The Official SBR Podcast! (Ep. 4 - DL OUT!)

[Vyse]

I have proved two criteria that require a ban:

1. character somehow breaks smash game play
2. character is unbeatable

only 1 of the 2 being required. Metaknight can be beaten, so that nullifies #2. Metaknight does not disable the key aspects that encompass smash game play, such as free movement, the ability to attack, defend, DI, or outplay your opponent, so he fits neither criteria.

While I'm at it, criterion #1 was the reason I wanted Wobbling banned, as it effectively DOES break smash game play.

smash game play does not encompass countering, as countering is not an element of smash game play, but rather countering is an element of our tournament format. the lack of counters does not leave MK to break smash game play, although I do believe him to have no counters.

edit: akuma breaks game play in his game, removing the ability to attack, thus warranting a ban. akuma actually fits both criteria.

Wow. QFT.
Well put.

But how do the Pro-banners argue against that though?

 

[Overswarm]

Akuma doesn't fit 1 and 2.

If he does, then so does Fox in Melee as well as Wolf in Brawl. Played perfectly, they are invincible and unpunishable. Akuma was quite often beaten in tournament, especially in Japan where he is only soft-banned. Akuma still deserves to be banned.

Regardless, #2 is pointless. Metaknight can be beaten if his opponent sets down the control or constantly mashes "a". Where do you draw the line at competence? We know MK has the advantage in every matchup. Does he have to literally have a win button to be banned? Akuma can be beaten, so can MK. That doesn't mean it is likely, fair, or desirable.

#1 is vague and subjective. MK breaks smash gameplay in my opinion because he breaks the counter system; he has no bad matchups nor does he have bad stages. His ledge camping also breaks the risk/reward scenario normally found on the edge, yet MK has no glaring weaknesses to counteract this. He also has several attacks that come out incredibly fast that combo into each other reminiscent of a frame trap (and, in some situations, are) that other characters are unable to emulate.

The list goes on and on, but is subjective because someone can say "that doesn't break it" simply based on their opinion. I don't believe Wobbling banned anything in Melee. Should ICs do their CGs properly, you can't get out of those either even with SDI until you are at kill % anyway. Should Sheik grab Bowser, Bowser is dead should Sheik play properly. How is this game-breaking or even new?

It goes both ways, so both criteria are flawed.

 

[Vyse]

So then what's left to determine it? It's effect on the competitive viability of Brawl?

ARGH, I wish I had been able to listen to the podcast live =_=;;

In my opinion, if there was even a single decisive reason to ban him, he would have been banned by now (Or there would be a sizable majority pushing for it). What we have right now is a character with a move set which in turn breaks the next thing and the next in a chain of reasons as to why he should be banned to which anti-ban argue 'Myeah, but I mean, if you're good enough, you can win'.

The moment something comes along (Other than infinite dimensional cape) which completely breaks MK, I'll switch to pro-ban.

 

[Praxis]

View Post
I have proved two criteria that require a ban:

1. character somehow breaks smash game play
2. character is unbeatable

only 1 of the 2 being required. Metaknight can be beaten, so that nullifies #2. Metaknight does not disable the key aspects that encompass smash game play, such as free movement, the ability to attack, defend, DI, or outplay your opponent, so he fits neither criteria.

While I'm at it, criterion #1 was the reason I wanted Wobbling banned, as it effectively DOES break smash game play.

smash game play does not encompass countering, as countering is not an element of smash game play, but rather countering is an element of our tournament format. the lack of counters does not leave MK to break smash game play, although I do believe him to have no counters.

edit: akuma breaks game play in his game, removing the ability to attack, thus warranting a ban. akuma actually fits both criteria.

Wow. QFT.
Well put.

But how do the Pro-banners argue against that though?

OS put his response. Mine is that I disagree with the criteria.

My criteria:

1) Character is the best in the game
2) Character breaks an aspect of the game
3) Character has no bad matchups, very few even if any
4) Character dominates tournament scenes significantly
5) There is no other character in the game that fits this criteria
6) Character's moveset is unquestionably superior to opponents, OR character has some ridiculously broken technique



Would anyone from Melee meet all of this? No. Fox was best in the game, but didn't break anything, had equals, and wasn't even the most dominant character. Marth was the dominant character, didn't break anything, had equals, and broke nothing.

MK's sole dominance breaks the counterpicking system. He is considered by many to have no neutral matchups or bad matchups, and even those who dispute the neutral matchup (some feel Snake and Diddy run even, despite tournament results not reflecting this) agree he has no bad. He breaks the counterpicking system, can't be edgeguarded, is the most dominant character in the smash scene, has a moveset so blatantly superior he gets his own tier...

Only Metaknight meets this. This is my criteria. I would argue that Umbreon's criteria is too strict, as requiring a character to be unbeatable AND break the entire gameplay is simply setting the bar too high.

Add the fact that he has the easiest learning curve (I picked him up in 50 minutes and took him to tournament as an experiment. Got my highest doubles placement of all time, and the same singles placement as usual, regardless) and he simply makes the game stupid.

We banned items for far less. Food and Beamswords don't break the game or make the receiver unbeatable (I've lost matches where my Peach pulled a beamsword). MK is an unfair advantage, just like an item, except only one person gets it.

 

[memphischains]

I want me and Umbreon to have children

 

[Deleted member]

my criteria only requires one of the 2, certainly not both. either or warrants a ban.

I assume top level of current competitive play, as the SBR always does when concerning decisions for tournament rules or when making tier lists.

If he does, then so does Fox in Melee as well as Wolf in Brawl. Played perfectly, they are invincible and unpunishable. Akuma was quite often beaten in tournament, especially in Japan where he is only soft-banned. Akuma still deserves to be banned.

Regardless, #2 is pointless. Metaknight can be beaten if his opponent sets down the control or constantly mashes "a". Where do you draw the line at competence? We know MK has the advantage in every matchup. Does he have to literally have a win button to be banned? Akuma can be beaten, so can MK. That doesn't mean it is likely, fair, or desirable.

#1 is vague and subjective. MK breaks smash gameplay in my opinion because he breaks the counter system; he has no bad matchups nor does he have bad stages. His ledge camping also breaks the risk/reward scenario normally found on the edge, yet MK has no glaring weaknesses to counteract this. He also has several attacks that come out incredibly fast that combo into each other reminiscent of a frame trap (and, in some situations, are) that other characters are unable to emulate.

The list goes on and on, but is subjective because someone can say "that doesn't break it" simply based on their opinion. I don't believe Wobbling banned anything in Melee. Should ICs do their CGs properly, you can't get out of those either even with SDI until you are at kill % anyway. Should Sheik grab Bowser, Bowser is dead should Sheik play properly. How is this game-breaking or even new?

It goes both ways, so both criteria are flawed.

we do not assume perfect play, and we cannot operate in the world of the impossible anyway.

metaknight can be beaten at top level play. We have evidence of this. he doesn't fit #2. akuma cannot be beaten at top level play. We also have evidence of this. akuma fits #2. These points have been tested and are non-debatable with evidence.

metaknight does not prevent smash from being played in a standard fashion. metaknight doesn't fit #1.

ICs chaingrabs end eventually, wobbling doesn't have to. You can DI and try to make the IC player mess up. While poor, you still have defensive options. Wobbling eliminates that. Wobbling breaks game play and should be banned. With wobbling, you can not expect to have a standard game of smash. Bowser can attempt to DI out of sheik's CG. It should not be banned.

You are thinking too much about this. Both criteria are actually very simple and straightforward.

edit: items are banned on the basis that they are random. You can argue that when you press down B as peach, you may or may not get a beamsword and that is random, but that is only partially true, as a beamsword will not appear if you don't do that and therefore is only as random as the peach player dictates by attempting to pull one. items via the item menu are totally random. Metaknight does not appear during your attacks and explode and kill you.

 

[Snakeee]

Regardless, #2 is pointless. Metaknight can be beaten if his opponent sets down the control or constantly mashes "a". Where do you draw the line at competence? We know MK has the advantage in every matchup. Does he have to literally have a win button to be banned? Akuma can be beaten, so can MK. That doesn't mean it is likely, fair, or desirable.

Wow, no offense but does Metaknight really give you THAT much trouble??? You're supposedly one of the best ROB players, if Meta is that much of a problem for you then you should practice the match up and try to discover new things ROB can do against him. Not using Metaknight yourself to try to prove a moot point. I still think this whole discussion of banning Meta is complete nonsense. I don't see how you can say this, there ARE characters that go at least about even with Metaknight.

 

[Praxis]

Wow, no offense but does Metaknight really give you THAT much trouble??? You're supposedly one of the best ROB players, if Meta is that much of a problem for you then you should practice the match up and try to discover new things ROB can do against him. Not using Metaknight yourself to try to prove a moot point. I still think this whole discussion of banning Meta is complete nonsense. I don't see how you can say this, there ARE characters that go at least about even with Metaknight.

You know he mains Meta, right?

 

[Snakeee]

Yes Praxis, I know he's maining Meta which is why I specifically said this,"Not using Metaknight yourself to try to prove a moot point." He's been using Meta just for the sake of proving that he should be banned.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

You list having defensive options as being a reason to not ban sheik's CG in melee but still ban wobbling. Does this mean that DDD's infinites on DK, samus, etc should be banned because you do not have defensive options once you get stuck inside it?

 

[Snakeee]

You list having defensive options as being a reason to not ban sheik's CG in melee but still ban wobbling. Does this mean that DDD's infinites on DK, samus, etc should be banned because you do not have defensive options once you get stuck inside it?

I don't know what Umbreon think's about that, but DDD's infinite standing cg SHOULD be banned and it is banned in NY now.

 

[betterthanbonds9]

my criteria only requires one of the 2, certainly not both. either or warrants a ban.

I assume top level of current competitive play, as the SBR always does when concerning decisions for tournament rules or when making tier lists.

we do not assume perfect play, and we cannot operate in the world of the impossible anyway.

metaknight can be beaten at top level play. We have evidence of this. he doesn't fit #2. akuma cannot be beaten at top level play. We also have evidence of this. akuma fits #2. These points have been tested and are non-debatable with evidence.

metaknight does not prevent smash from being played in a standard fashion. metaknight doesn't fit #1.

ICs chaingrabs end eventually, wobbling doesn't have to. You can DI and try to make the IC player mess up. While poor, you still have defensive options. Wobbling eliminates that. Wobbling breaks game play and should be banned. With wobbling, you can not expect to have a standard game of smash. Bowser can attempt to DI out of sheik's CG. It should not be banned.

You are thinking too much about this. Both criteria are actually very simple and straightforward.

edit: items are banned on the basis that they are random. You can argue that when you press down B as peach, you may or may not get a beamsword and that is random, but that is only partially true, as a beamsword will not appear if you don't do that and therefore is only as random as the peach player dictates by attempting to pull one. items via the item menu are totally random. Metaknight does not appear during your attacks and explode and kill you.

just a side note: i always thought items werre banned because you couldn't get rid of capsules and capsules can always explode...

back to the main post: Maybe it's my overall scrubbiness coming to fruition here, but let me ask this: What is top level of play?

I know nobody is perfect in a playstyle, just in principle that is wrong because playstyles evolve over time. However, top level of play imo DOES mean that both players know the matchup inside and out, thus know the way to ideally win. I cannot simply fathom what the iconic top level of play is though. Therefore, I will go no further than a connection. If the tier list is made concerning top levels of play, then as long as the character against the #1 character is not a counter to that character, #1 SHOULD win. That's the point of the tier list, and as much as people want to debate who #2-37 could be, i doubt the existence of a single person that claims MK is NOT #1.

Now the question becomes: how does a MK lose. The scenario above dictates that MK must be playing at a level lower to that of the opponent (ie. The opponent is closer to the imaginary "top level of play" line)

Personally, I find that brawl needs a situation where the #1 character (A) is countered by character B. Then character C counters B, but it is undesirable for A to play C, although C does not counter A necesarrily, and then a player chooses character D to fight C and after this, infinite letters may be used, but it's fine if A counters D. This is not used to describe the cp system of a match, it is how the game evolves over time.
(following is based off the melee tier lists)
Sheik dominated, then the spacies enter and take sheik out of the game. Spacies dominate for awhile, UNTIL marth shows up and puts up a fight against them regularly. Now sheik is poised to return imo to counter the marths again by having the scene lack as many spacies as before.
--now this goes A<B<C<A, and although differenet from above where I said that the D was ideal, this is realistic. This system works by allowing a rough period over time where no character dominates for too long, another character will just beat them.

in brawl i fear it will look like this MK=MK. I hope a counter evolves, and i hope the counter alone can survive well enough to make a name for itself. Sadly, indication is that a counter is in the works, but MK will adapt, just like he did in the past.

OS put his response. Mine is that I disagree with the criteria.

My criteria:

1) Character is the best in the game
2) Character breaks an aspect of the game
3) Character has no bad matchups, very few even if any
4) Character dominates tournament scenes significantly
5) There is no other character in the game that fits this criteria
6) Character's moveset is unquestionably superior to opponents, OR character has some ridiculously broken technique

Would anyone from Melee meet all of this? No. Fox was best in the game, but didn't break anything, had equals, and wasn't even the most dominant character. Marth was the dominant character, didn't break anything, had equals, and broke nothing.

MK's sole dominance breaks the counterpicking system. He is considered by many to have no neutral matchups or bad matchups, and even those who dispute the neutral matchup (some feel Snake and Diddy run even, despite tournament results not reflecting this) agree he has no bad. He breaks the counterpicking system, can't be edgeguarded, is the most dominant character in the smash scene, has a moveset so blatantly superior he gets his own tier...

Only Metaknight meets this. This is my criteria. I would argue that Umbreon's criteria is too strict, as requiring a character to be unbeatable AND break the entire gameplay is simply setting the bar too high.

Add the fact that he has the easiest learning curve (I picked him up in 50 minutes and took him to tournament as an experiment. Got my highest doubles placement of all time, and the same singles placement as usual, regardless) and he simply makes the game stupid.

We banned items for far less. Food and Beamswords don't break the game or make the receiver unbeatable (I've lost matches where my Peach pulled a beamsword). MK is an unfair advantage, just like an item, except only one person gets it.

I'd argue that because Marth has a disadvantage against sheik, sheiks will increase eventually, just needs somebody to show the way (i HATE my cliches, and i'm using them more and more >_> dumb 2am). Marth only appears to dominate because MLG showed up in the prime of the spacies era. His ability to hold his own/beat many space character players is evidence of it. But yeah, he dominated at an appropriate time. However, I'd argue that there were still too many foxes/falcos that sheik metagame couldn't flourish.

now for the beginning of the post:
number 5 is redundant, there arguably cannot be 2 "best" characters (obvious association of rules 1 and 5) and if there ARE, then the game is competitively viable. I'm assuming that the rules are to be used in at least some conjunction with each other, otherwise #1 is just silly and makes your whole post equally absurd.
numbers 6 and 3 are nitpicky imo. I include 3 on that list because it warrants the counterpicking system, which I'll simply state as unnecesary. I do believe though that the game's metagame (or at least it should) flows and have a fluctuating top tier. Don't whine about a gosu recovery, there's more to it than that.

Umbreon only requires 1, but as i said, overcentralizing the metagame is an inherent non-competitive property of anything and thus requires banning as well (but it does require more proof).

irrelevant, better characters are better, how is this new? There's more to the items argument...

Wow, no offense but does Metaknight really give you THAT much trouble??? You're supposedly one of the best ROB players, if Meta is that much of a problem for you then you should practice the match up and try to discover new things ROB can do against him. Not using Metaknight yourself to try to prove a moot point. I still think this whole discussion of banning Meta is complete nonsense. I don't see how you can say this, there ARE characters that go at least about even with Metaknight.

horrible logic in context...

THIS IS WHY HE SHOULD BE BANNED (but there needs more proof for overcentralizing)
-there is no competitive reason for me to choose to use a character not named MK. I guarantee a 50/50, where skill and knowledge of the matchup is the decider. Plus overall it's safer for me to learn MK because i KNOW the worst matchup is another MK, therefore as long as I'm knowledgeable on the matchup I should win, assuming equal skill.

Akuma doesn't fit 1 and 2.

If he does, then so does Fox in Melee as well as Wolf in Brawl. Played perfectly, they are invincible and unpunishable. Akuma was quite often beaten in tournament, especially in Japan where he is only soft-banned. Akuma still deserves to be banned.

Regardless, #2 is pointless. Metaknight can be beaten if his opponent sets down the control or constantly mashes "a". Where do you draw the line at competence? We know MK has the advantage in every matchup. Does he have to literally have a win button to be banned? Akuma can be beaten, so can MK. That doesn't mean it is likely, fair, or desirable.

#1 is vague and subjective. MK breaks smash gameplay in my opinion because he breaks the counter system; he has no bad matchups nor does he have bad stages. His ledge camping also breaks the risk/reward scenario normally found on the edge, yet MK has no glaring weaknesses to counteract this. He also has several attacks that come out incredibly fast that combo into each other reminiscent of a frame trap (and, in some situations, are) that other characters are unable to emulate.

The list goes on and on, but is subjective because someone can say "that doesn't break it" simply based on their opinion. I don't believe Wobbling banned anything in Melee. Should ICs do their CGs properly, you can't get out of those either even with SDI until you are at kill % anyway. Should Sheik grab Bowser, Bowser is dead should Sheik play properly. How is this game-breaking or even new?

It goes both ways, so both criteria are flawed.

akuma fits 1 and 2, he breaks gameplay (you can't approach) and 2 becaus eat top levels you cannot beat him

when scrubs played as him, top players had too much honor...

it serves a point in other games, but it doesn't relate very well to brawl, simply because MK IS beatable, there needs to be another criteria that supplements it.

everything i didn't bother highlighting here or mention, i probably agree to it.

 

[Deleted member]

You list having defensive options as being a reason to not ban sheik's CG in melee but still ban wobbling. Does this mean that DDD's infinites on DK, samus, etc should be banned because you do not have defensive options once you get stuck inside it?

yes, and I advocated this shortly after the topic was introduced. this includes his infinite on himself @ edges.

edit: our top level of play is what we can observe. if our top players are still unfamiliar with certain match-ups, we just have less data to work with. For example, m2k is unfamiliar with MK vs wario, so we cannot draw conclusions from him to work with. as with most things I say, take it in a literal sense.

Also, I plan to clarify my stances fully in about a week.

 

[Steeler]

i'm very glad that at least there's a small movement that agrees that ddd's infinites should not be allowed in tournament play.

it's just ******** and breaks those particular matchups to the point where you cannot win. after losing a match, you can easily cp ddd if the opponent mains one of the infinited characters and used them in the first match.

dumb.

also i wants a download. can i has download?

 

[Nokonoko]

ICs chaingrabs end eventually, wobbling doesn't have to. You can DI and try to make the IC player mess up. While poor, you still have defensive options. Wobbling eliminates that. Wobbling breaks game play and should be banned. With wobbling, you can not expect to have a standard game of smash. Bowser can attempt to DI out of sheik's CG. It should not be banned.

C.f. the DDD infinite on certain characters, yeah. Seems to fit your criterion about not being able to effect anything after being grabbed perfectly.

I subscribed to the “Show Me Your News!” feed from iTunes, any chance of it working soon?

 

[betterthanbonds9]

edit: our top level of play is what we can observe. if our top players are still unfamiliar with certain match-ups, we just have less data to work with. For example, m2k is unfamiliar with MK vs wario, so we cannot draw conclusions from him to work with. as with most things I say, take it in a literal sense.

Also, I plan to clarify my stances fully in about a week.

k, i just hear top level of play so often that i believe it's taken the meaning, dissapointingly, in the community that it means the top possible level of play not the top current level of play

 

[cutter]

I find it quite ironic that people won't ban MK, but they'll ban infinites.

If you're going to ban DDD's standing infinite... might as well ban ICs infinites as well.

 

[Deleted member]

I find it quite ironic that people won't ban MK, but they'll ban infinites.

If you're going to ban DDD's standing infinite... might as well ban ICs infinites as well.

I've been working on this for a good amount of time now. Same goes for wobbling.

edit: while this is totally subjective, it has generally been agreed upon that most infinites are difficult to perform to the point where we've put a blind eye towards them.

 

[AlphaZealot]

My criteria is even simpler:
-Character takes the top 3 spots and 5-6 of the top 8 spots at national/regional tournaments on a consistent basis over several months.

There is then no guess work, its simply: look, it doesn't matter WHAT made the character do this, but this has happened.

Instead of: look, this could happen and it will cause this, but maybe this is happening and this will occur.

some feel Snake and Diddy run even, despite tournament results not reflecting this

Really? Last I checked Diddy Kong has more tournament wins against M2K than MK does. Actually, Diddy is the only character that has beaten M2K's MK, Azen's MK, and Forte's MK (multiple times). No MK can say they have accomplished that (M2K can't play himself), and no other character can say that. Ninjalink is like 30-2 against MK, but for some reason those 2 loses mean more than 30 wins. I guess Ken losing once to PC Chris at MLG NY in 2006 meant that PC Chris was a better player, despite Ken having only lost a handful of tournaments ever at the time (for the record, he won the next 2-3 MLG tournaments, including beating PC Chris).

 

[Jman115]

is there a download up yet?

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

Youko or Panda will update the topic title when a download is made available.

 

[gameandwatch 4 Lyfe]

any idea when that will be??

 

[Exia 00]

any idea when that will be??

Only god knows.

Spoiler

lol debate topic

 

[Youko]

When I talk to MLG, so I transfer the file to them, so they can properly put it up on their server.

I've only said this the past several pages.

 

[Snakeee]

horrible logic in context...

THIS IS WHY HE SHOULD BE BANNED (but there needs more proof for overcentralizing)
-there is no competitive reason for me to choose to use a character not named MK. I guarantee a 50/50, where skill and knowledge of the matchup is the decider. Plus overall it's safer for me to learn MK because i KNOW the worst matchup is another MK, therefore as long as I'm knowledgeable on the matchup I should win, assuming equal skill.

You're not making any sense. You're implying that you should automically pick whichever character in the game has the best match ups. Not EVERYONE plays like that, and some like to develop their own characters to win with, but that's besides the point. Even if you're playing like that, your argument here is completely redundant becauseit basically sounds like you think he should banned simply because he is the best. There has to be a best character. My point is that he is not as far ahead of the rest of the cast as some people think, and there are a good amount of characters that aren't behind much in the matchup itself.

 

[Praxis]

You're not making any sense. You're implying that you should automically pick whichever character in the game has the best match ups. Not EVERYONE plays like that, and some like to develop their own characters to win with, but that's besides the point. Even if you're playing like that, your argument here is completely redundant becauseit basically sounds like you think he should banned simply because he is the best. There has to be a best character. My point is that he is not as far ahead of the rest of the cast as some people think, and there are a good amount of characters that aren't behind much in the matchup itself.

By Sirlin-purist "Play To Win" theory, you should be picking your main and secondaries based on matchups. Picking a character other than the best is not a bad decision if it gives you the playstyle and matchups you want. This assumes that there is a system of counterpicks.

Because Metaknight has no disadvantaged matchups, and there are no other characters with such a property, by Sirlin theory, anyone who does not pick Metaknight is not playing to win and is therefore a scrub.

Just sayin'. It makes me a scrub too, because I play a character I like to play xD

 

[betterthanbonds9]

You're not making any sense. You're implying that you should automically pick whichever character in the game has the best match ups. Not EVERYONE plays like that, and some like to develop their own characters to win with, but that's besides the point. Even if you're playing like that, your argument here is completely redundant becauseit basically sounds like you think he should banned simply because he is the best. There has to be a best character. My point is that he is not as far ahead of the rest of the cast as some people think, and there are a good amount of characters that aren't behind much in the matchup itself.

No, im not saying that you should CP for the better matchup no matter what. I don't even view the CP system in smash to be necesary. As long as the game goes through a circulating top tier, then the game is competitive and no character should be banned. Clearly if the best character in the game is changing or is subject to question the character cannot be the best in the game. Sadly, as it appears at the moment, even IF Diddy is a MK counter, Diddy does not possess top tier abilities (or maybe he does, i'm not in the BR so it's not like it's my job). Therefore, the proposed plan puts the first game as Diddy vs MK, then MK vs a Diddy counter, and then MK vs the Diddy counter if played to a pure "play to win" mentallity.

The thing is, MK threatens to over centralize the game because at the moment i can either learn Diddy and somebody else (to beat a diddy counter) or I can simply go MK and know that maybe i have 1 disadvantage.

I hope MK doesn't get banned, but in order for me to justify his stay I feel he needs to have a counter that shows a reliable chance of winning tournies as well. I hope that just like MK can adapt his moveset to any situation so far that the other characters can as well and hold MK down for at least 3 months. If he can get some disadvantages, that'd be amazing.

AZ, I hope you're right and that MK can get countered reliably by Diddy, I also then hope that Diddy has staying power at the top of top tier. But i do feel that the numbers you posted (1-3 and 5 or 6/8) are both arbitrary and somewhat unrealistic. I mean, It's not a big deal, but frankly, getting the top 3 on a regular basis would probably be enough....

 

[Tien2500]

The ICs chaingrab is different than Dedede's. Dedede's is very simple to pull off and Dedede has an incredible grab. ICs have a shorter grab and a mediocre approach. They also can't use their chaingrabs if they are seperated and their is a much larger chance of a chaingrab being messed up. I'm not saying necessarily that ICs grabs should or shouldn't be banned but they need to be considered separately from Dedede's.

 

[Snakeee]

By Sirlin-purist "Play To Win" theory, you should be picking your main and secondaries based on matchups. Picking a character other than the best is not a bad decision if it gives you the playstyle and matchups you want. This assumes that there is a system of counterpicks.

Because Metaknight has no disadvantaged matchups, and there are no other characters with such a property, by Sirlin theory, anyone who does not pick Metaknight is not playing to win and is therefore a scrub.

Just sayin'. It makes me a scrub too, because I play a character I like to play xD

That's not entirely true. Down the road, most people know how to fight against the top characters and it is much harder be unpredictable. By playing a character that is actually high in the tier list, yet is underused/underestimated far less people will know how to fight against you. I picked ZSS because I liked the character and playstyle, but maining her, and coming up with my own metagame is starting to really pay off. I still catch a lot of people completely off guard. But, when people do catch on to me, I learn to switch things up. In fact, I have completely separate styles of play for those who know how to fight against me and for those who don't.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Here is a fun question:
Are your chances of beating M2K's MK better using MK or using Diddy/Wario/some other character?

Based purely on tournament results, you stand near zero chance if you use MK (the only MK that has beaten M2K I believe is Azen's, and he hasn't won a set outright).

So, if you are competing for best in the world, your answers lie elsewhere from MK.

AZ, I hope you're right and that MK can get countered reliably by Diddy, I also then hope that Diddy has staying power at the top of top tier. But i do feel that the numbers you posted (1-3 and 5 or 6/8) are both arbitrary and somewhat unrealistic. I mean, It's not a big deal, but frankly, getting the top 3 on a regular basis would probably be enough....

The numbers I posted should be the logical conclusion of what would happen if MK were actually broken and everyone really did flock to him in order to just compete. Clearly, since this isn't actually happening, then other criteria must be used to ban MK right now. However, my criteria would work for any character, it would be solid, ad you would rest assured not have any mistakes in banning a character (unpopularity/etc).

Most people agree that MK isn't broken (including Edrees from the debate). Instead, the issue is what is best for the community, and when it is an issue like that, what is best is often opinionated, regional, and subjective. For example, an MK ban in NY would be pointless, aside from M2K/Inui/Shadow/a few misc local top MK players, the character is underused/does not place well. Yet, because of occurrences in Texasa, some would have you believe that MK absolutely should be banned in NY, because MK's dominace is inevitable. I say let it happen. When there is a 167 person tournament in NY and there isn't an MK in the top 8...what does that tell you (M2K being of town helps of course)?

MK in Texas comes pretty close to my definition for banning a character. My definition of course is for national/large regional tournaments, but if on a state/local scale such an event occurs, then sure, ban the character in that area. However, do not automatically assume that that area is a microcosm that applies to the entire country.
---
You stand a better chance of beating M2K using any character other than MK. Time to brush up on your Diddy/Wario/Snake.

 

[Deleted member]

By Sirlin-purist "Play To Win" theory

No one has gotten Sirlin argument properly defined for smash since the day it was released. Don't step on this landmine.

 

[Nokonoko]

edit: while this is totally subjective, it has generally been agreed upon that most infinites are difficult to perform to the point where we've put a blind eye towards them.

Erm, that doesn’t really apply to DDD’s standing infinite …

 

[The Real Inferno]

A problem with counterpicks against Meta Knights right now seems to be that many of them are stage specific. Examples would include Diddy on FD, Yoshi on no platform Stages, walk-offs and Pipes, and Snake on Norfair & Corneria (according to M2K). I can't vouch for the validity in ZSS as it's the only character I do not play (I would have to transform Samus out of Random select I suppose). The problem with a counter though is that they should be a counter -on any stage-, or they aren't a -true- counter. They just have a good matchup on particular playing fields. Another problem is some of these stages aren't always legal in tournaments (walk-offs, Pipes, Corneria, Norfair), or the opponent will innevitably ban that one stage that hurts them from the set.

The only two characters I honestly buy as being true Meta Knight counter possibilities at this time are Snake and Diddy. Yoshi and ZSS probably aren't anything better than neutral (which is a different argument). Diddy has quite the record against M2K, where Snake does not, with losses to Hylian, NinjaLink and Royal Nynja (am I missing some?). I can't really recall any Snake's taking some matches from M2K's Meta off the top of my head. I would really enjoy some conclusive proof that Diddy doesn't need FD to have an advantageous matchup with Meta as some have been claiming. I would also like to see more -consistent- results from top Diddy's beating top Meta's to prove the point. Were these matches flukes? Are Meta's currently just bad at the Matchup due to a low number of diddy players? Is the inexperience the -only- thing holding Meta back or is he at a true disadvantage? These are questions we need answers to in order to make a solid decision concerning the matchup. At this time the answers aren't yet available since they require time for observation.

On another note, concerning the infinites, I think that would be a great debate topic for the next SBR Podcast. A discussion on the possible banning of infinites and their effect on the metagame. It could be quite good. I personally allow them in my tournaments with the following rule: "Infinites are allowed, though the person being infinited reserves the right to hate you and call you dirty names." This of course would have to apply to all infinites in the game that are true infinites like DDD, ICs, Marth & Charizard (if it still applies to Lucas or Ness? Last I checked they found a way for Ness to slip further away somehow from Marth).

 

[Dream Chaser]

Erm, that doesn’t really apply to DDD’s standing infinite …

I agree. But it can't really be helped.

 

[Praxis]

THIS IS WHY HE SHOULD BE BANNED (but there needs more proof for overcentralizing)
-there is no competitive reason for me to choose to use a character not named MK. I guarantee a 50/50, where skill and knowledge of the matchup is the decider. Plus overall it's safer for me to learn MK because i KNOW the worst matchup is another MK, therefore as long as I'm knowledgeable on the matchup I should win, assuming equal skill.

Good post.

when scrubs played as him, top players had too much honor...

Have you considered that this same thing might skew US results?

I know all of the top players in WA (except one, who is scoffed at because of it) have "too much honor" to play MK. Eggz switched away from MK because of the stigma locally against MK players.

 

[noobpota2]

it is indeed the weekend and wheres my download

 

[ndayday]

It says by the end of the week, not the weekdays. So just hold on. =)

 

[RedPeppers]

Hey let the man be upset! Lol, I'm leaving for a a week tomorrow around noon, so yeah.....I'm right there with ya.

 

[noobpota2]

Hey let the man be upset! Lol, I'm leaving for a a week tomorrow around noon, so yeah.....I'm right there with ya.

exactly, i can remember when youko told me on xbox live that the newest episode would be out on 26th of october, it is infact now th 9th of november

 

[Lemon Drop]

It says by the end of the week, not the weekdays. So just hold on. =)

Well depending on how you look at the calendar, in general, Sunday is considered the first day of the week. They lied to us in that sense. Now many others believe Monday but... I just want the **** download. RAGE!!!