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

[Falconv1.0]

Wario? Projectiles??????????????????????

I think he meant the Bike pieces.

That or he's a moron.

 

[rehab]

Do what I did and be happy dude: triple the dosage

 

[Falconv1.0]

Do what I did and be happy dude: triple the dosage

That's why I'm on vicodin detox atm though.

=/

 

[RDK]

As far as the culture, the Japanese Brawl community has, from what I understand, more of a "Play fair and fun" aspect to it - they're far more liberal with their bans (Especially soft banning the stronger or campier characters) in many games than Americans are. Americans have some kind of obsession with "Every option that's available must be left in the game if possible" that leaves soft bans unheard of and hard bans very rare.

This question is so ridiculous I feel compelled to answer.

Why is a level playing field the goal of a competitive game? Because without a level playing field, you have no competitive game.

Why should we ban things for that goal? See the first answer.

Now, a question that might be more appropriate could be "when is a playing field level enough?"

I don't know why I continue to let myself be surprised by the general public's blatant lack of understanding when it comes to the most basic principles of competitive fighting games. Honestly, this isn't heady, theoretical stuff. This is competitive fighting 101.

Banning is a last resort.

We do not ban things to maximize viability or diversity.

We ban things to minimize detriment to the metagame (overcentralization, breaking the game, etc.).

On top of this, we must have stringent criteria for what we do ban; if we didn't, and instead banned things on subjective whims (much akin to what all of the pro-ban camp is whining for), then somewhere down the line we're going to run into problems. Drawing arbitrary lines in the sand will always result in forcing us to rethink hazy decisions we made in the past.

 

[Mortimer]

I don't know why I continue to let myself be surprised by the general public's blatant lack of understanding when it comes to the most basic principles of competitive fighting games. Honestly, this isn't heady, theoretical stuff. This is competitive fighting 101.

Banning is a last resort.

We do not ban things to maximize viability or diversity.

We ban things to minimize detriment to the metagame (overcentralization, breaking the game, etc.).

On top of this, we must have stringent criteria for what we do ban; if we didn't, and instead banned things on subjective whims (much akin to what all of the pro-ban camp is whining for), then somewhere down the line we're going to run into problems. Drawing arbitrary lines in the sand will always result in forcing us to rethink hazy decisions we made in the past.

What, exactly, point are you trying to make? Do you have a problem with what I said? Where does any of it disagree with this rant of yours?

 

[rehab]

MK don't fit it, dude. It ain't hard stuff.

That's why I'm on vicodin detox atm though.

=/

lmao, good sport. I'll stop

 

[RDK]

What, exactly, point are you trying to make? Do you have a problem with what I said? Where does any of it disagree with this rant of yours?

You and salaboB seem to be under the impression that characters, techniques, (what have you) should be banned from competitive games because it helps to "even the playing field". My point is that unless said character, technique, etc. actively breaks the game or overcentralizes to the point where it's a completely new game, it doesn't need a ban.

Quite literally, don't fix what's not broken.

To make it even simpler, I'll put it this way. Competitive gaming is meant to be fair to players, not characters. Since everyone has the option of choosing any character, using MK in a d!ckish way is just as viable a strategy for you as for your opponent, so it's still fair to all players involved.

If all players have the right to choose an inferior option, it's still fair.

 

[Mecakoto]

Mostly replying to RDK's last comment. This is from one of my most favorite sites:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameBreaker

This is not Meta. Annoying and boring as hell as he is to play and fight against, especially at high levels when people don't need to spam Tornado, (or, as someone I play with has started to do, Up-B 3-4 times in a row when I'm no where near lethal damage... idiot) he does not fit this trope. Look past the article for REAL examples of Game Breaking things.

 

[MetaKnight33]

No Way!!!!!!!!

Meta Knight should not be banned because everyone is allowed to use him. He isn't even that hard of a character to figure out. Just use his Grab> Down Throw> F-Air> Up-B. It's a great combo that gives a quick thirty percent with some great knock back at the end of the combo. What's more if Meta Knight attacks with an arial as he is attacked with one both players get hit and so Meta Knight might accidentally put himself into a very poor position where he is easily killed. Lots of characters are pretty good against Meta Knight, especially floaty characters with lots of projectiles such as Toon Link. Kirby is also pretty good against Meta Knight.

 

[Masmasher@]

Meta Knight should not be banned because everyone is allowed to use him. He isn't even that hard of a character to figure out. Just use his Grab> Down Throw> F-Air> Up-B. It's a great combo that gives a quick thirty percent with some great knock back at the end of the combo. What's more if Meta Knight attacks with an arial as he is attacked with one both players get hit and so Meta Knight might accidentally put himself into a very poor position where he is easily killed. Lots of characters are pretty good against Meta Knight, especially floaty characters with lots of projectiles such as Toon Link. Kirby is also pretty good against Meta Knight.

whhhuuuuuttt?

 

[Mortimer]

You and salaboB seem to be under the impression that characters, techniques, (what have you) should be banned from competitive games because it helps to "even the playing field". My point is that unless said character, technique, etc. actively breaks the game or overcentralizes to the point where it's a completely new game, it doesn't need a ban.

Quite literally, don't fix what's not broken.

To make it even simpler, I'll put it this way. Competitive gaming is meant to be fair to players, not characters. Since everyone has the option of choosing any character, using MK in a d!ckish way is just as viable a strategy for you as for your opponent, so it's still fair to all players involved.

If all players have the right to choose an inferior option, it's still fair.

So what you're saying is, your definition of a "level enough" playing field is when nothing breaks the game or causes overcentralization.

You still haven't disagreed with or contradicted anything I've said.

 

[Mecakoto]

Meta Knight should not be banned because everyone is allowed to use him. He isn't even that hard of a character to figure out. Just use his Grab> Down Throw> F-Air> Up-B. It's a great combo that gives a quick thirty percent with some great knock back at the end of the combo. What's more if Meta Knight attacks with an arial as he is attacked with one both players get hit and so Meta Knight might accidentally put himself into a very poor position where he is easily killed. Lots of characters are pretty good against Meta Knight, especially floaty characters with lots of projectiles such as Toon Link. Kirby is also pretty good against Meta Knight.

Perfect example of people coming to this thread with NO real experience at a competitive level and have the same voting power as people like M2K.

And you need to redefine your definition of "good."

I REALLY hope you are a troll...

 

[aeghrur]

Mortimer is right on this RDK.
He's not proposing that we should make the playing field absolutely even.
He's simply saying that we, as any competitive gaming community will, will ban to reach a level playing field. However, we have not yet defined the specific threshold by which a field is "level" and this is what he's asking. What is your definition of "level?" You said it was when nothing overcentralizes or breaks the game. Fine. =/ Doesn't do anything against Mortimer's post.

 

[Tommy_G]

I think I'm going to create a whole new set of meanings for different words and then use them in a weird context to get Yoshi's Island brawl stage banned. Overcentralization, broken, level, diversity, and 'bad match ups' are a few that I'm thinking about starting with.

 

[Curaga]

I think I'm going to create a whole new set of meanings for different words and then use them in a weird context to get Yoshi's Island brawl stage banned. Overcentralization, broken, level, diversity, and 'bad match ups' are a few that I'm thinking about starting with.

Don't forget Dair. Thats important for some reason.

Shy Guys.

 

[thrillagorilla]

No, character 2 is more broken than character 5 with the way you have it laid out - a 45:55 is so close it may as well be considered neutral.

This was set up as a trap, and you went for the bait. According to your criteria, a character must have even match-ups or better against all characters to warrant a ban. I also stated in the context explanation that 45-55 was a distinct disadvantage, rather than even. The character had a non-debatable disadvantage against another character, and yet you would claim the character to be broken and the 45-55 MU to be even (which I stated was non-negotiable, it was a distinct disadvantage). If nothing else, this helps to illustrate the point of my questions dating all the way back to the beginning of the conversation... Your criteria is based on personal opinion rather than underlying truths of competition, a.k.a. your reason for a ban is personal bias and gain. I gave you the benefit of the doubt all the way until this last exchange, but in the end it would seem I have wasted your time and mine.

Given that there are two "even" characters character 5 would not need a ban, as it would simply be a natural response to character 2 -- there are two characters that it's intelligent to select between (The extremely strong 2 with only one very minor disadvantaged matchup, or the ensured safe against it or anyone else 5). It would depend on the goals of the community if they wanted to ban both to try to open up more diversity, from just a dry example for a nonexistant game I couldn't possibly make even a recommendation on whether leaving both or banning both would create better results.

This illustrates my point again. You believe that personal bias provides enough evidence for a ban. It doesn't. The idea isn't to simply do whatever a part of the community wants when it comes to competitive game-play. The point is to keep competitive game play healthy. Bans are a last resort to this due to their severity. Think if it like this. As a doctor would you take care of a paper cut by amputating the arm? I think (or at least hope) not. On occation, time will heal the wound. In the case with Metaknight, things seem to be getting better rather than worse (if tournament results are any indication). All I know for sure at the moment is that Metaknight is not destroying competitive viability, which is what the recommended rule-set is meant to foster.

I don't know that they don't want it, but I was referencing specifically a character with only 50:50 matchups. MK not only has that as his worst but has better for many. Don't change the focus of your argument like that and expect my response to still be relevant.

It IS relevant. Ban criteria needs to be universal, because if it isn't slippery slopes cease to be fallacy. It sets a precedent for changing the rules based on our own whims and personal biases. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the reason Pro-ban has failed two consecutive times to convince the entire community that Metaknight should be banned.

If basic time investment being even matters, MK is a problem. If you're okay with MK users getting off easy on it, then nothing I can say will convince you. It comes down to this: Everyone except MK has "Master two characters or deal with bad matchups" to face. You either spend your time on two characters, one your main and one to cover that main's bad matchups, or you spend your time perfecting the bad matchups so you have more ability at them. MK does not have to spend more time at either of those - he needs no secondary to cover his bad matchups, and he doesn't take more practicing so that you can beat those of slightly lower skill than you at them.

Note that this only really applies to high tier characters for the fairness, I'm not trying to do something ridiculous like balancing out the time investment required to cover a lower tier character's weaknesses (Though even there you should be able to find a second character to cover their drawbacks, and use the lower tier one when not facing a horribly offset matchup so the option of mastering two characters or just dealing with the bad matchups still holds true even there for effort requirements.)

Regardless of one's personal reasons for choosing another character and working on them, players still have the option of choosing Metaknight and working on using him to maximum efficiency. The playing field is still fair in this respect, which if I am not mistaken was one of your points earlier in the discussion. A character doesn't choose a player, a player chooses their character. I still play DK even though DeDeDe has an infinite on him. I accept the consequences, even if I don't like it. I accept the fact I need to invest more time into another character to make up for this weakness. I could choose a character like Metaknight that doesn't have this issue. I don't. If the option is open to you, take it or leave it, but don't complain about people who decide to take it.

I'm fed up with your assumptions about why I hold these views. I said "Bans are opinions" and you started in on me accusing my view of having no basis in fact. Opinions can and generally are based in fact. I went into significant detail about why all ban criteria in Brawl is opinion based - there is no governing board that's laid out rules, so there's no other option. Yet even with that explanation you persisted in working from the viewpoint that my ban criteria were purely opinion and had no basis in fact unless I suddenly answered the questions you had demanded an answer for - questions I'd provided the answers for throughout this thread, and had even largely answered in my previous posts to you. All of my reasoning has justification behind it, but it's still just my opinion because there are no guidelines for Brawl from any official ruling group to base decisions on. That would be when it would cease to just be popular opinion driving the banning or not. That entirely insulting basic assumption is why you didn't receive an answer from me up to this point, and frankly you're not getting any more after this post - you can read it from what I say with other people if this one doesn't explain enough.

I will not play dog and pony show for you, jumping through hoops you've set up to get the answers you're looking for simply because my response was not in the line you were expecting.

Feel free not to answer me if you don't feel the need to. I have no control over that. As to your assertions, I will put it simply. You are correct in saying that opinions can be and usually are based on fact. Why you are asserting that your own personal veiw-points should be the standard for everyone else without giving universal reasons why is an entirely different matter, and is ultimately the one that counts. If there is no reason to follow the recommended rule-set laid out by the BR (because as you say very correctly, they are not the ruling body by which all tournaments are dictated by) then why are you not simply making your own tournaments based on your own rule-set? Why are you trying to change something that by your assertion isn't relevant in the long run? Why does it matter to you what the recommended rule set is when you have the power to ignore it? If you want to change things in your personal area, then do it. If you want to change your own personal circumstances, then nothing is stopping you. Just please do not try and change the standard by which the rest of the community goes by based on your own personal wants and needs.

As far as the culture, the Japanese Brawl community has, from what I understand, more of a "Play fair and fun" aspect to it - they're far more liberal with their bans (Especially soft banning the stronger or campier characters) in many games than Americans are. Americans have some kind of obsession with "Every option that's available must be left in the game if possible" that leaves soft bans unheard of and hard bans very rare.

If I am not mistaken, non-static stages and items are the only things banned in Japan. This allows for the ultimate showing of technical skill and ability. "Fun" and "fair" are both very subjective and have nothing to do with it.

I have one final point, and this is to anyone that wants to bother reading. "Fun" is subjective and should not be used for ban criteria. The same thing goes for the idea of a "level playing field". All players have the ability to choose Metaknight if they really believe he is the best option. There is nothing stopping you. If you refuse to use Metaknight, then it is your own choice. If you are trying to get him banned simply so that others don't have an option that you have already decided not to use, you are the one creating the non-level playing field for the opponent. This is not universally directed at the pro-ban, I'm sure that some of you aren't doing this for your own personal benefit. Eventually, if Metaknight truly is broken, then the community will resort to Metaknight vs. Metaknight and the game will break down, with no one interested in it on a competitive level anymore. This is why Melee is still played, because it is good and doesn't have game-play that comes down to one option. This is why games in the Street Fighter series are still played. This is why games like Star Craft are still played. This is why ANYTHING old is still played on a competitive level. If a game is poorly designed, then it will eventually be laid to the wayside unless drastic measures are taken, aka a ban. Until it is proven that Metaknight will lead down this road (over-centralization is the proper terminology) then the community will thrive until the game truly has run it's course, which may never even end.

If you want to change the community around you, feel free to try and do so by hosting your own events, making your own rule-sets, etc. Just don't go about trying to convince everyone on the whole that they need to see things from your personal point of view. Opinions are not the purpose of the recommended rule-set.

 

[cubaisdeath]

Meta Knight should not be banned because everyone is allowed to use him. He isn't even that hard of a character to figure out. Just use his Grab> Down Throw> F-Air> Up-B. It's a great combo that gives a quick thirty percent with some great knock back at the end of the combo. What's more if Meta Knight attacks with an arial as he is attacked with one both players get hit and so Meta Knight might accidentally put himself into a very poor position where he is easily killed. Lots of characters are pretty good against Meta Knight, especially floaty characters with lots of projectiles such as Toon Link. Kirby is also pretty good against Meta Knight.

I really hope you're a little kid or something, because everything in this post is completely wrong

 

[Binx]

Mostly replying to RDK's last comment. This is from one of my most favorite sites:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameBreaker

This is not Meta. Annoying and boring as hell as he is to play and fight against, especially at high levels when people don't need to spam Tornado, (or, as someone I play with has started to do, Up-B 3-4 times in a row when I'm no where near lethal damage... idiot) he does not fit this trope. Look past the article for REAL examples of Game Breaking things.

Dude, thanks for linking that, I must have spent 3 hours reading crap there, its awesome, whats stupid is I've done more than 80% of the stuff they mentioned in the game's I've actually played, I really look forward to trying some of it out in the games I havn't yet played though =)

 

[Curaga]

Thrillagorilla wins.

 

[Mortimer]

Thrillagorilla wins.

Yeah, blinding wall of yellow text ftw

 

[thrillagorilla]

Yeah, blinding wall of yellow text ftw

Sorry about that... I have a tendency to be a bit long-winded to try and cover all my bases when making a full out argument. I did that when I argued pro-ban too (minus having it ALL as yellow text).

 

[Vect0r]

I voted "yes" a while ago. I feel bad for doing it though.
At that time I was a bit of a scrub.

 

[salaboB]

I voted "yes" a while ago. I feel bad for doing it though.
At that time I was a bit of a scrub.

You went to tournaments and whined at people if they didn't play the way you wanted them to play?

 

[SirroMinus1]

Banning stuff will never solve anything

 

[Masmasher@]

Banning stuff will never solve anything

but you must admit this is becoming a bit of a annoyance since this topics been brought up 3 times

 

[SirroMinus1]

but you must admit this is becoming a bit of a annoyance since this topics been brought up 3 times

yea but his community needs to know there other fighting game communities out there that face worse problems and they get pass the hurdles with practice.
every time we find a problem we ban it on the spot. what for?

 

[salaboB]

Banning stuff will never solve anything

It solved Akuma...

(Proof that your statement is not always true)

 

[SirroMinus1]

It solved Akuma...

(Proof that your statement is not always true)

He was unstoppable. MK isn't
If theres a point in time when meta-knight wins all of his matches with 3 stock then he should be banned

 

[noodles]

poeple cant prove the same for mk

 

[GeN0]

MetaKnight being banned would be as pointless as banning any other fighter in the smash franchise. A ban would have to consist of the following criteria


1. Makes over 50% or more of a figting gamers roster not valid for play.
(When it comes to MK almost everyone has a chance to beat him even on a equal balanced of skill level. It's just much harder then beating other fighters of the same tier such as Mario Vs Ike, then Mario Vs MK, Mario has a chance of winning no matter how slight it may be)

2. Anyone can pick up the fighter no matter there skill level.
(This has never apllied to MK and never will its like saying the someone who just started playing brawl can pick up MK and beat someone like Ally, which is not happening)

Im sure there's more i could cover but i just don't seeing metaknight being ban worthy whatsoever unless something happens where metaknight can 3 stock everyone consistently with little effort then yes, I change my opinon, but for now I'm going to have to say no.

 

[ShadowLink84]

1. Makes over 50% or more of a figting gamers roster not valid for play.
(When it comes to MK almost everyone has a chance to beat him even on a equal balanced of skill level. It's just much harder then beating other fighters of the same tier such as Mario Vs Ike, then Mario Vs MK, Mario has a chance of winning no matter how slight it may be)

MvC2.
Only 4 characters are at the highest levels of play.
GG?

2. Anyone can pick up the fighter no matter there skill level.
(This has never apllied to MK and never will its like saying the someone who just started playing brawl can pick up MK and beat someone like Ally, which is not happening)

Irrelevant, all arguments concerning a ban assume high level gameplay.

 

[salaboB]

He was unstoppable. MK isn't
If theres a point in time when meta-knight wins all of his matches with 3 stock then he should be banned

It doesn't matter, you said banning never solves anything. I proved your absolute statement wrong, and you had no supporting details for why it would be true for Brawl when it wasn't always true.

I said nothing about MK being unstoppable, are you just making up a point for me so you'll have something to argue against?

 

[thumbswayup]

Banning stuff will never solve anything

Banning Brawl will solve everything

 

[GeN0]

MvC2.
Only 4 characters are at the highest levels of play.
GG?


Irrelevant, all arguments concerning a ban assume high level gameplay.

Yes 4 characters are at the highest level of game play but do people still use and win with other characters....yes?

And yes all arguements assume high level gameplay and i am assuming this too, when I say a noob I don't mean somone who just happened to pick up brawl and started playing im referring to someone who has already been introduced to the tourny scene but lacks in skill level compared to top players, but using the character, which in question is MK, would make skill level irrelevant, which MK does not do whatsoever.



(Is anyone else looking seeing that thread has 477 pages when it only has 475 or is that just me?)

 

[Tommy_G]

Banning Brawl will solve everything

Banning people who complain about things being broken until those things are banned will solve everything.

 

[RDK]

Mortimer, my bad if I misread your post. It seemed a lot like you were arguing that we should ban things in order to further level the playing field. Which we don't do.

To salaboB: does MK fit any of these characteristics?

* Over-centralization (shifts emphasis to a completely new center; i.e. around one character)

* Anti-Competitive (randomness, lag, etc.)

* Prevents competition (freeze glitches, invisible characters, removes characters from the field, etc.)

These are the basic ban criteria. If you don't agree with them, feel free to make a compelling case for an addition.

 

[Biinii]

If basic time investment being even matters, MK is a problem. If you're okay with MK users getting off easy on it, then nothing I can say will convince you. It comes down to this: Everyone except MK has "Master two characters or deal with bad matchups" to face. You either spend your time on two characters, one your main and one to cover that main's bad matchups, or you spend your time perfecting the bad matchups so you have more ability at them. MK does not have to spend more time at either of those - he needs no secondary to cover his bad matchups, and he doesn't take more practicing so that you can beat those of slightly lower skill than you at them.

I'm tired of this. This "blabla MK got uber MUs and you don't need to play with other characters" is just wrong. Why would you pick MK to play against a Wario when you can pick Marth? Why would you play an even matchup when you can play an advantageous matchup?

 

[auroreon]

You and salaboB seem to be under the impression that characters, techniques, (what have you) should be banned from competitive games because it helps to "even the playing field". My point is that unless said character, technique, etc. actively breaks the game or overcentralizes to the point where it's a completely new game, it doesn't need a ban.

Quite literally, don't fix what's not broken.

To make it even simpler, I'll put it this way. Competitive gaming is meant to be fair to players, not characters. Since everyone has the option of choosing any character, using MK in a d!ckish way is just as viable a strategy for you as for your opponent, so it's still fair to all players involved.

If all players have the right to choose an inferior option, it's still fair.

I just want to say... that saying is incredibly ignorant.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it". If we as a race lived according to this saying, how far do you think we would have developed. I can tell you that its extremely unlikely that we would have the ability to debate this issue from different parts of the planet, or indeed even to play this game at all.
What that saying suggests is that as long as something successfuly functions how it was designed to, there is no reason to improve it in any way. This is the equivilant of a software developer never updating to add functionality.
Personally the MetaKnight debate doesn't really concern me, on the one hand a ban would probably help to bring more balance to the game but I don't know if it would be enough to warrant the inconvenience to MetaKnight mains.

Also, the way you talk about character choice in this game seems to suggest that all you see is the viablity of a character. What you aren't taking into account is character preference, players do not just choose to main a character based on how competetively viable they are, some base their character choice on preference of playstyle whereas others such as myself choose the character they are most fond of.
You say that " Competitive gaming is meant to be fair to players " but I fail to see how it is fair to the players that they are forced to choose certain characters in order to compete at the highest levels of play.
Personally though I see these arguments centered around balance to be obsolete, through the use of codes we have the oppertunity to improve the balance of the game thereby satisfying both sides of this argument and then some, but instead people have changed the actual game mechanics...

 

[SirroMinus1]

It doesn't matter, you said banning never solves anything. I proved your absolute statement wrong, and you had no supporting details for why it would be true for Brawl when it wasn't always true.

I said nothing about MK being unstoppable, are you just making up a point for me so you'll have something to argue against?

banning dont solve noting but the smash community is known for banning thing.
First items. yea who cares

then chain grabbing and know mk we ban stuff more than the average fighting game community.

name other things the street fighter community banned besides akuma.

 

[salaboB]

To salaboB: does MK fit any of these characteristics?

* Over-centralization (shifts emphasis to a completely new center; i.e. around one character)

* Anti-Competitive (randomness, lag, etc.)

* Prevents competition (freeze glitches, invisible characters, removes characters from the field, etc.)

Are you going to provide a point for me too just so that you can have something to argue against?

I've already said that I recognize MK won't fit that set of ban criteria and anyone insisting on them will never be convinced by what I'm saying. I have said this repeatedly. I even said it in a response to you, a while ago.

You're not going to get me to disagree with that because MK doesn't fit the "breaking the game" requirements. Honestly, I wish you'd actually start reading the posts that you're responding to and stop trying to "win" the argument you think is going on. You're missing the point repeatedly.