The Official "Should/Will Metaknight be banned?" Thread (LISTEN TO THE SBR PODCAST!)

[salaboB]

The most bizarre thing about OS's requirements is the 1/2 year line. it fits MK perfectly.
who else was banned after 1/2 a year?
no one?
then where is he getting these statistics?

He made up a set of fairly strict statistics that yes, fit MK.

If after MK is banned another character rises to such game-ruining dominance, then these can be used to determine if they too need a ban or if they're just very powerful. That was the point.

 

[choknater]

OSs criteria is a load of ****.

It's the exact same as saying:

BAN CRITERIA:
-Has a cape.
-Said cape turns into bat wings.
-Has a sword
-Said sword multiple smaller swords on it.
-Said character is Blue.
-Said character has a mask on.
-Said character's name is Metaknight.

I agree with this list. However... I don't think MK fits this criteria to a bannable extent.

- Metaknight's cape sends waves of intimidation to the other players' mindsets, which alters the outcome of the match before it even starts. However I think the cape vs. mind matchup is only about 55:45 so it's not too big an advantage.

- Bat wings can only take a character so far. When Kirby absorbs metaknight, he gets bat wings too right? You don't see people complaining about Kirby being top tier.

- Marth, Link, and Ike have swords too! Ganondorf has a sword as well. If MK deserves to be banned by this criteria, so does Ganon.

- Smaller swords are just extra weight which don't really contribute to the deadliness of the primary sword.

- You can change his colors to less dominant ones. I agree though, maybe Blue metaknight should be banned.

- That's just because he's the 7th member of the JabbaWockeeZ

- I don't think one is a good criteria, but I do see some validity to this claim.

 

[Vulcan55]

except for OS's reasons are actualy valid and have meaning.

One persons opinion (Not to mention a HEAVILY biased one) has no validity.
Now if say the criteria that has been accepted throughout the competitive fighting game community, then it would.

All of the reasons OS gave are ACTUAL reasons you might ban a character

I might ban a character because he has a cape.
Plus, those aren't ACTUAL reasons.
It is one person restating why he thinks MK should be banned in the form of "This should be used when considering a ban on any character".
Maybe you agree with his reasons on why he thinks MK should be banned, but you can't just say your reasons should now be the ban criteria norm.

... but, overall, Zelc was on the right track:

when it gets to the point that there is no reason not to main MK then he should be banned.

There isn't any reason not to main MK.
But if you meant something like "When there no way to not main MK," as in you stand no chance unles you play MK yourself.
Then,
...
Wow.
That totally ISN'T what I've been saying all along.

I give up.

 

[infomon]

when it gets to the point that there is no reason not to main MK then he should be banned. his WORST matchup is a mirror and nothing else is on the same level as that. it's not just that he has no BAD matchups, but he has no EVEN matchups either... they are all in his favour... against everyone.... on every stage.... always.

There's a reason OS' criteria doesn't stop at that, though. Suppose MK had 55:45 matchups in his favour against everyone. Although it's strictly in his favour, it's probably not ban-worthy, since player skill can overcome the slight disadvantage enough that other characters may still be quite viable.

Also, as has been pointed out, matchup numbers aren't very trustworthy, especially in cases like Yoshi vs. MK where we just haven't seen enough good Yoshis demonstrate this potential.

I guess this is why I like OS' direction, where matchups are considered, but aren't the end-all be-all criteria.

I don't really understand these two. Also, how is "played competitively" defined? Why did he choose "3/4 of highest ranking characters"? Does the character over-centralise by dominating 3/4 of the highest ranking cast?

(about points 7 and 8 of OS' criteria) I second these questions. That is, I'd like them answered

 

[Vulcan55]

I agree with this list. However... I don't think MK fits this criteria to a bannable extent.

- Metaknight's cape sends waves of intimidation to the other players' mindsets, which alters the outcome of the match before it even starts. However I think the cape vs. mind matchup is only about 55:45 so it's not too big an advantage.

- Bat wings can only take a character so far. When Kirby absorbs metaknight, he gets bat wings too right? You don't see people complaining about Kirby being top tier.

- Marth, Link, and Ike have swords too! Ganondorf has a sword as well. If MK deserves to be banned by this criteria, so does Ganon.

- Smaller swords are just extra weight which don't really contribute to the deadliness of the primary sword.

- You can change his colors to less dominant ones. I agree though, maybe Blue metaknight should be banned.

- That's just because he's the 7th member of the JabbaWockeeZ

- I don't think one is a good criteria, but I do see some validity to this claim.

Oh darn, shut down by one of you Pro-ban ***s again.
*shakes fist in the air*

 

[choknater]

lol im not pro ban! banning metaknight is dum like psyduck



edit: wow i fail

 

[Vulcan55]

(about points 7 and 8 of OS' criteria) I second these questions. That is, I'd like them answered

Chosen simply because they apply to MK right now.

 

[infomon]

LOL @ choknater

The most bizarre thing about OS's requirements is the 1/2 year line. it fits MK perfectly.
who else was banned after 1/2 a year?
no one?
then where is he getting these statistics?

I don't think MK should be banned (yet), but I think 1/2 year seems quite reasonable for a game like Brawl. It took about half a year for pretty much all the details to be figured out (AT'ish type things and whatnot). Discoveries have all but stagnated, although strategies and metagame is still developing, a lot of the way Brawl works at the top seems pretty solid. I don't think OS' 1/2-year should be allowed to start until at least after 1/2-year of Brawl's release date. But if the game has stabilized (in terms of ironing out the game mechanic details, ATs, etc.), and a character has shown to meet the ban-criteria (whatever it may be, and both in theory and in practice) for 1/2 a year, I'd say a ban would be reasonable.

 

[goldemblem]

So we all agree that meta should be banned right?
ok, then it's the end of this tread

 

[Grunt]

Chok is too good.
I remember crushing one guy on smogon with 6 ubers on his team without losing any pokemon after he was spamming about how good he was because he beat some "Gym Leader" guy. It wasn't even a fair fight, Aerodactyl crushed anything he threw at me. i think there were like, 15 people spectating. twas epic. he was banned, right after i had my sexy one liner, which i have no idea what it was. but i was cool for like, 2 minutes.

 

[choknater]

was your one liner "Now I have to express my GRUNT of victory!"

and everyone was like "*facepalm* lame"

?? right???

HAHAHA jk jk man

anyway i think jigglypuff should be banned from low tier tournaments, she is too powerful

 

[Grunt]

Vulcan ***** me with puff like 5 minuites ago.
I was Marth. D:
I feel so ashamed.

 

[Vulcan55]

whatever it may be

Once the game becomes "Play Metaknight or lose."

So we all agree that meta should be banned right?
ok, then it's the end of this tread

-_-
no.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

He made up a set of fairly strict statistics that yes, fit MK.

If after MK is banned another character rises to such game-ruining dominance, then these can be used to determine if they too need a ban or if they're just very powerful. That was the point.

No other character would rise to that because every other character has a bad stage. I don't see how characters would suddenly become good at every stage but if they did then I guess some sort of AT had to be developed to get them there and it might make them broken.

One persons opinion (Not to mention a HEAVILY biased one) has no validity.
Now if say the criteria that has been accepted throughout the competitive fighting game community, then it would.


I might ban a character because he has a cape.
Plus, those aren't ACTUAL reasons.
It is one person restating why he thinks MK should be banned in the form of "This should be used when considering a ban on any character".
Maybe you agree with his reasons on why he thinks MK should be banned, but you can't just say your reasons should now be the ban criteria norm.



There isn't any reason not to main MK.
But if you meant something like "When there no way to not main MK," as in you stand no chance unles you play MK yourself.
Then,
...
Wow.
That totally ISN'T what I've been saying all along.

I give up.

You should read OS' post again he said it was for any character in brawl to be banned not MK. If the Anti-ban group thinks MK fits it as well then hurray for us.

edit: the game is already at play Meta or loose in some cases.

 

[Foxy]

So we all agree that meta should be banned right?
ok, then it's the end of this tread

Stop being like Hitler and prematurely banning an entire race of character in Brawl.

 

[salaboB]

Stop being like Hitler and prematurely banning an entire race of character in Brawl.

Just the other day I had told someone I hadn't noticed anyone actually trigger Godwin's in this thread yet.

You sir just lost the internets.

(And I'm told by the same person that it doesn't count if you do it on purpose. Double fail )

No other character would rise to that because every other character has a bad stage. I don't see how characters would suddenly become good at every stage but if they did then I guess some sort of AT had to be developed to get them there and it might make them broken.

That is a large part of MK's problem, though -- not only that he's got even matchups but there's no way to drive them worse than even. But yeah, I believe it was intended to catch anyone that may get a broken enough AT to overwhelm everyone and all stage disadvantages as well. If that happened the same thing would probably have to be faced and dealt with, so having criteria that can handle more than one character could come in useful.

I don't think it will, but you never know what might be found.

Alternatively...if a second character meets those criteria in an MK-less game, it might mean the unbanning of MK if that second character ends enough of them for him. So, there's a second reason to have them around.

 

[Foxy]

Just the other day I had told someone I hadn't noticed anyone actually trigger Godwin's in this thread yet.

You sir just lost the internets.

(And I'm told by the same person that it doesn't count if you do it on purpose. Double fail )

5 minutes of uninterrupted eye-contact to you for noticing that.

 

[goldemblem]

lol, it was just a joke man.

But yes i agree with what i said, and if that makes me like Hitler, so be it

 

[salaboB]

5 minutes of uninterrupted eye-contact to you for noticing that.

I have a sudden urge to blink like crazy, I don't know quite why.

 

[choknater]

The thread title should be changed to "Should/Will Jigglypuff be banned from low tier tournaments?" IMO

 

[Vulcan55]

You should read OS' post again he said it was for any character in brawl to be banned not MK. If the Anti-ban group thinks MK fits it as well then hurray for us.

Are you stupid?
He added "For any char, not just MK" to cover his strong bias.
Tis doesn't change the fact that he picked and chose data already existing for MK and simply added: This is the criteria I think should be used to ban any character in Brawl.
You can add "For any character" to any set of data.

BAN CRITERIA (FOR ANY CHARACTER, NOT JUST METAKNIGHT):
-Has a cape.
-Said cape turns into bat wings.
-Has a sword
-Said sword multiple smaller swords on it.
-Said character is Blue.
-Said character has a mask on.
-Said character's name is Metaknight.

No matter the sarcastic tone this, it is exactly the same as what OS did, only he used convincing sounding data.

edit: the game is already at play Meta or loose in some cases.

No it's not.
If it was anywhere close, MK would be winning every tourney with no one else standing a chance.
Don't even pretend to think the game has devolved anywhere close.

 

[Grunt]

The thread title should be changed to "Should/Will Jigglypuff be banned from low tier tournaments?" IMO

Ik shud be ban'd nubbeh

Also, Vulcan sucks at brawl.
I beat him with Ganon liek 10 times, zomg.

 

[Boxob]

Sonic is really, really fast.

Faster than Metaknight.

 

[goldemblem]

Alternatively...if a second character meets those criteria in an MK-less game, it might mean the unbanning of MK if that second character ends enough of them for him. So, there's a second reason to have them around.

I actually agree with you in here, but i hardly believe this will be the case, the rest of the roster has at least 1 bad matchup against other characters, the only 1 i could think breaking this rule might be IC, thank god his popularity sucks

 

[salaboB]

No matter the sarcastic tone this, it is exactly the same as what OS did, only he used convincing sounding data.

He used data that could apply to other characters, if one ever became broken enough to utterly dominate the metagame. If that happened, this would either allow a second character to be banned *or* MK to be unbanned because he no longer would meet the criteria with the new powerhouse involved. The community would have to discuss it if such ever happened.

So it's a good idea to have a list that's as strict as possible -- so it has to be right at the furthest level the bannee is currently at -- when banning someone, for reference even if no other character ever actually matches it.

 

[Grunt]

Neither of them can Sparta Kick tho.

Besides, OS is trying to save Brawl for the crappy game that it is so it doesn't get any worse later by letting MK take over.

 

[Zelc]

There's a reason OS' criteria doesn't stop at that, though. Suppose MK had 55:45 matchups in his favour against everyone. Although it's strictly in his favour, it's probably not ban-worthy, since player skill can overcome the slight disadvantage enough that other characters may still be quite viable.

But let's go down that path and we'll see where it leads. Suppose we start with a diverse metagame. Some characters will fare poorly against the field. The players of those characters switch to a character that does better against the field (assuming they play to win). Eventually, the metagame will only be made of Metaknights because he has advantages (if slight) against every other character. Of course, it could take a long time to settle into this equilibrium. If the character has at least one other 50:50 matchup, then a rational player can at least have two options in the end. We might want to say this isn't desirable either, but that just means the no even matchups criteria is even stricter than it needs to be.

The counterargument is that some players don't play to win and will stick to their mains even if they suffer disadvantages against the field. While such players could influence which characters are viable in smaller tournaments, in larger tournaments they'd have far less influence. Statistically, it's not likely that they'd make it out of the earlier rounds. Thus, they'd have little representation in the metagame of the upper brackets.

Also, as has been pointed out, matchup numbers aren't very trustworthy, especially in cases like Yoshi vs. MK where we just haven't seen enough good Yoshis demonstrate this potential.

I guess this is why I like OS' direction, where matchups are considered, but aren't the end-all be-all criteria.

This is a good point, and I think we should use additional criteria to make sure that the matchup figures are accurate.

 

[DraKmoN001]

moo?

If tournaments aren't fun they have lower turnouts. With lower turnouts your going to get lower pots. You won't be getting enough money to fund travels to bigger tournaments so a game not being fun actually does hurt the competitive scene theres no way around it.

Hey games with baseball bats on high are pretty fun. Games in an enclosed space and putting soccer balls, bob-ombs and smart bombs on high are pretty fun. Games such that the players can only spam Judgement, Falcon Punch or Warlock Punch are pretty fun.

Your point about lower pots from tourneys is pretty ********. If money from the pots are required to fund traveling to the tourneys then only top level pros will play anyway since only those pros win money.

chok, do you see now, unlike yuna, i believe that im in the majority when i say that video games, even when played for money, the express purpose is for it to be fun. And once you take that away, the game is meaningless, and is the same as that dead end 6X6 cubicle job that nobody wants

Fun for who? Playing and training for a video game is probably the same as a dead end cubicle job for many many people, probably even for some players in the brawl community, and they might even find it enjoyable that way.

Additionally, I don't understand why your concept of fun is that important.

Here are a some things I'll leave here:
1) I have yet to and probably will not ever participate in any high level brawl tournaments.
2) I don't think MK should be banned (yet), but the end decision will probably not afflict me anyway, regardless of whether I participate in tourneys or not.
3) This thread is hilarious.
4) What the heck are most of you playing for any more?

 

[Punishment Divine]

Sonic, do you know how much **** Smogon has gotten for premature banning? They banned wobb ffs, and he is mediocre at best in competitive Pokemon play.

Anyways, bans in Pokemon have little to do with Smash because we're not only talking about the realm of fighting games, but also within games that have a very limited cast size - such that removing a character would have a large impact. This is especially true because players spend time to learn the said character, where Pokemon players simply "use" their team members and giving up one just changes their strategy.

I will not get into this, but Wobb was devastating if used correctly. Obviously when scrubs use Wobb they get beat, but when good players who knew what they were doing used Wobb whole teams got shut out.

I also think that OS's list was a little too specific. I'll post my own list and you guys can react to it/refute it:

-It begins with the character being the best, and undoubtedly the best
-The character has a large advantage over the majority of the cast
-To add to this, the character might have a tech/attack which shuts down or beats a majority of the cast
-The character dominates local tournaments, and takes up many spots in top 10's in large tournaments
-The character's reign has taken place for a good period of time. For me, this means about a year.
-Professionals note this characters dominance and begin using this character
-This character's metagame continues to develop in a positive direction
-The cry for ban does NOT simply come from scrubs. Pro players realize the need for a ban

There may be a few more things to throw in there. I feel as though MK fits most of these, but not some. He is the best, no one doubts that, but anyone with half a brain knows that's not a reason for a ban. He does have an advantage over most of the cast, IMO all of the cast. The Whorenado is no Air Fireball, although I would take it into consideration considering the stuff it can do. He does dominate local tournaments, and top spots are often cluttered with him at national tournies, but other characters have been placing (For instance, was it Edrees using Peach who placed very well at HOBO 11?). His reign has been consistent, but NOT long enough. Pros often secondary if not main MK these days, only a few have not made the switch. His metagame is also continually developing. I mean, how long ago did we think GnW went even with him and we've just found out MK has gained the advantage? What other character is doing that anymore? And for the last point, scrubs have been saying ban for months. Pro players are just beginning to say this, however.

So the main confrontation with these points is:
-MK's Whorenado is not totally broken, certainly not an Air Fireball
-MK has been dominating, but not long enough to just ban
-Not all top spots are taken by him in tournaments
-Not all pros, in other words people who matter, agree with this.

Discuss, flame, add, whatever

 

[Vulcan55]

Also, I suck at brawl.
Vulcan beat me with Puff liek 10 times, zomg.

fix'd

He used data that could apply to other characters,

But they just so happen to apply to the way MK is already?

If that happened, this would either allow a second character to be banned *or* MK to be unbanned because he no longer would meet the criteria with the new powerhouse involved. The community would have to discuss it if such ever happened.

If this "criteria" some how (0% chance, I'm just saying) magically, ludicrously, ridiculously, ever become the norm, I'll shoot myself.

So it's a good idea to have a list that's as strict as possible -- so it has to be right at the furthest level the bannee is currently at -- when banning someone, for reference even if no other character ever actually matches it.

No, it's not a good idea to have "as strict as possible" banning rules.
Banning should be done as a LAST RESORT, not when something becomes slightly dominant.

 

[infomon]

Once the game becomes "Play Metaknight or lose."

That's not a concrete, measurable criterion. How would you evaluate if this is the case? You can't just look at tournament results, because you need to account for many people not playing at the highest level of play, ensure MK's dominance isn't just popularity, etc. You can't just look at matchups, because they may be misleading or plain wrong.

You don't have to like OS' criteria; propose a reasonable alternative way to measure bannability, even by your own strict notion about what circumstance would merit a ban.

 

[SothE700k]

Alright, I know this is going to get lost in the shuffle but oh well, maybe I can pray someone will read this.

For the past 300 pages, we have made NO progress, period. All its been is a CIRCLE, going around, and around and around the same points that I read since the beginning of this debate!!

Seeing as none of us (including myself) can even come up with some way of even enforcing a possible ban on MK or defend him...

How about we just leave this conversation to the people who can actually get something DONE and be smart about it?
AKA, SBR.

Leave it to SBR, lock this thread, and ban whoever starts these again. Because this is gone beyond the point of ridiculous.

 

[Punishment Divine]

Alright, I know this is going to get lost in the shuffle but oh well, maybe I can pray someone will read this.

For the past 300 pages, we have made NO progress, period. All its been is a CIRCLE, going around, and around and around the same points that I read since the beginning of this debate!!

Seeing as none of us (including myself) can even come up with some way of even enforcing a possible ban on MK or defend him...

How about we just leave this conversation to the people who can actually get something DONE and be smart about it?
AKA, SBR.

Leave it to SBR, lock this thread, and ban whoever starts these again. Because this is gone beyond the point of ridiculous.

I agree, in a way. But locking this thread would be stupid, because you would still see a bunch of "OMFG BAN MK!!!" topics. May as well have this thread as opposed to a billion ******** ones.

I would REALLY like to see a list of ban criteria for people who are Anti-Ban. If someone could do that, I'd love to refute.

 

[salaboB]

But they just so happen to apply to the way MK is already?

He made up a set of fairly strict statistics that yes, fit MK.

Way ahead of you.

No, it's not a good idea to have "as strict as possible" banning rules.
Banning should be done as a LAST RESORT, not when something becomes slightly dominant.

I think you misunderstand "strict". Strict banning rules do not mean easily applied, they mean setting as high a bar as possible so that it's difficult to ban characters. If they're strict and they trigger on someone becoming slightly dominant, they're not strict enough (Unless the game is trying to be maintained at such a hairline balance, which Brawl is not)

 

[Zelc]

But they just so happen to apply to the way MK is already?

No, those criteria are designed to prevent one character from becoming the single best choice regardless of the metagame. Your logic leads to absurd conclusions. I don't see why it wouldn't apply to things like self-defense: the principle that I'll defend myself is just an excuse to attack whoever is attacking me, because "they just so happen to apply to the way [my attacker] is already". This may be true, but the criteria is not arbitrary because there is a deeper goal of keeping people safe, not just the shallow goal of justifying an attack on someone.

 

[mariofanpm12]

Alright, I know this is going to get lost in the shuffle but oh well, maybe I can pray someone will read this.

For the past 300 pages, we have made NO progress, period. All its been is a CIRCLE, going around, and around and around the same points that I read since the beginning of this debate!!

Seeing as none of us (including myself) can even come up with some way of even enforcing a possible ban on MK or defend him...

How about we just leave this conversation to the people who can actually get something DONE and be smart about it?
AKA, SBR.

Leave it to SBR, lock this thread, and ban whoever starts these again. Because this is gone beyond the point of ridiculous.

Power to you! I did read your post, and I wholely agree! I made a similar post (about two or three hours ago) and it's already lost in the chaotic abyss of noobs and other random people posting ******** opinions that aren't getting us anywhere. It's just back and forth mess.

SBR Please Help!!!

 

[mariofanpm12]

Gee, I wonder how Sakurai would react if he saw this thread...

 

[goldemblem]

Alright, I know this is going to get lost in the shuffle but oh well, maybe I can pray someone will read this.

For the past 300 pages, we have made NO progress, period. All its been is a CIRCLE, going around, and around and around the same points that I read since the beginning of this debate!!

Seeing as none of us (including myself) can even come up with some way of even enforcing a possible ban on MK or defend him...

How about we just leave this conversation to the people who can actually get something DONE and be smart about it?
AKA, SBR.

Leave it to SBR, lock this thread, and ban whoever starts these again. Because this is gone beyond the point of ridiculous.

this is the CIRCLE of life XD

 

[Vulcan55]

That's not a concrete, measurable criterion. How would you evaluate if this is the case? You can't just look at tournament results, because you need to account for many people not playing at the highest level of play, ensure MK's dominance isn't just popularity, etc. You can't just look at matchups, because they may be misleading or plain wrong.

When the game gets to a point where Metaknight is the only character winning tournaments (At a high level of play, of course, because if I don't say that, someone is going to say that they beat their 2 yo sister in a "tournament" with CF) And no other character can win said tournaments except MK. If no other character can win, then we would know that the case is not because of popularity. If other characters can win, (And by can, I mean stand a chance regularly, not by a bunch of random flukes) then we know that it is because of popularity. Play MK or lose is not just about match-ups, it is mostly about practice.

 

[Boxob]

People should stop being scrubs, Meta knight is way OP, everyone knows it.

The only way to beat his is with Sonic speed.