Genome Squirrel
Smash Apprentice
george bush nationalized our banks. THAT'S SOCIALIST.
and i'd take anything over their keynesian economics, bring in the new.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The Official "Should/Will Metaknight be banned?" Thread (LISTEN TO THE SBR PODCAST!)
- Thread starter SamuraiPanda
- Start date
- Status
and i'd take anything over their keynesian economics, bring in the new.
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
this is actually the most logical thing ive ever seen you say
...even though you are still wrong
being the best character in a game doesnt have any specific definitions to it.
it could be the character that doesnt lose to anyone (like yuna's oh so faithful third strike yun example
it could be the character that has the best attack...
it could be the character that soundly beats the highest number of characters
it could be the character that beats the highest number of the other best characters, which would have nothing to do with the low tiers, even if they could beat him..
funny thing is that Mk does all of this, to a sickening degree.
p.s. the problem are that some things arent completely definite, and some things are subjective, so all those things cnat be specifically defined
brinboy789
Smash Champion
the "best" is what you mentioned above, averagerized (lolwut), and makes an impact on the tier list. since MK is exceptional in most of those, he is the "best". therefore, he SHOULD have more **** matchups, because hes the best.
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
not necessarily, you actually dont have to **** anybody to be the best, you just have to win
brinboy789
Smash Champion
true, but in most cases, such as this one, best char has **** matchups. and so does top tier chars.
Mewtwo1414
Smash Cadet
No, he should not be banned, he's beatable, the only reason he's so good is because he plays like Melee and people are still used to Melee so there used to Metaknight from the start. Once we play brawl for a another year or so we will have so many new things that weren't in Melee and people will get more used to brawl and Metakight wont be as good. Thats my opinion anyway.
A quick semi off topic question: If melee marth won most of the tournies, why is fox on top of the tier list.
And Brinboy fails. He's gotta be either an immature 14 year old kid or an old man who knows how to get his lols by saying stupid **** annoying everyone else.
And Brinboy fails. He's gotta be either an immature 14 year old kid or an old man who knows how to get his lols by saying stupid **** annoying everyone else.
Arturito_Burrito
Smash Master
this logic is almost as good as brinboys I'm anti ban now.
... That's not at all what determines a ratio.
60:40 does not mean you will probably win 60% of your matches.
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
because the perfect fox would beat any character,
you just had to be like, the chozen one to play fox at that level, you had to like, initiate "the glow"
marth was cake to play in comparison
@also i know for a fact that BBoy is under 15 years old
@steel
actually thats exactly what it means, the higher your match ratio, the more matches you are expected to win
brinboy789
Smash Champion
1. because fox was theoretically the best.
2. wow. WOW. WOW. im out of food troll, go away. seriously, screw off.
forgot to mention, the updated version has fox and marth tied for first. so there ya go.
60%-50%=10%, no?
and 100%-90%=10%, no?
so either way, you win 10% more matches, right?
I don't see what I missed.
The Real Inferno
Smash Hero
Actually the official full numbers were longer decimals. They rounded Fox down and rounded Marth up. so technically Fox is still considered better, the rounded off numbers were just equal.
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
in the last tier list im pretty sure marths name comes first in "super top tier" or whatever its called these days, herrgo, he is the better character
Mewtwo1414
Smash Cadet
Sorry for asking but was that sarcasm, if not the thanks if so then whose brinboy and what kinda logic did he use? Sorry again, i'm not good when it comes to sarcasm if it even was sarcasm. ^o^
Fox is still the theoretical top.
But realistically, Marth and Fox exist as the top two, with Sheik and Falco completing the quadopoly.
brinboy789
Smash Champion
nope, somebody on last post on page before this said that marth was rounded up and fox was rounded down. still, marth is VERY close to fox. both 9.9/10 XP.
on a side note, poor pichu. 1.2/10
AndrewCarlson
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 367
Even though the Tier List says otherwise, I still feel that Sheik is the best character in Melee.
You're not the only one.
cman
Smash Ace
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 593
.2 really doesn't make much of a difference.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Because, fox is the perfect character to point to when you say things like "this character is failing because players haven't reached the top of his metagame".
An optimal fox is something that even technicians like silentwolf haven't reached. A top of the metagame fox has better overall match-ups then any character in the cast, it's just there aren't any foxes that have reached that level.
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
my bad, i stand corrected, but i dont care, pichu is still better than kirby and mewtwo
dainbramage
Smash Journeyman
(S)he is the top in the PAL tier list... I personally have never played NTSC melee so I can't compare the two games.
AndrewCarlson
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 367
That is strange. She lost her chain grab, and her U-air and U-smash had their damage and knockback reduced in the PAL version.
Magitek Angel
Smash Rookie
If Meta Knight were banned I'd be sorry to see him go, but I can see the logic behind that kind of move. Still though, it'd be sad to see an entire character banned from the tourney scene. I do definitely think that it's still too early to take any drastic action. Who knows, maybe someone will invent a super sexy Captain Falcon approach that trumps Meta Knight.
infomon
Smash Scientist
We all wish, but it will never happen, lol.
Also, Ottawa eh? Come smash with us sometime, dewd. [Ottawa thread] [Ottawa bi-weekly thread]
The PAL version of the tier list has not been revised in a very long time, so it may change if people seriously want to revise it.
Even though Sheik was nerfed, she's still too good.
Fox, Falco and Marth were nerfed as well.
Because of this Peach is 4th, whilst Falco is 5th.
Top
Sheik
Fox
Marth
Peach
High
Falco
(At least I think so, I can't remember exactly >.>)
da K.I.D.
Smash Hero
i didnt know peach was better than CF in both games...
memphischains
Smash hhkj'
downsmash is pretty manly
Brinzy
Godfather of the Crimean Mafia
da K.I.D., for crying out loud, please stop entering debates if you can't comprehend anything that's being said to you. (I'm referring to everything I've seen you debate in the past.)
For example, I personally believe that Fox needs to move down on the Brawl tier list. There are too many match-ups that make him completely nonviable (Pikachu, Sheik, ZSS, Falco hurts him a bit, etc). Whether or not he does ok against Metaknight wouldn't affect his placing as much as getting hurt hard by a sizable chunk of the cast would. He doesn't even do all that well against most of the cast, especially not against top/high. You can't really blame MK (for better or for worse) for the majority of a character's performance. Sure, Marth will be very likely to run into MK and he'll have a tough fight ahead of him, but if MK was the main thing to consider, Marth probably would be held in much less regard. This is not the case. Marth is still a fairly dominant character in most fights and it'll keep him on the upper end of the tier list.
This doesn't even make sense to me. Who does Metaknight force to be nonviable who also has great match-ups against the rest of top and high tier? MK is unlikely to be a "nonviable" character's worst fight, and for the most part, any character he flat out destroys is already a bad character anyway.
For example, I personally believe that Fox needs to move down on the Brawl tier list. There are too many match-ups that make him completely nonviable (Pikachu, Sheik, ZSS, Falco hurts him a bit, etc). Whether or not he does ok against Metaknight wouldn't affect his placing as much as getting hurt hard by a sizable chunk of the cast would. He doesn't even do all that well against most of the cast, especially not against top/high. You can't really blame MK (for better or for worse) for the majority of a character's performance. Sure, Marth will be very likely to run into MK and he'll have a tough fight ahead of him, but if MK was the main thing to consider, Marth probably would be held in much less regard. This is not the case. Marth is still a fairly dominant character in most fights and it'll keep him on the upper end of the tier list.
Fletch
Smash Master
I think a lot of people have been arguing that CF>Peach in Melee. I know I agree with that, too bad the newest tier list doesn't.
DRaGZ
Smash Champion
Hey Yuna, sorry I didn't reply for a while, my new computer arrived and I was configuring it for a long time.
I just read over what you said, and it still doesn't change anything I've said. We've banned items not just because they were uncompetitive. There were lots of regions making it competitive enough. It was competitive to an acceptable degree and there was always dispute over how competitively viably it was. The fact that there is still debate over items today and people like AlphaZealot agreeing that All-Brawl is viably competitive is indicative of this. People banned still them because they figured it wasn't acceptable on a fun level.
I don't see how Meta Knight is any different. His effect on the game is that the entire metagame skews towards him and how he must play (you keep mentioning Yun, but 3S does not revolve around Yun, it revolves much more around Yun, Chun Li, Urien, and Ken). Sure, we can make things competitive with Meta Knight, and there is considerable debate over whether he is competitively healthy or not, but we've had a precedent before of banning items not only because they were uncompetitive but also because they weren't fun. And on that point, you didn't address anything at all.
Since you've done nothing to disprove it, I'm just going to post it again for posterity:
I'm going to continue posting these two points below with every new page that comes up until someone finally disproves them. This is the third time, btw.
There are two main points that anti-ban people are currently promoting over and over.
1. Meta Knight is beatable.
No one is saying he isn't beatable. Hell, even Akuma from ST, the archetype of a character that should be banned, is beatable.
Case in point, Akuma is only soft-banned in Japan. That means that the pros have simply decided not to play as Akuma because a character played at that high a level of play would ruin the game. However, this does not stop newbs from coming into tournaments and using Akuma. This happens, and they do well until a pro comes in and decidedly ***** them (I've seen a Balrog [Boxer] absolutely dismantle a scrubby Akuma with only a single direct hit from an air Hadouken out of the entire two rounds).
Point is, Akuma, the one character any decent fighting game player can agree on as a character that should be banned, is actually still used in tournaments in Japan and don't ever get far.
On the other hand, Akuma is not soft-banned in America because there is no concept of "soft-banning" in America. The American spirit is to be competitive, and to be competitive you use the tools you are allowed. In Japan, this is not necessarily the case because the pros are actually mindful of what the metagame needs to be enjoyable, not just competitive.
What does this mean? Meta Knight may be broken to an area near that of Akuma; he is at least miles ahead of many characters in terms of ease of use/risk vs. reward. Meta Knight will probably never be banned in Japan, because Japan has respect amongst the pros for each other (not just because of culture, but also probably because it's just a much smaller community). Meta Knight, if agreed upon to be broken, probably should be banned in America because we don't have such a concept.
And for those who contend that the brokenness of Akuma and his subsequent banning are far more quantifiable than Meta Knight and his ban, your misguided conclusion is based on two factors.
2. We don't ban things just because people complaing about them.
It's true. But, we have banned things just because it made it less competitive and fun, namely items and stages.
Edrees explains it much better than I do: http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=5360
To put it simply from the way Edrees elegantly lays it out, we have banned items in the past just because they made the game less competitive and less fun. Technically, we could have contended with items and made them work, but we chose not to because people didn't want to.
Meta Knight ruins the foundational system of counterpicking in Smash has developed because it negates the need to main any other character but Meta Knight, i.e. it makes it less competitive and fun.
We've banned things, like items, for the very same reasons in the past. In other words, we have a precedent on how we have banned things: they were detrimental to the overall enjoyment of the game. It wasn't a matter of personal opinion, because there still were people who consider items to be fun, but rather of the opinion of what people was the best balance of competition and fun. To many, many people, Meta Knight fits those circumstances, and I have yet to see anyone tell me why we should suddenly go back on the precedent we have laid before (unless you would also like items unbanned as well).
And don't say we'll look like scrubs because we've banned Meta Knight. To many other communities, we already look like scrubs because we've banned items and stages. And quite frankly, who gives a **** about other communities? This is our own community, the Smash community. We don't need to care about other communities, let them do what they want, we'll do what we want.
And to be quite honest, if you can't disprove these two points, at least Edrees's point, then the entire argument this thread has made for the anti-ban side is completely null. The anti-ban side assumes that we've set a very high bar for banning Meta Knight and that he has not reached it yet. But the truth is, we've already had a precedent for banning something by a much lower bar, items, and Meta Knight has clearly reached and surpassed that bar.
I just read over what you said, and it still doesn't change anything I've said. We've banned items not just because they were uncompetitive. There were lots of regions making it competitive enough. It was competitive to an acceptable degree and there was always dispute over how competitively viably it was. The fact that there is still debate over items today and people like AlphaZealot agreeing that All-Brawl is viably competitive is indicative of this. People banned still them because they figured it wasn't acceptable on a fun level.
I don't see how Meta Knight is any different. His effect on the game is that the entire metagame skews towards him and how he must play (you keep mentioning Yun, but 3S does not revolve around Yun, it revolves much more around Yun, Chun Li, Urien, and Ken). Sure, we can make things competitive with Meta Knight, and there is considerable debate over whether he is competitively healthy or not, but we've had a precedent before of banning items not only because they were uncompetitive but also because they weren't fun. And on that point, you didn't address anything at all.
Since you've done nothing to disprove it, I'm just going to post it again for posterity:
I'm going to continue posting these two points below with every new page that comes up until someone finally disproves them. This is the third time, btw.
There are two main points that anti-ban people are currently promoting over and over.
1. Meta Knight is beatable.
No one is saying he isn't beatable. Hell, even Akuma from ST, the archetype of a character that should be banned, is beatable.
Case in point, Akuma is only soft-banned in Japan. That means that the pros have simply decided not to play as Akuma because a character played at that high a level of play would ruin the game. However, this does not stop newbs from coming into tournaments and using Akuma. This happens, and they do well until a pro comes in and decidedly ***** them (I've seen a Balrog [Boxer] absolutely dismantle a scrubby Akuma with only a single direct hit from an air Hadouken out of the entire two rounds).
Point is, Akuma, the one character any decent fighting game player can agree on as a character that should be banned, is actually still used in tournaments in Japan and don't ever get far.
On the other hand, Akuma is not soft-banned in America because there is no concept of "soft-banning" in America. The American spirit is to be competitive, and to be competitive you use the tools you are allowed. In Japan, this is not necessarily the case because the pros are actually mindful of what the metagame needs to be enjoyable, not just competitive.
What does this mean? Meta Knight may be broken to an area near that of Akuma; he is at least miles ahead of many characters in terms of ease of use/risk vs. reward. Meta Knight will probably never be banned in Japan, because Japan has respect amongst the pros for each other (not just because of culture, but also probably because it's just a much smaller community). Meta Knight, if agreed upon to be broken, probably should be banned in America because we don't have such a concept.
And for those who contend that the brokenness of Akuma and his subsequent banning are far more quantifiable than Meta Knight and his ban, your misguided conclusion is based on two factors.
- Akuma was inserted into a game where there was already a set metagame. People had already developed characters. These characters had their own metagames. There was a tier system already in place. Because of this, it was much easier to tell what a new character would do to the game, in this case, break it. This is also why it was much easier to accept a ban; Akuma was an external factor in everyone's minds, not to mention that he was unlocked rather than already available. Even if people had invested time in Akuma, they had also invested lots of time before in other characters. And since the ban itself came quickly enough, there weren't as many people *****ing about it because they could just go back to their old characters they hadn't abandoned for a long period of time. In the case of Meta Knight, he came with the game, there was no set metagame, thus nothing to compare him to. This is why Meta Knight's brokenness arose much more slowly and is more arguable.
- Akuma was much more easily comparable to at least two other characters, Ken and Ryu. This not only made it much easier to see how much better than he was than these two characters (not only did he combine Ken's speed with Ryu's strength, but he also had an escape option, an air hadouken, and the most ridiculously powerful super ever), but it was extremely easy to pick him up and play if you were already familiar with a Shoto. This is why people were basically instantly good with Akuma; they already knew how to use his basic functions. On the other hand, Meta Knight works very differently from other Brawl characters, thus his metagame had to develop on its own. Again, this is why it developed slower and the brokenness became apparent much slower.
2. We don't ban things just because people complaing about them.
It's true. But, we have banned things just because it made it less competitive and fun, namely items and stages.
Edrees explains it much better than I do: http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=5360
To put it simply from the way Edrees elegantly lays it out, we have banned items in the past just because they made the game less competitive and less fun. Technically, we could have contended with items and made them work, but we chose not to because people didn't want to.
Meta Knight ruins the foundational system of counterpicking in Smash has developed because it negates the need to main any other character but Meta Knight, i.e. it makes it less competitive and fun.
We've banned things, like items, for the very same reasons in the past. In other words, we have a precedent on how we have banned things: they were detrimental to the overall enjoyment of the game. It wasn't a matter of personal opinion, because there still were people who consider items to be fun, but rather of the opinion of what people was the best balance of competition and fun. To many, many people, Meta Knight fits those circumstances, and I have yet to see anyone tell me why we should suddenly go back on the precedent we have laid before (unless you would also like items unbanned as well).
And don't say we'll look like scrubs because we've banned Meta Knight. To many other communities, we already look like scrubs because we've banned items and stages. And quite frankly, who gives a **** about other communities? This is our own community, the Smash community. We don't need to care about other communities, let them do what they want, we'll do what we want.
And to be quite honest, if you can't disprove these two points, at least Edrees's point, then the entire argument this thread has made for the anti-ban side is completely null. The anti-ban side assumes that we've set a very high bar for banning Meta Knight and that he has not reached it yet. But the truth is, we've already had a precedent for banning something by a much lower bar, items, and Meta Knight has clearly reached and surpassed that bar.
Gindler
Smash Champion
*cough* yoshi *cough*
He won't ever be above mid-tier and he actually does better against MK than like 3/4th the cast
Also I like MK being around. He keeps the G&W's (who are almost as "broken", i think are even more so) in line for me.
Mmac
Smash Lord
PK-ow!
Smash Lord
. . .
Now who's not comprehending the argument?
That's the very point: Your sober acceptance of the maxim "anyone who MK destroys is a bad character anyway" is a symptom of any alleged MK-tier-shaping-domination that's going on (if it is in fact going on).
A character could be great but for being ravaged by the mach sword; in general, a character could be great except for one matchup, and still good (at least "not bad"). If that character being MK is sufficient for denying this universal in the particular, that's the very thing about MK that the other guy is trying to say!
Plus it's just a statement about speculations.
And yet, there he is. This is a non-point. He should move down only if your initial contention is true: That MK is not really warping the tiers. And if Fox is really where the placings say he is, then that's a beginning of what Arturito was saying (or, what 'e was saying other people are saying).
You just took a case, reasserted your thesis, reasserted it several times again in different forms, and made the succession of assertions look like an argument.
Now, what you said about Marth is an argument. You should have just skipped to that.
. . . I'm not saying it's a good argument; will take a look and maybe respond later. But might not.
Since, you know, I don't use either character.
rehab
Smash Journeyman
Characters that MK alone makes completely unviable:
uhhh
uhhh
Natch
Smash Ace
He only has to make them more unviable than they are now. Those characters can still counterpick the higher tiered characters. If MK were banned, these characters would become more used.
A single character makes many characters unviable. In any given match, this means MK can discourage all of these characters from being chosen, if not eliminating them entirely. Now, without MK, it shifts a little bit, and suddenly many characters are made unviable by several or some characters. But, in a given match, one of these characters can still counterpick the character currently being played. As a completly hypothetical example, lets say DDD renders Link unviable, but Lucas counterpicks DDD. This means Lucas could be chosen for that paticular match.
NOTE: Exceptions aren't the norm, just in case you happen to nitpick something.
DRaGZ
Smash Champion
Even if Akuma was allowed in ST, Sagat and Ryu would still be viable. Yet we have no arguments here.
- Status