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

[Brinzy]

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).

You apparently don't know the difference between FORCING someone to conform to a set of rules and simply HAVING a set of rules and then having others choose to accept or decline them. Are you telling me that having 3-stock, no items, chaingrabbing allowed, all that good stuff... means that someone is being repressed? That's stupid. Hell, you're not even repressing people if you allow "simple" infinites. They can always choose a character who doesn't get chaingrabbed/infinited for the most part (<3 Zelda).

If I took the official rules, kicked down someone's door, put a gun to their head, and told them that they better play by my rules or else, then YES, I would be repressing someone. Otherwise, what you're saying does not add up. I would probably enter a tournament with items (even though I cannot stand them) just to "have fun", but I don't think I would ever enter a tournament where I had to play on... I dunno, Big Blue or something like that. If a tournament that forced people to play on Big Blue ever happened, I would never go to it. Does this mean that I'm repressed? ... No. I can enter it if I want to. If I don't, who cares? Nobody is hurting me. All I know is that I can't throw a fit and tell them to change their rules up. I would simply go find a tournament with rules to my liking.

Nobody is being repressed. Stop acting like someone is being repressed.


Also, I see that you STILL don't understand what I was saying. One Brazilian (referred to as a Casual, because there are so few competitive players who do not like the standard rules for tournaments and because they're part of the "great amount" that the other poster said earlier, whereas people on Smashboards are definitely the lesser amount) who goes to a different country and wants people to speak a language that he understands would be doing the same exact thing that a million Brazillians could do all over South America if they all wanted to be accommodated. The Spanish-speaking commmunities would be a community like ours, whereas those who do not speak Spanish but want everyone to use Portuguese are the same as the people who want item matches, any stage, no chaingrabbing at tournaments that do NOT support those rules already.

If 20,000 non-English and French speakers went up to me and expected me to communicate with them in their language, they would be wrong. They would have to 1) speak to me in my two preferred languages, or 2) find someone who spoke their language and was willing to use it with them. You can't force me to change for them. If i went to those 20,000 people, I would learn their language or just not do anything at all. Notice how in both situations, the one group that approaches the other group cannot force either group to be like the first one; instead, the approacher has to conform to the approached in order to make a connection. It was me in one situation and 20,000 in the other. That doesn't matter. The end result is the same.

Using the logic that I argued against (which you apparently agree with because you have a problem with mine, either from misunderstanding or just by thinking that I'm completely wrong), if those 20,000 people approached me, I should be forced to learn their language so they can talk to me, even though I never forced them to speak to me and I never asked for their presence in the first place. That is inane.

 

[Tenki]

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.

I don't know.

MK's aerials, aside from maybe U/D-air (and maybe not even D-air), have dead time after their attacks - the main problem is falling aerials, since they have little landing lag.

Tornado is punishable, but the window is small.

Shuttle loop can be countered OoS.

Anyway, part of the reason I want frame data is because I want to know just how much dead time MK has after his aerials, and just how 'punishable' or 'unpunishable' he really is.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I'd just like to mention that MK indeed does have an exploitable weakness: His size.

He get's always jump released which leads to some free attacks: Bowser has a chaingrab, Sheik gets a free boost smash and afaik Marth + Ike have these jump releases too (and I'm sure I forgot someone as usual)

 

[metalmonstar]

Top players seem to be split on the Issue.

Mid level players would rather we wait things out and give it more time.

Low end players who are not Metaknight mains are discouraged at the uphill battles ahead of them and would like MK banned. Low end players who are MK mains see that they can succeed and would like to do so.

Casuals are like "LOL, you can't ban Metaknight he isn't even that good. His range is awful and he is easy to kill. My Ike and Link **** MK."

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

So...what's your problem? Azen has beaten basically every top MK, including M2K, with Lucario. Atomsk has beaten many with Dedede, INCLUDING MEW2KING'S LOL MEW2KING WAS FORCED TO DEDEDE DITTO HIM TO WIN BECAUSE HIS META KNIGHT GOT SPANKED BY ATOMSK'S DEDEDE IN ROUND 1.

So the best MK LOST a match? Isn't that reason enough he shouldn't be banned yet?

 

[PhantomX]

@Yuna Is your bold font supposed to be threatening or something? I really don't see the point of it

If the majority of the Americans wanted slavery to reside, there would still be slavery. There wouldn't have been a civil war over it and Black rights [which is ... but the rift was large enough to lead to that. Also, the ratio of those that could actually afford slaves (i.e. those with plantations) to the number of slaves they had was less than 1, the non slave-owners didn't really care, they just wanted the Blacks to be kept away from them once they were freed. The whole issue w/ slavery and Black rights was pretty much as divided as this whole MK issue. There were extremists both for and against, and a large division among the general populace as to what was correct.

I've studied more History than I probably ever should, and you should probably make sure to double check your facts before lecturing me on it.

Your argument against MK banning is essentially "I do not want it" (at least insofar as I've been in this thread) because you have no argument of your own, you just run around telling people they're wrong.

And congratulations, you caught a slip of my tongue (or fingers). You understood I meant oppression though, so it was sorta pointless to correct that.

@Rafael, I was just providing an example of where what the majority wanted clearly matters, regardless of the circumstances and situation.

 

[salaboB]

I'd just like to mention that MK indeed does have an exploitable weakness: His size.

He get's always jump released which leads to some free attacks: Bowser has a chaingrab, Sheik gets a free boost smash and afaik Marth + Ike have these jump releases too (and I'm sure I forgot someone as usual)

His size neutralizes though, because it also means he can dodge certain moves more easily. He also has no particular vulnerability to being grabbed due to having such low lag and easily spaced moves.

Honestly, if him getting grabbed were that easy he wouldn't be so hard to fight.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

So the best MK LOST a match? Isn't that reason enough he shouldn't be banned yet?

He lost matches before just to remind you: Reflex and NL managed to defeat him

 

[Tenki]

Your argument against MK banning is essentially "I do not want it" (at least insofar as I've been in this thread) because you have no argument of your own, you just run around telling people they're wrong.

I think Yuna is with many people who are in a 3rd category of a "not just yet"/"it's too early to ban", which, as strange as it sounds, encompasses people who may and/or may not support banning Metaknight, unless his opinions on that issue changed.


I had something else I wanted to reply to but I forgot :l

 

[ShadowLink84]

Ha! Tenki is too slow.
but yeah it makes sense because it is too early!

7 moth old game? Thats...silly.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

His size neutralizes though, because it also means he can dodge certain moves more easily. He also has no particular vulnerability to being grabbed due to having such low lag and easily spaced moves.

People say he has no exploitable weakness. They are wrong. He has one.
It's like saying: "ROBs offensive shoprtcomings ar neutralized by his camping".

Honestly, if him getting grabbed were that easy he wouldn't be so hard to fight.

You just don't try hard enough. Get better, NAO

 

[salaboB]

I think Yuna is with many people who are in a 3rd category of a "not just yet"/"it's too early to ban", which, as strange as it sounds, encompasses people who may and/or may not support banning Metaknight, unless his opinions on that issue changed.

Yuna's issue isn't time, it's "He doesn't 70:30 (Or 60:40) everyone". No amount of waiting will change his point unless the matchups change.

 

[ShadowLink84]

That also factors into time though.

If time goes on and it does show MK going 60/40 against everyone that would change his mind.,
However the game is early so saying he goes 60/40 may not be true.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

He lost matches before just to remind you: Reflex and NL managed to defeat him

Just making a point.

Yuna's issue isn't time, it's "He doesn't 70:30 (Or 60:40) everyone". No amount of waiting will change his point unless the matchups change.

Ummmm.... yeah. So? Waiting is for things to be cracked against MK. Waiting is to see if MK has COMPLETE dominance over tournaments. What the hell did you think people wanted to wait for?

Also I'm in the wait a bit category. And you might want to disregard what I said cause I don't speak for Yuna but that's what I think. I could have sworn Yuna was in the wait n' see category.

 

[Yuna]

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.

I'm saying that knowing what we know at this moment, a ban would be (in my opinion) wrong.

I'm also saying that your reasoning for why a ban might be necessary is bad. Nobody cares what random people think, especially not if they are Casual players (that word will haunt you to the day you admit that listening to Casual players when writing the rules of Competitive video-games is wrong).

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%).

Yes, here is the question: How many people who voted in that poll had the qualifications for voting in said poll? How many people didn't write in "That **** Tornado" or something equally inane as their comment for why they voted as they did.

The blind masses voted forth George W. Bush twice for office (once they didn't, but it was still close enough that Bush could just steal the election, so he almost got voted forth). That doesn't mean they were right in doing so.

Just because the majority says something does not make them right. If the people who voted in that threads are so qualified to debate this, why aren't they in here giving us valid arguments for why MK should be banned?

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

They don't enforce anything. They're not a police state. People are free to play however they choose to. The SBR merely write a ruleset they feel is the proper one, the one they feel should be recommended. If people wish not to use their ruleset, then they're free to.

What is this inane idea that the SBR is some kind of governing body?

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).

I'm sorry, Sheik is the best character in the game since when now?

@Yuna Is your bold font supposed to be threatening or something? I really don't see the point of it

It's called "emphasis", look it up.

If the majority of the Americans wanted slavery to reside, there would still be slavery.

In the beginning and for many years, the majority wanted it to persist (not reside, what up with you using the wrong words?). How was slavery abolished? That's right, the governing bodies of the states of the U.S. abolished it, one by one.

It was not a popular decision for many. But eventually, the many were convinced.

This is to illustrate a point: The majority is not always right. The majority wanting something does not make it proper to give them that something by default.

There wouldn't have been a civil war over it and Black rights [which is ... but the rift was large enough to lead to that. Also, the ratio of those that could actually afford slaves (i.e. those with plantations) to the number of slaves they had was less than 1, the non slave-owners didn't really care, they just wanted the Blacks to be kept away from them once they were freed. The whole issue w/ slavery and Black rights was pretty much as divided as this whole MK issue. There were extremists both for and against, and a large division among the general populace as to what was correct.

The point is that the majority once wanted slaves or at least for slavery to continue existing. They were eventually proven wrong.

Saying "The majority wants this" is not enough to actually make something happen, especially no in cases such as this. The majority is not always right, that is the gist here.

I've studied more History than I probably ever should, and you should probably make sure to double check your facts before lecturing me on it.

I'm sorry, what facts were I wrong on? What facts refuted my point of "The majority isn't always right"? You should read my posts before replying to them.

Your argument against MK banning is essentially "I do not want it" (at least insofar as I've been in this thread) because you have no argument of your own, you just run around telling people they're wrong.

No it isn't. Just because I haven't told you the reasons for why I don't want him banned does not mean I'm saying he shouldn't be banned because "I do not want for him to be banned".

Also, how long have you been reading this thread? For the vast majority of this thread's entire existence, I've been debating using reasoning for why he shouldn't be banned. It just so happens that when I re-entered the ring a day or so ago, I saw certain posts that required replying to and replied to them.

I'm refusing the reasonings of those who want him banned to tell them "Your reasoning is bad. Come back with better arguments". Nowhere do I say "He shouldn't be banned because I don't want him banned".

This is this and that is that. I'm arguing that the reasoning people use is bad and that they should come back with better reasoning. I'm not even arguing that he shouldn't be banned!

People need to be able to keep different arguments apart.

And congratulations, you caught a slip of my tongue (or fingers). You understood I meant oppression though, so it was sorta pointless to correct that.

I was merely telling you that you were using the wrong words.

 

[salaboB]

Ummmm.... yeah. So? Waiting is for things to be cracked against MK. Waiting is to see if MK has COMPLETE dominance over tournaments. What the hell did you think people wanted to wait for?

You think waiting will change his matchups to be *that* unfavorable for the entire cast? That's unlikely.

Waiting is primarily to see whether he does end up dominating if unbanned or not. Interfering with it is that he's being partially soft banned in many regions, so it's hard to tell how many people would actually use him if there were no bias against those who do.

Expecting matchups to drastically change at this point is unrealistic.

 

[ProBrawler]

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

I thought Chu was Pro-Ban...

 

[Yuna]

Yuna's issue isn't time, it's "He doesn't 70:30 (Or 60:40) everyone". No amount of waiting will change his point unless the matchups change.

Yes, let's skip the parts which we find works against our side of the argument!

My issue is:
1) Time (yes, it is!)
2) People still stand a reasonable chance of winning against him. What's reasonable? I'd say 70:30 is unreasonable. 60:40 might be enough. If it ever comes to that, we'll debate if it's enough.

Ha! Tenki is too slow.
but yeah it makes sense because it is too early!

7 moth old game? Thats...silly.

Meta Knight did not dominate the scene the way he is dominating now for the entire lifespan of Brawl (up til now). It was only a few months ago that his metagame reached this level and people cried out for a ban en masse.

What does this tell us? That the metagame evolved. So, yes, it is too early to tell since just until kinda recently, he wasn't "too good", to our knowledge. So, to our knowledge, he might actually not be too good. Another character might rise above him. Or he might simply just get weakened by new discoveries.

 

[Brinzy]

@Rafael, I was just providing an example of where what the majority wanted clearly matters, regardless of the circumstances and situation.

Except in revolutions (like the American and French revolutions) and in things like slavery, you don't have the option of not participating. If I went back into the days of American slavery, I would do my best to not have someone throw a chain around my neck to claim me for my own, since the majority wanted slavery and did underhanded things to make sure that they maintained a superior position. In past revolutions, there are valid reasons for revolting, such as being treated badly and being labeled as "unimportant and perhaps expendable." Whether or not you want to take part in it did not matter - it would affect you either way.

The majority matters in those situations, but it doesn't necessarily matter here. The majority of Smashers are casual players. Why do they matter to competitive gaming if they won't be affected? We could ban everyone and everything straight down to C. Falcon and FD only... but that would never affect casual players because they don't have to abide by a rule set since they're not in a tournament and, therefore, not subject to the rules that apply. If they want to join the current general set of rules we have now in order to compete, that's fine. However, if 90% of casual players want us to play in their own ways (which would be divided severely anyway) just to accommodate them, then they'd be at a loss because very few tournaments have players play in ways that they prefer. The majority of them can host their own tournaments and make their own rules, but they'll never have a big effect on our system, so I say that the majority doesn't matter.


Even if your situations hold true, they don't directly translate into this one.

 

[Yuna]

@Rafael, I was just providing an example of where what the majority wanted clearly matters, regardless of the circumstances and situation.

Yes, but merely because there have been instances where what the majority wants mattered and was "the right thing" does not mean that just because a majority wants something, then it matters or is the right thing.

Especially not in cases like with Casuals (which was one of the major flaws of Jam's argument). Casuals don't even participate in tournaments, so what they think about MK should not matter! It's as if the Swedes had been the ones to start the American Civil War because they felt that slavery should've been abolished.

My point is:
The majority is not always right. You cannot simply state "The majority wants it!" as if it mattered. If the majority can't come up with good reasons to support their desire for something as drastic as a character ban, then we don't really care.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

Expecting matchups to drastically change at this point is unrealistic.

We don't need the to change DRASTICALLY just enough that people have a fighting chance.

Hell, if MK had 10 matches that were ONLY 55/45 in his favor wouldn't that be enough? Or really one hard counter. Of course he's not going to HAVE a hard counter but ya know what I mean.

 

[metalmonstar]

I thought Chu was Pro-Ban...

I am not really sure but I know his Kirby has done well in the major EC tournaments in which he has to go through some of the best metaknights.

 

[Hazygoose]

idiocy

my god, you're a ******.



anyway, this is quite the interesting thread to read, and i don't even play brawl o.0
as a non-interested party, though, i can see that the majority of the people who don't want metaknight banned had the mindset to begin with that no character should ever be banned in smash, which makes for some silly bias. still, the general sentiment that smash becomes something else when a character ban is introduced is interesting. i'm used to playing tekken, a game where pretty much the entirety of the metagame is acknowledged and crafted by namco. when the scene is responsible for most of the metagame, and has already been highly criticized by players of other fighting games (i got tired of reading evo comments from third strike players about how stupid melee was pretty quickly), banning a character unless the scene NEEDED it dearly just seems like an idea not in the heart of a "smasher." just my $0.02

 

[salaboB]

We don't need the to change DRASTICALLY just enough that people have a fighting chance.

Hell, if MK had 10 matches that were ONLY 55/45 in his favor wouldn't that be enough? Or really one hard counter. Of course he's not going to HAVE a hard counter but ya know what I mean.

No, because that'll be 55/45 on neutral stages (That's where almost all the matchups are judged). Then they can CP him to a "good" stage for them and get what, 50:50? And then if they win he CPs them back to a 60:40 or worse (Likely worse) and they've got an uphill battle -- no matter which character you pick against him.

If you know without a doubt who your opponent will pick, why is it reasonable that they'll have an advantage overall even with your best character/stage counterpicks thrown against them? MK is the only character in Brawl that can do this, and that's what makes him a problem.

If he had one hard counter things might be different, bring that one up if it's ever discovered. Also, from the way things have been going, it seems far more likely the matches will end up shifted slightly towards MK rather than against him. People really haven't been forced to utilize every move he has yet because nobody's figured out how to best pressure him with their characters, but I believe he can handle everything currently known.

 

[metalmonstar]

Meta Knight did not dominate the scene the way he is dominating now for the entire lifespan of Brawl (up til now). It was only a few months ago that his metagame reached this level and people cried out for a ban en masse.

What does this tell us? That the metagame evolved. So, yes, it is too early to tell since just until kinda recently, he wasn't "too good", to our knowledge. So, to our knowledge, he might actually not be too good. Another character might rise above him. Or he might simply just get weakened by new discoveries.

I think that is the interesting part in all of this. Just a few months ago when we had this same discussion, no top player was pro ban. It was just whiny low level players who couldn't beat metakngiht. The pro ban argument back then was so incredibly weak. It had nothing to really support it.

Fast forward a few months later to now, and we find metaknight to be even better than he was just a few months ago. His dominance is increasing at an alarming rate. No longer is it just scrubs who need to learn to play that want him banned. Top level players have now taken sides and for the most part are split on the issue. The pro ban argument has become stronger while the anti ban side has weakened. What we have is practically a dead even debate going on.

 

[salaboB]

His dominance is increasing at an alarming rate.

People figured out how to beat Snake, and Snake has yet to come up with a solid answer to that.

 

[Yuna]

my god, you're a ******.

Great reply to my entirely valid post. Enjoy your infraction.

If you want him banned, come with good arguments and don't cry about it when your (or others') bad arguments are crushed by superior reasoning and logic. Also, don't break the rules.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

No, because that'll be 55/45 on neutral stages (That's where almost all the matchups are judged). Then they can CP him to a "good" stage for them and get what, 50:50? And then if they win he CPs them back to a 60:40 or worse (Likely worse) and they've got an uphill battle -- no matter which character you pick against him.

If you know without a doubt who your opponent will pick, why is it reasonable that they'll have an advantage overall even with your best character/stage counterpicks thrown against them? MK is the only character in Brawl that can do this, and that's what makes him a problem.

If he had one hard counter things might be different, bring that one up if it's ever discovered. Also, from the way things have been going, it seems far more likely the matches will end up shifted slightly towards MK rather than against him. People really haven't been forced to utilize every move he has yet because nobody's figured out how to best pressure him with their characters, but I believe he can handle everything currently known.

If matches end up swinging MORE in MKs favor then I'll probably be for the ban. I'm still on the fence though.

He can handle everything CURRENTLY known is the thing.

 

[salaboB]

He can handle everything CURRENTLY known is the thing.

Right, but he also has options that are hardly being tested.

Like his shuttle loop's ability to punch through approaches, that proved the doom of G&W's matchup against him (Goes straight through the turtle).

Like his dtilt's extreme spammability that can be used to stab at Snake against his best grenade camping -- and Snake doesn't have an unpunishable way of preventing MK from just planting himself there and tilting away.

I'm certain he has other options from the way his moves cancel and have such rapid startups, and the thing is he's barely been forced to make use of any of them to deal with what his opponents can bring against him. If someone were to really dedicated themselves to, say, taking apart the Snake matchup for MK and figuring out exactly which of his moves would let him push through Snake's defenses, I suspect that matchup being a counter would fall apart and MK would end up advantaged in it too.

Basically, as far as I can tell MK is very nearly as untested as everyone else because his inherent properties are so good that nobody's really trying to bring him to unmatched dominance -- they don't need to, and so it hasn't occurred to them to work out every way his moves can be chained together or utilized to defeat their opponents best options against him (Or the ones who do know it don't want to because that would seal his ban). If someone really threatens him though, I don't see any reason these won't start being located and utilized and end up being more likely to break the matchup in MK's favor than having it stand against him.

 

[Yuna]

Right, but he also has options that are hardly being tested.

Like his shuttle loop's ability to punch through approaches, that proved the doom of G&W's matchup against him (Goes straight through the turtle).

Like his dtilt's extreme spammability that can be used to stab at Snake against his best grenade camping -- and Snake doesn't have an unpunishable way of preventing MK from just planting himself there and tilting away.

Go out there and prove it yourself. Test it out and see if counter-strategies are worked out. Until such a time these strategies are actually utilized (because how do we know it works if no one's even using it), we cannot use it as proof of that he should be banned.

What we have now is potential that hasn't even been tested. If it's not used, no counter-strategies can be worked out. So until they're actually used, we cannot say they're unbeatable or even work since we haven't had anyone actively trying to work against it.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

I'm pretty sure that Snake isn't considered a counter anymore.

So you're saying people are sandbagging in tournaments just so their character won't get banned?

Also if he's THAT broken why don't all the anti MKs just start using MK. Prove he's broken and get him banned? Since Anti-MK makes up a majority and all it should be easy right?

 

[salaboB]

I'm pretty sure that Snake isn't considered a counter anymore.

So you're saying people are sandbagging in tournaments just so their character won't get banned?

Also if he's THAT broken why don't all the anti MKs just start using MK. Prove he's broken and get him banned? Since Anti-MK makes up a majority and all it should be easy right?

No, I'm saying they've not needed to learn these things to win with him and so they haven't.

M2K says Snake goes 55:45 Snake. But he also says Snake can effectively punish MK for dtilt spamming him, and the frame data just doesn't back that up -- it's most likely just not a tactic he's been forced to perfect, so it doesn't work as well for him as it can, so it's not one he uses. That doesn't mean it won't work though, it means MK has so many other options he hasn't had to figure that one out yet.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

No, I'm saying they've not needed to learn these things to win with him and so they haven't.

So you want to ban him on what is POTENTIALLY possible?

Go out there and prove it yourself. Test it out and see if counter-strategies are worked out. Until such a time these strategies are actually utilized (because how do we know it works if no one's even using it), we cannot use it as proof of that he should be banned.

What we have now is potential that hasn't even been tested. If it's not used, no counter-strategies can be worked out. So until they're actually used, we cannot say they're unbeatable or even work since we haven't had anyone actively trying to work against it.

This.

 

[salaboB]

So you want to ban him on what is POTENTIALLY possible?

How is this different from waiting to see if anyone learns strategies to fight him, again?

Prove something counters him, then we can talk about proving he rips it apart.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

How is this different from waiting to see if anyone learns strategies to fight him, again?

Because if we wait it might damage the metagame for a few months. If we ban him it might damage the metagame forever.

Prove something counters him, then we can talk about proving he rips it apart.

Prove he's unstoppable and we'll talk about banning him.

 

[1048576]

Hypocrisy

You do this to other people all the time. It's annoying.

 

[Yuna]

How is this different from waiting to see if anyone learns strategies to fight him, again?

Prove something counters him, then we can talk about proving he rips it apart.

Because this is basically the court of law. Meta Knight stands accused of a crime. Prove he has committed said crime instead of how he might commit it in the future. The burden of evidence lies on you.

The point of "It's too early" is because there's no clear evidence of him being "too good". Only a few months ago, he wasn't. Did the game magically get reprogrammed since then? No. It's still the same game, the only different is that we discovered a few things that made Meta Knight really, really good. But it's quite possible we might discover something to take him down a few notches.

Because everything we have now is our perception of the truth. And since we're human, we're prone to mistakes, so our truth might quite possibly be a huge ball of lies.

 

[metalmonstar]

That is what OS is doing now. He is playing metaknight just to try to get metaknight banned. Last I heard he was working on a video that will make even the scrubiest of MK's contenders in tournaments. Several players have reported to doing better by making the switch to MK. So I think the proving MK is too good by using him is already underway.

 

[Yuna]

You do this to other people all the time. It's annoying.

No I don't. I almost never, ever summarize people's posts into one word and then proceed to insult their intelligence. I summarize them only to save space.

And when I reply to them, I make sure to show, in intricate detail, why they're being less than ingenious. I don't summarize posts just to say "You are stupid". Well, I've done it, but only when what they say is so stupid there's no replying to them or if the "correct" reply has already been stated recently and I do this exceedinly rarely (like, once a month or something).

So it's not "all the time". The point was not that he summed it up into one word. It was that he didn't reply to what I said and declared the entire post stupid and called me a word which breaks the Terms of Service of Smashboards (i.e. broke the rules).

I call revisionist history.

That is what OS is doing now. He is playing metaknight just to try to get metaknight banned. Last I heard he was working on a video that will make even the scrubiest of MK's contenders in tournaments. Several players have reported to doing better by making the switch to MK. So I think the proving MK is too good by using him is already underway.

Of course switching to MK might make you do better since he's a very good character. The question is whether or not you'll be so good there's no reasonable chance for any other character played by a player of equal skill to beat you.

 

[salaboB]

Because if we wait it might damage the metagame for a few months. If we ban him it might damage the metagame forever.

Prove he's unstoppable and we'll talk about banning him.

First, the assumption that Meta Knight being gone will damage the metagame is unfounded. He is a known suppressant of other characters, you can see it in "Can this work against MK?" being brought up for every AT discovered these days. Then the ones that do no good against him kinda fall to the side even if they're still useful against other characters. That is damage to the metagame. What damage will there be if he is banned?

Second, I've never once said he's unstoppable so I don't understand why I should be expected to prove it now. I've said he provides an advantage to any player using him if their opponent doesn't, even if the opponent knows from the beginning that MK will be their opposition. I've said nobody else can do that. None of these statements have been disproven, and they're backed up by how things are: That is known as using "facts".

I've said the matchups are likely to only get worse, which is a direct opposition to the claims of "Wait and someone will find a counter" -- neither has proof behind it. Neither are facts. Quit trying to use your opinion against my opinion and demanding I provide proof when you lack any yourself.