 50-50 matchup... and so i fuggured:

"well hes a good player, and hes smart, maybe he knows something i dont about MK"

but if Fiction now thinks the ban is good then that pretty much destroys that theory...
and i was pretty much pro ban anyway, with just a bit of speculation...

 

[thrillagorilla]

Hrm, soka...

I still think... that MK shouldn't be banned. Look at... y'know what? Let's wait. Only in two months. Let's work on crushing MK.

EDIT: Don't worry, it's a good argument. I just wish that we were more focused on improving and defeating MK rather than whining about him.

I wish he wasn't ban worthy. He's one of my favorite characters cannon-wise. I played all the way through "Nightmare in Dreamland" on hard just to unlock his mode. I don't think I've played as Kirby in that game since. MK=win in that game. KSU is a different matter though.

Just in case someone hasn't seen it...

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

@Eyada: Does it fit with your apology? (I think I'm using the term correctly. Sorry if I didn't. I'm a historian by hobby, not a philosopher) I have no intention of skewing what you wrote, so let me know if I did if you have the time. Thanks again for writing it. This is the first I've felt the thread move forward since it started.

 

[|RK|]

Meta-Knight is too powerful in KSSU. He really is. But he's loads of fun to play as! Not more fun than Kirby in MWW, though. Nowhere near it.

 

[PK-ow!]

I skimmed and skipped a lot because I have to go sleep. If anyone wants me to reply to anything specific, PM me a link to the post.

No, that's horrendous logic. Increase =/= Maximize.

That's like saying paedophilia = sexual relations with children. Because of this, if you have sex, you are supporting paedophilia. Or something...

You can increase diversity without maximizing it. Because maximizing something is increasing something to its highest degree. Also, you just proved that diversity is not a justifiable reason to ban.

... umm...

You got it backwards. Probably not enough sleep, there, Yuna.

"The only way to maximize something is to increase it"

A counter example would be something which can be maximized without increasing it.
I'm quite sure that is an analytical nonsense, but maybe you're really clever. Nevertheless, your counter went the wrong way. Your example I'm not sure what it was doing.

We do not ban things to maximize anything (if we did, we'd have to ban tons of things). Since the only way (according to yourself) to maximize something is to increase it, this means that we do not ban things to increase diversity at all.

This is the same "backwards", but also.... I don't think you can symbolize this argument even with the switch:
EDIT2: Okay, apparently, you flipped it around again the right way by this point. And I didn't catch it. Wow.

For not any x, it is the case that: We ban things to maximize x
For any x, if x is maximized then x is increased (<- the premise you flipped around earlier)
.^. It is not the case that: We ban things to increase diversity

If you drop "we ban things to", then you get a simple Denying the Antecedent fallacy. If you don't, then you have something that makes this not a syllogism. What it is, I'm not quite sure.

EDIT: Okay, you get something that, in a broad view, amounts to a Denying the Antecedent fallacy.

 

[aeghrur]

Disregard this post.
The one above is a much better rebuttal.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

Guys food isn't broken , its beatable. lets turn it on guyz. I've said it a million times, but things being broken isn't the only reason we ban them. We as a community have banned stuff because it interferes with the competitive or fun aspect of the game even if the are beatable (see food) so if you want to disprove our arguments for banning meta, you should make a case as to why he improves the fun or competitive aspect of the game. Smash community already bans stuff that isn't broken.

 

[Eyada]

I wish he wasn't ban worthy. He's one of my favorite characters cannon-wise. I played all the way through "Nightmare in Dreamland" on hard just to unlock his mode. I don't think I've played as Kirby in that game since. MK=win in that game. KSU is a different matter though.

Just in case someone hasn't seen it...

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

@Eyada: Does it fit with your apology? (I think I'm using the term correctly. Sorry if I didn't. I'm a historian by hobby, not a philosopher) I have no intention of skewing what you wrote, so let me know if I did if you have the time. Thanks again for writing it. This is the first I've felt the thread move forward since it started.

After thinking it over, I have to agree that, yes, you are correct.

If that argument cannot be shown to be invalid, it is sufficient to show that MK is ban-worthy.

 

[CRASHiC]

Guys food isn't broken , its beatable. lets turn it on guyz. I've said it a million times, but things being broken isn't the only reason we ban them. We as a community have banned stuff because it interferes with the competitive or fun aspect of the game even if the are beatable (see food) so if you want to disprove our arguments for banning meta, you should make a case as to why he improves the fun or competitive aspect of the game. Smash community already bans stuff that isn't broken.

before some one goes, "Other communities don't respect that," we are not like any other fighting community, and they don't really respect us at all. We are larger than all but Street Fighter, so we should not base our decisions on other communities.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

Other fighting games already don't respect us because we ban the items that aren't broken just because they are random. Just look at what everyone at SRK said about putting items on. By the way, there's a lot of random stuff in the game we do allow. Sorry for the week late response, Yuna but I've had my hands full. Anyway to respond to arguments way back in this thread.

Food changing the outcome of matches due to healing players? That occurs in more than 1 out of 500 matches. If Food is the only thing on or one of the few items allowed (since so many items are just flat out broken), it'll affect at least 50% of all matches to some degree, IMO.

Items are random. Now prove how Meta Knight is random.

If you are going to say that we have to ban anything that is random, then that we means we have to ban Peach's from using turnips, ban DDD's from using Waddle Dees, and so on. We also have to ban any stage with any random elements - this includes Yoshi's Island. The random platform HEAVILY effects lots of matches in a random way. The stage tilting in Lylat Cruise is random. I would be against the MK ban if the community was in favor of banning any single thing that was random. (And that includes DDD's waddle doos and dees.) Why should one DDD player in a tournament get further in the tournament because he randomly pulled more Gordo's than another DDD player? Much the same way why should one player get further in a tournament if he got random food more often. Luigi's forward B is random too. Yes we banned food, but guess what? We have not banned other factors in the game that are random. The only logical conclusion is that random is not the ONLY reason that items like food were banned. The other component is that we just plain don't like some of them.

Food is banned for a combination of being random and because we just plain don't like playing the game having to deal with items as a major part of the gameplay. This is evidenced by the fact that there are items that are not broken that are banned. You would then say they may not be broken but they are random. However, we don't ban everything that is random. Hence comes the third reason for their banning, and that is nobody likes playing with items on because it's not worth making the game competitive over who has the ability to reach the items or work with the items first. Face it or not this IS a skill. Someone who practices with items on will overcome the random element of the items and beat someone who has not practiced with items on. But we don't want to test this kind of skill alone in tournaments simply because we just don't like to. In analogy I claim that most of us don't want to play a Smash game where 95% of the determinant of your success in a tournament is your ability to deal with Metaknight.

Also, Yuna, you didn't call anyone names, you don't do that. I was referring to another poster.

 

[thrillagorilla]

After thinking it over, I have to agree that, yes, you are correct.

If that argument cannot be shown to be invalid, it is sufficient to show that MK is ban-worthy.

Thank you for taking the time to check even though you didn't have to. I appreciate it. It's good to know I didn't miss-use you're criteria.

@Edreeses: I know you're one of the big pro-ban advocates. Mind looking at my argument?

@anti-ban: I would have asked Yuna, but sleep comes first. Anyone else is more than welcome to as well.

@everyone who hasn't read my argument: Man I feel like a broken record. I'm sorry if I'm getting on people's nerves.

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

@everyone that has: Thank you.

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

:flame:
I thought that stuff like Items and specific stages were banned mainly because they got in the way of the actual battling, and can turn the tide of battle unfairly, even if both people are playing at 100%. But then again, I probably don't know quite as much as other people here.

And again, I still feel that with everyone shouting out random points that this thread really isn't going anywhere, especially with lots of people voting without being fully informed...
:flame:

 

[XienZo]

Other fighting games already don't respect us because we ban the items that aren't broken just because they are random. By the way, there's a lot of random stuff in the game we do allow. Sorry for the week late response, Yuna but I've had my hands full. Anyway to respond to arguments way back in this thread.



If you are going to say that we have to ban anything that is random, then that we means we have to ban Peach's from using turnips, ban DDD's from using Waddle Dees, and so on. We also have to ban any stage with any random elements - this includes Yoshi's Island. The random platform HEAVILY effects lots of matches in a random way. The stage tilting in Lylat Cruise is random. I would be against the MK ban if the community was in favor of banning any single thing that was random. (And that includes DDD's waddle doos and dees.) Luigi's forward B is random too. Yes we banned food, but guess what? We have not banned other factors in the game that are random. The only logical conclusion is that random is not the ONLY reason that items like food were banned. The other component is that we just plain don't like some of them.

Food is banned for a combination of being random and because we just plain don't like playing the game having to deal with items as a major part of the gameplay. This is evidenced by the fact that there are items that are not broken that are banned. You would then say they may not be broken but they are random. However, we don't ban everything that is random. Hence comes the third reason for their banning, and that is nobody likes playing with items on because it's not worth making the game competitive over who has the ability to reach the items or work with the items first. In analogy I claim that most of us don't want to play a Smash game where 95% of the determinant of your success in a tournament is your ability to deal with Metaknight.

Also, Yuna, you didn't call anyone names, you don't do that. I was referring to another poster.

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.

 

[Nic64]

things being broken isn't the only reason we ban them. We as a community have banned stuff because it interferes with the competitive or fun aspect of the game even if the are beatable (see food) so if you want to disprove our arguments for banning meta, you should make a case as to why he improves the fun or competitive aspect of the game. Smash community already bans stuff that isn't broken.

Seeing as this argument is more or less "I don't like him, he should be banned", isn't "I do like him, he shouldn't be banned" a legitimate counterpoint? I can respect, even if I disagree with, people who think he's too good, but I don't believe "he does nothing to actively IMPROVE the game" is a valid criteria for banning a character.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

Seeing as this argument is more or less "I don't like him, he should be banned", isn't "I do like him, he shouldn't be banned" a legitimate counterpoint? I can respect, even if I disagree with, people who think he's too good, but I don't believe "he does nothing to actively IMPROVE the game" is a valid criteria for banning a character.

You are 100% correct. My arguement is that we should go with what the majority of the community wants If most of the community doesn't want to ban him, I'm fine with leaving him in the game. I just think he isn't broken or he isn't random aren't good defenses in light of what we have and haven't banned as a community.

Thrillagorilla- I had a chance to glance at your opinion, but unfortunately I have to go somewhere right now, I'll take a look at it more in depth a bit later.

 

[|RK|]

Because the majority is informed and correct?

 

[Nic64]

You are 100% correct. My arguement is that we should go with what the majority of the community wants

50.42% isn't much of a majority if you could call it that at all.

 

[bobson]

The stage tilting in Lylat Cruise is random.

Actually, the stage tilting is static. It changes on a set pattern depending on the background.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

Nobody is correct. It's all subjective. Who is to say that anybody is more right to play the game one way over another?

Actually, the stage tilting is static. It changes on a set pattern depending on the background.

So if I memorize the timing of the tilts according to the background, will Lylat cruise always tilt at the same angles at the same time? Meaning, at 3:08:02 mark of every match, will the stage be in the same formation every time? I'm actually asking this because it'll help me learn and get better at the stage, not for the banning thread hehe.

50.42% isn't much of a majority if you could call it that at all.

Right, so then we can't ban him. I'm just saying if the support for banning him ever got high enough, we should be open to banning him. I just personally believe that support is going to multiply tenfold after the results of Genesis and Evo so I'm laying the groundwork for it. Of course, popular support isn't the ONLY thing enough to ban a character. I'm just saying it can be a major component to the decision for a banning.

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.

It would definitely weaken my arguement. However, I'd need to see solid evidence of this rather than hear-say.

 

[|RK|]

Items. That is all.

 

[MajinSweet]

You are 100% correct. My arguement is that we should go with what the majority of the community wants

Thrillagorilla- I had a chance to glance at your opinion, but unfortunately I have to go somewhere right now, I'll take a look at it more in depth a bit later.

If we went that route, Snake would have been banned a week into the friggen game.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Because the majority is informed and correct?

I thought about making a political joke out of this, but then caught myself. The simple answer to that question is no. Definitely no. I don't know if you can apply that to a video-game community though. I haven't given it much thought. The majority does have some validity in proving a point, though.

@Edreeses: Thanks! I appreciate your time.

 

[Luur3]

Nobody is correct. It's all subjective. Who is to say that anybody is more right to play the game one way over another?




So if I memorize the timing of the tilts according to the background, will Lylat cruise always tilt at the same angles at the same time? Meaning, at 3:08:02 mark of every match, will the stage be in the same formation every time? I'm actually asking this because it'll help me learn and get better at the stage, not for the banning thread hehe.

I believe the backgrounds are random. Not sure though

 

[bobson]

So if I memorize the timing of the tilts according to the background, will Lylat cruise always tilt at the same angles at the same time? Meaning, at 3:08:02 mark of every match, will the stage be in the same formation every time? I'm actually asking this because it'll help me learn and get better at the stage, not for the banning thread hehe.

Nope. The stage tilting depends on the background, but which background gets chosen is random.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

Heh, so that doesn't give you the ability to predict and react for it then if it was just random and not based on the background in the first place. And I was all excited =p

If we went that route, Snake would have been banned a week into the friggen game.

My fault but I edited my post. I included the fact that majority support isn't alone enough to get the job done, just that it contributes to it. You'd also need some pretty convincing regional/national tournament results. Snake didn't have this a week into the game coming out.

 

[Nic64]

Right, so then we can't ban him. I'm just saying if the support for banning him ever got high enough, we should be open to banning him. I just personally believe that support is going to multiply tenfold after the results of Genesis and Evo so I'm laying the groundwork for it.

maybe, I don't understand why people are getting their hopes up that things are magically going to change though, I think we've had a lot of experience with what MK's rate of domination is and it appears to be pretty stable, I think the question is what you can tolerate more so than actually expecting anything to change in the near future because it's probably not going to happen. But, as much as I don't understand it, you're right that there have been a lot of people saying "let's wait until APEX/Genesis/Evo", and if those people are being honest with themselves(in that they need MK to win less than he has at these tournaments to continue tolerating him), they will most likely end up being pro ban.

 

[Snakeee]

MK v Zelda? You're yanking my chain, you don't honestly think your Zelda stands a chance, do you?!?!

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.

 

[CR4SH]

In analogy I claim that most of us don't want to play a Smash game where 95% of the determinant of your success in a tournament is your ability to deal with Metaknight.

Qft.

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.

 

[AvaricePanda]

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

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

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





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

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

Example:

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

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

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.

Question: If simply holding an item first weren't an advantage then why would anyone be against items play in Brawl?
Answer: holding an item first is an advantage. The result is people point to random spawns as giving unfair/random advantages.

Overall its slightly in MK's favor. However I still firmly believe with more time it will become Diddy's favor. There are so many things that still need to be worked into my game for me to even think I'm close to mastering the character, not the least of which are: single nana locks, non-dash attack picks up, instant throws, shield bouncing, using more than just the F-tilt, etc etc. Despite lacking of all these things I'm still the best Diddy Kong in the MW and the only MK I probably can't beat is Judge, who I have yet to play (and think I would stand a good chance to win at least a game off of him).

Essentially, I have tons of room to improve with Diddy Kong and I am considered close to the top of Diddy's current metagame.
How much more room do Meta Knights have to improve at the top of MK's metagame? What things are have been discovered recently that makes MK better? What type of things can MK do that are limited in a players execution/technical skill like Diddy's nana lock (answer, everything MK does is easy to perform, so there isn't the same learning curves as Diddy).

Diddy is a character that went from 20th, to 14th, to 11th, to 10th, to 7th, to 7th, to 5th, and now currently 4th on Ankoku's list. He is a character that still few people play. He has far more potential than anyone is utilizing. He is also been moving on a curve up the ranks of characters, and that curve has yet to stabilize (Diddy is just a stones throw away from third on Ankoku's list). To assume we know anything about Diddy's potential, when even just 3-6 months ago many thought Diddy had peaked, would be niave.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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






· Metaknight has bad match-ups

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

 

[|RK|]

Whoa, the pages are fixed. Oh, and Avarice, you're a genius (I really should be in bed...)

 

[da K.I.D.]

You obviously have never been a part of any large fighting game community where it's often only the Top 3 best characters who are being played (see 3rd Strike). Also, have you ever played Melee Competitively? Marth, Sheik and Fox have all enjoyed periods of "25% of the community spam this character"-ness.

come on now...

You know darn well theres a huge difference between 3 characters having 25% of the play out of 25 and 1 character solely having 25% of the play out of 37 characters

not to mention the fact that at this point in melee (and its been like this for a while now) theres less than 10 really playable characters anyway

 

[swordgard]

RK Joker, you do realize people DID try, for over 8 months already.

 

[ShadowLink84]

come on now...

You know darn well theres a huge difference between 3 characters having 25% of the play out of 25 and 1 character solely having 25% of the play out of 37 characters

not to mention the fact that at this point in melee (and its been like this for a while now) theres less than 10 really playable characters anyway

You misunderstood Kid.
He meant that each of those respective characters experienced 25% occurence.
Not that all three made up the 25%

 

[Ripple]

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

 

[aeghrur]

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

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

 

[Luur3]

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

would be good, but as aeghur said, too many people would whine about wanting him back


I am curious as to who the tiers would change if he was banned

 

[Metatitan]

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

they would probly have to define the duration of time, or as previously mentioned a billion "unban mk" threads would pop up. even tho a lot of pple want a trial ban, but w/e...

 

[Ripple]

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