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

[Jman115]

The big reason I think metaknight should be banned is that he takes considerably less skill to use and win. He is in a way, like an item when you compare him to other characters. He is that far above them that he allows lower skilled players to beat higher skilled players when they would otherwise be crushed. I had a friend who I could beat 8 out of 10 matches no matter who he used. Then he started using metaknight and suddenly fights were more even. Now he won't use metaknight until the debates are settled and he is back to losing most of the matches we fight.

But on the flip side, he does add a level of competivieness because he is so difficult. Playing a metaknight actually increases your game because your level of focus and metacognition required to beat him is put on a whole new level.

He definitely isn't unbeatable, but he does have an unbalanced advantage over other characters. Thats why I opt for a temporary ban to give people time to find a way to balance that. Perma banning him I think is out of the question. Something will undoubtedly come up to level the playing field a bit. I think people just need to start investing more time into underused characters and something will be found.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

The poll has also been tightening slowly but surely over the past few days. When I last commented on the gap, the difference was 14.4 percentage points. Now it's 12.08 percentage points which is on the cusp of getting below yet another whole number in difference. The absolute difference has actually stuck at a near constant of 200 votes is the mechanic; it suggests those later to decide are extremely evenly split (which obviously favors the side that was losing before). This poll is in no way a mandate from the community to ban Meta Knight, despite how some people seem to be reading it.

 

[Daimonster]

Well, if you mean "banning MK makes the game more competitive" then I guess you have a point, because if you meant something else, then LOL.

I don't think Meta Knight detracts from the competitiveness of Brawl. I think he adds to it because he's the best character and forces people to actually play well and think to win.

Make up your mind.

Fwiw, banning MK can and will make the brawl metagame better. At this current stage, with metaknight allowed, players are resorting to play in a campy + wait for metaknight to walk into my traps style of play. Whether that be with snake, yoshi or olimar...whatever. The focus is on the metaknight character. If snake, yoshi or olimar are to make a mistake; that could cost them a stock or a huge position disadvantage. Few characters have superior projectiles that break tornado and are forced to eat tornado or any other move in MK's superior moveset. All of these combined make MK the best character in the game.

 

[AlphaZealot]

I am outright saying that MK is not broken, but he's dumb / un balanced enough to banned, just like items such as food/bumpers are not broken but dumb enough to be banned. That's my argument literally dumbed down and I don't believe I've yet to a good reason against it other than 'get better', which is much the same argument Evo used in the defense of items in their tournaments.

Actually, no, the idea for EVO is to play the game pretty much in its original intent. The argument between items/no items is also largely about preference, at least that the most legitimate argument, because as you've noted no single item (well, you mentioned two, but the reality is NONE are since they are available to both players) is actually broken.

If the idea that "its dumb/imbalanced" is a good enough reason to ban something then lets ban Peach's D-Smash in Melee, since it makes her top tier until you learn to L-cancel (ie scares away new people, like some are saying MK is doing), and even then its easy to use and nets far more results than the skill it takes to use it (another argument for about MK). Lets also ban every chain grab, infinite, and (completely arbitrary, yet since you admit MK is not broken, then the argument is in and of itself now arbitrary), overpowered move in the game.

I think you've hit the nail on the head though. It the definition of banning a character were that that character was broken, then MK would not be banned. As a result, the criteria for banning a character needs to be expanded to include things like: dissuades people from going to tournaments, take less skill to use, or is "dumb".

Its sad that for some reason regional or, rather, state problems are for some reason so important that something must be preemptively done in other areas where it is not a problem. There is no point for some sort of "national ban", because if there actually were need for a national ban, then we would be seeing tournaments all over the place banning MK. In Texas, MK may meet some standard of "broken" if the top 3-5 placers are always MK, but if in, say, CA, there are only 1 or 2 MK's in the top 8, why would you want that area to ban the character?

 

[ShadowLink84]

I don't agree with you. That's all.

...

Okay before I go on and respond to your argument let me say this
You and a number of other people have been trying my patience lately. (and no its not just the anti ban side its both sides).
The whole, oh you don't play higher level therefore you are garbage is frankly sickening and is extremely elitist.
Let me just hammer something down because if I have to repeat myself AGAIN, I will punch a hole through time and space and rip the person's face off.

A person's level of experience or skill has absolutely NO BEARING on the discussion at hand.
None at all.
Whether someone hasn't gone to tournaments, or has gone to tournaments and not placed well, or goes to tournaments and palces well but whines about MK has no bearing at all. (which you brought up against kid a few pages back which really, no one gives a **** to begin with).


The POINTS to a debate is what matters most.
You do not need to give birth to a kid to be able tor elate in some manner the joy of it.
Nor do you need to have an abortion to speak for or against it.
You do not need to be a homosexual to protect their rights.

So if I hear anything along the lines of"Your argument is not as valid because you are not a high level player" one more time, I will seriously crack the earth in two.

Oh and one more thing.
No more anecdotal evidence.
I don't give a **** who you play with or how many times you play them. If overall data disagrees, it disagrees.
"But if Olimar camps perfectly..." No bull****ting thank you.

Now that I got it out the way (and my system) let us begin.

And no inui its not directed at you specifically but everyone overall.

You think MK is as stupid as items and detracts from the competitiveness of Brawl, correct? I don't agree with that.

insert first two points.

NO.
THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AT ALL.
He was not doing a direct comparison it was indirect.
items are random and detract from the competitiveness because they create an IMBALANCE during gameplay.

While MK is not a random element he detracts from competitiveness because LIKE the items, he creates a major imbalance to gameplay.

-Meta Knight, contrary to what many of you many think, does have at least one bad match and then several ones where he goes even or only wins very sliggtly, making him perfectly beatable.

Name the one bad matchup NOW.
back up your claim.
Name the even matchups as well.
Snake and who else?
DK?

Thats pretty much it and thats arguable as well.

You need to sit down and look at how effective a camping Snake or Olimar can be against Meta Knight, as well as characters like Diddy and Game and Watch if they don't make lots of mistakes and play safely.

Stop theorycrafting without any proof to back it up.
I am getting largely sick of hearing "well if Olimar camps ahrd enough, DDD camps ahrd enough, ANYONE camps hard enough."
No.
That basically ignores the capability of MK completely and assumes imperfect play.
Fact of the matter is that the arguments at hand push it for MK's favor. He takes advantage with his speed and range and mobility and overall gameplay.

Snake and Olimar can't camp out MK because he spaces and zones them.
They only camp effectively when the opponent is overly aggressive and jumps into the **** like a fool.
Otherwise, its sways to MK's advantage. Not a large advantage but ana dvantage indeed. Snake may fair better but he still has issues with MK's speed and range.

Frame data agrees as well.

I don't think Meta Knight detracts from the competitiveness of Brawl. I think he adds to it because he's the best character and forces people to actually play well and think to win.
Who cares if you mess up against a character like Toon Link or Pit? You won't get punished that harshly, despite those characters being pretty good. If you mess up against MK, you can potentially get death combo'd, gimped, etc., so you have to actually stay safe and not go "lol it's brawl so ill just do stuff cuz i wont rly be punished that harshly due to no combozzzz lololol." Of course, messing up against something like Dedede or Snake is obviously worse........

Wait how is that good?
if only 1 character can death combo and gimp outof the entire chast of 37 how is that good for competitiveness?
That creates a major imbalance. For example in melee let us take Fox.
now let us take away all the capabilities of the other characters in melee. Make them much worse. They cannot combo, gimp, recover etc.
Fox on the other hand can do it all and death combo.
How is that fair at all?

Yeah it makes you work that much harder but that doesn't improve competitiveness it detracts from it.
its basically giving someone a pistol and having them duke it out with a guy holding a Sniper rifle. At far range.

In short you're saying its okay to have a major imbalance.
Competitive play evokes on balanced skilled palyer. Not majorly IMBALANCED and skilled play.

MK would only make the game competitive if he was the ONLY character allowed.

What? The amount voting "yes" isn't that much higher.

beats out the no by a noticeable degree.

I looked at the poll, and despite the "Yes" section having more votes, there are more staff members, TOs, and other higher-status players in the "No" section. That's something to keep in mind.

What that there are more TO's, high status players and staff members?
Thats nice but it means nothing.
Again the argument not the skill, status or rank of a person should matter.

Just because M2K is number 1 and votes no doesn't add to the argument of antiban. That states position not argument.
This goes the same way around of course.

Again no more anecdotal evidence, no "you are not my level your argument is invalid" bullcrap for the sake of the argument.

Actually, no, the idea for EVO is to play the game pretty much in its original intent. The argument between items/no items is also largely about preference, at least that the most legitimate argument, because as you've noted no single item (well, you mentioned two, but the reality is NONE are since they are available to both players) is actually broken.

A good number of items are not overpowered or anything. Food being one of them. However the major issue is that their placement and appearance are random.
There is no method of really forcing an items to appear.
They are uncontrolled randoms which is part of the reason why it should be banned.
The idea of competitiveness is to keep only the elements that can be controlled, to ensure the environment is stable and ensure that one opponent doesn't get a sudden advantage.

That its due to skill purely rather than lucky placement.
Now by no means are items all broken, only a few are, but even if they are banned the rest of the items are just too random in occurence.
It is the fact of uncontrollable random that is another issue, not just because they are random.

Preference is subjective anyway (i like items)

If the idea that "its dumb/imbalanced" is a good enough reason to ban something then lets ban Peach's D-Smash in Melee, since it makes her top tier until you learn to L-cancel (ie scares away new people, like some are saying MK is doing), and even then its easy to use and nets far more results than the skill it takes to use it (another argument for about MK). Lets also ban every chain grab, infinite, and (completely arbitrary, yet since you admit MK is not broken, then the argument is in and of itself now arbitrary), overpowered move in the game.

Bad example.
For one items are items in themselves.
moves are parts of a character.
Banning a move is not a good idea since it consistences to the character.
Now while he did say MK is not broken this does not necessarily mean Mk is not banworthy.
The degree to which he causes an imbalance is important.

I think you've hit the nail on the head though. It the definition of banning a character were that that character was broken, then MK would not be banned. As a result, the criteria for banning a character needs to be expanded to include things like: dissuades people from going to tournaments, take less skill to use, or is "dumb".

yeah bad criteria as you stated.
What is true is that someone/thing does not need to be inherently broken to be banned. It needs to cause enough of an imbalance in the game to constitute a ban.
Much like the Old Sagat soft ban in Japan which is right or wrong depending on how you view it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Basically, my arguement against Metaknight is, copy and paste your own arguement against items, and boom. There's my arguement against metaknight. The only slight alteration is that instead of 'good players shouldn't have to overcome randomness' is slightly altered to "good players shouldn't have to overcome metaknight." I just don't see a logical way to be against one. To me perfect logic dictates thatif you can accept items being banned, you can at least understand why people want Metaknight to be banned.

Part of the reason against items is that you are playing a different game, a game that we don't want really value as smashers (ability to overcome items and play with them) And what MK banners are saying, is that we dont' want to make the game about overcoming a matchup that can never be in your favor and never being able to counterpick that character. The situations are completely analogous - we don't want to play a style of game that is drastically different from the style of game if we remove that element from the game.

Basically if we ban MK, IMO we are suddenly playing a completely different game and to me the question simply is which game is preferable - a game based on overcoming matchup deficiencies AND finding counter characters, or a game based ONLY on overcoming matchup decencies? Kind of like "do we want to play with items on or off - game based on testing skilsets between characters, or a game based on dealing with items and such." Of course, my argument is based on the idea that you agree that no one has the advantage over MK. If you disagree with that, then true, what I say isn't so applicable, but most people agree he doesn't have a disadvantage.


ONCE AGAIN, to make it clear if you didn't read the blog, MANY THINGS WE BAN DO NOT HAVE TO BE BROKEN, THEY JUST HAVE TO BE A DEPARTURE FROM THE REST OF THE GAME - LIKE THE ITEMS WE BAN (LIKE FOOD, FAN, AND BUMPER)

Here's the issue with using the same line of reasoning for items and character bans. Competative standards fall under a very different criteria then characters and techs.

Simply put, we've got to pick one before the actual game starts (and we all know that counter-picking is part of the game technically speaking), so picking one and making it consistent is required.

Before considering advantages and disadvantages, they're inherently on even ground. Any is a valid option.

That means that if one standard has even 1 tiny point of favor over the others, that standard is warranted as becoming THE standard.


Characters on the other hand, actually deprive people of choices if they are banned, as to do techniques and stages. All bans in those categories require considerable justifacation.

MK's d-tilt isn't broken against Snake. Even if he spaces it perfectly, he WILL get blown up by a grenade if Snake drops one. It's that simple. Shadow SPAMS the crap out of that move against me and I win anyways.

Erm no. Perfectly spaced MK will not get hit by the nade explosion if dropped. Dtilt has too large a disjointed hitbox.

 

[AlphaZealot]

So if I hear anything along the lines of"Your argument is not as valid because you are not a high level player" one more time, I will seriously crack the earth in two.

Interesting, this very argument has been used against me. I always find it funny because I usually go through highs and lows in terms of tournaments, like for 6 months I'll barely go to any, then the next 6 months I'll go to a dozen tournaments, it all depends on whatever situation I'm in at a given time. You are absolutely correct that it has little to no bearing, however, since the argument has been used against my (by OS/LeeHarris), I can likewise flip the argument on them when talking about Melee, because LH has near zero Melee experience (so how can he defend Marth?) and OS has almost no experience outside the midwest (so how could he know anything about national trends?). Of course they can make intelligent deductions/assertions, however, since they brought up the whole "experience" thing first, I might as well recipricate, even if I know there is no validity in that type of argument.

 

[Jman115]

Lets also ban every chain grab, infinite, and (completely arbitrary, yet since you admit MK is not broken, then the argument is in and of itself now arbitrary), overpowered move in the game.
.

The reason items are not used in tournaments is because the winner is quite often not the player with the most skill, but the one with the most luck. Certain items happened to drop closer or at more convenient times for one character than another. In other words, tournaments mean nothing as far as competition goes, because a noob could easily beat a pro with the right items. When we go to tournaments, competitive brawlers want to see true skill represented in the win column.

With MK at this time he is much the same way. Metaknight as a character is unbalanced. No one said unbalanced MOVES should be banned, but unbalanced characters. Metaknights tornado might be broken/unbalanced, but if it were just that, this thread would not exist. Metaknight as a character, his whole move set, is unbalanced. A noob can pick up metaknight and compete with highly skilled players. That should not be able to happen and lessens the competitiveness of brawl. If I go up against an equally skilled play it should be a close fight most of the time. I should not have to be x amount of tiers above somebody in order to beat them.

Again, saying broken moves should be banned is not the same as broken characters. Many characters have broken moves. Metaknight is the only broken character.

 

[DMG]

In Texas, MK may meet some standard of "broken" if the top 3-5 placers are always MK, but if in, say, CA, there are only 1 or 2 MK's in the top 8, why would you want that area to ban the character?

Then it means that the best players in Cali use characters other than MK more (Edrees, Futile, the bajillion Snake players, etc.) CA doesn't have too many MK's to begin with IIRC, let alone MK's in the hands of good players.

I am impressed at how fast the voting overall has picked up it seems.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Interesting, this very argument has been used against me. I always find it funny because I usually go through highs and lows in terms of tournaments, like for 6 months I'll barely go to any, then the next 6 months I'll go to a dozen tournaments, it all depends on whatever situation I'm in at a given time. You are absolutely correct that it has little to no bearing, however, since the argument has been used against my (by OS/LeeHarris), I can likewise flip the argument on them when talking about Melee, because LH has near zero Melee experience (so how can he defend Marth?) and OS has almost no experience outside the midwest (so how could he know anything about national trends?). Of course they can make intelligent deductions/assertions, however, since they brought up the whole "experience" thing first, I might as well recipricate, even if I know there is no validity in that type of argument.

There is no need to flip the argument on them.
The very basis of such an argument is basically "I am better than you so even if I am wrong, I am still right." Which is just a bad argument either way.
if they pull it on you call them on it and then ignore it.
They only harm their side of the argument by using such points.
*shrug*
As I said its not anyone specifically but on both sides.
Even if I was the worst player in the world as long as my argument and reasoning is sound, it should have no bearing on what I say.

Cmon this isn't the cold war. Put the nukes down, get a beer, a fine woman and relax.

 

[Ace55]

Erm no. Perfectly spaced MK will not get hit by the nade explosion if dropped. Dtilt has too large a disjointed hitbox.

Heh, I hear Inui isn't so big on spacing, so that figures.

 

[da K.I.D.]

after that amazing wall of text, im tempted to add shadow link to the bottom of my sig

 

[The Real Inferno]

Out of more curiosity, how is Akuma doing in JP? (he's not "officially" banned there after all)

He never survives the first couple of rounds. Only bad players use him.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I could imagine what would happen if someone decided to become good with Akuma AND Old Sagat then went to Japan.

IT would be like Nintendo with their DS.

IT PRINTS MONEY!

 

[The Real Inferno]

I could imagine what would happen if someone decided to become good with Akuma AND Old Sagat then went to Japan.

IT would be like Nintendo with their DS.

IT PRINTS MONEY!

You would likely be "asked" to never show up again. Old Sagat players still play in Japan, there just aren't very many of them.

 

[ShadowLink84]

ah then I would give them the courtesy of losing again ^_^

Or I would just show up every now and then to win the really big tournaments.

I WANTZ MONEYZ

 

[The Real Inferno]

lol. Well winning with Old Sagat and Akuma is more than just spamming fireballs (well...Old Sagat is almost all about spamming fireball). Akuma actually requires knowledge of his retardedly inescapable trap of death.

 

[Dark Sonic]

He never survives the first couple of rounds. Only bad players use him.

It was more of an ironic statement saying that MK likely isn't played too much by Japan's top players, so he's not causing a problem over there, but that doesn't somehow change how good MK is as a character. I don't know, maybe they just don't like MK or something or don't play as gay as we do which is what makes MK so good.

The point is you can't use Japan's metagame to justify or refute bans in our metagame. Because the peak of the Japanese metagame consists of players who...do not use broken characters. That and they don't play "gay."

 

[salaboB]

It was more of an ironic statement saying that MK likely isn't played too much by Japan's top players, so he's not causing a problem over there, but that doesn't somehow change how good MK is as a character. I don't know, maybe they just don't like MK or something or don't play as gay as we do which is what makes MK so good.

If the best players there aren't using MK, he's probably soft banned.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

Items are random. Metaknight is not random. Big difference there.

So what if items are random? Why is that a bad thing? If your answer is "random elements bring unbalance to the game and prevent the better player from winning" I say the same thing about Metaknight. If that's not your answer, I'd like to hear it.

edress, the real reason you think that is because of a teams match where me and azen lost the first game when azen was lucario (he was playing bad that match though) then did really well the next game using double MK. But besides that, every other game was close in both sets. Arguably the best 2 MKs in the US me and azen (azen or DSF is both 2 and 3 spot, not sure of order), the best 2 MKs still went 3-2 against you/DSF in BOTH sets, and you were peach. DSF also did better using Snake than MK by a pretty good amount on average. Either that says something, or you are just supremely more skilled than everyone.

Losing to you and Azen is the furthest thing that would make me want to ban Metaknight. I consider you both superior players than me and have no shame losing to either of you That's got nothing to do with it.

I don't agree with you. That's all.

You think MK is as stupid as items and detracts from the competitiveness of Brawl, correct? I don't agree with that.

-Meta Knight does not add an extreme amount of pure luck to the game.
-Meta Knight can't randomly kill you at any percent based on luck.
-Meta Knight, contrary to what many of you many think, does have at least one bad match and then several ones where he goes even or only wins very sliggtly, making him perfectly beatable. You need to sit down and look at how effective a camping Snake or Olimar can be against Meta Knight, as well as characters like Diddy and Game and Watch if they don't make lots of mistakes and play safely.

The food item does not add an extreme amount of pure luck to the game.
The food item does not randomly kill you at any percent based on luck.

When I speak of items, I refer to food and fans and bumpers, and other non explosive or super knockback items. You honestly mean to tell me these imbalance the competitive level of Brawl more than Metaknight?

And once again, my arguement is addressed to everyone that agrees that Metaknight has no bad matchups. If you feel he does, I don't want to get into that, and can understand you're reasoning for not wanting to ban him if you truly feel that way. I'm addressing everyone who agrees with me that he doesn't have a bad matchup, which IMO is the element of imbalance that he brings to the table that I consider in line with the imbalance of these types of items.

Actually, no, the idea for EVO is to play the game pretty much in its original intent. The argument between items/no items is also largely about preference, at least that the most legitimate argument, because as you've noted no single item (well, you mentioned two, but the reality is NONE are since they are available to both players) is actually broken.

If the idea that "its dumb/imbalanced" is a good enough reason to ban something then lets ban Peach's D-Smash in Melee, since it makes her top tier until you learn to L-cancel (ie scares away new people, like some are saying MK is doing), and even then its easy to use and nets far more results than the skill it takes to use it (another argument for about MK). Lets also ban every chain grab, infinite, and (completely arbitrary, yet since you admit MK is not broken, then the argument is in and of itself now arbitrary), overpowered move in the game.

I think you've hit the nail on the head though. It the definition of banning a character were that that character was broken, then MK would not be banned. As a result, the criteria for banning a character needs to be expanded to include things like: dissuades people from going to tournaments, take less skill to use, or is "dumb".

Its sad that for some reason regional or, rather, state problems are for some reason so important that something must be preemptively done in other areas where it is not a problem. There is no point for some sort of "national ban", because if there actually were need for a national ban, then we would be seeing tournaments all over the place banning MK. In Texas, MK may meet some standard of "broken" if the top 3-5 placers are always MK, but if in, say, CA, there are only 1 or 2 MK's in the top 8, why would you want that area to ban the character?

When I say dumb / imbalance, I was greatly simplifying my arguement to explain the general purpose of my reasoning. I don't mean just because it feels dumb. I was 'dumbing' it down so to speak - when I refer to dumb / imbalanced, I'm referring to being as imbalanced as elements of the game we've already banned. I feel Metaknight's lack of disadvantaged matchups is on par with previous elements we've balanced but Peach's downsmash isn't.

Also, EVO's purpose isn't to play the game with its original intent. Even they ban some items, and its original intent had all items on. Its original intent was free for alls as well, and they still swing it to 1v1's. EVO simply believes there is a lot of competition and worth of playing well with items, and I'm akking that to how much of the community feels there is competition and worth to playing with Metaknight as an allowable character, and I disagree on both counts, and see parallels in both.

Here's the issue with using the same line of reasoning for items and character bans. Competative standards fall under a very different criteria then characters and techs.

Simply put, we've got to pick one before the actual game starts (and we all know that counter-picking is part of the game technically speaking), so picking one and making it consistent is required.

You do bring up a good point, but do not answer it. So why are there different standards in banning items than characters, other than emotional ones? One based on logic. One might say people spend a lot of time learning characters, but that's also true of items. You can spend a heck of a lot of time getting good with them as well, you'd be surprised some of the things you can do and the level of skill someone can attain with items. We just decided this level of skill with items is not what we wanted to test in tournaments because its too much of a departure of the skill tested with the rest of the game.

Now with that, I don't want to get into huge quote wars, because often times, no one reads those but the people involved in them, and I don't see the point in fighting for the purpose of winning. I just want to communicate my viewpoint to smashers out there and make them think of the Metaknight banning in a different light, I feel I've made my points pretty clear by now.

 

[The Real Inferno]

Well, they don't tend to "camp" very much. Japanese players usually tend to love fast frantic play in their fighting games, it's kind of universal across the board. This doesn't tend to reduce the -effectiveness- of camping, but you also won't get much respect in the community by playing that way. It's odd that he isn't all that popular there considering the character has all the qualities that is normally loved by Japanese players. Of course, I can't really speak for anything incredibly recent on the Japanese Metagame. For all I know they all switched to Meta in the last month and are IDCing back and forth across Final Destination all match.

 

[salaboB]

Now with that, I don't want to get into huge quote wars, because often times, no one reads those but the people involved in them, and I don't see the point in fighting for the purpose of winning. I just want to communicate my viewpoint to smashers out there and make them think of the Metaknight banning in a different light, I feel I've made my points pretty clear by now.

Stick with this attitude, usually even the people involved don't read them very thoroughly.

 

[Vect0r]

I changed my mind. Even though I love Meta Knight, If we're not gonna ban him in normal tournaments, everybody will pick MK. Why? Because everybody starts thinking he's THE best character thanks to all the tier lists floating around. So they're like
"yeah let's pick meta Knight because he's in God tier and the absolute best"

Alternatively, many people think like this:
"yeah let's pick meta Knight because everybody else picks him anyway and there's no way to counter him with any other character except MK himself"

If we don't ban him, every tourney will be flooded by MK players. There's no stopping it until we do something now.

MK only tourneys sound fun though. But first of all, let's make sure every tourney that isn't supposed to be MK only, won't become MK only. Let's do it folks.

 

[salaboB]

I changed my mind. Even though I love Meta Knight, If we're not gonna ban him in normal tournaments, everybody will pick MK. Why? Because everybody starts thinking he's THE best character thanks to all the tier lists floating around. So they're like
"yeah let's pick meta Knight because he's in God tier and the absolute best"

It's not because of the tier lists.

 

[IShotLazer]

I think a question that should be asked at this point is...
Would the game be funner and better overall if Metaknight was no longer in. Would playing a wider variety of characters add more depth and fun? I think so. Even if Metaknight wasn't "broken" its completely valid to say he destroys and ruins over half the casts attempts at even trying to enter the competitive scene. Is this enjoyable?

The degree of tiers is a lot greater than Melee's, so I don't think bringing character specialist in Melee would be a valid arguement. In Melee every character had L-Canceling and the ability to add shield pressure and be able to run/or attack more after applying it. Now only some characters have this benefit and it greatly seperates the difference in how well a character perfoms.

I honestly think that Metaknight being in makes the game less enjoyable.

I honestly think the game would be much more enjoyable and yield more people to pursue tournaments in the end.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You do bring up a good point, but do not answer it. So why are there different standards in banning items than characters, other than emotional ones? One based on logic. One might say people spend a lot of time learning characters, but that's also true of items. You can spend a heck of a lot of time getting good with them as well, you'd be surprised some of the things you can do and the level of skill someone can attain with items. We just decided this level of skill with items is not what we wanted to test in tournaments because its too much of a departure of the skill tested with the rest of the game.

Simple, decreasing number of playable character decreases player choices.

With items it's establishing a competitive standard. We DON'T HAVE A CHOICE in this regard, we've got to pick one, and all the other forms are "banned" because a metagame cannot develop with a standard competitive standard.

Since we've gotta pick one, any advantage is valid for picking any particular.


With character bans, it's taking a step beyond, there's no forced choice. That's why other types of bans require high-leveled justification.

 

[salaboB]

Simple, decreasing number of playable character decreases player choices.

With items it's establishing a competitive standard. We DON'T HAVE A CHOICE in this regard, we've got to pick one, and all the other forms are "banned" because a metagame cannot develop with a standard competitive standard.

Since we've gotta pick one, any advantage is valid for picking any particular.


With character bans, it's taking a step beyond, there's no forced choice. That's why other types of bans require high-leveled justification.

Stage bans remove choices.

Yes, you can just play a different stage. Guess what, you can just play a different character.

 

[Jman115]

Stage bans remove choices.

Yes, you can just play a different stage. Guess what, you can just play a different character.

oh snap, he made a point

 

[ShadowLink84]

Stage ban run under criteria that are similar as well, not as high but similar.

 

[salaboB]

Stage ban run under criteria that are similar as well, not as high but similar.

But you don't see huge polls debating the ones that are on the edge of being banned

This is mostly just a gut thing, being so against the idea of banning a character. That and the fact that he *is* the most popular means he's also going to have some diehard supporters who absolutely don't want him banned because they want to play as him. Stages just don't get that kind of devoted follower.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Because stages are much less complicated.

GHZ FTW

 

[AlphaZealot]

Also, EVO's purpose isn't to play the game with its original intent. Even they ban some items, and its original intent had all items on. Its original intent was free for alls as well, and they still swing it to 1v1's. EVO simply believes there is a lot of competition and worth of playing well with items, and I'm akking that to how much of the community feels there is competition and worth to playing with Metaknight as an allowable character, and I disagree on both counts, and see parallels in both.

No.

It's important to understand our perspective on gaming. Our culture is rooted in Street Fighter arcade tournaments. This environment is totally different from a modern console game with editable settings. In the arcade you don't get to tweak the game to your liking, and as a result players competed using every trick and technique that the game allowed, including bugs. After over 15 years of this style of gaming over literally dozens of fighting games, we have found only a tiny handful of features worth banning, even including game glitches that were originally thought to be game breaking. Players adapt, and in almost every case the game becomes richer and more interesting.

With this mindset, placing any artificial limit on the game as designed is a very slippery slope and should be done with extreme caution. Since Brawl was a new game, we treated it like every other new fighting game and played the tournament by default rules, with a small number of exceptions. Many in the Smash community see this as an insult to Smash. In fact, we are showing Smash with a great deal of respect by treating it the same as every other game on our roster. Disabling items, to me, would be like saying "normal Smash is not worthy of tournament play. We need to cripple the game to bring it up to competitive standards."

They banned some items simply to appease the SWF community in an attempt to reach a compromise.

The reason items are not used in tournaments is because the winner is quite often not the player with the most skill, but the one with the most luck. Certain items happened to drop closer or at more convenient times for one character than another. In other words, tournaments mean nothing as far as competition goes, because a noob could easily beat a pro with the right items. When we go to tournaments, competitive brawlers want to see true skill represented in the win column.

This is a common fallacy and exaggeration that I won't get into. You are vastly simplyfying and exaggerating the arguments. At the core really is simply preference.

With MK at this time he is much the same way. Metaknight as a character is unbalanced. No one said unbalanced MOVES should be banned, but unbalanced characters. Metaknights tornado might be broken/unbalanced, but if it were just that, this thread would not exist. Metaknight as a character, his whole move set, is unbalanced. A noob can pick up metaknight and compete with highly skilled players. That should not be able to happen and lessens the competitiveness of brawl.

Really? A noob can pick up MK and suddenly be on par with M2K/Azen/DSF/Vidjo/etc. Do you have any examples?

If I go up against an equally skilled play it should be a close fight most of the time. I should not have to be x amount of tiers above somebody in order to beat them.

No, actually, it shouldn't. Every fighting game has a tier list. It will take more "skill" to win with a character lower on the list than higher on the list. In other words, if you choose Falcon, you are gonna have to be AMAZING to even compete with mid echelon players. With MK, there are still a handful of characters (Diddy, Snake, some argue GW, Wario, etc), that go even or 6-4/4-6 (whatever) with him, in these types of match ups, the person with the most skill wins. Its not "OMG MK has a minute advantage that means its an auto-win". Its simply that the person who is better, wins, because the character advantages really aren't so drastic that Azen will lose to me if I use MK.

 

[frdagaa]

n pick up MK and suddenly be on par with M2K/Azen/DSF/Vidjo/etc. Do you have any examples?

Picking this statement out because it's a fallacy. He did not say what you just said (though his point was exaggerated). He said that a player can pick up MK and be on par against players of significantly higher skill that happen to play other characters. Now, that's not true for a good Snake and maybe even a couple other characters, but it's not nearly as off as what you said.

I think this is the third straw man fallacy I've pointed out in 24 hours. Why can't SWF just realize that this is a fallacy. Your statement does not disprove the other person's argument, because it does not even address the other person's argument.

His argument was not perfect, there were several logical ways you could have tried to deconstruct it (using Snake as an example of him being wrong would probably be best). Instead, you straw manned the argument. Epic failure.

 

[salaboB]

No, actually, it shouldn't. Every fighting game has a tier list. It will take more "skill" to win with a character lower on the list than higher on the list. In other words, if you choose Falcon, you are gonna have to be AMAZING to even compete with mid echelon players. With MK, there are still a handful of characters (Diddy, Snake, some argue GW, Wario, etc), that go even or 6-4/4-6 (whatever) with him, in these types of match ups, the person with the most skill wins. Its not "OMG MK has a minute advantage that means its an auto-win". Its simply that the person who is better, wins, because the character advantages really aren't so drastic that Azen will lose to me if I use MK.

This entirely depends on who your opponent is using. Low tier = more skill to win is a fallacy unless you're simply saying "in general", because low tier does not automatically mean they only have bad matchups. Also, the severity of the bad matchups does vary for everyone.

The big problem with MK vs. other fighting games is that stages impact character performance more than other games, so while characters can go 50:50 against him on the neutrals if he can counterpick them to a stage where he has a bigger advantage than they can counterpick him to then they're fighting uphill against him -- no matter which character they've picked. Other fighting games if you start 50:50 with the only character that goes even against that top tier, you'll stay 50:50 for every round.

 

[Sky`]

If we banned Metaknight. Are you guys just going to sit here and assume that the people currently maining Meta will just follow the ban and pick a new character? Give up the money they've been making camping tournaments? Give up the prizes, the fame, the glory, of winning?

Really guys?

If we Put a ban on metaknight, Multiple things will happen.

One. The Melee community will point their fingers and laugh at us. Sounds stupid right? The Majority of the Melee community already detests brawl, and this will be a perfect opportunity to prey on Brawl. We would have banned a character from a game, that hasn't even been out for a year yet. Banning a character in any respect that early just shows the severe problem in brawl. The Melee community will strengthen, and grow, considering that many current Brawl players are teetering on the edge of the fence that divides Brawl and Melee. And I do like Melee, (Especially nao that I can Waveland Fair with Doc. XD Skrub am I.) (BHUT Alpha Zealot did beat me with his one handed Peach at MLG NJ. Amazing.) (BUT I did Spike Ken in a MM. True story. XD) (That was when I had tech skill... Q_Q)

So we Ban Metaknight, then what? Well, there goes a large fraction of the community. Some will quit because they were too far into Metaknight to switch to a new Main, some will quit because they feel it's stupid that he got banned, some will quit because they realize that Brawl Sucks, there will be various reasons, but I swear to you that more people will quit than you think. Which is... a Bad thing. Because I like big turnouts at tournaments. Don't you? =D

But okay, lets say that they don't quit. There are going to be tournaments that Ban Meta, and then there are going to be some that don't. Wouldn't that create Segregation? "I only go to tournaments that Ban Meta." Our community would be segregated; "For or against banning Meta?" Soon, turnouts for tournaments will be cut in fractions, as not everybody agrees with the same rules. In addition, Because the Metaknight community is beginning to shift in percent as a greater populous, we'll still be seeing more tournaments that accept Metaknight. Because current metaknights will abstain from going to the tournaments that Ban him, (Primarily because they couldn't win,) They will make their own, allowing everybody. Personally, I'd rather go to a tournament with 100 people that allow metaknight, then one with 50 that bans him.

You're going to have your group who likes meta, and a group who doesn't. But what about that third group, that doesn't care? Then, the people who don't care if Metaknight is there or not, will probably opt for the bigger tournament turn out. So your 50 Metaknight banned tournament just turned into 35, and your 100 metaknight allowed tournament just turned into 115. I wonder why there isn't a "I don't care, either way." Option on that poll?

And, is MK really that broken? (LOL CLEEEE SHAAYYY). BLAH BLAH BLAH AKUMA BLAH BLAH BLAH. You've all heard that one before. So let me take it into a different respect. Maybe you've heard the Shiek argument? Hehe, Shiek was broken, then we learned about DI, and said, Good bye Dthrow tilt combos! Dost thou really not think that in due time, we will find things to eliminate the current overwhelming threat that is Metaknight? Or are you willing to ban something so early?

You know what we need to focus on? Forget Metaknight, forget that. The character isn't broken. Let me say this so that everybody hears it.

We should be talking about the tact to win with Metaknight, not the character himself.

Metaknight is not my hardest matchup. (**** GaW. :[) But Camping is. I can't tell you how annoying Camping is. Plank camped his way right to third at Axis. Straight away to third, and took third from an actual skilled player, SK92. Because many people play Metaknight, and branch their ideas off current top players, camping is becoming more common. Camping it self should be regulated, and then this game would be so much better. You think that MK is the best camper? Efficient, sure, but not the best. Look at. R.O.B. Camp camp camppity camp camp camp. One of the best, if not THE best camper in the game. But MK has an arsenal of attacks that could kill you, and then he could Camp, making him higher than ROB. And to pull that arsenal off, it takes skill. You can't just pick up meta, and then be DSF.

You know when people say, "OMG ANYONE CAN PLAY META LOLOLOLLOL"? Well, it's true. The current metagame to win, has been developed such that Camping is a very vital and key way to play. And yes, I am saying that ANYBODY can camp. Not that hard. But it does take skill to play Metaknight. Spacing is very hard, give the players some credit. It isn't thaat easy. You want easy? Play GaW. There. Bair bair bair kbai. (JK. XD)

I beg of you, brawl community. Lets start looking at the tact that people are using to win, instead of the character himself. Face it. If a MK didn't camp, is the matchup really that terrible? I don't think so, in the slightest. If we just regulated Camping in a whole, which I know that we can do, I think that you'll see MK isn't that bad. This could be the step to making this game a better experience for everybody.


I know that Camping is apart of Smash, but now that we are presented with this game where you can literally camp to top 5 consistently, we have to recognize it, and fix it. We must recognize this extreme fault and work as a community to fix it.


So waddya say?

(Closing comments: This is probably written in poor eigo, (ingles). I do apologize. =D)

 

[IShotLazer]

Did you say regulate camping?
Almost all intelligent mindgames are based of off camping, even though they don't seem like it. Camping is not getting hit which is the better thing to do. The only reason it didn't always work in Melee is the payout for reading the other person in a camping position was quite high. In Brawl we don't have that. You can't regulate camping, it's a viable very good strategy and is at the very heart of "don't get hit", which is almost the entire philosophy of mindgames.
On another note, there isn't an "I don't care button" on the Metaknight poll because quite frankly people who don't care won't even vote.
You're also assuming that having split tournies, Metaknight will be the dominating force. This assumption is bullocks. People who main Metaknight, main Metaknight because he is a good character and has advantages. People who truely can't play any other characters will be going to these Metaknight tournies. If there is an option to play other characters and not have to worry about Metaknight completely destroying that characters opportunity then people will be attending these tournaments. Tournaments will be divided by Metaknight tournaments and Brawl - Metaknight tournaments.

 

[salaboB]

If we banned Metaknight. Are you guys just going to sit here and assume that the people currently maining Meta will just follow the ban and pick a new character? Give up the money they've been making camping tournaments? Give up the prizes, the fame, the glory, of winning?

Some will quit. Most will switch, because they play Brawl to play Brawl not just to play as MK. Others that have quit because of him will return. People will feel like more characters are viable. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Really, the remaining Melee community's opinion of Brawl shouldn't be interfering with decisions that need to be made for Brawl's community. Or should we care that other fighting game communities think Brawl is a joke, and just pack it in and quit bothering at all?

 

[Overswarm]

I already don't go to Brawl tournaments that aren't MWC events or MK banned >_>

 

[Sky`]

Did you say regulate camping?
Almost all intelligent mindgames are based of off camping, even though they don't seem like it. Camping is not getting hit which is the better thing to do. The only reason it didn't always work in Melee is the payout for reading the other person in a camping position was quite high. In Brawl we don't have that. You can't regulate camping, it's a viable very good strategy and is at the very heart of "don't get hit", which is almost the entire philosophy of mindgames.
On another note, there isn't an "I don't care button" on the Metaknight poll because quite frankly people who don't care won't even vote.
You're also assuming that having split tournies, Metaknight will be the dominating force. This assumption is bullocks. People who main Metaknight, main Metaknight because he is a good character and has advantages. People who truely can't play any other characters will be going to these Metaknight tournies. If there is an option to play other characters and not have to worry about Metaknight completely destroying that characters opportunity then people will be attending these tournaments. Tournaments will be divided by Metaknight tournaments and Brawl - Metaknight tournaments.

You can't regulate camping?
So, camping for 90 seconds shouldn't be regulated? 90 seconds is a long time. Games should be regulated, and they can be. IF you see somebody camping for 90 seconds, that's a red-flag. Just like pausing the game during a match, you should be able to call it, and they should have to forfeit.

And, I 'm sorry, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make on your second paragraph.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

If we banned Metaknight. Are you guys just going to sit here and assume that the people currently maining Meta will just follow the ban and pick a new character? Give up the money they've been making camping tournaments? Give up the prizes, the fame, the glory, of winning?

Really guys?

If we Put a ban on metaknight, Multiple things will happen.

One. The Melee community will point their fingers and laugh at us. Sounds stupid right? The Majority of the Melee community already detests brawl, and this will be a perfect opportunity to prey on Brawl.

I'm a big boy. I can handle four people laughing at me.

The Melee community will strengthen, and grow

Might their numbers double in size, to eight people? =P

I just couldn't resist.