The "Metaknight should/will be banned" thread.

[GofG]

Yuna, stop grouping everything that all the scrubs say together. It confuses the poor little guys :D.

 

[RDK]

Yuna, stop grouping everything that all the scrubs say together. It confuses the poor little guys :D.

It's kind of their fault for saying such stupid things.

 

[DanGR]

It's kind of their fault for saying such stupid things.

What about what Pops is saying is stupid. Your comment is dumber than anything he's written so far.

 

[Yuna]

i never said luigi's matchup against MK is 1-9.

Eyes playing tricks on me I guess. This is what you said:
"Luigi would be tournament viable if MK were out of the picture, he has an abnormaly bad matchup against MK."

I maintain it's a subjective and faulty opinion. This is your fellow Luigi players' opinion:
Meta-Knight: 9.5/10
"Let the record show that this is Luigi's hardest match-up. However, it IS winnable."

Mr. Game & Watch: 9/10

With Meta-Knight gone, you still have Game & Watch.

That's not to mention the other disadvantaged matchups he enjoys, like Meta-Knight, Falco, Marth, Robot (slight disadvantage), Shota-Link and others. Luigi is that far down on the tierlist for a reason. Meta-Knight is not solely responsible for him not being very viable!

And i would maintain that the question is flawed. You can't define unviable really. It's something that happens in degrees. Beating every character in the game with falco is hard, with toon link it's a little harder, with PT it's a little harder.... so on. It's a spectrum. It's difficult to say where you draw the line and call that a disadvantage that we can reasonably expect to be overcome by skill.

Competitive Viability:
Reasonable chances of winning a tournament.

 

[RDK]

What about what Pops is saying is stupid. Your comment is dumber than anything he's written so far.

His belief that Luigi is not tournament viable just because of his atrocious matchup with MK speaks for itself.

 

[popsofctown]

@RDK: I don't think his bad matchup alone is the difference between him being viable and him not being viable. Not being able to beat Meta Knight just tips the scales over the edge. He is currently almost viable, removing Meta Knight makes him viable. If he did better in other places in his matchup spread yes, he could be viable anyway.


1. "Abnormally bad" does not have a 1 or a 9 in it. I think the matchup is 7:3 or so.
2. Could you please define the word faulty, when used as an adjective to describe opinion?
3. I cannot be held responsible for the opinions of every other player that has an opinion that agree with me at only one point. I think Luigi's fight against G&W is significantly more winnable than his fight against MK. Thus, MK is his worse matchup, and G&W is his second worst matchup, to me, it seems like about a 10 point margin. If we remove MK, his matchup spread improves ten points in its worst places, and if i pin the definition of viability somewhere between 70-30 and 60-40 then we have an unviable character made viable.
4. Your definition of competitive viability uses the word reasonable. Reasonable is subjective, just like the tier list is subjective and the matchup rating for any matchup is subjective. You can't refute my answer to a subjective question by claiming my answer is subjective. There are no objective answers available.

 

[Yuna]

1. "Abnormally bad" does not have a 1 or a 9 in it. I think the matchup is 7:3 or so.

I already said that you apparently never said so and that it was my eyes playing tricks on me.

2. Could you please define the word faulty, when used as an adjective to describe opinion?

"Your [opinion]'s cute. But it's wrong!"

3. I cannot be held responsible for the opinions of every other player that has an opinion that agree with me at only one point. I think Luigi's fight against G&W is significantly more winnable than his fight against MK. Thus, MK is his worse matchup, and G&W is his second worst matchup, to me, it seems like about a 10 point margin. If we remove MK, his matchup spread improves ten points in its worst places, and if i pin the definition of viability somewhere between 70-30 and 60-40 then we have an unviable character made viable.

I was using the opinions of your fellow Luigi players to illustrate that virtually no one flawed opinion (seriously, what do you base it on?!), be it us non-Luigi players or your fellow Luigi players.

You just said a bunch of stuff without elaborating on why you think it is so. Just because X person thinks Captain Falcon is a Snake counter does not make it so.

Your definition of competitive viability uses the word reasonable. Reasonable is subjective, just like the tier list is subjective and the matchup rating for any matchup is subjective. You can't refute my answer to a subjective question by claiming my answer is subjective. There are no objective answers available.

New definition (ver. popsofctown):
The character in question must be able to win a tournament when facing roughly equally skilled players, no matter who they play as.

By "roughly equally skilled", I mean a difference which is negligible and where if both players are to play the same character, it'll be 50/50. Your strawmanning won't make you any less wrong.

 

[popsofctown]

That definition still requires you to make judgements on whether a matchup is 5/5 or 6/4 etc. That's subjective. I suppose the issue isn't actually with the definition of viable if you define it like that, it's that it requires subjective calls along the way. If equally skilled players play a 6/4 matchups, the guy using 6 wins, but no once can say for sure whether any matchup is 6/4.

Edit: Where was i strawmanning Yuna? If i actually did, i will retract it... it's possible.

 

[RDK]

@RDK: I don't think his bad matchup alone is the difference between him being viable and him not being viable. Not being able to beat Meta Knight just tips the scales over the edge. He is currently almost viable, removing Meta Knight makes him viable. If he did better in other places in his matchup spread yes, he could be viable anyway.

The matchup between Luigi and MK is not unwinnable. I assure you that by all conventional standards, Luigi is completely tournament viable. It just may not seem that way because a lot of people us MK, and that effects the matchups you encounter.

You can't look at his matchup with one particular character and base his entire tournament viability off of that, no matter how popular that character is at the time.

 

[Yuna]

That definition still requires you to make judgements on whether a matchup is 5/5 or 6/4 etc. That's subjective. I suppose the issue isn't actually with the definition of viable if you define it like that, it's that it requires subjective calls along the way. If equally skilled players play a 6/4 matchups, the guy using 6 wins, but no once can say for sure whether any matchup is 6/4.

Edit: Where was i strawmanning Yuna? If i actually did, i will retract it... it's possible.

No, matchups are not subjective. Matchups are based on facts. We don't just sit around and guess or inject opinions into things. We study the facts and then come up with a conclusion.

It's called not being an idiot.

We can't say things for sure, but we can make pretty accurate guesses given enough information and knowledge about the game. You are obviously grossly unqualified for making such judgments if you think G&W isn't anywhere near MK as a hard matchup for Luigi.

 

[DanGR]

You can't look at his matchup with one particular character and base his entire tournament viability off of that, no matter how popular that character is at the time.

I'm a four letter word that starts with N. Who am I?

 

[popsofctown]

Ok, let me make sure i have it right.

Yes or no, is a matchup number a fact?

 

[Yuna]

Ok, let me make sure i have it right.

Yes or no, is a matchup number a fact?

What part of "educated guess/thesis based on facts" was too Brazilian Portuguese for you to understand?

 

[popsofctown]

Ok, so are these theses (that's not a typo) known for all the matchups in the game?

 

[infomon]

New definition (ver. popsofctown):
The character in question must be able to win a tournament when facing roughly equally skilled players, no matter who they play as.

I have a problem with this: "equally skilled players". Players who are not expert quality should not be considered at all in discussions about matchups; I don't care if they're equally skilled, if they are not playing the game at an advanced level. This alone should kill most of the n00b discussion, including calls for a Metaknight ban.

 

[Yuna]

I have a problem with this: "equally skilled players". Players who are not expert quality should not be considered at all in discussions about matchups; I don't care if they're equally skilled, if they are not playing the game at an advanced level. This alone should kill most of the n00b discussion, including calls for a Metaknight ban.

When discussing theory fighter and game depth, it is inferred that the players involved are playing at the highest possible level.

 

[OrlanduEX]

Not at all. There's a great deal of evidence that Snake owes his slot as second-best character to MK, as he did his top tier position.

It would seem so that the character that wins the second most would be most likely top tier, but you gotta remember that the current top tier affects the metagame A LOT. This is especially true of MK. So in this discussion, match-ups dictate, not tournament results.

But it's not the future, it's a hypothetical, and an interesting thought experiment, not to mention it debunks certain core arguments.




Being top tier is not the same as being MK. MK renders many characters as not being tournament viable, but Marth has maybe 2 match-ups that he outright destroys the character, the rest are 60-40 or close.

The result is a much more diverse tournament environment.


However, it's WAY too early to be sure.

You put WAY too much stock in match up charts. The game is 6 months old. These charts aren't reliable. All those characters that MK 7-3's according to the match up charts suck anyway. And you seem caught up in the idea that Snake only wins because MK beats his bad match ups. Snake has no hard counters. He'd beat those people anyway. You have to reach pretty far to say that Marth would be number one over Snake, DDD, Wario, and Game and Watch who are winning more than him now if MK was gone.

 

[infomon]

When discussing theory fighter and game depth, it is inferred that the players involved are playing at the highest possible level.

Yeah, exactly. I guess I just wanted to stress this, like it should be explicitly stated simply because we both know that not everyone here is doing this!

 

[choknater]

if players played at the highest possible level, they'd just play ice climbers

yayuhzzzz!

 

[OrlanduEX]

It seems the "Sacred Seven" have been cut to six. Marth ain't in the group.

 

[TKD]

People are already catching up to MK, no ban pl0x

 

[thesage]

Can he be banned, cuz I hate playing as and against him. It's sooooo boring.

 

[Dark Sonic]

It seems the "Sacred Seven" have been cut to six. Marth ain't in the group.

Since when? He's got the 7th best tournament results. And no bad matchups (bar Metaknight, which is only a slight disadvantage).

 

[adumbrodeus]

Snake would still be higher because he has the advantage against marth, is it that hard to understand that your own boards more respected people are saying that it's 60:40, not 50:50 or 55:45. Any idiot that took match can tell what that ratio is and can apply it to a scenario and cna tell that 60:40 means an advantage for snake. So no, your own boards say it's not neutral.

He said that a while ago, he participated in the Snake discussion and has since stated it's a neutral. As the metagame evolves, match-ups change.

THAT MK MATCH UP THREAD SUCKS HARDCORE. I mean really, over half the posts in it are about how crappy the thread is, did you even look at it? And no, you haven't discussed it, you've thrown it out like a safety blanket and for some reason you didn't put flame retardant on your blanket and it keeps burning up. At least tell me why it should be trusted because the people IN the thread sure dont think so.

Or an extremely popular one....see sheik/fox/falco

I'm not suggesting that it's truly accurate, actually that's one major example of a reason why the metagame is FAR to immature to consider banning a character that is even remotely boarderline. We don't even have accurate match-up charts.


So, really all that does is lead to my other points.

You put WAY too much stock in match up charts. The game is 6 months old. These charts aren't reliable. All those characters that MK 7-3's according to the match up charts suck anyway. And you seem caught up in the idea that Snake only wins because MK beats his bad match ups. Snake has no hard counters. He'd beat those people anyway. You have to reach pretty far to say that Marth would be number one over Snake, DDD, Wario, and Game and Watch who are winning more than him now if MK was gone.

I think you missed my caveat.

The fact that we can't be sure they're accurate is part of the reason why the metagame is far too immature to consider banning MK.



He does have soft counters though, something that Marth doesn't have, sure he'd win a lot, but we wouldn't be winning AS MUCH, same with G&W, DDD, and Wario. But of course. The unspoken caveat here is that, if the match-ups are wrong, then the conclusion is wrong. But you need to start somewhere when drawing conclusions.

We've already been through this. The characters MK hard-counters are generally pretty bad characters anyway. They have other factors (like, say, matchups) rendering them unviable. Removing MK won't magically make them viable. It's remove one of their horrible matchups.

Not all of them, regardless a hard-counter match-up with MK is significantly more destructive then a hard counter match-up with multiple other characters, because adopting a secondary doesn't help.

Since when? He's got the 7th best tournament results. And no bad matchups (bar Metaknight, which is only a slight disadvantage).

Only 7th best at the moment, generally he's in the top 5.

Wario is a similar issue, why's he out?

 

[RoxburyGuy58]

Wow, I'm glad someone finally made a post like this. There are just too many whiners out there that can't beat/main Meta-Knight.

 

[Yuna]

Not all of them, regardless a hard-counter match-up with MK is significantly more destructive then a hard counter match-up with multiple other characters, because adopting a secondary doesn't help?

Umm... yes it does? Because he doesn't 6-3 everyone. 5-5s, 5-4s (and to some extent, even 6-4s) are pretty much evenish all of them.

And there are plenty of characters that enjoy such odds against Meta-Knight. And, pray tell, what characters besides Meta, Snake, Game & Watch and Marth enjoy no hard counters (and which point adopting a secondary wouldn't help since there's always that one hard counter!)?

With that same logic, every single character who ever hard counters someone else needs to be banned. For a lot of characters, Meta isn't even their hardest matchup. If you want to win at all costs, get Meta, Snake, G&W or Marth as a secondary.

Otherwise, there'll always be a few counters, soft or hard, around. Whining about Meta hard-countering a few characters is really illogical since the same can be said about plenty of characters.

The only difference between Meta and, say, Marth is that there are less Marths. So banning Meta because of this would be punishing him simply because he's popular, which isn't something we're in the habit of doing. In other words, Meta is in no way "too broken". Meta does not break the game. Removing meta won't magically make certain characters viable since most characters Meta hard counters are pretty ****ty to begin with and enjoy more bad matchups than just Meta.

 

[OrlanduEX]

Umm... yes it does? Because he doesn't 6-3 everyone. 5-5s, 5-4s (and to some extent, even 6-4s) are pretty much evenish all of them.

And there are plenty of characters that enjoy such odds against Meta-Knight. And, pray tell, what characters besides Meta, Snake, Game & Watch and Marth enjoy no hard counters (and which point adopting a secondary wouldn't help since there's always that one hard counter!)?

With that same logic, every single character who ever hard counters someone else needs to be banned. For a lot of characters, Meta isn't even their hardest matchup. If you want to win at all costs, get Meta, Snake, G&W or Marth as a secondary.

Otherwise, there'll always be a few counters, soft or hard, around. Whining about Meta hard-countering a few characters is really illogical since the same can be said about plenty of characters.

The only difference between Meta and, say, Marth is that there are less Marths. So banning Meta because of this would be punishing him simply because he's popular, which isn't something we're in the habit of doing. In other words, Meta is in no way "too broken". Meta does not break the game. Removing meta won't magically make certain characters viable since most characters Meta hard counters are pretty ****ty to begin with and enjoy more bad matchups than just Meta.

Please, Samurai Panda. I beg you. Update the OP with this post and lock the thread.

 

[Affinity]

Please, Samurai Panda. I beg you. Update the OP with this post and lock the thread.

I second this.

 

[Yuna]

Please, Samurai Panda. I beg you. Update the OP with this post and lock the thread.

Why did you quote me in saying this? Are you agreeing with what I'm saying or disagreeing with it?

 

[ShadowLink84]

He was agreeing.

 

[OrlanduEX]

Why did you quote me in saying this? Are you agreeing with what I'm saying or disagreeing with it?

He was agreeing.

I was certainly agreeing. I guess I should have clarified.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm being straw-manned here

Umm... yes it does? Because he doesn't 6-3 everyone. 5-5s, 5-4s (and to some extent, even 6-4s) are pretty much evenish all of them.

And there are plenty of characters that enjoy such odds against Meta-Knight. And, pray tell, what characters besides Meta, Snake, Game & Watch and Marth enjoy no hard counters (and which point adopting a secondary wouldn't help since there's always that one hard counter!)?

With that same logic, every single character who ever hard counters someone else needs to be banned. For a lot of characters, Meta isn't even their hardest matchup. If you want to win at all costs, get Meta, Snake, G&W or Marth as a secondary.

Otherwise, there'll always be a few counters, soft or hard, around. Whining about Meta hard-countering a few characters is really illogical since the same can be said about plenty of characters.

The only difference between Meta and, say, Marth is that there are less Marths. So banning Meta because of this would be punishing him simply because he's popular, which isn't something we're in the habit of doing. In other words, Meta is in no way "too broken". Meta does not break the game. Removing meta won't magically make certain characters viable since most characters Meta hard counters are pretty ****ty to begin with and enjoy more bad matchups than just Meta.

It's a matter of degrees, obviously. You'll find that the general community feeling is that 60-40 is a good match-up against MK, because so many characters have it. It's not just the scrubs either, Emblem Lord said it before as well, and I'm pretty sure the sentiment is shared by many SBRers. For no other character does this sentiment exist, especially not Marth who hard-counters nobody.


Again, I point out in the STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS that this LEADS to my second point. The metagame is nowhere near mature enough to make a ban judgment, and the fact that it's community sentiment that says that MK hard counters a bunch of characters instead of CONFIRMED hard data, well that's probably the most succulent point that one can possibly make about why the metagame is far from mature enough to make this judgement.

Which is why MK will not be banned, at least not for a good 5 years (at least) for the metagame to mature. Then we can actually confirm whether or not he hard-counters everyone and their mother, and we will have also had time to develop counters to see if other characters can actually compete with him.


I'm making a whole lot of assumptions obviously, but that's the point of the my point about "wait and see". We are LIMITED to making far too many assumptions to make a legitimate judgment on the issue besides of course, leave him in and let the metagame develop. So don't act like I'm one of those scrubs crying for MK to be banned today, I just have a very nuanced position that takes into account a lot of possibilities that we MAY encounter.


So pretty much, you're ignoring my real point in favor of attacking a position, the vulnerability of which is actually part of the reasoning behind my main point.

 

[Yuna]

It's a matter of degrees, obviously. You'll find that the general community feeling is that 60-40 is a good match-up against MK, because so many characters have it. It's not just the scrubs either, Emblem Lord said it before as well, and I'm pretty sure the sentiment is shared by many SBRers. For no other character does this sentiment exist, especially not Marth who hard-counters nobody.

What does this have to do with anything? People are running around whining about Meta hard countering too many characters and some claim there are characters that would become viable were Meta-Knight not around.

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. So Meta-Knight has a lot of 60-40s against people... I've said that since the very beginning. 60-40 is in no way a hard matchup. It's just a disadvantageous one. And if Meta enjoys mostly 60-40, what reason is there to ban him, really?

You're either schizophrenic or playing Devil's Advocate, yet you have to provide any substantial arguments for why Meta-Knight should be banned.

Again, I point out in the STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS that this LEADS to my second point. The metagame is nowhere near mature enough to make a ban judgment, and the fact that it's community sentiment that says that MK hard counters a bunch of characters instead of CONFIRMED hard data, well that's probably the most succulent point that one can possibly make about why the metagame is far from mature enough to make this judgement.

Just because you at the same time say "It's too early to..." doesn't mean I cannot challenge your other claims.

Which is why MK will not be banned, at least not for a good 5 years (at least) for the metagame to mature. Then we can actually confirm whether or not he hard-counters everyone and their mother, and we will have also had time to develop counters to see if other characters can actually compete with him.

It does not take 5 years. Especially not with Brawl. One more year, at most, and we'll see whether or not we have to ban him.

Tell me, dear sir, what other fighting game communities needed 5 years before they banned characters? Is the Smash community so incompetent we need several times as much time as other communities?

So pretty much, you're ignoring my real point in favor of attacking a position, the vulnerability of which is actually part of the reasoning behind my main point.

Again, saying "It's too early" doesn't give you a "Get out of Arguments" card. You can't just go "It's too early", yet also add in a ton of other arguments and expect them all to go unchallenged. That's absurd.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I do not advocate banning Metaknight.

HOWEVER: His attacks have too much range and priority for their speed.
He is WAY to good at ledgestalling/camping. Even though great players can get around this, it is still a NOT FUN obstacle to navigate.
His recovery is insane and aided by some of the highest priority attacks in the game.
His kill moves kill WAY to early for this style of character (Sonic does not enjoy the KO-ability of MK by a LONG shot)

So while NONE of this makes him ban-worthy, would we really miss him if he stopped appearing in tournaments?

 

[Rockin]

I don't think Meta should be banned at all (at least, I don't see many reasons for him to get banned). It's just that he has multiple options against the opponents as in such of what to do. Given this, this doesn't mean that there will be garanteed wins for Meta.

I feel that many don't like Meta simply because they just can't fight Meta. Instead of practicing and trying their hardest to defeat Meta, they go and try to get RID of him. Don't get me wrong, I can picture the struggle the other characters have with MK, but I can also picture them getting better with that said character against Meta Knight.

 

[Yuna]

I do not advocate banning Metaknight.

HOWEVER: His attacks have too much range and priority for their speed.

Marth says "Hi". Marth enjoys more cooldown lag inbetween his attacks, though (but you didn't mention that).

He is WAY to good at ledgestalling/camping.

So are half of the cast.

Even though great players can get around this, it is still a NOT FUN obstacle to navigate.

"It's not fun!" - BS argument.

His recovery is insane and aided by some of the highest priority attacks in the game.

His recovery is not insane. It's just very good. There are quite a few characters with better recoveries than Meta-Knight.

His kill moves kill WAY to early for this style of character (Sonic does not enjoy the KO-ability of MK by a LONG shot)

Outside of Upsmash and Dsmash, pray tell, what are these kill moves which kill pre 150%-ish? And who cares about Sonic? He's a whole different character altogether.

So while NONE of this makes him ban-worthy, would we really miss him if he stopped appearing in tournaments?

Inconsequential and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The only relevant thing is whether or not he should be banned. How many people dislike him, how many would miss him and yaddi yaddi yadda are just off-time BS people come up with to try to turn public opinion against Meta-Knight.

But us non-stupid people look at the verifiable facts.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I know Marth is fast, I am not totally sure why he is a part of the conversation. However, no one thing I stated in my previous post would make MK a problem, it is the combination of difficult elements that make him so tough.

EDIT: You forgot to mention the shuttle loop is a kill move. And since the kill moves are all good, he doesn't need many.

His recovery is not insane. It's just very good. There are quite a few characters with better recoveries than Meta-Knight.

Who? MK has glide, five mid-air jumps, and four recovery moves, one of them being an excellent K.O. move (shuttle loop) and another having incredible priority and horizontal range (tornado). Who beats that?

EDIT: While I don't advocate the banning of MetaKnight, I can understand why he could be banned, and choose to pose arguements for MK banning for the sake of discussion. MK is really good, and ignoring just how good he is does not make him any worse, if anything, it might distort our view of MK.

 

[Gindler]

But...if they banned MK...then no one would even care that Yoshi exists. He just got recognition for doing good against MK, not as good as another MK does but still.

 

[cutter]

Locking the thread is pointless. People are just going to make more threads about banning MK. Wasn't the whole point of this thread to provide a focal point for all discussion on banning MK?

 

[Yuna]

I know Marth is fast, I am not totally sure why he is a part of the conversation. However, no one thing I stated in my previous post would make MK a problem, it is the combination of difficult elements that make him so tough.

Funny, Marth fits most of the things you said.

EDIT: You forgot to mention the shuttle loop is a kill move. And since the kill moves are all good, he doesn't need many.

Only his Fsmash is slow as hell and his Shuttle Loop leaves him wide open (unless he cancels it with a move, but he's still open for a while there). Kill moves aren't very reliable or good if they leave you wide open on whiff.

Who? MK has glide, five mid-air jumps, and four recovery moves, one of them being an excellent K.O. move (shuttle loop) and another having incredible priority and horizontal range (tornado). Who beats that?

Four recovery moves? Are you counting Mach Tornado (which leave him wide open unless he does it right at the edge, and hey, did you know there are plenty of moves that beat it?) and Side B, which leaves him wide open and is hard to steer (but it's quite good) and Down B which barely takes him anywhere? Hey, Peach Bomber is a recovery move too then, I guess.

And Meta-Knight has five mid-air jumps since when?

Never mind the fact that he's got a pretty hard time recovering vertically except for with jumps and Up B (and even Up B is a bit wonky on that front). Characters with better recoveries? Pit (multiple jumps, glide, Up B from Hell, though he has to land afterwards) has a better recovery IMO (but I could very well be wrong here). Ever heard of R.O.B. as long as he doesn't die from the spike itself, he'll most probably recover from it? Jigglypuff still has Rising Pound (and multiple jumps).

While I don't advocate the banning of MetaKnight, I can understand why he could be banned, and choose to pose arguements for MK banning for the sake of discussion. MK is really good, and ignoring just how good he is does not make him any worse, if anything, it might distort our view of MK.

And I can challenge your arguments if I find them faulty. Just because you say "I don't think he should be banned..." doesn't give you a "Get out of challenges" card.