The "Metaknight should/will be banned" thread.

[psykoplympton]

At a certain skill level, it's the character that decides the result

lawls you own the phailmaster

skill is what determines if you win or lose. if someone has more skill than you you will probably lose. unless we are talking jigglypuff(trash) he wont win against a good/decent MK. but you shouldnt be using jiggly or c.falcon anyway as they are teh suck.

 

[Yuna]

So, I have to ask, MK isn't super broken like Akuma but he doesn't have any bad match ups and the only real character that kind of counters him is Snake of a cast of 35 characters. Let me say that again, 35 characters and only one or two can actually stand a chance against MK? He's beatable, yeah, only by a certain character though out of 35 characters. Isn't that umm... a bit... weird and imbalanced?

Guilty Gear XX Acccent Core - Eddie is the best character in the game. Eddie has no bad matchups (I could be wrong here) - Eddie is so good, he's in S Tier (along with Testament), a tier above Top Tier
Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike - Yun is the best character in the game. he has no bad matchups
Soul Calibur II - Xianghua was the best character in the game with, I believe, 0 bad matchups. Maybe 1 or 2, I'm not sure

And the list goes on. All of those had/have either favourable matchups or even ones against the entire cast. Guess what, none of those character were/are banned.

 

[Doggalina]

Can we not just Softban him like they are doing in Japan and see what happens? Its a Softan, not a real ban, so it wont make too much of a difference.

The thing is, you dont' just "softban" something. It's something that just happens. And it looks like things are going in the OPPOSITE direction of a softban (Overswarm switched from ROB to MK).

 

[TheReflexWonder]

In fast1 M2K had to change to DDD because the Wario player was playing real good againts his MK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpLNJP58ixI

YEAHUZZ

At the same time, he had already beaten me twice with Meta Knight prior, so it may very well be irrelevant.

...

I'm going to go back and read the rest of the thread now...

 

[F3ma Ch33f]

Who is this Akuma you guys speak of?

 

[slikvik]

why did a mod make this thread...

 

[RDK]

Look, while a majority will use MK, some people just don't fit his style. They don't like playing him, it's not fun, it's not beneficial, and really-- it's pointless. They just don't like the character all that much. If there are characters they can master, who they can play BETTER than MK, and produce results with-- it's best they go with that one.

It's fairly amateur just to pick a character due to his tier placement. It depends on how the character suits your style of play, your mindset, and the mechanics you play with best. Yun is considered by far the most powerful character in 3S, yet Nuki has dominated 2 years in a row with Chun-Li.

It's not amateur at all. In games where skill is not the only factor, playing to win means maximizing your chances of winning. Learning to play MK and playing him well maximizes your chances of winning.

Guilty Gear XX Acccent Core - Eddie is the best character in the game. Eddie has no bad matchups (I could be wrong here) - Eddie is so good, he's in S Tier (along with Testament), a tier above Top Tier
Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike - Yun is the best character in the game. he has no bad matchups
Soul Calibur II - Xianghua was the best character in the game with, I believe, 0 bad matchups. Maybe 1 or 2, I'm not sure

And the list goes on. All of those had/have either favourable matchups or even ones against the entire cast. Guess what, none of those character were/are banned.

But comparing those games to Brawl is a fallacy in and of itself. Treating Brawl likes it's just another competitive fighting game is ridiculous, as it's inherently NOT a fighting game, and doesn't even pretend to be one. Instead, it's up to us to patch up the ****storm Sakurai handed to us and try and emulate real competitive fighting games as closely as possible.

And that might include banning Metaknight. What you have to think about when using your argument of logical ban progression extending to Snake and then the high tier is is the gap between MK and Snake / the high tier that close that we would all of the sudden have to start banning the next character in line whenever people get on edge about another possible Metaknight?

 

[Yuna]

People are constantly quitting this game b/c it clearly doesn't match up to most fighting game's standards. You know why. And the existence of MK is among the primary reasons. MK is ruining an already bad Smash reputation. That warrants a ban imo.

I don't know about you, but I want a better Smash game to come out.

None of these are reasons to ban him. Wow, people are quitting Brawl because it's a badly designed game. If they're only quitting Smash because of Meta-Knight and banning them would bring them back, then they're Scrubs and nobody (should) cares about Scrubs.

You know what is ruining Brawl? The many flaws of the game. Banning Meta-Knight won't magically fix it and make it Virtua Fighter.

You ban characters if they are too good. That's the only reason why you should ban a character. Not because some people are quitting because they're fed up with fighting that character, not because the best of the best are gravitating towards that character, not because that character is over-represented at tournaments and you want more diversity.

No, it's all about whether or not they're so good it's all about playing as them or losing... badly (no, Meta-Knight being better than everyone is is not enough. He has to be a lot better than everyone else).

 

[Yuna]

But comparing those games to Brawl is a fallacy in and of itself. Treating Brawl likes it's just another competitive fighting game is ridiculous, as it's inherently NOT a fighting game, and doesn't even pretend to be one. Instead, it's up to us to patch up the ****storm Sakurai handed to us to try and emulate real competitive fighting games as closely as possible.

I call BS.

We're playing the game as a fighting game. We're turning what Sakurai intended to be a "****storm" into a Competitive fighting game. We're also, you know, playing it Competitively.

Just because Sakurai didn't intend for it to be Competitive doesn't mean we should make up BS to make it suit us more when logic and the rules of Competition state otherwise. You do not ban things in Competitive gaming unless it comes down to either you use it or you lose badly.

You just do not. It's not enough if Meta-Knight is winning most tournaments. He has to be winning them with a margin it's near impossible to beat him if he's played by the top players, even if the opposition are among the top as well.

If this game is so bad as a Competitive fighting game you have to stsart banning things when it's not even logical to ban them, then maybe you should consider, you know, not playing it Competitively.

And that might include banning Metaknight. What you have to think about when using your argument of logical ban progression extending to Snake and then the high tier is is the gap between MK and Snake / the high tier that close that we would all of the sudden have to start banning the next character in line whenever people get on edge about another possible Metaknight?

There's almost no gap between Meta-Knight and Snake.

So if we ban Meta-Knight, Snake has to go. The same goes for Game & Watch.

The gap between High Tier and Snake, Meta and G&W is pretty much the same as the one between High Tier and Mid Tier. So with the same logic, High Tier has to go. After all, High Tier would then be dominating the scene the same way Top did.

 

[The Real Inferno]

Actually Yuna, I just wanted to point out that in Third Strike, Chun-Li is highly contested to be better than Yun for having more matches up with the heavy advantage even though Yun has no bad (alot of them are even though). Depending on where you get your tier list you'll often see Yun below Chun Li.

This has been a completely irrelevent post.

Also: Yuna I think he's referring to the gap in Akokou's tournament ranking (Metaknight recently shot WAY past Snake in them). Course I know you were gone for a while so you probably never saw that update.

 

[Brinzy]

Actually Yuna, I just wanted to point out that in Third Strike, Chun-Li is highly contested to be better than Yun for having more matches up with the heavy advantage even though Yun has no bad (alot of them are even though). Depending on where you get your tier list you'll often see Yun below Chun Li.

While what you say is true, the point is that you don't ban characters for having no bad match-ups.

 

[Yuna]

Actually Yuna, I just wanted to point out that in Third Strike, Chun-Li is highly contested to be better than Yun for having more matches up with the heavy advantage even though Yun has no bad (alot of them are even though). Depending on where you get your tier list you'll often see Yun below Chun Li.

This has been a completely irrelevent post.

I know that, but at this writing moment, most people consider Yun to be better (last time I checked).

The fact remains, though, that Yun has no bad matchups, including Chun-Li. Chun-Li is like Game & Watch.

Also: Yuna I think he's referring to the gap in Akokou's tournament ranking (Metaknight recently shot WAY past Snake in them).

Tournament ranking is highly influenced by character popularity and individual skill. If the world's Top100 players started maining Peach tomorrow, chances are we'd see a lot more Peaches winning tournaments.

Should we then ban Peach? No. Just because X character is currently doing better than Y in tournaments doesn't mean much if X character is 10 times as common as Y character and Y character is, on paper, a lot better than X.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Isn't it sad that we even have to have this argument.

On a side not I don't play Street Fighter so I don't know how good Akuma is, but my idea of a broken character is Kabal from UMK3, and yes MK is as good as he was. He never got banned, in case anyone was wondering.

abal wasn't ban worthy since despite being extremely good, there were chracters that did well against him.
unmasked Sub zero being the most note worthy I think.

Or am I getting my facts wrong?

 

[Graz69]

i think they should ban peach.


shes virtually unbeatable.

 

[The Real Inferno]

I know that, but at this writing moment, most people consider Yun to be better (last time I checked).

The fact remains, though, that Yun has no bad matchups, including Chun-Li. Chun-Li is like Game & Watch..

Yeah that's true (though I still prefer Chun Li. I mean, Yun's a *** amirite?) You know I just enjoy nitpicking you. If I wasn't pointing out irrelevent bits of everyone's arguments I wouldn't be doing my job.

Edit: I'm not arguing with you on the tournament rankings. I'm just saying I think that's what he's referring to for his argument basis. I'm pretty sure everyone knows Metaknight is more popular than...well everyone.

 

[Lord Viper]

why did a mod make this thread...

This and this helped, and thank the people that pick Meta Knight to win only. >_>

 

[Yuna]

Yeah that's true (though I still prefer Chun Li. I mean, Yun's a *** amirite?) You know I just enjoy nitpicking you. If I wasn't pointing out irrelevent bits of everyone's arguments I wouldn't be doing my job.

I was trying to keep it simple for the sake of Smashboards. Some people can't keep up even when we're only namedropping common Smash knowledge. Bringing in the Yun vs. Chun debate could potential make their heads explode.

Then again... that wouldn't really be much of a loss...

 

[RDK]

I know that, but at this writing moment, most people consider Yun to be better (last time I checked).

The fact remains, though, that Yun has no bad matchups, including Chun-Li. Chun-Li is like Game & Watch.


Tournament ranking is highly influenced by character popularity and individual skill. If the world's Top100 players started maining Peach tomorrow, chances are we'd see a lot more Peaches winning tournaments.

Should we then ban Peach? No. Just because X character is currently doing better than Y in tournaments doesn't mean much if X character is 10 times as common as Y character and Y character is, on paper, a lot better than X.

I typically agree with you on MK not being ban-worthy; I was simply playing Devil's advocate for the sake of argument and it didn't turn out too well.

However, I'm still supporting the idea that several MK-free tournaments be held, if not just to see the results.

 

[~AceR~]

Banning Metaknight is simply a ridiculous idea. He CAN be beaten, folks. He not some unstoppable ogre that wreaks havoc on everything in his path. He's a great character and hard to beat, but really, that just another incentive to figure out ways to take him down.

 

[Amide]

smash is not about characters,its about skill.

20%haracter
75:skill
5%:luck

if you think MK is almost unbeatable then get off the boards,play against MK and you will learn that if your are playing to win you dont need to necesarily use MK.

More like:

80% character (This could change if banning MK)
10% skill
10% luck

In Melee:

35% character
65% skill

I hate to break it to you, but a more skilled player will not beat an almost as skilled Meta Knight. If you think skill is such a huge factor, why does MK dominate the tournament scene?

 

[F3ma Ch33f]

Who is this Akuma you guys speak of?

Still waiting on an answer.

 

[Affinity]

Also: Yuna I think he's referring to the gap in Akokou's tournament ranking (Metaknight recently shot WAY past Snake in them). Course I know you were gone for a while so you probably never saw that update.

A lot of those MK tournament wins are from M2K; he said it himself.

DSF's probably adding to that number as well.

 

[The Real Inferno]

I was trying to keep it simple for the sake of Smashboards. Some people can't keep up even when we're only namedropping common Smash knowledge. Bringing in the Yun vs. Chun debate could potential make their heads explode.

Then again... that wouldn't really be much of a loss...

This thread is now about Chun Li. Discuss.

She's hot.

/thread

Seriously though, people complaining about this thread existing, it serves a purpose. It keeps those crappy threads of scrubs whining about MK down since they have a thread to come to now. It also allowed some (OMFG) intelligent discussion on the matter, whether you want him to be banned or not. (I don't really care)

I'm going to go back to Magic the Gathering since besides the overused Street Fighter argument and Pokemon, it's the only other game I ever played competitively. You see, in Magic they ban things that are not only too powerful but are so powerful they control the metagame. This means, that you either A: Play that and win. or B: Play the only thing that beats that (even if it doesn't beat anything else). The Smash Example would be: Person A plays Fox to win. Person B plays Jiggz just to beat Fox. Person B proceeds to defeat Person A only to lose to Person C who plays Marth. (this won't always happen of course, just an example, don't read into it more than that). As you can see, the same thing applies to MK in that you can play MK to win, or you can play to beat MK. By the Magic the Gathering standards then, we would have no choice but to ban Metaknight for controlling the entire Metagame. (HA that's why he has Meta in his name).

On the other hand. Smash isn't a card game is it?

Still waiting on an answer.

OMFG Google?!

 

[Espy Rose]

I typically agree with you on MK not being ban-worthy; I was simply playing Devil's advocate for the sake of argument and it didn't turn out too well.

However, I'm still supporting the idea that several MK-free tournaments be held, if not just to see the results.

Ditto.

The only way we will be able to truly know whether or not a ban on MK would be beneficial would be to have a few MK-absent Tournaments.

I still stand by the soft-ban idea. At least then, maybe the influx of MK players would drop a bit..

 

[Doggalina]

A lot of those MK tournament wins are from M2K; he said it himself. DSF's probably adding to that number as well.

8 out of the 25 are. His only other ranking was a 4th place. If you really need it, I'll do the math and see how many points m2k has given MK. MK will still probably be in 1st.

 

[Yuna]

I typically agree with you on MK not being ban-worthy; I was simply playing Devil's advocate for the sake of argument and it didn't turn out too well.

Thank God. I'd always regarded you as being among the Non-Stupid group here on Smashboards.

Still waiting on an answer.

I'm going to go back to Magic the Gathering since besides the overused Street Fighter argument and Pokemon, it's the only other game I ever played competitively. You see, in Magic they ban things that are not only too powerful but are so powerful they control the metagame. This means, that you either A: Play that and win. or B: Play the only thing that beats that (even if it doesn't beat anything else). The Smash Example would be: Person A plays Fox to win. Person B plays Jiggz just to beat Fox. Person B proceeds to defeat Person A only to lose to Person C who plays Marth. (this won't always happen of course, just an example, don't read into it more than that). As you can see, the same thing applies to MK in that you can play MK to win, or you can play to beat MK. By the Magic the Gathering standards then, we would have no choice but to ban Metaknight for controlling the entire Metagame. (HA that's why he has Meta in his name).

We ban things when they completely dominate the meta-game to such a degree you have to use it or lose... badly. It's not enough if you just lose. That's just that character being the best character in the game. And there will always be one of those, unless the game is perfectly balanced (somehow) or we ban everyone but a select few characters.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Still waiting on an answer.

Akuma was the secret boss in Super Street Fighter 2.
He was unlocked by defeating all the opponents without a loss.

He was EXTREMELY good.
His combos dud a large chunk of damage.
His air fireball was too good for the game and could result in you dying from blocking it or eating a death combo.

Which wasn't too pleasant.
Needless to say he was banned(In japan he was soft banned along with Old agat)in the U.S. because he just slaughtered everyone in the game that badly.


MK is more towards old sagat. Old Sagat is similar to Akuma in that he is really good (nowhere near as broken) but still really good. In japan he was soft banned because he limited the viability of other characters. In the U.S. he is not banned.

This is the case with MK, he limits the viability of of a large amount of characters.

Even if he was a superior version of old sagat there just hasn't been enough time to dictate the impact MK has on Brawl.

There should be tournaments that have a ban on MK, but only to test and see what are the results of MK being absent.

 

[Duality]

I thought MK being his cheap self and having rediculous speed, gimps, 10000 jumps, 5 recoveries, and being the "noob cannon" of Brawl made him ban worthy enough.

At least I like to see people dog on the guy playing as MK in tournaments. Still, I can't stand looking at local tourneys and seeing MK win the whole god **** thing. When I play for fun with friends, if you're gonna be MK, you have to be the pink one.

 

[Yuna]

Stuff.

Answer a n00b question and you'll have helped that n00b with that one matter. Teach said n00b to Google and you'll have helped him for life.

 

[LeeHarris]

Guilty Gear XX Acccent Core - Eddie is the best character in the game. Eddie has no bad matchups (I could be wrong here) - Eddie is so good, he's in S Tier (along with Testament), a tier above Top Tier
Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike - Yun is the best character in the game. he has no bad matchups
Soul Calibur II - Xianghua was the best character in the game with, I believe, 0 bad matchups. Maybe 1 or 2, I'm not sure

And the list goes on. All of those had/have either favourable matchups or even ones against the entire cast. Guess what, none of those character were/are banned.

I'll throw in my 2 cents later, but you are way off on all of those games.

 

[highandmightyjoe]

I'm going to go back to Magic the Gathering since besides the overused Street Fighter argument and Pokemon, it's the only other game I ever played competitively. You see, in Magic they ban things that are not only too powerful but are so powerful they control the metagame. This means, that you either A: Play that and win. or B: Play the only thing that beats that (even if it doesn't beat anything else). The Smash Example would be: Person A plays Fox to win. Person B plays Jiggz just to beat Fox. Person B proceeds to defeat Person A only to lose to Person C who plays Marth. (this won't always happen of course, just an example, don't read into it more than that). As you can see, the same thing applies to MK in that you can play MK to win, or you can play to beat MK. By the Magic the Gathering standards then, we would have no choice but to ban Metaknight for controlling the entire Metagame. (HA that's why he has Meta in his name).

MK is not Black Lotus.

I would just like to take this time to reiterate(spelled wrong i'm sure), that it is really just a sad thing that we have gotten to the point where people are actually considering a character ban a good idea.

As I said before the "for the good of the game" arguement is inherently flawed. You claim that people are leaving the game because it is unbalanced and unfun, but banning a character would only make matters worse. It would basically be an anouncement to gamers who may be considering taking up brawl, that we ourselves, the smash community have pretty much given up on Brawl as a competetive game. We all know that Brawl has a lot of problems that keep it from being competetive on the same level that Melee was, but this hardly seems like the answer.

As for what the answer is, I honestly don't know. Pray I guess.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Answer a n00b question and you'll have helped that n00b with that one matter. Teach said n00b to Google and you'll have helped him for life.

I answered him since it helps keep my mind off of stressful matters

 

[The Real Inferno]

For the record if I am not on Random, I only play Metaknight in Pink. That's how REAL MEN play Brawl.

We ban things when they completely dominate the meta-game to such a degree you have to use it or lose... badly. It's not enough if you just lose. That's just that character being the best character in the game. And there will always be one of those, unless the game is perfectly balanced (somehow) or we ban everyone but a select few characters.

Sounds like some of those AllisBrawl online (El. Oh. El. Online) tournies.

MK is not Black Lotus.

That may be true but whenever ROB uses his Down B he knows what his next card is going to be.

 

[Yuna]

I'll throw in my 2 cents later, but you are way off on all of those games.

I guess Yun, X and Eds are all Bottom Tier.All Hail the mighty LeeHarris who knows better than the combined fighting game communities of the world!

I could be wrong on the number of matchups they have in which they aren't either at an advantage or neutral. But that's hardly "way off". Yun has 0 bad matchups, I know this for a fact. Xianghua I'm not too sure of because I barely played SCII before SCIII rolled in and replaced it. Eds I'm pretty sure of.

And to anyone wondering, Yun is either 1st or 2nd on the 3S Tierlist (most people place him 1st last time I checked), Eddie is in S-Tier together with Testament (one step below him) (with the two of them being the only characters in S-Tier) and Xianghua is the best character in SCII.

 

[Duality]

As I said before the "for the good of the game" arguement is inherently flawed. You claim that people are leaving the game because it is unbalanced and unfun, but banning a character would only make matters worse. It would basically be an anouncement to gamers who may be considering taking up brawl, that we ourselves, the smash community have pretty much given up on Brawl as a competetive game. We all know that Brawl has a lot of problems that keep it from being competetive on the same level that Melee was, but this hardly seems like the answer.

No it wouldn't. Gamers who take up brawl (I assume you mean competitively) would know that MK is banned and they would be happy. Just because MK is banned, doesn't mean anyone gives up on the game completely or competitively. They are just fixing it for the greater good, the greater future, of the competitive game known as.. Brawl.

 

[Yuna]

No it wouldn't. Gamers who take up brawl (I assume you mean competitively) would know that MK is banned and they would be happy. Just because MK is banned, doesn't mean anyone gives up on the game completely or competitively. They are just fixing it for the greater good, the greater future, of the competitive game known as.. Brawl.

... because some Scrubs are whining.

 

[highandmightyjoe]

What I meant is that it would be a confession that the game is poorly designed, which it is. To me if you have a game with a banned character, and people making hacks to remove aspects from the game(tripping), then that tells me before I even play the game that it must have been pretty poorly put together for the community to have to do such drastic things to fix it.

 

[The Real Inferno]

Yeah Xianghua was the best but oddly -not- the most commonly used character in SC2, but then, SC2 was broken as all hell anyway.

 

[Yuna]

Yeah Xianghua was the best but oddly -not- the most commonly used character in SC2, but then, SC2 was broken as all hell anyway.

I never once claimed Xianghua, Yun or Eddie were the most commonly used characters in their respective games.

 

[Doggalina]

Hey guys, I have a possible solution to this MK predicament. It may not be everybody's favorite solution, but it is a solution nonetheless.
.
.
.
Play Melee.