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

[Deathcarter]

For the umpteenth time, having no "bad" match-ups, alone, is not a good enough reason to ban a character. It just means that you're dealing with a very good character.

MK's number 1 in tournament records, but he's not, by any means, overwhelming the top 8 in most tournaments. Yes, there are some tournaments where he dominates at, but you're also dealing with the best character in the game, and a lot of players winning these tournaments just happen to be excellent players as well.



If it is a given, then why are people (maybe or maybe not you, I don't know) trying to say, "Oh, but that was Snake, so it doesn't mean as much"? People wanted non-MKs to take on the best MKs. They did just that. Why is the pro-ban side trying to marginalize that by repeatedly going "SNAKE! SNAKE! SNAAAAAKE!"?

So you do not care in the least bit that you have 8 top tier characters (along with semi-debatable ones like Pikachu, Ice Climbers and Olimar), most of them having about the same chance at winning at the big tournaments, and it took this long for ONE of them other than MK to win a national tournament?

 

[salaboB]

If you're tired of it - switch to MK.

If enough people do that I'm sure the Pro-Ban group would have a stronger argument if 99% of all MK matches turned into MK vs MK.

However, I fail to see many people doing this at all. Rather - they learn the matchup with their character; well enough to win (unless they get 'stage-gayed' where their character does absolutely horrible) then they lose a match, then still have a chance in the third game with their counterpick (one of which they would choose a stage they have an advantage in I'd hope - or their character does good on)

So no, you don't need to have mastered 2 characters. Just 1, and put up a good fight.

This is avoiding my point, not answering it. "Play MK" is not a valid answer to "If you don't play MK you have to work harder." The reason it's invalid is because you could say "Play Akuma" for a reason why Akuma didn't need banning - I am not saying MK is like Akuma, I'm using the absolute example of Akuma to show why your response doesn't work to prove that MK doesn't need banning.

However, I'll take it as a "Yes, I think it's fair that anyone not playing MK has to work harder both in practice and in play to beat an MK player." And I can't argue with that response, because it's pure opinion.

You know why it takes more effort to learn the matchup (Because MK is a quirky character that you need to know exactly how he behaves to be able to handle). I pointed out why people have to work harder than the MK during actual gameplay to defeat the MK. There's nothing more beyond that than opinion that it is or is not enough, and yours is that it's not. Sooo...that's it.

 

[Master Raven]

POF I would suggest experiencing some actual high-level play before you make assumptions off of your friend (is Brawl even that prominent in CT at all?).

 

[Brinzy]

For the umpteenth time...

This is all fact except for the ban criteria (That's opinion). Good job, I accept everything else entirely.

I still believe MK should be banned, see the self quote in my previous post if you haven't figured out my justification for why yet.

You know, you are not the only one on the pro-ban side in this thread.

I made those posts for THEM, hence why I quoted THEM. The time when I did not quote may have been unclear until you read what I was saying it and you realized that it was a refutation of what someone else had said, not you, AFAIK.

But here, let me quote you instead:

If someone wishes to not use MK, they're immediately at a disadvantage against anyone who does. Any other single character in the game you can get away without having as one you use, because you can make up for it by picking X or Y instead for a given situation.

This is a nice way of saying, "MK is the best character in the game and you aren't getting the best benefits when you're not using the best character." So? Nobody is stopping you from playing MK. Nothing grants you zero chances of winning without using MK, or even 1 out of a million chances. This has been proven time and time again.

But there's only one character that gets the overall matchups and benefits MK does.

There's only one character that gets the overall matchups and benefits Peach/Yoshi/Pikachu/Zelda/Fox do. Why does this even matter?

So the unfairness of MK is that if you don't play him, no other character mastery will provide the advantage that simply having him in your selection of tournament viable characters provides, and you'll always be at that automatic disadvantage to someone that can pull him out during tournament play.

Again, so what? This is you, once again, saying that MK is the best character in the game and by not playing him, you're losing an advantage. This is accepted by pretty much everyone who plays or does not play MK. This doesn't mean anything except that if you want to add onto your advantages in the tournament scene, you can play MK.

Is it a large disadvantage? No. But I think it's enough to justify removing that character and levelling the playing field. And yes, that's my opinion, this is simply a line in the sand.

So this thing that you keep quoting says, "MK is the best character. If you don't play MK, you do not have the advantage of playing MK. If you play MK, you have the advantage of playing MK. If you play MK, you increase your chances to win. If you do not, you are not as likely to win. Therefore, since MK is the best character and he does what a best character does, he needs to be banned."

There's a solution to this: play MK. There's an answer that many have chosen: no. There's a thing that shows that people can overcome this disadvantage: tournament results.

Most of what you're saying, if not all of it, does nothing to prove that he needs to be banned.

So you do not care in the least bit that you have 8 top tier characters (along with semi-debatable ones like Pikachu, Ice Climbers and Olimar), most of them having about the same chance at winning at the big tournaments, and it took this long for ONE of them other than MK to win a national tournament?

As of right now, no, because look who was winning most of the major ones, and look who is winning them now, as the metagame goes on instead of dying off like so many zealots claimed it would.

 

[salaboB]

You know, you are not the only one on the pro-ban side in this thread.

I made those posts for THEM, hence why I quoted THEM. The time when I did not quote may have been unclear until you read what I was saying it and you realized that it was a refutation of what someone else had said, not you, AFAIK.

Actually...you didn't quote anybody on that bit I replied to.

Sorry. Maybe next time you should quote who you're actually responding to.

Edit: And as far as it not making sense to me, half the responses from people that do quote me STILL don't make sense, so don't even be trying that nonsense. Quote who you're responding to, or accept anyone answering it.

There's only one character that gets the overall matchups and benefits Peach/Yoshi/Pikachu/Zelda/Fox do. Why does this even matter?

Incorrect.

Overall matchups of MK: Nobody gets better than an even matchup against him.

Overall matchup of the rest of the cast: Characters have a better than even matchup against them.

Oh look, Peach/Yoshi/Pikachu/Zelda/Fox all fall in that second one. Nobody else can claim the one that MK does.

And it matters because it's key for how much effort you have to put in compared to the MK player to simply beat him. And I have said in a majority of my posts now that if your opinion is that it's not enough to ban MK there's nothing I can do about it. So. I have said in my posts why it matters. It's all over the place in my recent posts, you can read it if you want. I have said it comes down to opinion, I stand by that, and yours obviously is that it's not enough. And that's that.

 

[SuSa]

My friend plays Meta Knight. We now have figured out that dair > fair because it makes people trip and that can be followed up with dash attacks, tilts, or a re grab. Now, people also do not SPAM d smash but they save it for a quick kill move.

I found the part where you said "Well, I hear Meta Knight may not be amazing on this stage..." to be pretty funny. Thanks for supporting my point further sir. You might as well have said, "I know, meta knight is amazing on every stage man."

Also, last I checked every single mirror match in the history of fighting games is 50-50. I meant 50-50 against other characters in the cast.

Last I checked you said Meta Knight had no 50:50 matchups. IIRC ditto's/mirror matches are 50:50 - was proving a point. It's also been argued by many that Snake is 50:50 (with a few 45:55 and 55:45 thrown in)

Being "average" is what I said rather then being "good". He is "average" on some stages. It really depends how much of an advantage a character has to have to say they are "good" on a stage. Stop mis-quoting me perhaps? I never said "I hear he's not amazing on x stage" I said he is "average" on some.

1. You do mean Dtilt > Ftilt because Dtilt makes them trip? Correct?

2. You do realize you cannot re-grab from a tilt, that is called a grab. You do not re-grab unless you grab from a grab.

3. You have just now figured out that dtilt trips and has follow-ups? This was found what, 5 months ago? Or even further back? I've been using dtilt as Meta Knight to lead to follow ups back in last July 2 months after I got Brawl and was starting to get competitive in it. (Birthday is in May, got Brawl for my birthday)

4. Also I would not go as far to say dtilt > ftilt simply because dtilt has guarenteed follow-ups. They both have their individual uses.


YOU:

"Most moves cannot stop the (it's called a Glide Attack by the way) 'neu a' from shuttle loop."

IIRC - All Glide Attacks have aerial priority properties and are disjointed. You either clank with it (aka: time your moves well) or you get hit by it - assuming they don't miss.

I've seen many mistakes against a high-level MK - they don't lose a stock. But as with most mistakes in high-level play, they do take damage.

Side-B can be DI'd extremely easily.

Many (repeat: many) moves do stop the tornado, you can SDI out of it, and it's not impossible.

This is avoiding my point, not answering it. "Play MK" is not a valid answer to "If you don't play MK you have to work harder." The reason it's invalid is because you could say "Play Akuma" for a reason why Akuma didn't need banning - I am not saying MK is like Akuma, I'm using the absolute example of Akuma to show why your response doesn't work to prove that MK doesn't need banning.

However, I'll take it as a "Yes, I think it's fair that anyone not playing MK has to work harder both in practice and in play to beat an MK player." And I can't argue with that response, because it's pure opinion.

You know why it takes more effort to learn the matchup (Because MK is a quirky character that you need to know exactly how he behaves to be able to handle). I pointed out why people have to work harder than the MK during actual gameplay to defeat the MK. There's nothing more beyond that than opinion that it is or is not enough, and yours is that it's not. Sooo...that's it.

Obviously a better character will require more work to beat. That's sort of the point of the character being better...

 

[salaboB]

Last I checked you said Meta Knight had no 50:50 matchups. IIRC ditto's/mirror matches are 50:50 - was proving a point. It's also been argued by many that Snake is 50:50 (with a few 45:55 and 55:45 thrown in)

You know, honestly...

I dislike the amount of absolute statements thrown around here. But if someone can't say "Akuma has no 50:50 matchups" without someone jumping on "But Akuma 50:50's himself" that's just lame. And that's what you were doing here, really. You knew what he meant (And if you didn't, you shouldn't be debating. But I'm sure you did.)

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

no. there were actually a bunch of MK's there. i saw the whole list. its just that only a few placed.

and i find it somewhat hypocritical that your accusing the antiban of clinging to strings when the proban kept on whining about whobo. whobo was just texas with all the good metas. Apex was an east coast regional event. Apex is the one taht should count.

and M2K is (or was) the undisputed best player in the world. not spam. although spam is really good.

Apex should count because it was in the EC? In case you didn't notice the guys who got 2nd and 3rd where also at whobo plus all of the other top mks like dsf, the best in the WC, who won C3 last year in the east cost and lee martin who got 5th at cot4. Apex didn't even have the EC's 2nd best player spammer (because he quit IIRC) so why should it count while whobo is thrown in the trash? Just because the EC doesn't travel to other places?

I never said spam was the best player i said he was the better mk. Just take a look at the videos M2K momentum cancels with Dair rather than Uair, M2K approaches(there are limits to this), there are no limitations to MK's camping and spammer knows that.

 

[Brinzy]

Sorry, maybe you should keep reading.

Me: The time when I did not quote may have been unclear until you read what I was saying it and you realized that it was a refutation of what someone else had said, not you, AFAIK.

You: Actually...you didn't quote anybody on that bit I replied to.

Me: I just said that.



Also:

Oh yeah, and Meta Knight does not have a 50-50 match up.

For the umpteenth time, having no "bad" match-ups, alone, is not a good enough reason to ban a character.

Ok, but we have seen numerous tournament results in the past where MK has been dominating tournaments steadily.

MK's number 1 in tournament records, but he's not, by any means, overwhelming the top 8 in most tournaments. Yes, there are some tournaments where he dominates at, but you're also dealing with the best character in the game, and a lot of players winning these tournaments just happen to be excellent players as well.

Did you make those arguments? If you did, there is my response. If you didn't, nobody said you did and you didn't have to take it as if I was talking to you. Something unquoted =/= something for everyone in the thread. If someone goes, "Hey, pro-banners" without quoting, should I just assume that this person was addressing me? No! I am not pro-ban and I don't make arguments for pro-ban.

If you did not make those arguments, then maybe, just maybe, I am not talking to you.

Incorrect.

Overall matchups of MK: Nobody gets better than an even matchup against him.

Overall matchup of the rest of the cast: Characters have a better than even matchup against them.

<stuff>

Misinterpretation. Try:

There is only one character that gets the benefits Peach does.

There is only one character that gets the benefits Yoshi does.

And so on. If I wanted to say the rest of the cast, I would've said the rest of the cast instead of naming five specific characters in five specific perspectives.

 

[salaboB]

Sorry, maybe you should keep reading.

Me: The time when I did not quote may have been unclear until you read what I was saying it and you realized that it was a refutation of what someone else had said, not you, AFAIK.

You: Actually...you didn't quote anybody on that bit I replied to.

Me: I just said that.



Also:








Did you make those arguments? If you did, there is my response. If you didn't, nobody said you did and you didn't have to take it as if I was talking to you. Something unquoted =/= something for everyone in the thread. If someone goes, "Hey, pro-banners" without quoting, should I just assume that this person was addressing me? No! I am not pro-ban and I don't make arguments for pro-ban.

If you did not make those arguments, then maybe, just maybe, I am not talking to you.


Misinterpretation. Try:

There is only one character that gets the benefits Peach does.

There is only one character that gets the benefits Yoshi does.

And so on.

I know, you didn't quote me for the entire top part of your post! But guess what, I'm responding!

I find it absolutely hilarious you're ranting about me taking a quote intended for someone else when all I said was that I agreed with everything in it except what was required for a ban.

Hilarious.

Oh, and as for misinterpretation, you did it first. I knew exactly what you were trying to say, but since it was completely unrelated to what I was saying I corrected it when I explained. If I didn't, the topic would have been immediately derailed (I'd note, into the land of "No duh". Of course every character has their own unique matchups, that is most definitely not what I was getting at.)

 

[SuSa]

You know, honestly...

I dislike the amount of absolute statements thrown around here. But if someone can't say "Akuma has no 50:50 matchups" without someone jumping on "But Akuma 50:50's himself" that's just lame. And that's what you were doing here, really. You knew what he meant (And if you didn't, you shouldn't be debating. But I'm sure you did.)

I can't be a smartass to someone anymore?

(Wario/Snake/Marth are debatable for 50:50 AFAIK been off-on in the community due to not having my Wii since December (but still attending tournaments and going to friends places ;o so not out of the loop)

Hi I'm SoR, and SuSa pretty much agrees with what I say.

My viewpoints are pretty much shared with this guys.

It's 11:23pm on a school night, need to be up at 6am to take my shower. I'm going to bed.

Night y'all

EDIT:

So tired I typed quys instead of guys. I should rest. (Uses down-b)

\\I laugh at those who fail to get it.

 

[P. O. F.]

Last I checked you said Meta Knight had no 50:50 matchups. IIRC ditto's/mirror matches are 50:50 - was proving a point. It's also been argued by many that Snake is 50:50 (with a few 45:55 and 55:45 thrown in)

Being "average" is what I said rather then being "good". He is "average" on some stages. It really depends how much of an advantage a character has to have to say they are "good" on a stage. Stop mis-quoting me perhaps? I never said "I hear he's not amazing on x stage" I said he is "average" on some.

1. You do mean Dtilt > Ftilt because Dtilt makes them trip? Correct?

2. You do realize you cannot re-grab from a tilt, that is called a grab. You do not re-grab unless you grab from a grab.

3. You have just now figured out that dtilt trips and has follow-ups? This was found what, 5 months ago? Or even further back? I've been using dtilt as Meta Knight to lead to follow ups back in last July 2 months after I got Brawl and was starting to get competitive in it. (Birthday is in May, got Brawl for my birthday)

4. Also I would not go as far to say dtilt > ftilt simply because dtilt has guarenteed follow-ups. They both have their individual uses.


YOU:

"Most moves cannot stop the (it's called a Glide Attack by the way) 'neu a' from shuttle loop."

IIRC - All Glide Attacks have aerial priority properties and are disjointed. You either clank with it (aka: time your moves well) or you get hit by it - assuming they don't miss.

I've seen many mistakes against a high-level MK - they don't lose a stock. But as with most mistakes in high-level play, they do take damage.

Side-B can be DI'd extremely easily.

Many (repeat: many) moves do stop the tornado, you can SDI out of it, and it's not impossible.



Obviously a better character will require more work to beat. That's sort of the point of the character being better...

Sorry, I'll try that again.....

dair > fair because it sends characters down at a ******** angle that set up for low edge gimps where of course....meta knight thrives. Dair does in fact set you up for a GRAB because he can tech chase after it and do whatever he pleases.

I was not saying that side B was broken or anything...my point was is that no move can BEAT IT OUT while edge guarding unless its a projectile or something like snakes u tilt maybe. I know how to DI, don't patronize me. "Glide attack..." sorry, I don't care to know every characters attack names. I've been using marth for two years and still don't know the name of his sword or the proper name for his upB and the three different combinations of his SideB. I just....don't care.

 

[Brinzy]

I quoted two other people and then I made an unquoted post based off of what they were saying. I'm glad that you accepted those facts, but I was speaking to those saying something else because they do not accept them as facts. Thanks for responding, but it was not necessary, so you didn't have to tell me, twice, that you accepted what I said as fact when I was speaking to others who did not accept it as fact.

I don't know what you find hilarious about it, because you basically just wasted your time saying, "Oh, I know this is fact" when it was designed for those who did not accept it as fact, which would be the other two guys.

And what did I misinterpret? That MK shares benefits with himself that nobody else can have? Duh?

. Of course every character has their own unique matchups, that is most definitely not what I was getting at.)

So you're getting at Mk has advantages above the rest of the cast, I assume. If this is your argument...

He is the best character in the game. The rest of the cast is not.

Try explaining what you're trying to say further since I am apparently not getting it, because no matter how you word that, it's wrong.

 

[Deathcarter]

As of right now, no, because look who was winning most of the major ones, and look who is winning them now, as the metagame goes on instead of dying off like so many zealots claimed it would.

One, count em', one top tier player is managing to catch up to M2K. If MK has stagnated like people have claimed, then shouldn't other Top tier players be able to catch up considering most of their characters still have untapped potential, whilst M2K can only imporve as a player? Three things I can come up with:

1. It will take a LOT of time for those other top tier characters and their players to catch up. Which is perfectly fine for me since I has always maintained that MK wasn't bannable at present time.

2. MK players will continue to improve while other players screech to a halt since he has more options to work with.

3. M2K is godly, in which case, he is an outlier and should not be used in people's argument (which is impossible as his tournament wins are real, thus he has to be counted).

 

[Just_Gabe]

My god, we are already having tournaments ban DeDeDe standing infinites. Next they will ban MK all together?

Is that even debatable??? do you really think DDD SI is NOT ban worthy? seriously...

As MK being banned...I think that tempral ban like some other guys said would be good and it won't in any way affect other characters taking the top tier title, since from my personal experience Snake, DDD, Falco, Diddy and G&W are way more fair in the gameplay that MK who has insane priority and speed and is impossible to edgeguard.

If there would be any problem, it would be the whinners to take on Snake, as he also has some wierd strenght and priority, but unlike MK, he is not "almost unbeatable" (heck, my Peach eats Snakes...)

 

[salaboB]

Just so this isn't missed in my SoR spam:

I did have another question, if you would allow. You said you needed proof that the MUs had changed or would change. What kinds of proof would you need?

I'm fine with what the community accepts as the matchups. For instance, since nothing has changed to convince people that MK vs. Snake is better for Snake than 55:45 MK, then that's what I work off of it being. If the community can come to a strong consensus (And you learn who in it actually has half a clue about these things) that MK vs. <random person> was <random person>'s advantage, then I'd rethink the MK thing. But to be honest, it would probably take at least two characters, or a strong enough disadvantage to be worse than say, Snake's worst matchup.

I don't know what you find hilarious about it, because you basically just wasted your time saying, "Oh, I know this is fact" when it was designed for those who did not accept it as fact, which would be the other two guys.

Did I offend you? I guess it didn't make you feel better to know someone pro-ban agreed with you. Oh well.

And what did I misinterpret? That MK shares benefits with himself that nobody else can have? Duh?

That MK is the only member of the cast that can't be put in a disadvantaged matchup. Seriously.

Try explaining what you're trying to say further since I am apparently not getting it, because no matter how you word that, it's wrong.

No, I'm not writing a new explanation for you, you haven't demonstrated that you actually read what I'm saying. You can have one of my previous posts:

If someone wishes to not use MK, they're immediately at a disadvantage against anyone who does. Any other single character in the game you can get away without having as one you use, because you can make up for it by picking X or Y instead for a given situation. But there's only one character that gets the overall matchups and benefits MK does. So the unfairness of MK is that if you don't play him, no other character mastery will provide the advantage that simply having him in your selection of tournament viable characters provides, and you'll always be at that automatic disadvantage to someone that can pull him out during tournament play.

Is it a large disadvantage? No. But I think it's enough to justify removing that character and levelling the playing field. And yes, that's my opinion, this is simply a line in the sand.

Really, all bans or not are lines in the sand, even Akuma -- the line just got so close that everyone recognizes the character needed banning. MK's strengths are nowhere skewed enough for traditionalists to even consider banning him, and that's simply a fact I recognize.

Obviously, your opinion falls under my final sentence. So that really is that, I don't expect to convince you with anything I have available.

 

[Brinzy]

One, count em', one top tier player is managing to catch up to M2K. If MK has stagnated like people have claimed, then shouldn't other Top tier players be able to catch up considering most of their characters still have untapped potential, whilst M2K can only imporve as a player? Three things I can come up with:

1. It will take a LOT of time for those other top tier characters and their players to catch up. Which is perfectly fine for me since I has always maintained that MK wasn't bannable at present time.

2. MK players will continue to improve while other players screech to a halt since he has more options to work with.

3. M2K is godly, in which case, he is an outlier and should not be used in people's argument (which is impossible as his tournament wins are real, thus he has to be counted).

One top tier player catching up to M2K > 0. With one comes many, and with many comes more non-MK wins. Other top tiers are going to catch up. That is simply how fighting games work.

1) It's fine with me, too, and I believe that this is what will most likely happen.

2) Uh, no. Having untapped potential does not mean that it will be halted because of MK. He may be able to answer to it, and incredibly well, but the other players will not worsen or remain the same because MK improves.

3) Other players can, apparently at least see the level that M2K is on.

 

[P. O. F.]

Ally would not have beaten M2K if Lain did not put him into losers IMO.

Ally played AMAZING but regardless, M2K just had an off day and could not handle the pressure just as he could not do so at ROM against MaNg0.

Now Meta Knight won't bet banned because the second best character in the game beat a MK once. Good job SBR.

The only reason why Sheik was not banned from the get go in Melee was because wave dashing, wave shining, etc was not yet discovered. Good luck trying to find more USEFUL glitches in Brawl guys. I'm pretty sure we are on the lookout for them now more for Brawl then we were for Melee.

 

[Brinzy]

Did I offend you? I guess it didn't make you feel better to know someone pro-ban agreed with you. Oh well.

You neither offended me nor assuaged my ego. I originally replied to you with "there's more than you" because you were agreeing with facts that obviously did not mean anything new to you, which is fine, except they were directed elsewhere.

It's like taking a pill that was meant for someone else and saying, "This is good medicine, but it has no effect on me." I have no qualms or anything with you agreeing with the statements in of themselves, but I'm saying that they were not meant for you and you should not repeatedly take something meant to correct someone else and pretend as if I'm trying to treat you like you're dumb and didn't get it already.

That MK is the only member of the cast that can't be put in a disadvantaged matchup. Seriously.

This is arbitrary. Some say that there are situations where a certain character + stage combination gives them the advantage. Some say otherwise.

Also, by the way, that lies perfectly well with what I was saying about MK's specifics not being the same as other characters' specifics; I did understand you from the start and had to fish for something else because you claimed I did not.

No, I'm not writing a new explanation for you, you haven't demonstrated that you actually read what I'm saying.

As if the quotes and the direct correlations between our statements weren't enough.

You can have one of my previous posts:

Obviously, your opinion falls under my final sentence. So that really is that, I don't expect to convince you with anything I have available.

Are you trying to define what I am by comparing me to someone who compares MK to those other characters? ... Forget it, what I am isn't important.

What is important is that you are yet another pro-banner who has placed me into the category of "compares MK to Akuma/Old Sagat", when, once again, I have never, ever, EVER done this or anything of that nature. I am not saying that MK should not be banned because he's not as broken as Akuma or that he's similar to Old Sagat or what-the-hell-ever. I am saying that MK should not be banned because, while his strengths are evident and he does have very significant tournament representation, he is not destroying the metagame (which is something I'm going to touch on in the future when I get the question ready so nobody can find loopholes), he is not the sole reason for nonviability, he is not the only one winning tournaments, and he has qualities of a best character, which should not suddenly be reason enough to ban him.

Ally would not have beaten M2K if Lain did not put him into losers IMO.

Ally played AMAZING but regardless, M2K just had an off day and <insert stuff>

What the hell? You don't know what happens in an alternate universe, nor should you try to mention what "could've" happened when dealing with facts.

 

[P. O. F.]

^

Yeah, you're right. Mind set before entering a match has nothing to do with how you will play. I'm wrong. Losing to an Ice Climbers player to be sent into losers bracket as the best Brawl player in the world (arguably) wouldn't affect your mood/thought process as well. Stop Talking.

I guess its time for me to start using Meta Knight seeing as he'll never get banned. (invincibility frame upB's out of thread)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50S5pS0Frbs&feature=channel_page

 

[Brinzy]

^

Yeah, you're right. Mind set before entering a match has nothing to do with how you will play. I'm wrong. Losing to an Ice Climbers player to be sent into losers bracket as the best Brawl player in the world (arguably) wouldn't affect your mood/thought process as well. Stop Talking.

The results are more important for debating this subject than how M2K felt. Start thinking.

 

[Master Raven]

Have fun attempting to beat top players who know how to fight MK with your broken tactics POF.

 

[Chileno4Live]

lol i must be 1 of the few people that voted for "Not sure". I'm very iffy about this. MetaKnight is pain to deal with, i know, because the most unskilled players (like my friend who always Roll Dodge Dsmash) can beat more skilled players. It's so easy to learn how to play MetaKnight, in fact, if i play MetaKnight, i'm on the same level as i play with D3, while i'm playing D3 for almost 2 months.

however, i also know that MetaKnight can be beaten. Sure, i might not beat top players MK's like M2K, but those guys are more skilled than me so yeah lol. But if i play a MK player with my skill level, i can take it on, but very difficult. I've beaten MetaKnights from my skill level, and unless i now lose to my friend who is seriously less skilled than me (He can hardly SH c'mon >.>) then it'll be ridiculous. I always play Marth VS him so it might be due the fact that MK is marth's hardest match-up, but still....

(He does use Roll Dodge behind you and Dsmash, but it goes so fast it's hard for me to punish. I must learn to punish lol. But he doesnt'always do that, also Whorenado spam, you know.)

EDIT: Now i'm thinking about it, if you just learn the match-up and practice VS MK's ALOT, and i mean ALLOOT, then MetaKnight is not that hard to beat. Your familiar with him, you know his tricks, and you can punish it. I'll be learning to predict the Roll Dodge, and then i can own my friend again. I should've voted for No >.> Sorry lol. And we all saw that Ally beat M2K, it was very epic omg. (that first match INSANE DI OMG OMG ) So we all saw that M2K can be beaten, and that MK is beatable. He's not invincible. You just need to get the effort in learning to deal with them.

Those where my 2 cents If it's possible, i would like to change my vote to No, but at least it's not yes

 

[Red Arremer]

Despite Ally beating M2k at Apex as Snake, MK still has no bad matchups and wins about 95% outta tournies that allow him in.

This is a blatant lie you pulled out of your ***. Meta Knight wins around 30-40% which is nowhere near 95%!

 

[tekkie]

Pro-ban just hit the 1K mark.

 

[Red Arremer]

He didn't say there weren't other MKs there, in fact he didn't even say there weren't other good MKs there. He simply said that the rest of the best MKs weren't there.

But there also wasn't the rest of the best Non-MKs. APEX missed people like DEHF, Fiction or Reflex, as well.

By far the worst thing about Apex is that I've actually seen pro-bans talking about it and saying "This sucks, how can we spin this around to support our side?"

Rather than saying "Hey, maybe I should reconsider my viewpoint a little bit."

This is disgusting.

Ally would not have beaten M2K if Lain did not put him into losers IMO.

Even if this was true, you're still putting down Ally's efforts and claim something we can't possibly know.
Stop saying Ally would have lost. Even if Ally would have lost, it wouldn't change the fact that Meta Knight only took 4 spots in the Top 10, out of which only one was purely playing Meta Knight.

Pro-ban just hit the 1K mark.

Who cares about the exact numbers? Anti-Ban is catching up and up - the difference is even only like 8% anymore -, and several people who voted Yes in this poll (SuSa i.e.) have changed their minds. This point is moot.

 

[Jocko]

It's as simple as this: Meta Knight does not fit well into this game. The risk/reward with this character is so out of whack with every other character. Sure, some characters can fight him, but no one can go toe to toe with him. Banning him simply keeps the game more interesting on the tournament level. He might not win every tournament, but guaranteed someone (who probably doesn't deserve it) will finish very high in the placing with him on a consistent basis.

 

[Master Raven]

The numbers aren't going to sway MK's fate alone, especially given that a good majority of people on both ends that voted aren't really any notable players.

Speaking of DEHF, he's recently won a tourney over Tyrant, who took top 5 at WHOBO.

 

[Red Arremer]

but guaranteed someone (who probably doesn't deserve it) will finish very high in the placing with him on a consistent basis.

Name me examples of bad players placing better at major tournaments just because of Meta Knight.

 

[Brinzy]

That's flawed on so many levels.

- If someone who "doesn't deserve it" beats everyone else at a tournament, then they need to get better. He doesn't have such large advantages that someone of even skill is bound to lose completely.

- You don't know if banning him keeps the game more interesting.

- Many games have characters that can fight their best character but not go toe-to-toe with, yet this is not a major hindrance to their metagames. Brawl, in this respect, is no different. It is not necessary for characters to go "even" with MK, though 45:55 is certainly close enough.

- Metaknight fits just fine into this game. He just happens to be the best character. If people would quit treating him like some deity and just call him the "champ" of the characters, people would be less inclined to think that he's on a godly level.

Yes, he's got some pretty powerful traits overall, but he is simply the best character, not a character that is above everyone else and wrecks everything in sight.

 

[Curaga]

Ally would not have beaten M2K if Lain did not put him into losers IMO.

Ally played AMAZING but regardless, M2K just had an off day and could not handle the pressure just as he could not do so at ROM against MaNg0.

Now Meta Knight won't bet banned because the second best character in the game beat a MK once. Good job SBR.

Now Meta Knight won't be"t" banned because the community poll has continued to be too close to call either way. Good job Poof. o_o;

Only joshing you because the community negativity is turned up to 11.

Edit:
Just watched the matches between Ally and M2K. Very impressive and amazing stuff! Even if its an another top tier character, the focus on skill vs skill isn't lost with a Meta Knight. If anything, the learning curve on Meta Knight might just be quicker to get the hang of.

I'll probably launch a project on getting one of my area's best MK to take on some of the best players of various characters to make a video collection of how different characters take on Meta Knight, regardless of a win or loss. This furthers community knowledge and prevents a minimal margin of people from continuously bashing others.

Hopefully, by May 2010 there won't be an issue over any concerns for banning a character, MK or otherwise.

Edit v2:
As a note to continue Spadefox's point: I initially voted to ban Meta Knight after I witnessed the massive beating of phenominal players by several MK mains. Recently, at the local arcades, those same players who were defeated developed very impressive anti-MK playstyles. One of which was a Marth player who succeeded in beating 5/6 of the MK players in 2/3s. This and the views of my Crew as well as opinions/views/videos found on Smashboards has made me change my mind.

(Shortversion: I flip-flopped.)

 

[Angel.M <3 C:]

Ally would not have beaten M2K if Lain did not put him into losers IMO.

Ally played AMAZING but regardless, M2K just had an off day and could not handle the pressure just as he could not do so at ROM against MaNg0.

Now Meta Knight won't bet banned because the second best character in the game beat a MK once. Good job SBR.

The only reason why Sheik was not banned from the get go in Melee was because wave dashing, wave shining, etc was not yet discovered. Good luck trying to find more USEFUL glitches in Brawl guys. I'm pretty sure we are on the lookout for them now more for Brawl then we were for Melee.

m2k even said he played his hardest in that set with Ally, and said he was outplayed.

and did you forget m2k ***** lain in loser's finals?

And did you also forget Dojo lost to Candy?

arguably the second best MK getting 13TH?!

sooo lain takes out the top two MK's

and a snake takes BOTH those same Mk's out of the tournament.

Also Ksizzle's MK getting beat by Anti's snake.

And not to mention seibrik's MK getting beat by ADHD's diddy.

The only MK in top 10 that was taken out by another MK was Anti and he didn't even go MK

 

[Nic64]

(Wario/Snake/Marth are debatable for 50:50 AFAIK been off-on in the community due to not having my Wii since December (but still attending tournaments and going to friends places ;o so not out of the loop)

I don't think marth is debatable, he gets wrecked by MK almost as hard as ROB, one of the worst high tiers against MK IMO

I'd like to know what more people think about olimar, I've heard that put anywhere from even to 80-20 MK, one of those sounds more reasonable than the other to me...

Ally would not have beaten M2K if Lain did not put him into losers IMO.

Ally played AMAZING but regardless, M2K just had an off day and could not handle the pressure just as he could not do so at ROM against MaNg0.

M2K wouldn't be an issue if pro-ban hadn't made him an issue, it's amusing to watch you guys back pedaling on that now and acting as if it doesn't matter.

Apex doesn't matter more because M2K isn't as good as it gets. I believe spammers MK was actually more what a metaknight should do M2K is just extremely good but if an MK is played at its highest level it will be more like spammers and how dojos was vs dsf, campy and unapproachable.

I think if you wanted to play a character with 100% optimal strategy it wouldn't be the same for every matchup sometimes aggression is good, sometimes campy is good, MK has the tools to do both effectively and he does benefit from using both.

 

[Red Arremer]

I don't think marth is debatable, he gets wrecked by MK almost as hard as ROB, one of the worst high tiers against MK IMO

I'd like to know what more people think about olimar, I've heard that put anywhere from even to 80-20 MK, one of those sounds more reasonable than the other to me...

IMO - Meta Knight vs Olimar is around 60:40. MK has several tools to hold Olimar off of his *** and can gimp the lil Captain into oblivion (though that's what pretty much everyone can do, lol), but Olimar's camp and grabgame are far too good to be anything worse than 60:40.

 

[Pikaville]

Im saying no because he's not broken,he's just very very good.

Plus if you can kick his *** then other characters wont be so tough(Except CP'S)

 

[CaliburChamp]

m2k even said he played his hardest in that set with Ally, and said he was outplayed.

and did you forget m2k ***** lain in loser's finals?

And did you also forget Dojo lost to Candy?

arguably the second best MK getting 13TH?!

sooo lain takes out the top two MK's

and a snake takes BOTH those same Mk's out of the tournament.

Also Ksizzle's MK getting beat by Anti's snake.

And not to mention seibrik's MK getting beat by ADHD's diddy.

The only MK in top 10 that was taken out by another MK was Anti and he didn't even go MK

Nice! Now that is some good proof.

 

[Chileno4Live]

I think that if MetaKnight gets banned, then other Top Tiier characters would dominate, resulting in more bans. I know this has been told, but i feel the same way. MetaKnight must be Marth's hardest match-up, what if he's not around? Marth can be a pain in the a*s to deal with.

I also agree to the guy above me, he's not broken, definately not. He's beatable, it's not that he's impossible to beat. Ally and Lain did, so why couldn't we? Just try to learn the match-up, and you always have a secondary to deal with MK if your main cannot. Though, MetaKnight is very, very good. You need alot of experience to deal with them and you need to learn how he plays etc etc, but eventually, all the hard efforts is pulling of. For example, on the Marth boards there are several threads on how to fight MetaKnight, thats very helpful.

EDIT: I mean the guy above the guy above me, xD

 

[Super Shadow Brawler 99]

Wow, some of these players are amazing. MK should stick around because you guys just gave pretty good proof that it just takes some skill to beat him. Thanks for changing my mind completely about MK players.

 

[SuSa]

I don't think marth is debatable, he gets wrecked by MK almost as hard as ROB, one of the worst high tiers against MK IMO

IIRC Marth have the matchup 55:50 (may have been 60:40.. but I think that was AGES ago) - with an arguable 50:50 to some people.

 

[adumbrodeus]

m2k even said he played his hardest in that set with Ally, and said he was outplayed.

and did you forget m2k ***** lain in loser's finals?

And did you also forget Dojo lost to Candy?

arguably the second best MK getting 13TH?!

sooo lain takes out the top two MK's

and a snake takes BOTH those same Mk's out of the tournament.

Also Ksizzle's MK getting beat by Anti's snake.

And not to mention seibrik's MK getting beat by ADHD's diddy.

The only MK in top 10 that was taken out by another MK was Anti and he didn't even go MK

As much as I would like to use this tournament to proclaim the death of pro-ban, that's completely illogical.

It's easy for it to be a fluke.

M2K loses when playing his absolute hardest to Ally, maybe *gasp* ally's better now, or M2k was having an off day.

Loss to lain suggests he was having an off day or a fluke.

The same could be said for every other MK loss.

This really does nothing against the enormous body of data that MK is dominating in the metagame.

The important point is that there is nothing to prove that the dominance is great enough to warrant a ban.

IIRC Marth have the matchup 55:50 (may have been 60:40.. but I think that was AGES ago) - with an arguable 50:50 to some people.

...

No, the Marth match-up has been getting worse with discoveries, not better. It used to be a dead even, then discoveries (MK safely outranges Marth, MK outzones Marth) bumped it up to 60-40, it's generally stayed around there, occasionally shifting up to 65-35, but there's not way it even approaches even.

I think that if MetaKnight gets banned, then other Top Tiier characters would dominate, resulting in more bans. I know this has been told, but i feel the same way. MetaKnight must be Marth's hardest match-up, what if he's not around? Marth can be a pain in the a*s to deal with.

Horrible argument, the other top tiers have legitimate counter-picks, their dominance is nowhere near as great as MK, though Marth would probably be the best in an MK-less environment.

Anti-ban already has the superior argument, we don't need to make slippery slope assertions (though applying the exact same criteria is fine, that is a reductio ad absurdum, but this is just assuming since it forges no logical basis for the later bans) or place word's in pro-ban's mouth (MK is unbeatable!!!!!!).