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

[Brinzy]

Oh, I see then. I just assumed your initial quote of it meant that, to you, I was saying something very stupid.

 

[Yuna]

Oh by no means did I misunderstand you. I understood it perfectly well but pointed it out because it may be difficult to catch on for some people who skim a bit.

People who skim and then reply to posts are stupid. That's like skimming a book on quantum psychics and thinking you can now ace that quantum psychics mid-term.

 

[ShadowLink84]

No actually when I first quoted it I had made some earlier post then saw the post above me and decided, I would catch your attention.

People who skim and then reply to posts are stupid. That's like skimming a book on quantum psychics and thinking you can now ace that quantum psychics mid-term.

Eh I am a bit softer than you Yuna. I think we should at least give them a chance to see where they went wrong and hopefully, prevent them from skimming. If they do it again though rip their heads off

 

[Yuna]

Eh I am a bit softer than you Yuna. I think we should at least give them a chance to see where they went wrong and hopefully, prevent them from skimming. If they do it again though rip their heads off

If someone proves themselves to no longer be stupid, then I won't think they're stupid anymore.

However, the act itself is still stupid and it's quite easy to comprehend that skimming a long post and then replying to it is a horrendously bad idea because you will most probably have missed out on a lot of things and misunderstood things.

I'm not saying "Burn it with fire". I'm saying: nobody cares about those who do it. Why should we dumb down everything and make everything concise and 1-paragraph in order to accommodate those too lazy to read? If they don't wish to actually read, fine.

If they skim and then reply, I'll point out to them that they should go back and re-read what they so clearly just skimmed. If they refuse to, well, at that point, I will not be held responsible if I imply they're intellectually challenged.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Argument.

Well I would classify it as giving them the benefit of the doubt. They don't always clearly skmi (from my experience anyways) and it sometimes seems that way simply because they didn't comprehend what was said.
Would you not agree that in such a case it would be better to clarify and make it more simple for them to comprehend?

I put argument mainly since I don't disagree with what you said.

 

[∫unk]

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. -Mark Twain

 

[Jam Stunna]

Yuna, you're missing the point, and some of your points aren't valid to begin with. If you made a poll that asked the question, "Should Hyrule Temple be unbanned?", I'd bet my hat that at the end of the polling period, Temple would still be banned (and I really like my hat ). If you made a poll "Should chaingrabs be illegal?", chaingrabs would still be legal. You're saying that if we turned on everything, more people would play. I argue that's a false assumption.

People agree that there needs to be some restrictions in order to facilitate tournament play. Random items can unduly influence results, so they're out. Certain stages make it impossible to finish a match, so they're out. There's nothing wrong with that.

What's happening here is that people believe in good faith that Metaknight should be banned, just like some people believe he shouldn't. And the arguments for and against are incredibly murky. Can anyone make an argument as clear-cut for banning Metaknight as the argument for banning Hyrule Temple? Can anyone make an argument for keeping Metaknight in other than "It's not fair/competitive to ban him?" Well, what does fair mean? What does competitive mean?

Neither side can definitively prove why they're right, as evidenced by the fact that this debate is still going on. If there was one argument that would end it all, then the argument would be over and those that refuse to comply would be marginalized. That hasn't happened because neither side has really found that "smoking gun", so to speak. It reminds me of a line from the movie "A Few Good Men", when Tom Cruise says, "It doesn't matter what I know, all that matters is what I can prove." Neither side can prove anything, apparently. So what do you do?

Ideologically, I agree with you. But ideology means very little ultimately; all that matters is what works. We can argue about whether Metaknight is broken or not until we're all old men. We can argue about competitiveness and what that means forever (see Scar's old thread). The question I think we have to ask is what helps the community more: banning him or leaving him alone?

EDIT- I'm not saying that SBR needs to cave to every outlandish demand made by people. But can SBR, an organization that relies on voluntary compliance, govern without a popular mandate?

 

[PhantomX]

No, he didn't. The analogy is perfect valid. If 100.000 Brazilian people wanted to re-locate elsewhere in South America, would it then be valid for them to demand everyone else change their way of living to accommodate them?

No. Something that is inherently wrong does not become right or even less wrong just because more people want it! 10 people demanding the rules change for preposterous reasons doesn't magically become less preposterous if they suddenly number 1000.

Come up with valid arguments. Not "Because I want it!".

You've obviously never heard/read of civil wars or revolutions. The majority has never enjoyed being repressed.

And it's wrong b/c 1 Brazilian is by no means the majority. Hell, if they outnumber the Spanish, they could easily achieve what they wanted via violent means (or, barring completely open democratic processes, through those means).

For the record, most of your argument has followed along the lines of "I don't want it!" You're taking the less elaborated responses as a representative of the whole, rather than paying heed to the more intelligent ones (see: Edrees)


@JunkInTheTrunk - you shoulda gone with the more epic: "Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience."

 

[M.K]

Are we arguing about Meta-Knight, anymore?

 

[PhantomX]

I think it's degenerated into arguing about other people's arguments, actually.

 

[saviorslegacy]

**** this post is long! -_-

I don't want to read it all but here's my question. "Has MK been banned yet?"

 

[ShadowLink84]

Don't be an idiot, read it all. You'll have better understanding.

 

[salaboB]

Are we arguing about Meta-Knight, anymore?

As much as we've ever been.

The biggest problem with the Brazilian analogy is that it's assuming someone has said "casual" players vs. "competitive" players. But that's not the case, there's a lot of lower skill competitive players getting stomped on and fed up with Meta Knight (Because they're at a skill level where picking him up = win against the others at the same skill level, because he doesn't attain 50:50 matchups until you're very nearly elite), and they're the majority that are being said need paying attention to over the elites above them. They're still competitive even if they suck, there's no magical point where suddenly your skill level makes you someone who's trying to compete at Brawl when you weren't before.

 

[__V]

I just keep seeing the same stupid arguments over and over again.

Pro-MK: THEY DIDN'T BAN SHEIK AND FOX IN MELEE.

Sorry, this isn't Melee. This argument especially isn't valid since MK has no exploitable weaknesses. They did.

Pro-MK: I like MK! I make money from playing MK! I don't want to switch characters!

Shut up. Just shut up.

Anti-MK: I HATE MACH WHORNADO.

Stop walking into it. Even Ganon can punish the slight ending-lag.

Undecided: It's too early to ban anything!

Not really. Other communities would have banned MK simply for having an obscenely good recovery.

-----------------------------------------------

PLEASE, come up with something new.

 

[Yuna]

Well I would classify it as giving them the benefit of the doubt. They don't always clearly skmi (from my experience anyways) and it sometimes seems that way simply because they didn't comprehend what was said.
Would you not agree that in such a case it would be better to clarify and make it more simple for them to comprehend?

We do. If someone clearly is misunderstanding us (and by us, I mean me and others like me), we tell them to go back and re-read or repeat ourselves. Have you not seen my argue, this is what I spend most of my time doing, trying to get people who cannot comprehend plain English (because, really, I use small words to avoid BS like this) to understand what I mean.

 

[saviorslegacy]

Who wants to sit down and read 529 pages of replies!?!?!? 0_o That's redicoulis.

 

[Yuna]

Not really. Other communities would have banned MK simply for having an obscenely good recovery.

Bovine manure.

I'm sorry, are you a member of other communities? There are several communities out there with characters just as good or better than Meta Knight (comparatively) that have not banned any of their characters. Don't talk about things you have no clue of. It will come back and bite you in the behind, usually when someone who does know walks in and sees that you're clearly talking out of your tuchas.

 

[saviorslegacy]

I'm sorry, 530!!!

 

[Circio]

Savior, had you read even one post above your first post, you should be able to tell the answer to your question.

 

[Yuna]

As much as we've ever been.

The biggest problem with the Brazilian analogy is that it's assuming someone has said "casual" players vs. "competitive" players. But that's not the case, there's a lot of lower skill competitive players getting stomped on and fed up with Meta Knight (Because they're at a skill level where picking him up = win against the others at the same skill level, because he doesn't attain 50:50 matchups until you're very nearly elite), and they're the majority that are being said need paying attention to over the elites above them. They're still competitive even if they suck, there's no magical point where suddenly your skill level makes you someone who's trying to compete at Brawl when you weren't before.

I'm sorry, we said it's merely about Casual players when? But nobody cares if lowered skilled players can't beat Meta Knight, that's their problem. Lower skilled players can't beat many people.

Have a lowered skilled player face off against my Zelda and I bet they'll whine about her many strong KO moves for days to come since I'm good enough to destroy lowered leveled players.

The fact of the matter is that if 1000 lowered leveled players are whining yet the top of the top can handle MK just fine, then it doesn't matter.

 

[saviorslegacy]

Edit: Too slow... Everyone else already replied...

I thought it was no. I did read other posts but I was unsure if it was still legit.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Read more and things will become clear.

@Yuna: What is your position with the ban exactly? I no you voted no but is it because you believe Mk should not be banned or that it is too early to think of a ban?

 

[saviorslegacy]

I'm gonna lmao if this thread gets OVER 9,000 posts. Well` I'm leaving. Way to many posters are here. 0_o

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, you're missing the point, and some of your points aren't valid to begin with. If you made a poll that asked the question, "Should Hyrule Temple be unbanned?", I'd bet my hat that at the end of the polling period, Temple would still be banned (and I really like my hat ). If you made a poll "Should chaingrabs be illegal?", chaingrabs would still be legal. You're saying that if we turned on everything, more people would play. I argue that's a false assumption.

That's not the point. The point is that just because a large number of people demand something doesn't make them right, whether or not they're already a part of the community and/or Smashboards. Make a poll among Casual Smashers see what the results will be.

People agree that there needs to be some restrictions in order to facilitate tournament play. Random items can unduly influence results, so they're out. Certain stages make it impossible to finish a match, so they're out. There's nothing wrong with that.

So we're saying that we're not going to listen to the less enlightened when it comes to these things but it's perfectly fine to listen to them when it comes to banning Meta Knight? I call hypocrisy.

Because, really, very few people know enough to know whether or not Meta Knight should be banned. Most people arguing in these "Ban or Not Ban" threads clearly do not since they use inane logic and arguments.

What's happening here is that people believe in good faith that Metaknight should be banned, just like some people believe he shouldn't. And the arguments for and against are incredibly murky. Can anyone make an argument as clear-cut for banning Metaknight as the argument for banning Hyrule Temple? Can anyone make an argument for keeping Metaknight in other than "It's not fair/competitive to ban him?" Well, what does fair mean? What does competitive mean?

Wait... what? This isn't what we started out arguing. We started out arguing whether or not a large number of people wanting him banned was a good reason to ban him. Not you're venturing into something else entirely. This is called strawmanning (or quite possibly packpedaling)

Neither side can definitively prove why they're right, as evidenced by the fact that this debate is still going on. If there was one argument that would end it all, then the argument would be over and those that refuse to comply would be marginalized. That hasn't happened because neither side has really found that "smoking gun", so to speak. It reminds me of a line from the movie "A Few Good Men", when Tom Cruise says, "It doesn't matter what I know, all that matters is what I can prove." Neither side can prove anything, apparently. So what do you do?

The consensus among those that matter is "It's too early to tell, really". And both sides have good points, yes. The point is that "the large number" of people you're referring to (say, the Casuals) do not know enough to make this judgment call, which is why we have so many people saying "Meta Knight should be banned because I cannot beat my friend when he plays him!" or "That **** Tornado should be banned!".

Going back to the poll, let's make a poll among 1000 Casual Smashers and ask them whether or not Hyrule Temple should be allowed in tournaments, giving them no further information about the stage and the game itself, because that's tantamount to polling Casual smashers and listening to them when they say "Meta Knight is too good, we need to ban him!" (because 90% of what they whine about is easily beatable or at least not half as good as they think it is).

Ideologically, I agree with you. But ideology means very little ultimately; all that matters is what works. We can argue about whether Metaknight is broken or not until we're all old men. We can argue about competitiveness and what that means forever (see Scar's old thread). The question I think we have to ask is what helps the community more: banning him or leaving him alone?

EDIT- I'm not saying that SBR needs to cave to every outlandish demand made by people. But can SBR, an organization that relies on voluntary compliance, govern without a popular mandate?

No you don't. You said "I no longer find this fun. And neither do Casuals." and used that as an argument. It is not a valid argument. We disagree on this. I think it's insane to use it as an argument (the argument is insane, not you).

You've obviously never heard/read of civil wars or revolutions. The majority has never enjoyed being repressed.

We're repressing Brazilians by not caving into their demands by doing it their way instead of our way? Obviously you have never heard of the Big Era of Slavery. The enslaved ones were in the minority, the enslavers were in the majority, so, clearly, slavery was right wasn't it?

Large numbers =/= Being right.

Not doing as someone says =/= Repressing them. They're free to not enter the tournaments with Meta Knights in them. Just as they're free to host tournaments of their own. Nobody's repressing them.

And it's wrong b/c 1 Brazilian is by no means the majority. Hell, if they outnumber the Spanish, they could easily achieve what they wanted via violent means (or, barring completely open democratic processes, through those means).

The majority of Americans wanted slavery to be kept. Just because the various states of the U.S. gradually started outlawling it and then outlawing discrimination against black people doesn't mean that bigotted majority was right... or that they were being epressed.

And do you even know what the word "repress" mean? I think you're thinking of "opressed". Repession is something else entirely, lest you be claiming that the anti-MK:ers are closeted homosexuals.

For the record, most of your argument has followed along the lines of "I don't want it!" You're taking the less elaborated responses as a representative of the whole, rather than paying heed to the more intelligent ones (see: Edrees)

No I haven't. Point out a single line where I state something along the lines of "I don't want it". Please do. Quote me where I've ever said "I don't want it" and claimed that it's a valid argument. Do it or I'll be forced to declare you a liar.

Why would I reply to the ones I do not disagree with. Also, why would I read everything in this thread? All I'm doing is replying to people I think are using really, really bad arguments to try to set them straight.

 

[Yuna]

Read more and things will become clear.

@Yuna: What is your position with the ban exactly? I no you voted no but is it because you believe Mk should not be banned or that it is too early to think of a ban?

Two positions, and thi s will be the, oh, 19th time I repeat them in this thread alone:
1) It's too early to tell
2) At the level Meta Knight is at at this writing moment, he should not be banned.
(3) That is not to say that he should never be banned. If he does become better in the future, then I shall move for him to be banned. But from what we know insofar, no, he should not be banned)

I'm gonna lmao if this thread gets OVER 9,000 posts. Well` I'm leaving. Way to many posters are here. 0_o

Stop spamming.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Yuna, when is a character too good, according to you? I don't want to hear: "When nobody has a reasonable chance to beat him" but some more statistical stuff like "When his worst match-up is 60:40 in his favour".

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, when is a character too good, according to you? I don't want to hear: "When nobody has a reasonable chance to beat him" but some more statistical stuff like "When his worst match-up is 60:40 in his favour".

When he 70:30s everyone.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

When he 70:30s everyone.

So 65:35 is reasonable enough to you?

 

[Yuna]

So 65:35 is reasonable enough to you?

If 60:40 is reasonable enough, why would 65:35 not be? But I'm not immovable. If Meta Knight one day 60:40s everyone, then I might reconsider, but at this moment. 60:40 is not enough in my opinion.

 

[-Nana-]

Yuna I don't think you're getting what Jam is saying quite enough. The point is nearly EVERYONE will agree that items should be banned and certain stages should be banned and if a few speak out against those bans it will be ignored. That is not the case with this because top/middle/low players are speaking for or against MK. It's not about "enlightened" or not. It's getting to the point where all sorts of people are for banning him so whether or not they appear qualified in your eyes or mine is irrelevant. If the majority of people end up wanting to ban MK then that needs to be dealt with. End of story. Keep in mind as well that A LOT of people want him banned. Don't act as if it's just scrubs. Overswarm is one of the main advocaters of this idea are you telling me he is less enlightened as well?

remember as well he can always be unbanned and no one is obligated to listen to SBR.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

If 60:40 is reasonable enough, why would 65:35 not be? But I'm not immovable. If Meta Knight one day 60:40s everyone, then I might reconsider, but at this moment. 60:40 is not enough in my opinion.

I don't want you to change your opinion on this. I'd just like to learn a little more about your point of view...

To me, 60:40 and 65:35 is a considerable difference. 60:40 chance means that your chances are lower than those of your opponent. 65:35 means that a victory is already unrealistic.
However, it has more to do with the definition of a "60:40" match-up than with facts.

And the facts are, that it's too early to consider banning any character

 

[Tenki]

BaRockman

Brock would like to speak with you.

Spoiler

10avatarwars.

Are we arguing about Meta-Knight, anymore?

I'm feeling like atm, it's more about who has the say in banning MK.


On the Metaknight note, I'd like to see duration and ending frame data for Metaknight.

Don't tell me to go to the MK boards and check, because I have, and all they have are startup lag information.

 

[Yuna]

Yuna I don't think you're getting what Jam is saying quite enough. The point is nearly EVERYONE will agree that items should be banned and certain stages should be banned and if a few speak out against those bans it will be ignored. That is not the case with this because top/middle/low players are speaking for or against MK. It's not about "enlightened" or not. It's getting to the point where all sorts of people are for banning him so whether or not they appear qualified in your eyes or mine is irrelevant. If the majority of people end up wanting to ban MK then that needs to be dealt with. End of story. Keep in mind as well that A LOT of people want him banned. Don't act as if it's just scrubs. Overswarm is one of the main advocaters of this idea are you telling me he is less enlightened as well?

You're not getting what I'm saying:
If the Top players aren't largely in agreement and divided, nobody cares if the lowered levels players are largely in agreement.

Because, really, what are you statistics? How do you know that the top players are largely for the ban? As far as I know, it's a deadlock. So, if we're going by the top players and most knowledgeable people (i.e., the more "enlightened" ones) only, then it's a dead heat.

And in no situation should we ever consider the shrill cries of the lowered leveled players, especially Casual players (because Jam brought them up)! And we should also never listen to people who think "We no longer have fun" is a good argument.

And by shrill cries, I mean unenlightened cries. If a lower leveled player is knowledgeable and can up with valid reasoning for why MK should be banned, then we should listen to them. But you cannot just go "1000 random people who no one's ever heard of and who aren't even very good at Brawl think MK should be banned!" as if it mattered.

Because:
1) The rules are not written to maximize "fun".
2) It's your personal preference. Nobody cares. We only care if Meta Knight's existence is ruining the fun of the entire community, not yours or, puppies forbid, the fun of Casuals (because Jam specifically brought up Casual players, for whatever reason).

remember as well he can always be unbanned and no one is obligated to listen to SBR.

So if you were sent to jail tomorrow for a crime you didn't commit and were eventually let out, all would be forgiven? I mean, who cares if there's good enough reasoning to ban you, if enough people want you ban, we should ban you anyway!

And if we later find out that you really didn't commit the crimes we all thought you did, then no harm done, right?

No, "We can always unban him later" is not a valid excuse. Find good valid reasons to ban him, don't go "Let's ban him and then wait". You'll be punishing all of the Meta Knight players of the world (if it becomes a standard) for, later found out, no good reasons because you felt like making a knee-jerk decision based on insufficient evidence.

Oh, they can always learn another character, right? But the point is that they should have to if Meta Knight is eventually found "innocent". So convict him beyond reasonable doubt or you must aquit.

 

[metalmonstar]

Recap of this thread so far

Pro Ban
OS and Lee have stated that one can pick up Metaknight and be good with Metaknight in less than a week or so. Metaknight not only takes little skill to perfect but also allows a one to play at a higher level than they were once able to.

Anti Ban
Difficulty of a character is inconsequential and good players should be able to make character switches and still be proficient because they already have a strong understanding on the game.

Pro Ban
Metaknight has no bad matchups.

Anti Ban
You are just saying that because your character gets ***** by metaknight. Fox has no bad matchups and we didn't ban him. Also Snake beats metaknight and if olimar camps well he can beat metaknight.

Pro Ban
Melee had a different physics engine. Even though Fox had no bad matchups he was still beatable because of how the engine worked. A good metaknight can outspace Snake. Also Olimar gets gimped easily and metaknight does it better than anyone.

Anti Ban
Snake and Olimar mains need to camp harder. They shouldn't lose to metaknight.

Pro Ban- Metaknight has no bad stages. Thus ruins the counterpicking system.

Anti Ban- Same with Fox

Pro Ban-We have already addressed that.

Anti Ban-Chudat, Azen, M2K, DSF, Ninjalink and other good players oppose the ban. They have also come up with ways to deal with metaknight

Pro ban-We would love to see how they do. Azen has switched to metaknight in a couple of his matches. Ninjalink after his impressive run has now been beaten by metaknights. Even Ninjalink didn't think that metaknight vs Diddy was a good matchup. It could be explained that Ninjalink is just really good and that the metaknights were unfamiliar to the matchup.

Anti Ban
Azen used MK like once and he generally does better with Lucario anyway. You can't count that. Also Ninjalink is sometimes inconsistent. Our other top players seem to have no trouble with Metaknight.


Pro Ban
Metaknight makes up the majority of the competitive scene and is causing an over centralization.

Anti Ban
Marth made up the majority of the competitive scene also and no one wanted to ban him.

Pro Ban
Meta Knight has these aspects of both Fox and Marth from Melee (And if M2K is right, of Sheik as well -- best character in the game). (Brought to you by Salabob

Pro ban
Many characters don't even have answer for metaknights tornado

Anti ban
The good characters do they and they are the only ones who matter. Also all you have to do is angle your sheild up. Also you can SDI out of it if you do get caught and punish accordingly.

Pro ban
Without Metaknight the game would be more diverse. The game would be better without metaknight

Anti Ban
You can't ban a character just for the sake of diversity. Also Metaknight beats a lot of the top tier characters that would ruin the game if metaknight did not exist. Marth would be dominant. If not Marth then DDD would be dominant. If not DDD, then Snake would be dominant. If not Snake then Olimar would be dominant. If not Olimar, then GW would be dominant. If not GW then Falco would be dominant. The game would revolve around the second best character and the game would be worse of. Also once we ban one really good character then will start banning all the top characters until you can only play mid and low tier. Which is no fun.

Pro Ban,
Those characters that you have listed all have their flaws and some even have counterpick characters or stages. The game would become more diverse and better. We may see another character dominate but it would not be as bad as metaknight. Also players are smart enough not to go down the slippery slope.

Anti Ban
Banning metaknight is unfair to those of us that have mained him for so long.

Pro Ban
Allowing metaknight is unfair to all the players that have worked so hard on a character only to be repeatedly trounced by metaknight until they either give up or make the switch.

I think that covers most of the big stuff. Though if you have anything to add that would be great. It would be nice to see some new arguments for a change.

I tried to be unbiased. I am particularly in favor of neither at the moment. Preferring that we take some more time and try to get some hard evidence.

Best of the rest arguments.

Anti Ban
We love money

Anti Ban
EC can handle Metaknight

Anti Ban
EC is the best

Anti Ban
Camp harder. Perfect camping FTW

Pro Ban
NOM NOM NOM (eating non metaknights) WE LOVE MONEY lol

Pro ban
Inui is beating top level players with metaknight and he sucks LOL

Pro Ban
I am tired of losing to metaknight.

Pro Ban
AD HOMINEM LOL

 

[Yuna]

I don't want you to change your opinion on this. I'd just like to learn a little more about your point of view...

To me, 60:40 and 65:35 is a considerable difference. 60:40 chance means that your chances are lower than those of your opponent. 65:35 means that a victory is already unrealistic.
However, it has more to do with the definition of a "60:40" match-up than with facts.

Sorry, my brain had me think 65:35 was less favourable to MK than 60:40 for some reason. Brain freeze.

But I said earlier than 70:30 is the threshold. However, I also said that I'm not immovable. 60:40 might be enough if it ever comes to that, we'll just have to wait and see. But at this writing moment, IMO, 60:40 is not enough.

65:35, however, could be enough... IMO.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Maybe you're right Yuna, and it is too early to make a decision either way. Or, in other words, maybe this "Ban Metaknight" debate is simply a phase, and by this time next year it will be long gone. Who knows?

But the community at large, as well as SBR, has determined that this is a problem now. The various threads and posts made by both average community members and SBR members attest to that, which means that a decision is likely to be made sooner rather than later.

You're saying that a ban is the wrong thing to do. I'm saying that a ban is the wrong thing to do, but it may be necessary. Let's say that SBR takes your position, and says that until further evidence is produced, Metaknight will remain unbanned.

As of the writing of this post, there are 1707 votes in the "Ban MK Poll" thread. 957 of those votes are in favor of banning Metaknight (56.06%), while 750 of those votes are against banning Metaknight (43.94%).

The question is this: How does SBR, an organization that ultimately relies on popular support, enforce a decision that is not popularly supported?

 

[TLMSheikant]

Just ban him already the sooner the better.

 

[salaboB]

Summary list

This is one of the key things for throwing out the Melee comparisons:

Anti Ban
Fox has no bad matchups or stages and we didn't ban him.

Anti Ban
Marth made up the majority of the competitive scene also and no one wanted to ban him.

Pro Ban
Meta Knight has these aspects of both Fox and Marth from Melee (And if M2K is right, of Sheik as well -- best character in the game).

Edit: I'm not saying that means "Ban MK now!" It means you can't say "We didn't ban X in Melee so we shouldn't ban MK" because he's a combination of aspects that's stronger than anything present in Melee.

 

[Tenki]

Pro ban
Many characters don't even have answer for metaknights tornado

Anti ban
The good characters do they and they are the only ones who matter

...

Pro Ban
AD HOMINEM LOL

@the volley I just quoted:
Shield --> release shield as soon as MK pulls out --> punish MK.
In other words:
Use protection --> take it off as soon as he pulls out --> go down hard

@ad hominem

 

[Daimonster]

Metaknight's moveset has an answer for everything. Thus making him almost impervious to punishment.

His most lacking area as a fighting character is the lack of a fireball. However, the tornado (for most projectiles) takes the place of a fireball and also beats out many other fireballs. Some energy based and explosive projectiles do not get eaten by the tornado. Instead, MK can use his fast running speed and tilts to apply pressure in which a fireball is not necessary. Once a player decides to play defensive, the MK can choose to dash shield grab or shuttle loop his way through the opposition.

As a multi-character player. I wish falco had an answer to f.air + dancing blade from marth. Any shoryuken type of move would suffice, but firefox does not cut it. I am then forced to shield and find holes in my opponents block string with spot dodges in order to punish. Luckily R.O.B. has the range on his f.tilt and d.tilt to work through marth's f.air and dancing blades. These characters have weaknesses in their game that other characters do better at exploiting.

Metaknight, on the other hand, has no noticeable weakness (at this point). Instead, he has all the tools necessary to disect his opponents moveset and exploit their weaknesses to the fullest. Until a secret character becomes unlocked and has some type of moveset advantage on MK. MK will still be the best character among them all by FAR.