Should Metaknight Be Banned? The Poll (LISTEN TO THE SBR PODCAST!)

[PhantomX]

Azen used MK in doubles at Hobo 11, and even uses him against M2K because he's come to acknowledge that he'll never be able to beat M2K's MK with Lucario.

 

[Kookie]

It is like they want to feel persecuted even though they have an imbalanced character. I mean, if I played the best character and liked winning, I guess I would get defensive about people wanting to ban my character as well.

Clearly if all the MK players do not want to get banned, they should all switch to Jigglypuff and in the next tournament at the front of each match, hold the shield up until it breaks.

That would make me smile. lol

 

[BrawlBro]

you have a point xienzo but the metaknight tournament results have numbers. specualtion can be wrong, numbers cant, the simplest answer is usually the right one

 

[XienZo]

Azen used MK in doubles at Hobo 11, and even uses him against M2K because he's come to acknowledge that he'll never be able to beat M2K's MK with Lucario.

Don't forget he acknowledges that he can't beat a lot of MKs as easily with MK as with Lucario. The Azen-M2K is a specific one time case, and just because its a MK doesn't mean Azen would do better with MK instead of Lucario. In fact, Azen-M2K is basically an exception to what Azen's matchups normally are like.

But don't forget, Azen is an exception himself in that he wins tourneys without maining MK.

you have a point xienzo but the metaknight tournament results have numbers. specualtion can be wrong, numbers cant, the simplest answer is usually the right one

Yes, but those numbers include the chances of an MK actually encountering a good Yoshi. For specific matchups, I believe we need to take in more "Friendlies" single-match statistics, because a Yoshi's almost never be equal to MK even in a MK-Yoshi only tournament because MK's are simply going to outnumber them. Outnumbering usually isn't a problem, but variables like how people don't always do excellent... and tripping(nice job Sakurai, even if we always played our best we'd still eventually lose once to a noob Ike out of a million)cause it to be troublesome.

 

[Kookie]

Don't forget he acknowledges that he can't beat a lot of MKs as easily with MK as with Lucario. The Azen-M2K is a specific one time case, and just because its a MK doesn't mean Azen would do better with MK instead of Lucario. In fact, Azen-M2K is basically an exception to what Azen's matchups normally are like.

But don't forget, Azen is an exception himself in that he wins tourneys without maining MK.

One of a kind, truly.

 

[Mmac]

I saw the basic facts about the MK vs Yoshi, and it looks pretty even. And besides, Yoshi's the only one that can make MK look... pathetic, in the way he gets chaingrabbed, but thats a different matter. In fact, I think I'm going to pick up Yoshi just to deal with MK. I'll just have to kill my fingers over the Dragonic thingie...

But anyhow, I'm fairly sure MK gives a big boost to Yoshi's ranking (once everyone stops denying the matchup)...

But then again, we can't sacrifice all the characters just for Yoshi and MK's sake, can we?.

Yay! Someone is paying attention to us!

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

If people did throw themselves heavily into whatever character they thought would best win tournies even during a temp ban (ie, completely ignored MK) then a temp ban would be the perfect way to check for the possibility of the metagame becoming even worse without him.

I'm not sure that's the most likely outcome of a temp ban though, I don't think people would just forget MK would be coming back soon.

People aren't going to look for counter measures to MK is they want to win tournaments under a temp ban environment. People will be more interested in beating Snake, Marth, G&W, or anyone else who becomes the best or among the best.

They temp ban will show how MK-less tournaments will be in terms of diversity, however a counter tactic to MK won;t be found unless the need for it arises and people look for it. Even if people do look for it while he's banned, it's going to take much, much longer to find a counter measure to him.

This is how a good majority of human development has worked for thousands of years, and it sure as heck hasn't changed over those years.

That's why challenges are being made to M2K and everyone who's saying other characters than MK can go even in tournaments against MK. Because there are reasons for banning him, and there's precious little evidence opposing them.

Or they're trying to prove their point in a tournament setting to show how MK isn't ban worthy.

 

[Mortimer]

They temp ban will show how MK-less tournaments will be in terms of diversity, however a counter tactic to MK won;t be found unless the need for it arises and people look for it. Even if people do look for it while he's banned, it's going to take much, much longer to find a counter measure to him.

If the counter-tactic to MK simply involves being better at the other characters, then a temp ban on MK could very well result in MK losing dominance. People will be forced to pick and get better with other characters.

 

[Brightside6382]

If he's not broken he doesn't warrant a ban. Simple as that.

 

[salaboB]

Or they're trying to prove their point in a tournament setting to show how MK isn't ban worthy.

Winning everything with him is not doing that.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

If the counter-tactic to MK simply involves being better at the other characters, then a temp ban on MK could very well result in MK losing dominance. People will be forced to pick and get better with other characters.

I'm doubtful of this.

Even with MK around people will still be trying to get better.

Winning everything with him is not doing that.

Of course,

This is why some people has temp dropped MK to pick up other characters to prove their points that he can be beaten.

People have picked him up to prove how broken he his, the opposite holds true.

 

[shaSLAM]

I had NEVER even touched metaknight before and me and my friend decided to enter a doubles tournament using metaknights and made it to the 3rd round... i think, we may have made it farther farther. (brackets were kinda screwy)

ALSO my friend had never played mk before either... and we beat some pretty decent teams.

i know doubles is a COMPLETELY different story than singles... but i think he's ban worthy nonetheless.
mainly cuz he's a ***** to face in singles as well!

 

[Justblaze647]

If MK wins why don't you pick him up and win a tournament?

M2K shouldn't drop his main just because you asked him to. Why don't you prove MK completely dominates by picking up MK and winning a national tournament? Probably because you have a main you don't want to drop. Do you see why your argument sucks?

lol Yeah... I think my mains are pretty good...

But I am not suggesting that M2K drop MK...

I'm just showing him that he's being a Hypocrite

 

[Mmac]

You know, I really don't get this "Beat a Profession MetaKnight in a tournament setting, then your character is Neutral/Advantage" Crap. It seems like even if you do beat a Professional MetaKnight in a tournament, it doesn't do jack ****!

Anther's Pikachu beat M2K, is he even? No
ChuDat beat M2K with Kirby, is he even? Kirby's think so, but MetaKnight's don't admit to it.
Reflex beat M2K With Wario, is he even? Lawl, they think They have an Heavy Advantage!

Yet, with the "Lack" of tournament results, the majority agrees on 45:55 for Yoshi. It just boggles the mind....

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

You guys are really distorting how much Meta Knight wins when you say that you have to use Meta Knight to win. I'm going to start from the bottom of Ankoku's list and count how many wins were by Meta Knight and how many were by non-Meta Knight. Three groups: Meta Knight only, Meta Knight + other characters, no Meta Knight at all.

October (so far):

Meta Knight: 7
Meta Knight with others: 6
Non-Meta Knight: 17

Does that look like "Meta Knight or lose" to you? It sure doesn't to me. Meta Knight alone won about 23.3% of tournaments, and Meta Knight was involved in winning about 43.3% of tournaments. Is that better than every other individual character is doing? Sure. Is that a sign that you have to use Meta Knight to win? Well, given that over half of the tournament winners didn't, it sure doesn't seem that way.

Let's do September!

September:

Meta Knight: 11
Meta Knight with others: 3
Non-Meta Knight: 27

In September, Meta Knight alone won 26.8% of tournaments and was involved in winning 34.1% of tournaments. That's overall less dominant than he has been so far in October and still indicative of a situation where other characters can win just fine.

No reasonable system of counting has him winning even half of tournaments, let alone most of them. He's certainly doing very well for himself, but there's a big difference between doing the best and being the only one winning.

 

[Deoxys]

You know, I really don't get this "Beat a Profession MetaKnight in a tournament setting, then your character is Neutral/Advantage" Crap. It seems like even if you do beat a Professional MetaKnight in a tournament, it doesn't do jack ****!

Anther's Pikachu beat M2K, is he even? No
ChuDat beat M2K with Kirby, is he even? Kirby's think so, but MetaKnight's don't admit to it.
Reflex beat M2K With Wario, is he even? Lawl, they think They have an Heavy Advantage!

Yet, with the "Lack" of tournament results, the majority agrees on 45:55 for Yoshi. It just boggles the mind....

It's not that you have to beat a profession MK, you have to make it look even. You see, if MK has a 80:20 matchup against CF (I think it's better), then he loses 1/5 matches against a CF of equal skill. Reflex winning one of 3 rounds against M2K doesn't mean Wario goes even with MK, in fact it implies the opposite.

 

[shaSLAM]

You guys are really distorting how much Meta Knight wins when you say that you have to use Meta Knight to win. I'm going to start from the bottom of Ankoku's list and count how many wins were by Meta Knight and how many were by non-Meta Knight. Three groups: Meta Knight only, Meta Knight + other characters, no Meta Knight at all.

October (so far):

Meta Knight: 7
Meta Knight with others: 6
Non-Meta Knight: 17

Does that look like "Meta Knight or lose" to you? It sure doesn't to me. Meta Knight alone won about 23.3% of tournaments, and Meta Knight was involved in winning about 43.3% of tournaments. Is that better than every other individual character is doing? Sure. Is that a sign that you have to use Meta Knight to win? Well, given that over half of the tournament winners didn't, it sure doesn't seem that way.

Let's do September!

September:

Meta Knight: 11
Meta Knight with others: 3
Non-Meta Knight: 27

In September, Meta Knight alone won 26.8% of tournaments and was involved in winning 34.1% of tournaments. That's overall less dominant than he has been so far in October and still indicative of a situation where other characters can win just fine.

No reasonable system of counting has him winning even half of tournaments, let alone most of them. He's certainly doing very well for himself, but there's a big difference between doing the best and being the only one winning.

There is A TON of people who are too lazy to report results. those things are almost never 100% correct... every tourney I've been to... a MK has won... but thats just me.

 

[Ussi]

You guys are really distorting how much Meta Knight wins when you say that you have to use Meta Knight to win. I'm going to start from the bottom of Ankoku's list and count how many wins were by Meta Knight and how many were by non-Meta Knight. Three groups: Meta Knight only, Meta Knight + other characters, no Meta Knight at all.

October (so far):

Meta Knight: 7
Meta Knight with others: 6
Non-Meta Knight: 17

Does that look like "Meta Knight or lose" to you? It sure doesn't to me. Meta Knight alone won about 23.3% of tournaments, and Meta Knight was involved in winning about 43.3% of tournaments. Is that better than every other individual character is doing? Sure. Is that a sign that you have to use Meta Knight to win? Well, given that over half of the tournament winners didn't, it sure doesn't seem that way.

Let's do September!

September:

Meta Knight: 11
Meta Knight with others: 3
Non-Meta Knight: 27

In September, Meta Knight alone won 26.8% of tournaments and was involved in winning 34.1% of tournaments. That's overall less dominant than he has been so far in October and still indicative of a situation where other characters can win just fine.

No reasonable system of counting has him winning even half of tournaments, let alone most of them. He's certainly doing very well for himself, but there's a big difference between doing the best and being the only one winning.

So we wait till MK is near 70%? By then people have quit..

 

[adumbrodeus]

You can't be pro banning and then say he can only be banned when we prove that we won't find some way to attack MK.... That's basically like saying... I'm Pro banning if X impossible condition is met. You can't prove something doesn't exist when said possibility will always exist... It's counter-logical.

To put it in a simpler fashion... You said the possibility will always exist, if the possibility always exist you'll never be pro banning. In such a case as this, you can't just PROVE the possibility no longer exists, as there might be things in the game we could NEVER know about, we didn't make it.

I mean, possibly, the world could be thrown into an event horizon upon which we enter another reality where Meta Knights suck, but that's not very likely.

Possibility =/= probability

We can never, ever ban anything by your logic. Not even if it was a character of Akuma level brokeness. I'm sorry, but that is just bad reasoning.

You all misunderstand with the same issue, so let me explain further.

I have explained this MANY times previously, but I am not advocating that MK be banned when we prove a negative.

I am advocating that MK is banned, if he maintains his current state, when the metagame is sufficently mature.

When exactly that time would be is entirely up to debate, but it's a question of balancing MK's level of brokenness vs. the level of risk of finding counters.

As the metagame grows older, the less likely it will become that counters will be found, and once a certain threshhold is reached, we can safely ban the character.

By 5 years we can be pretty much positive of this. Personally I think the critical threshhold will be reached sooner, a year, perhaps less.


The problem is... we need to develop a responsible ban criteria first, before we can effectively decide how long is long enough to wait. From there we can weigh how far MK breaks the criteria and create a "test period", a set period of time we wait that, barring new discoveries, MK will be banned at the end of.

All I want you to demonstrate is that there is a current known technique that only works against MK, that shows he has something that makes a hope for an effective tactic vs. only him a realistic thing to think can exist. Against this possibility we have a series of tactics that work against him and others as well, and a number that don't work against him, and we can look at why they don't work and realize that MK is just a fairly standard character as far as his escapes from techniques go. Therefore it is unlikely anything specifically against him will ever be located, because he doesn't have unique stun properties the way the characters that do have specific vulnerabilities do (Like Ness/Lucas with the infinites against them from certain characters, the people who Dedede infinites, etc.), a large size that allows people to do followup hits against him easily after performing an initial move, or a heavy weight that causes him to fall back down rapidly enough to be combo'ed even at lower percents when other characters can't be. There's no property he has that would enable this, and frankly I don't believe better proof of it being impossible (Or extremely unlikely, as "impossible" is rather final) can be realistically demonstrated.

You have nothing even showing that this can be possible, all you're doing is stating your opinion that it could be found and claiming that you not only don't need proof but that I must somehow prove it can't be done. Well, I've listed reasons why it's not going to be found, why don't you tell me why they're wrong based on the mechanics of the game.

Summary for you:
He's small so combos needing large size to connect can't be found uniquely against him.
He's light so combos requiring him to fall back into them can't be found specifically against him. (And being light can be simulated for most combo purposes on heavier opponents by adding damage to them, so it's not a unique combo-creating attribute)
He doesn't have unusual length animations after being struck or breaking out of a grab, so combos that rely on the character doing something odd can't be found against him.
He does have some extremely fast attacks that can provide invulnerability frames, further providing him ways to break out of combos that would normally catch others.

Tell me which of these is incorrect. Tell me what I'm missing that leads you to claim something can be found specifically against him. Tell me why it's somehow okay for you to make things up, but anyone who disagrees with your statements of what will happen must have proof. And tell me what is lacking that can possibly be proven that would ever convince you a character couldn't have something against them and thus needed banning.

It may actually be his small size that makes it possible (sourspotting or sweet-spotting a particular move) or his light weight allows him to move high enough, or the specific attributes of certain moves. Or some tiny bit of code in the character's program that makes something work that shouldn't.

The point is, no matter how many things you cover, there's an infinite number of things you could've missed. That's the problem with explicit inclusivity and the entire reason the problem of induction exists.


To prove the failure of inductive reasoning, one does not need to provide a counter-example. That would only work if I was attempting to prove that certain stuff works only on MK which I'm not.

I simply need to point out that you have failed to cover every possible case and leave it at that.

Why? Because proof proves a lack of possibility of something, and I don't nessicarily believe your wrong. But we must always acknowledge that within a fighting game, the possibility exists, however slight, that something that we missed can be found, so while I will NOT declare that there is a totally character-specific weakness that subjects MK to equalizing combos, because of lack of proof to that effect I cannot say that they do not exist waiting to be found.

Lack of proof=/=proof to the contrary.

ALL AVALIABLE EVIDENCE SAY YOSHI DOES NOT COUNTER META KNIGHT.

Going even=/=counter.

Regardless, you fail in one easy to point out regard... if there are no players at the top level of play for a character, then tournament results will inaccurately reflect a bad match-up.

You know, I really don't get this "Beat a Profession MetaKnight in a tournament setting, then your character is Neutral/Advantage" Crap. It seems like even if you do beat a Professional MetaKnight in a tournament, it doesn't do jack ****!

Anther's Pikachu beat M2K, is he even? No
ChuDat beat M2K with Kirby, is he even? Kirby's think so, but MetaKnight's don't admit to it.
Reflex beat M2K With Wario, is he even? Lawl, they think They have an Heavy Advantage!

Yet, with the "Lack" of tournament results, the majority agrees on 45:55 for Yoshi. It just boggles the mind....

Because you don't have enough good players.

Given more good Yoshi players, we should see results, assuming the theoretical basis is there.

 

[ice_cream_man]

I like how I get to vote and I've never been to a tourney. Oh well haha. Don't ban him!

 

[Deoxys]

In reference to my match that was posted earlier, Fogo's MK (since he mains DDD) isn't a very good example for Yoshi vs. MK. Here is a match between me and Infinity, a great MK main, that ran extremely close. This should give you a good idea on what they are able to do to each other. Hope this helps with yalls discussion .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSSKeI45GYg

EDIT: As an added note, I personally believe MK vs. Yoshi is 6:4 MK and am pro ban on MK.

I wouldn't say great... I actually think Fogo did better, although that shuttle loop SD was obviously a huge error.

 

[SothE700k]

It's not really their decision. You're a tournament director right? Use your own judgement. It's not like there's a governing body over smash tournaments.

At the moment, its better than the people.
We can't get ANYTHING done, and whenever SBR comes out with rules, explanations and such, everyone listens.
People like you and me speak, NO ONE listens.

 

[XienZo]

adumbrodeus hit nearly everything bulls-eye.

I think the only thing he didn't address is the possiblity of so many people dropping the game entirely that it might hurt the metagame. I want to see his view on that point. The main issue being that if that were true, it'd give us a time limit possibly less than it takes for the metagame to mature.

 

[Skyshroud]

There is A TON of people who are too lazy to report results. those things are almost never 100% correct... every tourney I've been to... a MK has won... but thats just me.

Don't jump to conclusions. There is a very large sampling size of tournaments taken here, which means that the same general results should be true throughout other tournaments overall. Just because your area has a lot of MKs doesn't mean there aren't areas without any at all.

Plus, if the players are not into Smash enough to report their results, are they even worth considering?

 

[ice_cream_man]

There is A TON of people who are too lazy to report results. those things are almost never 100% correct... every tourney I've been to... a MK has won... but thats just me.

Ya but the ratio's will stay the same

 

[Deoxys]

At the moment, its better than the people.
We can't get ANYTHING done, and whenever SBR comes out with rules, explanations and such, everyone listens.
People like you and me speak, NO ONE listens.

I'm listening... I read the entire thread....

 

[adumbrodeus]

In reference to my match that was posted earlier, Fogo's MK (since he mains DDD) isn't a very good example for Yoshi vs. MK. Here is a match between me and Infinity, a great MK main, that ran extremely close. This should give you a good idea on what they are able to do to each other. Hope this helps with yalls discussion .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSSKeI45GYg

EDIT: As an added note, I personally believe MK vs. Yoshi is 6:4 MK and am pro ban on MK.

Yeah... he's really not all that good unfortunately.

He needs to fix his chain grab, I saw far too many failures.

Fair spike kills earlier then usmash, so that's what he should've been going for... he never even tried it.

He also made poor use of the pivot grab.


An accurate representation would have Yoshi suceeding in the entire chaingrab every time, knowing the percents for chaingrab vs. Usmash, killing primarily with fair spike, and grabbing pretty much every approach.

adumbrodeus hit nearly everything bulls-eye.

I think the only thing he didn't address is the possiblity of so many people dropping the game entirely that it might hurt the metagame. I want to see his view on that point.

That's why we have to balance it, and "sufficently mature" is the criteria not "completely mature".

In a perfect world we'd be able to have infinite testing on every ban, but I (and others) recognize that with a character this powerful, people will simply drop the game because it's no longer a worthy game for competative play.

Some players will leave before that acceptable threshhold is reached, that is WHY it's so critically important to create a consistent ban criteria and based on that, decide how long we must wait, to avoid losing other players unnessecarily.


I do think that if we have a set date, that will help stop the migration away, and we can move the timetable up or down as new discoveries are made (if any).


So that's my take, it's unfortunate, but it must be allowed to happen to a degree, because premature banning will cause worse issues in the long run (loss of MK mains and players who felt banning was pre-mature primarily, but also bad precident that can cause this to come up again in the future). We just have to make sure the effect is as small as possible while still making the ban (if it happens) fair.

 

[SothE700k]

I'm listening... I read the entire thread....

Yes, but explain to me what is actually being done to take action.

All I see is b****ing and moaning on both sides. I'm more than willing to be wrong though.

 

[XienZo]

I'm listening... I read the entire thread....

Who's listening to you?

 

[Kookie]

You guys are really distorting how much Meta Knight wins when you say that you have to use Meta Knight to win. I'm going to start from the bottom of Ankoku's list and count how many wins were by Meta Knight and how many were by non-Meta Knight. Three groups: Meta Knight only, Meta Knight + other characters, no Meta Knight at all.

October (so far):

Meta Knight: 7
Meta Knight with others: 6
Non-Meta Knight: 17

Does that look like "Meta Knight or lose" to you? It sure doesn't to me. Meta Knight alone won about 23.3% of tournaments, and Meta Knight was involved in winning about 43.3% of tournaments. Is that better than every other individual character is doing? Sure. Is that a sign that you have to use Meta Knight to win? Well, given that over half of the tournament winners didn't, it sure doesn't seem that way.

Let's do September!

September:

Meta Knight: 11
Meta Knight with others: 3
Non-Meta Knight: 27

In September, Meta Knight alone won 26.8% of tournaments and was involved in winning 34.1% of tournaments. That's overall less dominant than he has been so far in October and still indicative of a situation where other characters can win just fine.

No reasonable system of counting has him winning even half of tournaments, let alone most of them. He's certainly doing very well for himself, but there's a big difference between doing the best and being the only one winning.

There's something you're not catching about those statistics.

Meta Knight usage is increasing. Not decreasing. He may not be dominating 60% of tournaments right now, it's really looking like it will happen a few months from now.

 

[Deoxys]

Yes, but explain to me what is actually being done to take action.

All I see is b****ing and moaning on both sides. I'm more than willing to be wrong though.

I've heard arguments about what warrants banning and what evidence is required for matchup %ages to be believed.

At least one thing seems to be agreed on: if MK has a matchup that's worse for him than 50/50, banning is out of the question.

Who's listening to you?

IDK... hopefully some people. At least I can be sure that the people who argue with me listened to me once.

 

[XienZo]

There's something you're not catching about those statistics.

Meta Knight usage is increasing. Not decreasing. He may not be dominating 60% of tournaments right now, it's really looking like it will happen a few months from now.

Oh, but what if its increasing but the increase slows down to a trickle before starting to decrease?

You should try proving that MK usage is increasing at an increasing rate which would require a drastic highly unlikely disruption to stop.

 

[Mortimer]

You guys are really distorting how much Meta Knight wins when you say that you have to use Meta Knight to win. I'm going to start from the bottom of Ankoku's list and count how many wins were by Meta Knight and how many were by non-Meta Knight. Three groups: Meta Knight only, Meta Knight + other characters, no Meta Knight at all.

October (so far):

Meta Knight: 7
Meta Knight with others: 6
Non-Meta Knight: 17

Does that look like "Meta Knight or lose" to you? It sure doesn't to me. Meta Knight alone won about 23.3% of tournaments, and Meta Knight was involved in winning about 43.3% of tournaments. Is that better than every other individual character is doing? Sure. Is that a sign that you have to use Meta Knight to win? Well, given that over half of the tournament winners didn't, it sure doesn't seem that way.

Let's do September!

September:

Meta Knight: 11
Meta Knight with others: 3
Non-Meta Knight: 27

In September, Meta Knight alone won 26.8% of tournaments and was involved in winning 34.1% of tournaments. That's overall less dominant than he has been so far in October and still indicative of a situation where other characters can win just fine.

No reasonable system of counting has him winning even half of tournaments, let alone most of them. He's certainly doing very well for himself, but there's a big difference between doing the best and being the only one winning.

Going deeper, we can also look at player counts of the victories.

October (So far):

Meta Knight: 384
Meta Knight with others: 136
Non-Meta Knight: 634
Total players: 1154

Meta Knight alone comes out on top of 33% of the population. He was involved in beating 45% of the population. Non-Meta Knights accounted for 55%. When compared to the count of tourneys won, the non-Meta Knight count seems about the same, but Meta Knight alone was used more than other picks, implying that people seem to stick with Meta Knight in large tourneys rather than change up their character picks.

September:

Meta Knight: 316
Meta Knight with others: 235
Non-Meta Knight: 770
Total players: 1321

In September, Meta Knight beat 24% of the population as a solo pick, and had involvement in victories over 42% of the players. 58% of the population was conquered without using MK. These ratios are quite a bit higher than the September tourney victory numbers, which could mean that MK is a safer choice for players in large tournaments. Or it could just mean that the best players use MK, and they tend to go to and win large tournies.

This interpretation makes it look as though people have begun dropping their secondaries when they use Meta Knight, which is interesting.

 

[salaboB]

It may actually be his small size that makes it possible (sourspotting or sweet-spotting a particular move) or his light weight allows him to move high enough, or the specific attributes of certain moves. Or some tiny bit of code in the character's program that makes something work that shouldn't.

There are other characters that are similar enough to his size that it's vanishingly small a combo will be found on him that won't work on them. Same for his light weight.

Everything else is going into the realm of "incredibly unlikely" and saying he can't be banned as long as that's not been demonstrated false (An impossible thing to prove) and by that logic, Akuma shouldn't be banned. Since MK isn't even close to Akuma, we'll never be able to demonstrate to you that he's ban-worthy.

I simply need to point out that you have failed to cover every possible case and leave it at that.

I have covered every reasonable occurance. You're having to go for the "Maybe there is a magical thing that MK will do if Bowser catches him with only one fire in the stream of fire breath while it's tipped halfway to its maximum that will stun him and drag him into the entire thing inescapably" results to have anything left, and that's just a ridiculous position to be trying to hold.

Why? Because proof proves a lack of possibility of something, and I don't nessicarily believe your wrong. But we must always acknowledge that within a fighting game, the possibility exists, however slight, that something that we missed can be found, so while I will NOT declare that there is a totally character-specific weakness that subjects MK to equalizing combos, because of lack of proof to that effect I cannot say that they do not exist waiting to be found.

I never said it was impossible, whenever I have specifically said the chances of it being located I have said extremely unlikely (Or wording similar -- I believe in one case I forgot to include a modifier "vanishingly unlikely" and just said "won't be found" because I believe that in practice the odds of "one AT that only works against MK" existing is that unlikely). You haven't proven a thing against that, for some reason you're saying "it's possible so we should wait to ban him" disproves my "extremely unlikely and not worth waiting for to ban him"?

I'm asking you to demonstrate why it's a better chance than extremely unlikely, and you've given me nothing except high handed rhetoric and claims of your debating superiority. No evidence. You'll get no argument from me that it's possible (I agree, there could be something), but what you have yet to do is demonstrate that it's realistic for waiting for.

 

[Kookie]

Oh, but what if its increasing but the increase slows down to a trickle before starting to decrease?

You should try proving that MK usage is increasing at an increasing rate which would require a drastic highly unlikely disruption to stop.

I'm not trying to fool anyone. Obviously, this is all speculation, so I can't actually predict what will happen. That's why this whole argument is so divided, no one can really prove anything on either side.

 

[Deoxys]

Oh, but what if its increasing but the increase slows down to a trickle before starting to decrease?

You should try proving that MK usage is increasing at an increasing rate which would require a drastic highly unlikely disruption to stop.

By the time he proves that we'll have had 3 more months of metagame evolution.

Really, though, say he's winning half the tournaments: does that mean we can't wait a few months before we ban him? Certainly not.

 

[CR4SH]

I
HATE
ALL
OF
YOU
PEOPLE
SO
F***ING
MUCH.....

MK Noban plz D:

Says the man who the panda OP was basically ABOUT lol. That's interesting if it isn't anything else.

Anyway I think there are more than one places to consider the meta ban. And that's the top level of play, and everything else. In top level, meta (at least, from what I gather), Isn't THAT bad. He's the best character, sure, but he's not a god. But at lower levels of legitimate competitive play, his ease of use is actually relevant. Because it lets people leap-frog a level of skill. Allowing your regular 20 man, local brawl tournys to be won by someone who is clearly not the best player, but because he was using meta-knight.

To quote myself.

At the logical extensions of high level play, is metaknight completely broken? No. In a situation where everyone has mastered every (thusfar) masterable aspect of the game, is metaknight unbeatable? No. Is metaknight, at the end of the day, much more than the best character in the game? No.

The important part (in my personal view).

At the mid-high levels of the metagame, where everyone has full control of their character, and knows (at least is proficient with) how this game works. Is metaknight completely broken? YES. In a situation where everyone has mastered their own character (to an extent), and you're capable of playing in a skill based, competitive way, is metaknight unbeatable? Just about. Is metaknight, at one or two levels under top play, Far far and away the best character in the game, making lesser skilled players capable of winning small tournaments? YES.

So unless you can play M2K and have some confidence that you can at least take him to 3 games, a comparably skilled player using MK will STEAL YOUR LUNCH MONEY.

Is that worth a ban? I think yes. Though I can understand arguments against it.

Are small tournaments (the vast, vast majority of the competitive brawl scene) worth saving? Are large tournaments worth allowing meta to stay? I think you have to weigh the two issues.

While it's clear (at least to me) that anything other than the top level of play suffers from a "go meta or go home" problem, the top does not have that bad a time with him. So, is the best character at the highest levels of play worth enough to counter the concept of balancing the brawl just about EVERYONE plays? I think no. But hey, you're welcome to disagree (as long as you're reasonable about it).

 

[salaboB]

At least one thing seems to be agreed on: if MK has a matchup that's worse for him than 50/50, banning is out of the question.

That's only agreed on by the pro-MK crowd, strong matchups are not the only reason to ban him so having one neutral does not automatically prevent people arguing he should be banned.

If it's significantly worse than 50/50, it gets much more likely that it would prevent a ban. If it's just 45:55...that's hard to say.

 

[SothE700k]

I've heard arguments about what warrants banning and what evidence is required for matchup %ages to be believed.

At least one thing seems to be agreed on: if MK has a matchup that's worse for him than 50/50, banning is out of the question.

That counts under the category of b****ing and moaning. I've seen those too, and nobody can agree on what should be what.

 

[XienZo]

This interpretation makes it look as though people have begun dropping their secondaries when they use Meta Knight, which is interesting.

Wow, and I thought the people were joking when they said MK was an addictive drug.

That counts under the category of b****ing and moaning. I've seen those too, and nobody can agree on what should be what.

We're moaning because thats the only thing we can do. The SBR decides nearly all of it. All we can do is inform and debate, which is basically whining.

Its how we work.