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

[fkacyan]

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.

Popularity has absolutely no influence on results. If the character is bad, such as Captain Falcon, everybody at a tourney but the one MK could play him, and that doesn't mean that the Falcons would win. The better character will be winning; MK placing high is a result of the fact that he has at most one bad matchup, has a very small learning curve for his basic techniques, and is only restricted by the skill of the player and not by a poor moveset, recovery, or other built-in issues.

Nevertheless, this game is far too new to even be considering a character ban at this point, as every top 8 is not all MKs (yet?). If we were seeing that now, it would be criteria for a ban, but unless all the tourney money is going to MKs, he's not quite ban-worthy.

And, let's be honest, what would the tourney scene be without the hardcore metal Kirby victory theme?

 

[Boxob]

Gee, it sure is boring around here.

Mah noob, this ridiculous conversation is what all scrubs strive for.

 

[Black_Heretic]

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

Sakurai: *laughs*

 

[infomon]

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.

Sticking to your main against matchup odds, doesn't necessarily mean you aren't playing to win. Say you're Azen and you have a wicked Lucario, better than your MK, and furthermore you think the top players won't be as good fighting your Lucario than the MK dittos which they're more used to. Basically, you can challenge the notion that your competitors are actually playing at the highest level. Which is fine.

And I think you're overstating the significance of slight matchup advantages. 60:40 is still very even. It's not totally scrub to main the 40 character, if it suits your style more, you might get yourself further than playing the 60 char. Real life is fuzzy like that; the highest possible level is never actually attained. The best character in the game can have all favourable matchups, and you might still find a great deal of diversity in tournament results.

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

OS' criteria does not immediately apply to MK. And even if it did, and even if OS designed his criteria for the express purpose of banning MK, doesn't alone mean that his criteria is bad or wrong. Cause for suspicion, yes, but I think it should still be criticized on the merit of its contents. Just sayin'.

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.

Uhm, SamuraiPanda started this thread, and he's a mod.

Also, we've done a bit more than go around in circles. For one thing, it's good for large, game-changing decisions to actually involve, you know, the whole community that will be affected by such decisions?? It's actually healthy for us to be able to have some discussion, at the very least to shed some light on the differing perspectives. Our views here might actually be more diverse than the ones represented in the SBR, so we could present some novel arguments for them to use in their discussion.

On a slightly related note: does the SBR ever open up discussion threads for read access by the larger community? I don't see why it would be damaging for everyone to be able to follow along with the SBR's discussion about the MK ban, although of course we should not be able to post in there lol. Just wondering.

 

[goldemblem]

lol, I agree, the metal kirby theme it's pretty good, but people are usually too pissed when they fight meta to let the song go

 

[fkacyan]

On a slightly related note: does the SBR ever open up discussion threads for read access by the larger community? I don't see why it would be damaging for everyone to be able to follow along with the SBR's discussion about the MK ban, although of course we should not be able to post in there lol. Just wondering.

The SBR really isn't the amazingness of discussion that you're assuming it is, at least from what I've heard from those I know who are in it.

However, to answer your question:

People are morons.
Morons disagree and argue about many things on the internet.
These forums have enough nerd rage already.

To sum it up:

SBR discussion made public + these forums = NERD RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE

 

[Vulcan55]

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.

My logic? Like I'm jumping to conclusions.
It's pretty obvious that all of his "criteria" is taken right from CURRENT existing data from Metaknight. You cannot justify ban criteria for any character when it is obvious that it applies exactly one specific character AND that character is the one you think should be banned.

Metaknight does not need to be banned RIGHT THE **** NOW.
So why should the criteria be based on the way Metaknight is RIGHT NOW?

Would it not make much more sense to set a criteria for the future?
Or better yet, would it not make sense to use criteria that has been accepted (and put into practice) by the entire fighting game community?
(Yes, anyone who think he needs to be banned RIGHT NOW is a scrub.)

 

[salaboB]

(Yes, anyone who think he needs to be banned RIGHT NOW is a scrub.)

No, because the discussion is about modifying the current rules and isn't trying to enforce your own personal rules on someone else at a tourney (And whining when they don't follow them). Having an opinion that is wrong in your opinion does not make someone a scrub.

I really wish people would quit with the name calling, it's unconstructive and almost always inaccurate.

 

[Zelc]

Sticking to your main against matchup odds, doesn't necessarily mean you aren't playing to win. Say you're Azen and you have a wicked Lucario, better than your MK, and furthermore you think the top players won't be as good fighting your Lucario than the MK dittos which they're more used to. Basically, you can challenge the notion that your competitors are actually playing at the highest level. Which is fine.

And I think you're overstating the significance of slight matchup advantages. 60:40 is still very even. It's not totally scrub to main the 40 character, if it suits your style more, you might get yourself further than playing the 60 char. Real life is fuzzy like that; the highest possible level is never actually attained. The best character in the game can have all favourable matchups, and you might still find a great deal of diversity in tournament results.

That's true, I guess. In the long run, they'll wise up to your Lucario tricks and you'll be forced to pick MK if you want an even match. But in the long run, we're all dead, so this might not matter.

My logic? Like I'm jumping to conclusions.
It's pretty obvious that all of his "criteria" is taken right from CURRENT existing data from Metaknight. You cannot justify ban criteria for any character when it is obvious that it applies exactly one specific character AND that character is the one you think should be banned.

Metaknight does not need to be banned RIGHT THE **** NOW.
So why should the criteria be based on the way Metaknight is RIGHT NOW?

Would it not make much more sense to set a criteria for the future?
Or better yet, would it not make sense to use criteria that has been accepted (and put into practice) by the entire fighting game community?
(Yes, anyone who think he needs to be banned RIGHT NOW is a scrub.)

Alright, can you show that OS's criteria is developed for the sole purpose of targeting MK and not for the purpose of establishing a permanent criteria for banning characters?

And there are reasons to establish a standard separate from the one accepted by the entire fighting game community. First, it may be the case that MK will eventually meet those standards as rational people switch from their characters to MK, but the process will be slow and painful for the community. Banning MK before he actually meets the criteria will ultimately make no difference for his legality, but the community will be larger. Second, it may be the case that Brawl is fundamentally different from the other fighters in that even slight character advantages make a huge difference. Third, the fighting game community's standards may not be the best standards, and even if they are in general, they may not be for Brawl.

 

[fkacyan]

No, because the discussion is about modifying the current rules and isn't trying to enforce your own personal rules on someone else at a tourney (And whining when they don't follow them). Having an opinion that is wrong in your opinion does not make someone a scrub.

I really wish people would quit with the name calling, it's unconstructive and almost always inaccurate.

You need to look up the definition of 'scrub' as written by Sirlin. It's more of a descriptive than a name, in this case stating that all people who want Meta Knight banned at the moment are using very little data and more their opinion that he is 'overpowered' and thus are making highly uninformed decision likely based on the fact that they can't beat MKs.

Thus, the poster you quoted is entirely right, at least if he's using the correct definition.

 

[Punishment Divine]

Regardless of whether OS's criteria were targeted at MK, you ADMIT they're true. How long would MK have to retain this status for people to say he needs to be banned? You can always say "Wait a little longer, not yet" but the fact is that Brawl is a dense game. There's no big changes that are going to happen, Why not avoid months of the tournament scene being gay, possibly losing players, and get rid of him soon?

 

[salaboB]

You need to look up the definition of 'scrub' as written by Sirlin. It's more of a descriptive than a name, in this case stating that all people who want Meta Knight banned at the moment are using very little data and more their opinion that he is 'overpowered' and thus are making highly uninformed decision likely based on the fact that they can't beat MKs.

Thus, the poster you quoted is entirely right, at least if he's using the correct definition.

Sirlin's definition is incorrect in the first place for what the vast majority of people mean by "scrub", but even there I don't believe Vulcan55 is using it correctly. Here is one of Sirlin's defining statements of what a "scrub" is:

The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevent him from ever truly competing. These made up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. In Street Fighter, for example, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” So-called “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub.

So, what part of "basing off opinions and little data" is involved here? I haven't seen the mention of the word "cheap" by anyone making a serious point in favor of banning MK.

Also, there is a great deal of data about MK and the tournament scene right now. Whether it is enough in your opinion or not still doesn't make people scrubs, either.

 

[brinboy789]

~ the metagame isnt fully mature. melees been out for atleast 8 years and still AT's are being discovered.
~ MK has at LEAST 1 neutral, yoshi, and snake and DK too, arguably.
~ Yun, from SF3, had it worse then MK. he was in same scenario, except he had only 1 arguable neutral.
~ MK is not hindering other chars metagame. in fact. when a new AT is discovered, the first question is "does it work on MK", as someone stated before. that is not a bad thing, its just that MK is popular. since he is top tier, people should try and develop strats agains MK.
~ Dojo's amazingly epic post. look above and page before
~ a char ban is a last resort. we have many options here.
~ weakness: light weight, slow aerial movement, vulnerable after using every B move, not much killing moves, only reliable one is shuttle loop and possibily dsmash. gimping is usually how MK KO's

 

[salaboB]

~ the metagame isnt fully mature. melees been out for atleast 8 years and still AT's are being discovered.
~ MK has at LEAST 1 neutral, yoshi, and snake and DK too, arguably.
~ Yun, from SF3, had it worse then MK. he was in same scenario, except he had only 1 arguable neutral.
~ MK is not hindering other chars metagame. in fact. when a new AT is discovered, the first question is "does it work on MK", as someone stated before. that is not a bad thing, its just that MK is popular. since he is top tier, people should try and develop strats agains MK.
~ Dojo's amazingly epic post. look above and page before
~ a char ban is a last resort. we have many options here.
~ weakness: light weight, slow aerial movement, vulnerable after using every B move, not much killing moves, only reliable one is shuttle loop and possibily dsmash. gimping is usually how MK KO's

Go away.

**** this, im outta this thread.
this is MY prediction
once MK is safe, you are all gonna go NO WAIIIIIIII HES BROKEN WAHHHHHH
im not gonna say i told ya so but...if you just listened to me isntead of flamed, we might have actually had an agreement, but ok, irdc what you all think. i tried to explain, but all i get are insults. i get "no your wrong" on all my arguements most of the time w/out arguements. oh, w/e, idc. you all can have a good time wait for it. MK will not be banned!

Spoiler

10yousaidyouwoulds

 

[fkacyan]

Also, there is a great deal of data about MK and the tournament scene right now. Whether it is enough in your opinion or not still doesn't make people scrubs, either.

Six months is not a "great deal of data."

It's far too early in the game's lifetime to ban a character who isn't obviously dominating the scene (Because he really isn't).

 

[da K.I.D.]

food for thought...
you guys keep saying that Os made his criteria specifically to fit MK
yuna said that MK was winning the most because he was the most popular.

isnt it possible that:
maybe OS's ban criteria fit MK, because he actually needs to be banned
maybe MK is the most popular because hes actually overpowered
i really dont think thats too farfetched.

but anyway, yall can do whatever, i dont care, my last tourney was so stupid and so flooded with metaknights that i wont be going to anymore till he actually is banned

you can call me a scrub or a ***** or whatever, but dont you ever say that there are no reports of people that stopped going to tourneys because MK was OP. youre looking at proof right now.

going to tourneys are no longer fun for me therefore im not going to them anymore, just because we want them to be competitive, doesnt mean the aspect of fun doesnt have a bearing on anything anymore. if they arent fun, nobody will go to them. I am proof

EDIT:more food for thought
why does the fact that Mk is slightly weak have anything to do with his banning case. so what if MK gets his kills by gimps, if hes always getting the kills before you are, than it doesnt really matter.

also, his b moves are not vulnerable, only drill is, and its the worst move he has. and even his worst move is still good for giving him almost free pass to the edge from offstage

EDIT2:
all of melees ATs have been known for a few years now, its just putting them all into practice at once, that makes it difficult. but that doenst take away from the point that there are no new ATs in melee and there havent been for a few years now

 

[Vulcan55]

Alright, can you show that OS's criteria is developed for the sole purpose of targeting MK and not for the purpose of establishing a permanent criteria for banning characters?

No, but then again, I'm not Overswarm.

And there are reasons to establish a standard separate from the one accepted by the entire fighting game community. First, it may be the case that MK will eventually meet those standards as rational people switch from their characters to MK, but the process will be slow and painful for the community. Banning MK before he actually meets the criteria will ultimately make no difference for his legality

It does not matter how the commuity "feels".
Banning a character is to be done as a last resort, not once the community gets a little uncomfortable with him.

but the community will be larger.

You can't prove that at all.

Second, it may be the case that Brawl is fundamentally different from the other fighters in that even slight character advantages make a huge difference.

Well they don't.

Third, the fighting game community's standards may not be the best standards, and even if they are in general, they may not be for Brawl.

Opinions.
Plus, if they are generally accepted, then they must be the best.
We wouldn't adapt to EVOs rules because they aren't the best for the game, and aren't generally accepted.

 

[salaboB]

Six months is not a "great deal of data."

It's far too early in the game's lifetime to ban a character who isn't obviously dominating the scene (Because he really isn't).

However, it's not too early to begin discussing it. And it isn't too early to believe he should be banned now -- you feeling it is doesn't mean they are scrubs for believing they can see exactly where things are going. And there is little reason to feel they aren't.

Explain why 6 months isn't enough, looking at the development of the metagame and the sheer amount of attention already given to MK. Explain why 1 year is magically going to be "better". Remember that the goal is to not have the tournament scene be crippled, not to be 100% certain beyond any doubt that MK can't be beaten. However, there is also no evidence that his dominance will ever be challenged either.

Am I for an immediate ban? No, I don't think it's required. But do I think the good of it would outweigh any possible bad if it were implemented? Yes, I see no significant drawbacks to it compared to the immediate advantages.

It does not matter how the commuity "feels".
Banning a character is to be done as a last resort, not once the community gets a little uncomfortable with him.

Opinion. And I think the community is already a bit past "little uncomfortable".

Opinions.
Plus, if they are generally accepted, then they must be the best.
We wouldn't adapt to EVOs rules because they aren't the best for the game, and aren't generally accepted.

Edit: I missed this the first time around. And I hate to bring politics in and am really not interested in getting into a debate on it because this is an example about opinions, so...George Bush was elected for a second term because he was generally accepted. Do you think that general acceptance of an idea always means it's good?

 

[fkacyan]

Am I for an immediate ban? No, I don't think it's required. But do I think the good of it would outweigh any possible bad if it were implemented? Yes, I see no significant drawbacks to it compared to the immediate advantage

The immediate advantages being?

 

[salaboB]

The immediate advantages being?

*Some players that quit because of MK's dominating will return -- this is going to happen whenever, but still would also occur now.
*Less time lost to people practicing the new MK strats just to have him banned 6 months from now when it's really obvious he's broken -- time lost can't be regained.
*Less people quitting because they haven't sunk as much time into MK now -- This one is probably the most arguable, but I believe it's true.
*Scrubs who can't handle a game without MK will quit -- wait, that's just a jab at people mislabelling others, I personally don't think we can stand to lose any people we can keep as long as things stay reasonable.
*Other characters' metagames will start to expand as they get used in a variety of situations rather than just vs. MK -- Again, happening whenever but still would occur now.
*Less people will quit in the first place due to MK dominance -- I suspect as time goes on this will only become more prevelant and we're going to lose people at an accelerating rate to being tired of always facing MK.
*Tied in to MK being even more dominant if a ban is delayed, the game will recover faster from him being banned because people will revert to and re-engage faster as their original mains. -- Self explanatory, and only occurs if he's banned before he's utterly centralized the metagame.

So, I feel we will end up with a healthier competitive game if the ban goes in sooner rather than later, as well as suffering no greater loss of players (Possibly less, even) and getting more back (Because less will have quit, and those who have quit will not all come back -- that's just not how people work). Yes, a lot of those are my opinion, but they're also based on reports of what's going on now and my understanding of how people work.

 

[fkacyan]

*Some players that quit because of MK's dominating will return -- this is going to happen whenever, but still would also occur now.

If they're quitting due to MK then the issue isn't the character, it's the person losing to the character.

*Less time lost to people practicing the new MK strats just to have him banned 6 months from now when it's really obvious he's broken -- time lost can't be regained.

Circular argument; this requires that the condition you set for debate happens to begin with.

*Less people quitting because they haven't sunk as much time into MK now -- This one is probably the most arguable, but I believe it's true.

See above.

*Scrubs who can't handle a game without MK will quit -- wait, that's just a jab at people mislabelling others, I personally don't think we can stand to lose any people we can keep as long as things stay reasonable.

See above again.

*Other characters' metagames will start to expand as they get used in a variety of situations rather than just vs. MK -- Again, happening whenever but still would occur now.

At a tourney I went to today with several top NJ players participating I didn't play vs one MK the entire tourney. Only one person used MK every match he played, and a few people used him for a few matches. MK is not the entire tourney scene, nor is he a majority of it. You may want to look at the diversity of results threads a bit more.

*Less people will quit in the first place due to MK dominance -- I suspect as time goes on this will only become more prevelant and we're going to lose people at an accelerating rate to being tired of always facing MK.

Isn't this your first point?

*Tied in to MK being even more dominant if a ban is delayed, the game will recover faster from him being banned because people will revert to and re-engage faster as their original mains. -- Self explanatory, and only occurs if he's banned before he's utterly centralized the metagame.

Only one person I know has actually dropped their old characters completely; most use MK for a few tougher matchups and use their other characters for the rest.

Your argument is full of base assumptions, the biggest being that most of the scene is MK, which it isn't. Re-evaluate your argument and restart it, as it comes across as very circular and based on catering to those who arguably shouldn't be playing in the tourney scene to begin with.

Also, keep in mind, the names on the placings list haven't changed much. Those who lose, lose; those who win, win. Somehow the people who were good at Melee still place well in Brawl, usually with whatever character they choose to use. If somebody is quitting the game because of MK in any shape or form, if MK was banned, the odds are they'd quit because of some other character, player, stage, or technique.

 

[da K.I.D.]

il come back for metaless tourneys...

 

[fkacyan]

il come back for metaless tourneys...

Sonic will still be bad.

 

[VulgarHandGestures]

Sonic will still be bad.

like zss won't?

 

[fkacyan]

like zss won't?

Quickly taking this seriously:

Bum's BX Weekly, NY, October 10th
Doubles: (1st and 2nd split)
1: Two Loaves of Bread Hugging (Inui and Atomsk)
2: Bum and Snakeee
3: Team A (Blackanese and BlackWaltz)
4: Get Tight (NinjaLink and D1)
5: Godot and Malcom
5: Dreamland Sausages (Jman and Basic Sausage)
7: A Boy and His Toy
7: Jersey All Day (Keitaro and Eazy)
9: D-tails
9: PRiDE and Izumi
9: 5.6
9: Barack McCain
13: Clowning Around
13: HaHa You Lose

Singles: (1st and 2nd split)
1: Bum (Donkey Kong)
2: Snakeee (Zero Suit Samus)
3: BlackWaltz (Olimar)
4: NinjaLink (Diddy Kong, ROB, Toon Link, Random LOL)
5: Atomsk (Dedede)
5: Inui (Meta Knight)
7: Basic Sausage (Dedede)
7: PRiDE (Yoshi)

To rerail the thread now:

I'm loving that diverse, one MK in fifth place singles bracket there. Totally proves my point that he's not dominating the scene.

Oh, and those are some of the best players in the NJ/NY area in that list.

 

[VulgarHandGestures]

Quickly taking this seriously:

Bum's BX Weekly, NY, October 10th
Doubles: (1st and 2nd split)
1: Two Loaves of Bread Hugging (Inui and Atomsk)
2: Bum and Snakeee
3: Team A (Blackanese and BlackWaltz)
4: Get Tight (NinjaLink and D1)
5: Godot and Malcom
5: Dreamland Sausages (Jman and Basic Sausage)
7: A Boy and His Toy
7: Jersey All Day (Keitaro and Eazy)
9: D-tails
9: PRiDE and Izumi
9: 5.6
9: Barack McCain
13: Clowning Around
13: HaHa You Lose

Singles: (1st and 2nd split)
1: Bum (Donkey Kong)
2: Snakeee (Zero Suit Samus)
3: BlackWaltz (Olimar)
4: NinjaLink (Diddy Kong, ROB, Toon Link, Random LOL)
5: Atomsk (Dedede)
5: Inui (Meta Knight)
7: Basic Sausage (Dedede)
7: PRiDE (Yoshi)

To rerail the thread now:

I'm loving that diverse, one MK in fifth place singles bracket there. Totally proves my point that he's not dominating the scene.

Oh, and those are some of the best players in the NJ/NY area in that list.

i lol'd

really.

EDIT: upon second glance, that is even MORE ridiculous than i first thought.

first of all, sonic has had a few high placements of his own, so you highlighting one guy who placed second in a local tourney literally means nothing, as far as proving that zss isn't bad.

second of all, there were at least two dededes in that tournament, and a DONKEY KONG placed first? and we're supposed to take these results as some sort of evidence that not only is zss a good character, but also that mk isn't as overpowered as everyone thinks? pff. pretty awesome scene you guys have up there. do you play with items on too?

 

[Master Raven]

Vulgar have you ever played a good ZSS?

 

[VulgarHandGestures]

Vulgar have you ever played a good ZSS?

even if i haven't, so what? have you ever played a good sonic?

look, i'm not a sonic fan/main, and i'm not a zss hater of some sort. i just found it funny that a zss main was sniping at someone else over the perceived crappiness of their character. it's not like zss is flying up the tier list herself. that's really all i was getting at.

 

[fkacyan]

i lol'd

really.

EDIT: upon second glance, that is even MORE ridiculous than i first thought.

first of all, sonic has had a few high placements of his own, so you highlighting one guy who placed second in a local tourney literally means nothing, as far as proving that zss isn't bad.

second of all, there were at least two dededes in that tournament, and a DONKEY KONG placed first? and we're supposed to take these results as some sort of evidence that not only is zss a good character, but also that mk isn't as overpowered as everyone thinks? pff. pretty awesome scene you guys have up there. do you play with items on too?

I'm going to take this as a trolling post, because I can't actually take you seriously here.

Here, Mass Madness 12.

1: OmegaBlackMage - Game and Watch
2: Nuro - Snake
3: Dazwa - ZSS / MK
4: Jman - D3 / MK
5: Fatal - ROB / Snake
5: Arby N the Cheif - MK
7: [Darc] -Marth
7: Buuman - MK / D3

Characters after the slash used less often.

Two MK mains and two MK alts. None of the top three mained MK.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

EDIT: At above poster - I'm not talking about tier list position. I'm taking a jibe at the fact that da K.I.D. thinks that no MKs will make a signifigant difference in where he places.

Stop derailing my rerailed thread.

 

[Master Raven]

even if i haven't, so what? have you ever played a good sonic?

Yes I have.

ZSS is way better.

 

[VulgarHandGestures]

I'm going to take this as a trolling post, because I can't actually take you seriously here.

Here, Mass Madness 12.

1: OmegaBlackMage - Game and Watch
2: Nuro - Snake
3: Dazwa - ZSS / MK
4: Jman - D3 / MK
5: Fatal - ROB / Snake
5: Arby N the Cheif - MK
7: [Darc] -Marth
7: Buuman - MK / D3

Characters after the slash used less often.

Two MK mains and two MK alts. None of the top three mained MK.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

EDIT: At above poster - I'm not talking about tier list position. I'm taking a jibe at the fact that da K.I.D. thinks that no MKs will make a signifigant difference in where he places.

Stop derailing my rerailed thread.

first of all, sonic has had a few high placements of his own, so you highlighting one guy who placed second third (with mk backup this time...) in a local tourney literally means nothing, as far as proving that zss isn't bad.

look, i really don't care about zss vs sonic. i was just pointing out that zss is only mildly more powerful than sonic is. if you want to tear northeastern tournaments up with zss, go right ahead. i don't care one way or the other.

 

[fkacyan]

look, i really don't care about zss vs sonic. i was just pointing out that zss is only mildly more powerful than sonic is. if you want to tear northeastern tournaments up with zss, go right ahead. i don't care one way or the other.

I'm using the results to make a point about how MK is not dominating the metagame right now.

Please stop re-derailing the thread. I keep having to re-rerail it.

 

[VulgarHandGestures]

I'm using the results to make a point about how MK is not dominating the metagame right now.

Please stop re-derailing the thread. I keep having to re-rerail it.

ok, so on the topic of metaknight.

first of all, posting two tournament results doesn't show us anything, especially when one of those results has mk's in 4 of the top 8 spots. you would need dozens of tourney results, all showing essentially the same thing (no domination by mk) to really dent the current perception of metaknight. and that's not because of the community is on some sort of witch hunt, it's just a statistical thing. with all the hundreds and hundreds of tournaments that have taken place since brawl's release, we can't let a handful of tourney results from one region of the country flip everything upside down.

second of all, again, a dk won a tournament with 2 dededes in the top 8. i'm not sure if we should be looking at your area for evidence of anything.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Zamus is soooo much better than Sonic. But what does that have to do with MK?

 

[VulgarHandGestures]

Zamus is soooo much better than Sonic. But what does that have to do with MK?

see, i've never had trouble with zss. i don't know what you guys are talking about.

but to answer your question, it has nothing to do with mk. i think we're dropping the argument.

 

[Zankoku]

second of all, again, a dk won a tournament with 2 dededes in the top 8. i'm not sure if we should be looking at your area for evidence of anything.

I'm sorry, but where in the fourth hell do you live? I'm surprised that not only do you not realize that the East Coast is a very strong region, but also that you do not recognize BUM at all.

 

[Ryan-K]

bum is the best dk in the country you asswipe, stop being ********.

NY doesn't have alot of MKs, those are NY tournies, if you wanna see MKs look at NJ tournies you ignorant little ****

NY has like 4 actual mk mains and a few people who use him just for cps even if they main characters like kirby or diddy etc.

snakeeeee is also the best zss in the country, you not only don't know what "you guys" are talking about but evidently have no idea what you're ranting on about either, so for the sake of this thread, shut the **** up.

zamus is way better than sonic, sonic sucks

 

[ph00tbag]

It's funny how Thio's idle joking with Da K.I.D. results in a whole page of ***got tree.

 

[mariofanpm12]

People continue to say that the Brawl Metagame is still young and that the Melee one has about 7+ years behind it. They say that with time, we'll find new secrets and techs with characters that may make fighting MK easier.

I must say I disagree. When Melee first came out, we had no real clue as to what ATs were, and we still hadn't even found out about small tricks like Fast Falling and Short Hops nor had we really implemented them. Sweetspots and Edge Guarding, too. So naturally it'd take more time to discovery the true secrets of Melee.

However, with Brawl, it kind of had a jumpstart on Melee. We took all of our Melee knowledge(7+ years) and applied it Brawl (in a few months). This pretty much told us about 60% of Brawl's techs right there. The rest was pretty much just character-specific ATs that couldn't really help against MK or even anyone for that matter. And even if we do manage to discover some ground-breaking tech like Comboing, Wave-Dashing or L-Canceling, MK will be able to do them, too, so it really won't matter.

We've even come out with a Tier List in just about 7 months , whereas in Melee it took about a year. It shows that we've already most likely drained about 75% of Brawl's tech skill out, and the remaining 25% will most likely just be small, character specific ATs.

 

[fkacyan]

People continue to say that the Brawl Metagame is still young and that the Melee one has about 7+ years behind it. They say that with time, we'll find new secrets and techs with characters that may make fighting MK easier.

I must say I disagree. When Melee first came out, we had no real clue as to what ATs were, and we still hadn't even found out about small tricks like Fast Falling and Short Hops nor had we really implemented them. Sweetspots and Edge Guarding, too. So naturally it'd take more time to discovery the true secrets of Melee.

However, with Brawl, it kind of had a jumpstart on Melee. We took all of our Melee knowledge(7+ years) and applied it Brawl (in a few months). This pretty much told us about 60% of Brawl's techs right there. The rest was pretty much just character-specific ATs that couldn't really help against MK or even anyone for that matter. And even if we do manage to discover some ground-breaking tech like Comboing, Wave-Dashing or L-Canceling, MK will be able to do them, too, so it really won't matter.

We've even come out with a Tier List in just about 7 months , whereas in Melee it took about a year. It shows that we've already most likely drained about 75% of Brawl's tech skill out, and the remaining 25% will most likely just be small, character specific ATs.

Just because the SBR came out with a tier list does not mean:
a) The tier list is definitive, and won't change, or
b) The tier list is even accurate right now.

Don't make predictions about the future based on Melee. If we discover a glitch it might not be useful for MK; Hell, for example, grab-release combos are a huge issue for him, as Yoshi can CG him across stages into a fair spike, and almost every other character taller than him as some combo into a smash attack.

There is zero evidence that Metaknight is dominating the metagame; the results show that it is the good players dominating the metagame, not any particular character.

@ Ankoku: I've given up, don't worry about him. He's welcome to his own illusions about the game all we wants.
@ Phootbag: Such is life. Sometimes I wonder why I try.