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

[DRaGZ]

Does the best character not usually tend to be the focus of fighting game communities when (s)he's in the spotlight?

And items are not that similar to MK. When you look at a fight with MK you can explain at what points you made a mistake and got punished or died. With bomb capsule fights, all you can say is "Oh look at this part at 1:46, this is where the game decided to **** me"

You're simply ignoring my points once more, so I won't even bother to reiterate them. EDIT: Ah what the hell, I'll reiterate it.

It's not how qualitatively items were different from Meta Knight. It's the fact that quantitatively items were less game-breaking than Meta Knight yet we still agreed, as a community, to ban him.

In the case of SFII, with Old Sagat, yes.

But in most fighting games, no. There is at least 3-4 characters in every game that are the top of the line and are always competing for top spot. 3S, it's Yun, Chun Li, Urien, Ken. In SC2, it was Ivy, Cervantes, Mitsurugi, Taki, Sophitia, Cassandra, Xianghua.

 

[Tommy_G]

You're acting as though everyone was playing Super Sudden Death and Bob-Ombs dropped left and right.

There's a reason the Melee community debated about items for years. It was because it was arguable that it was not gamebreaking, and that since it was part of the game that it should be kept.

If you want a more current record on how this is going, check out how All-Brawl is doing and how AZ reported on it, where he felt he won most of the games he should have.

EDIT: Here, I did the legwork for you:

http://allisbrawl.com/news/newspost.aspx?id=183

Check it out. MK isn't even top 3. There are 3 MKs in the top 20, just as there are 3 Snakes as well as 2 of other characters.

Do you really want to give certain characters (MK, Marth, GaW, Dedede) projectiles(some that randomly explode) so they never have to approach?

 

[DRaGZ]

Check it out. MK isn't even top 3. There are 3 MKs in the top 20, just as there are 3 Snakes as well as 2 of other characters.

Do you really want to give certain characters (MK, Marth, GaW, Dedede) projectiles(some that randomly explode) so they never have to approach?

If you read AZ's post, you'd know that's not the case.

Also, those are the AiB ladder rankings that you are referring to, my good man, not the All-Brawl tourny results. Typical case of people just swooping into a topic without even reading enough to understand what they are reading.

 

[Natch]

I'm actually fairly sure yoshi or falco is ganons worst, not least of all on account of killing from a grab anywhere on most neutral stages past 40, and GW is robs worst, from what i've heard, although i to honestly don't see where that argument was going




Read what was said, i said MULTIPLE TIMES that they are less broken in this, and only certain items deserve to be banned


I still don't see how on earth you can say 'an item or stage killing you of its own volition, with no bearing on the skill or character of either player' is less game breaking than 'a character having a slight advantage against other characters'

Itrms and stages have been banned, they are less broken than MK.

In fact, why exactly DOES MK have no disadvantaged matchups? How exactly can a character be designed so that no single character out of 38 others has the upper hand?


1. He has "no" weaknesses.
Before you harp on me for this, MK has no de facto weaknesses against the majority of the cast. As an example, a character could be made that dies in one hit, but has an instant kill move that is garunteed to hit. Sure, he dies in one hit, but that doesn't matter because he'll kill you first. His weakness does not exist, for all intents and purposes.

MK is like this, though to a lesser extent. The characters that can put up a fight are the ones who can exploit his weaknesses consistantly and effectively.


2. He has an answer to everything.
MK has too many options that are all above average. Whatever you do, he has an answer to it. The characters that do well against him are those that have better answers. But even that isn't enough. You need have to a fair amount of "better answers," or the right combination. The last option is to flatout have a strategy that can and will work against anyone, assuming the opponent makes a mistake. Take Diddy, for example. If you make a mistake, he will get you with a bannana, which usually leads to a free hit. Everyone has to deal with this. If you manage to beat Diddy, you still didn't beat his bannanas. You can never truly beat the bannanas, just the Diddy who uses them. This is called a brick wall.



This is why MK has 60:40's across the board, and the reason why previously questionable/bad matchups are now shifting. Snake, GaW, and Falco are examples. Once they found a tactic that worked, the matchup changed.

In reality, MK does not have matchups in the traditional sense. If you go neutral with MK, that is not the same as going neutral with, say, ROB. The only reason MK's lose are because they didn't know the matchups or weren't as skilled. There are few exceptions to this, and the fact that there are exceptios is one of the reason MK is not banned quite yet.

MK's matchups "behave" differently at different ratios. For the following, I'll be explaining how this works. It's sort of complicated, so I'll try to explain. Let's use the first one listed-"70:30/65:35 or worse" as an example.

70:30 designates a definate point where the situation applies. Any matchup MK has that is 70:30 behaves this way, garunteed. The slash after that denotes that the following ratio-65:35 in this case-is a ratio where this situation SOMETIMES applies, but not always. That's because 70:30's could be argued at 65:35, and 65:35 can argued at 60:40. The matchup ratios don't say what side of the ratio it's leaning towards. Ratios will overlap, but the bottom line for them to overlap is that whatever the situation is, that situation MUST happen at the first ratio listed, and might/sometimes/rarely happens at the later ratios.

70:30/65:35 and below: This matchup is an advantage in the traditional sense. The character in question is beaten by MK's moves and abilities alone. There may be some moves that do beat out some of MK's moves, but MK can just choose not to use these moves as much-or even at all. This character is low on the tier list. This is how it works, period. Every character on the low tier has this matchup. A sizeable amount in mid tier-at least 1/3-have this matchup as well.

65:35/60:40: This matchup is starting to become an advantage in a not-so traditional sense. The character in question is beaten by some of MK's moves and abilities, but actually has moves that outright beat enough of MK's options to the point where he HAS to deal with them. Falco's laser is an example. MK must deal with this. He can't fight this head on. He has no reflector or projectile magnet. However, once he's in close, the laser can no longer be used effectively. It now becomes a non-issue. MK has gotten past that brick wall.

60:40/55:45: This matchup is now becoming a bit screwy. Both characters have a sufficient number of brick walls that they actual fighting takes place. MK can't just brick wall you to death without being met by another equally tough brick wall.

50:50/55:45/60:40: [I reversed this for a reason. That's because the following is garunteed to happen once you reach 50:50, and may happen at the other ratios.] This is as good as it gets. This is where characters like Diddy and Snake start coming out. This list is so small that I'm just going to talk about those two. Diddy has an unstoppable brick wall. The bannanas. By his moves alone, Diddy is okay. Not good, not bad. Just okay. Once you add in the bannannas, it all goes to hell. Suddenly, his entire game focuses on a brick wall that can never be broken down. In fact, his brick wall is the only reason he can compete against MK and against other characters in general. Not only does he have an ever present brickwall, it also doubles as a trap. Leave a bannana somewhere, and suddenly you have prevented an opponent from going there directly. If there is a bannana behind you, your opponent is unable to roll behind you without slipping. He must jump over you or charge you head on. But it's hard for him to charge head on-you've got a bannana ready to throw at him. This is why Diddy has a chance against EVERYONE, assuming that he can use his bannanas.

Snake is a bit different. Snakes not only has explosives that work as both brick walls AND traps, he has moves that actually beat out MK moves. Ftilt and Utilt are prime examples. MK's have indeed figured out they need to space, but the combonation of brick walls, traps, and higher priority attacks means Snake can actually do something against MK, and against all characters, really. Ever fought a very camp Snake? You'll probably get a similar feeling when fighting Diddy or MK.



That's why MK is "broken." He is not broken in the traditional sense, but broken in the sense that he is one giant brick wall. To do well, Diddy and Snake need sufficient room on the stage. MK does not need any sort of set up to brick wall you. Whenever MK does a move, it's a brick wall. When you fight a brick wall, you are not actually fighting the character. You are fighting the player using the brick wall. Brick walls mean that any weaknesses the character has do not matter, as you are not fighting the character. Once a brick wall is broken down-if possible-or gotten around, you can start actually fighting the character. The problem with MK is that you're hardly ever fighting MK. You're fighting his brick walls.

In order to even stand a chance against MK, you either need a brick wall that the PLAYER cannot find a way around, or you have to continiously jump through a series of hoops. Shield the Tornado. Spotdodge the Down Smash. Avoid the Shuttle Loop. Stay away from the Dtilt. Airdodge through his Dair.

The list goes on and on.

The massive list of 60:40 matchups are because there are enough pros who can jump through these hoops on instinct, and the players who don't use MK have enough skill compared to those that do that it's possible for them to win. All the character has to have are good brick walls, and moves that actually outprioritize those that MK has. Those in large part these are in the same, as the majority of brick walls are projectiles.

This problem further stems from MK's wacky priority. Correct me if I'm wrong, but MK's sword will never actually clank. While this means he doesn't beat out projectiles, this means that MK's sword is like a permanant, mobile projectile. Super high priority means that MK is only limited by his mobility. And on the ground, in the air, and off stage, MK has no problems getting around.

Think about it. If MK never clanks, it means that going even in terms of priority means he wins every time. You have to throw your move out first-which would be a mistake on the part of the player, not MK-or have some sort of uber priority-think Ike's Fair-to beat him out. Otherwise, every move MK uses becomes something you HAVE to avoid.




GENERAL NOTE: Exceptions are not the norm. If I left something out:

- Such as the fact that you can go in the air against Diddy, it still wouldn't change the fact that you can't truly beat the bannanas. If the nanners disapeared, you still didn't beat them. You waited them out. If you took control of the nanners, you still didn't beat them. You just controlled them.
-Every low tier does bad against MK, of course we know Yoshi does well. But the fact that the MAJORITY of the low tier does badly is still sufficient enough to prove the statement that characters in low tiers do bad against MK.

And etc. My statements may be worded to be absolute, but saying every single exception that exists will make the post far too clunky and hard to read. So I'm just leaving a footnote to deal with that. The above 2 are just examples to show that I do, in fact, know that I made statements with exceptions.

How are items and stages more game-breaking than THIS? Explain to me, please.

 

[DRaGZ]

Well I'm off to school and then eventually to vote.

If we can agree on anything right now, it's that we should all vote right today if you're a U.S. Citizen and of age.

Anyway, still yet to be disproven, so here it is again:

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 fourth 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

 

[da K.I.D.]

congrats to DRaGZ i am now putting him into my sig

 

[Brinzy]

. . .

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.

I'm not comprehending that guy? He essentially said, "Those who don't do as well against MK, even if they do better against most of the cast, will be penalized a bit heavier than usual." It doesn't make sense to me because there are no characters that MK alone makes nonviable. Name one for me. I'm saying that there aren't any characters that would shoot from nonviable to viable if MK was not present in response to what he said, so how am I not comprehending?

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.

You mean that MK's presence = hurting a lot of characters and that by having him gone, more characters would be better off? It might be true, but I do not believe that there is a character in the game that would be made viable suddenly if MK was gone.

The part about Fox moving down was my opinion. I think he should move down. However, at the same time, I don't believe that MK has the biggest say as to where Fox is. The other guy was making a point about character performance vs. MK, which will probably become a big part of the tier lists to follow, according to him. Once again, this doesn't make sense to me, because every other character is still there.

Also, I did present an argument. That argument was, "MK does not make ____ nonviable alone." I gave an example to back up my claim (Fox) and then I added in the Marth part. I think I comprehended what he said well enough, because whatever you clarified did not come to me at all, since... well, I probably already thought of it in that reply.

 

[Justblaze647]

Edrees explains it much better than I do: http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=5360

Edrees... You're my Hero!

<3

 

[lotor611]

SP, just wanted to say that i love the 1st post.
omg!! it IS like a virus!!!!
how long before i stop playing olimar?
probably not long...

 

[Natch]

I'm not comprehending that guy? He essentially said, "Those who don't do as well against MK, even if they do better against most of the cast, will be penalized a bit heavier than usual." It doesn't make sense to me because there are no characters that MK alone makes nonviable. Name one for me. I'm saying that there aren't any characters that would shoot from nonviable to viable if MK was not present in response to what he said, so how am I not comprehending?






You mean that MK's presence = hurting a lot of characters and that by having him gone, more characters would be better off? It might be true, but I do not believe that there is a character in the game that would be made viable suddenly if MK was gone.

The part about Fox moving down was my opinion. I think he should move down. However, at the same time, I don't believe that MK has the biggest say as to where Fox is. The other guy was making a point about character performance vs. MK, which will probably become a big part of the tier lists to follow, according to him. Once again, this doesn't make sense to me, because every other character is still there.

Also, I did present an argument. That argument was, "MK does not make ____ nonviable alone." I gave an example to back up my claim (Fox) and then I added in the Marth part. I think I comprehended what he said well enough, because whatever you clarified did not come to me at all, since... well, I probably already thought of it in that reply.

MK doesn't make a single character totally unviable, but he doesn't have to. 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.

 

[da K.I.D.]

characters that will become viable sans MK
since only one character is needed to prove this point...

Sonic
Pit
ROB

 

[brinboy789]

characters that will become viable sans MK
since only one character is needed to prove this point...

Sonic
Pit
ROB

............
da kid, YOUR SIG JUST KILLED YOUR SONIC ARGUEMENT
pit...im pretty sure is bad against d3 and other chars.
rob not sure.

 

[Naucitos]

MK doesn't make a single character totally unviable, but he doesn't have to. 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.

That makes absolutely no sense.
If anything, MK makes MORE characters viable, because more characters have a chance against MK than against D3, if your opponent is using MK, you can use the whole cast, minus maybe two.
If your opponent is using D3, theres almost 10 people that would make the match suicide for you

EDIT: Kid, did you just say that MK is making rob unplayable?

 

[da K.I.D.]

That makes absolutely no sense.
If anything, MK makes MORE characters viable, because more characters have a chance against MK than against D3, if your opponent is using MK, you can use the whole cast, minus maybe two.
If your opponent is using D3, theres almost 10 people that would make the match suicide for you

this is faulty reasoning
people think that more characters have a chance against MK
thats not true

yes, if they pick D3 there are about 10 characters that you cant use...
but with Mk theres only about 5 characters that you can even think about using, and all those characters are still disadvantaged to him.

with D3, if you pick pika or oli, than the match is decidedly in your favor
this situation never happens with MK
this is a problem
edit for naucitos and bboy
nau, yes i am saying that about ROB because ever since OS realised how bad MK ***** him the character as a whole has been fading into obscurity.
bboy.
ill give you sonic
but as for pit, he can hold his own vs. anybody in toptier minus Mk whom they all admit is their worst match.
and ROB, he is toptier, but in the character rankings im pretty sure hes been sliding downward for like 3-4 months now
but let em check that and get back to you

 

[Brinzy]

MK doesn't make a single character totally unviable, but he doesn't have to. 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.

Thanks for the copy/paste.

Yes, you're right in the sense that four characters who make ___ nonviable isn't as bad as five, and by removing that one, said character becomes a bit more viable. Fine. Fair enough.


However, those four that are still in the game are still forcing ___ to be nonviable. I feel that it's rather pointless to ban for that. You can counterpick whoever you want against whoever you want, when it's your turn. Removing MK helps just means -1 nonviable match-up for ____... but that's it as far as that path is concerned. To me, it doesn't make sense to single out MK for that when other top/high tiers do it as well.


Thank you, Naucitos. The Jigglypuff board has this thread up saying that MK shouldn't be banned because he takes care of a lot of her problematic fights. That type of argument makes sense to me.

Also, I don't know much of anything about Sonic, but is he viable in general anyway? I know people use him in tournaments, but I don't see how he could have that big a shift if MK was not present. Pit has his non-MK weaknesses. Robot isn't "nonviable" at all. If MK were removed, though, there would be more Robot players... and therefore, anyone who gets taken out by Robot now has to deal with more of him! By removing MK, you end up hurting some of the cast, which completely goes against "remove MK to make others viable."

 

[da K.I.D.]

sonic is bottom tier, but hes 18th in tourney rankings, i have plenty of evidence that shows that were Mk not in the picture, sonic would actually be WINNING tournaments instead of just placing in them

 

[Brinzy]

What's your evidence? You got a time machine or something that shows that those players who are beating out Sonic are using another character and losing? A Sonic coming in 2nd or something to an MK isn't necessarily evidence because you don't know how the match would've gone if said person used another character.

I believe that Sonic would win more tournaments with one less character to compete with. I don't believe that you can speculate on an outcome and say, "Well if it weren't for him, I would've won!"

yes, if they pick D3 there are about 10 characters that you cant use...
but with Mk theres only about 5 characters that you can even think about using, and all those characters are still disadvantaged to him.

Name those five. MK board has Snake, DDD, Robot, Falco, Olimar, G&W, Wario, DK, Diddy, Kirby, and Yoshi at 60:40 or less. 60:40 is an acceptable fight. I just named more than five characters that came from the MK match-up thread, and they're not even finished (though for all I know, these could be all of his 60:40s and 55:45s).

 

[brinboy789]

bboy.
ill give you sonic
but as for pit, he can hold his own vs. anybody in toptier minus Mk whom they all admit is their worst match.
and ROB, he is toptier, but in the character rankings im pretty sure hes been sliding downward for like 3-4 months now
but let em check that and get back to you

Pit-MK, G&W, Marth
lol, G&W is played ALOT, and marth is played somewhat alot. pit is pretty much shut down w/ or w/out mk. rob has been sliding downward...not because of MK. the matchup is like 60:40 in MK's favor. thats VERY winnable. i dont know why rob is sliding downward but it isnt MK's fault regardless

edit:
12. There are a lot of Pit suggestions, Andrew Carlson puts his worst matchups as MK, and G&W... Gheb_101 puts Marth and Snake, and Admiral_Bowser puts Kirby and Jigglypuff, both of which AdrewCarlson disagrees with. Cj.shark supports mk- mk seems pretty solid ^^.

lol

 

[Naucitos]

this is faulty reasoning
people think that more characters have a chance against MK
thats not true

yes, if they pick D3 there are about 10 characters that you cant use...
but with Mk theres only about 5 characters that you can even think about using, and all those characters are still disadvantaged to him.

with D3, if you pick pika or oli, than the match is decidedly in your favor
this situation never happens with MK
this is a problem
edit for naucitos and bboy
nau, yes i am saying that about ROB because ever since OS realised how bad MK ***** him the character as a whole has been fading into obscurity.
bboy.
ill give you sonic
but as for pit, he can hold his own vs. anybody in toptier minus Mk whom they all admit is their worst match.
and ROB, he is toptier, but in the character rankings im pretty sure hes been sliding downward for like 3-4 months now
but let em check that and get back to you

The fact is, there are more characters that can play against MK, he has very few matchups that are heavily in his favor, where the other characters have more, hell, YOSHI has more one sided matchups than MK, you aren't arguing that he doesen't have disadvantages, thats a whole other argument altogether, which is also debatable, and i believe faulty, youa re saying he makes other characters unviable, which is quite untrue, he gives a few characters a bit of a problem, but most aren't that bad off against him

EDIT: Wait. It just hit me that you said that rob has been fading into obscurity since OVERSWARM noticed that HE had a problem against metaknight? just because overswarm has a problem fighting another character with rob does not make rob unplayable, i'd say thats the most absurd thing i've seen on here this morning, but sadly that's not even true.

 

[Ken Neth]

Anyone who thinks sonic isn't tourney viable hasn't played a good sonic >_>

 

[da K.I.D.]

What's your evidence? You got a time machine or something that shows that those players who are beating out Sonic are using another character and losing? A Sonic coming in 2nd or something to an MK isn't necessarily evidence because you don't know how the match would've gone if said person used another character.

I believe that Sonic would win more tournaments with one less character to compete with. I don't believe that you can speculate on an outcome and say, "Well if it weren't for him, I would've won!"

good sonics are consistently getting knocked out of tourneys by Mk
there was a tourney just this past weekend where a sonic player that goes by puffball64 got second place to dr. mario kart. that is essentially because DMK uses (yes we counted) an average of 34 tornados per match. if DMK didnt have have such an OP move to fall back on, then its entirely reasonable to say that he would have won that tourney should Mk have been banned

even myself personally, i can basically garentee that i would place 4 spots higher at every tourney that I go to (i normally place 7-9th)if Mk was banned, because i lose to people i could otherwise beat, just because of the character they play
EDIT im saying that since OS made the discovery that MK whoops on Robot, his placings have been steadily falling

Edit for kenny
werent you the one that came in and said that you beat one of the (univerisally agreed upon) best sonics with a Mk you had only been using for a total of 5 hours

 

[Tenki]

good sonics are consistently getting knocked out of tourneys by Mk
there was a tourney just this past weekend where a sonic player that goes by puffball64 got second place to dr. mario kart. that is essentially because DMK uses (yes we counted) an average of 34 tornados per match. if DMK didnt have have such an OP move to fall back on, then its entirely reasonable to say that he would have won that tourney should Mk have been banned

Puffball goes by Espy.

 

[brinboy789]

good sonics are consistently getting knocked out of tourneys by Mk
there was a tourney just this past weekend where a sonic player that goes by puffball64 got second place to dr. mario kart. that is essentially because DMK uses (yes we counted) an average of 34 tornados per match. if DMK didnt have have such an OP move to fall back on, then its entirely reasonable to say that he would have won that tourney should Mk have been banned

even myself personally, i can basically garentee that i would place 4 spots higher at every tourney that I go to (i normally place 7-9th)if Mk was banned, because i lose to people i could otherwise beat, just because of the character they play

well i beat my little bros snake with my falcon. personal accounts mean nothing. sonic has TERRIBLE matchups, MK is just one of them. taking MK out wont make sonic more viable. hes still gonna get ***** by more chars.

 

[da K.I.D.]

well i beat my little bros snake with my falcon. personal accounts mean nothing. sonic has TERRIBLE matchups, MK is just one of them. taking MK out wont make sonic more viable. hes still gonna get ***** by more chars.

lolololololololol

sonic goes close to even with every character in high and top tier sans snake
dont say things you cant back up or heard from people that dont have correct info

trust me
you do NOT want to argue sonic with me
p.s. my sig is only there to humor ppl like you

 

[Naucitos]

ugh, tornado is such an overrated move, also, good sonics are consistently being knocked out of tourneys by plenty of characters, its not at all MK specific.

EDIT: Just checked the sonic matchup discussion, as of now, sonic has one slight advantage, 4 neutral, 6 disadvantage, and 1 unwinnable (Not metaknight)

 

[da K.I.D.]

ugh, tornado is such an overrated move, also, good sonics are consistently being knocked out of tourneys by plenty of characters, its not at all MK specific.

really?

why dont you name those characters that are consistently beating sonics

cus from what i know (im the one doing the research here)
sonic only loses in tourney consistently to:
MK
Snake
Falco

and those last two are debatable, because some sonics beat falco just fine, and other sonics think that snake is his easiest top tier match

sonic is a heavily style dependant character, so dont make me get into this and school you ppl on the ways of steak

 

[brinboy789]

lolololololololol

sonic goes close to even with every character in high and top tier sans snake
dont say things you cant back up or heard from people that dont have correct info

trust me
you do NOT want to argue sonic with me
p.s. my sig is only there to humor ppl like you

EDIT: Just checked the sonic matchup discussion, as of now, sonic has one slight advantage, 4 neutral, 6 disadvantage, and 1 unwinnable (Not metaknight)

^
^
what naucitos said

 

[Natch]

ugh, tornado is such an overrated move, also, good sonics are consistently being knocked out of tourneys by plenty of characters, its not at all MK specific.

EDIT: Just checked the sonic matchup discussion, as of now, sonic has one slight advantage, 4 neutral, 6 disadvantage, and 1 unwinnable (Not metaknight)

I know. So laggy, very slow, extremely punishable, low priority, can't shield poke worth a sh-Oh wait.

 

[Naucitos]

Natch, i play yoshi, so i may have a skewed view on the tornado, but i have seen the tornado discussion thread, and i think there were TWO characters that didn't have a reliable answer to it, i know yoshi has upwards of 4.
It also took me 4 seconds to find out that the sonic boards think that the sonic vs match matchup is almost completely unwinnable
EDIT: I'm curious, what exactly is this 'research'?

 

[Natch]

Natch, i play yoshi, so i may have a skewed view on the tornado, but i have seen the tornado discussion thread, and i think there were TWO characters that didn't have a reliable answer to it, i know yoshi has upwards of 4.
It also took me 4 seconds to find out that the sonic boards think that the sonic vs match matchup is almost completely unwinnable
EDIT: I'm curious, what exactly is this 'research'?

Yes, but you have to look at the fact that an entire thread has been created that gives a complete analysis of a single move, and lists every single every single character has that beats it out, and from what angle.

To get that kind of scrutiny, you have to be good.

 

[Ken Neth]

Edit for kenny
werent you the one that came in and said that you beat one of the (univerisally agreed upon) best sonics with a Mk you had only been using for a total of 5 hours

You know my name?! That's kind of creepy... stalker.

But yeah, that was me. I two stocked X the match I used MK and I had only been using him since the thursday before the tourney. And that is better than I have ever done against him. That shouldn't happen.

And the snake/sonic match-up is more even than you're making it out to be IMO. I don't go snake vs him anymore. I switch to olimar now when I'm fighting him. (I don't pick MK vs him anymore cause I think that's gay.)

 

[Naucitos]

No, to get that kind of scrutiny, theres the alternate option of having hundreds of scrubs complain about a move being too good, and a few good players being nice and helpin them out and handfeeding them the responses to the moves that they are too lazy to find for themselves
EDIT: Rereading that, i'm sure at least one person is going to think that that is directed at them and get pissed off, it wasn't directed at anyone.
Also, being able to beat a character with someone who has an immense advantage against them really isn't surprising

 

[Natch]

No, to get that kind of scrutiny, theres the alternate option of having hundreds of scrubs complain about a move being too good, and a few good players being nice and helpin them out and handfeeding them the responses to the moves that they are too lazy to find for themselves

Um, trust me. They're not being lazy. People made that thread BECAUSE people had no clue how they could beat it out. They tried things, found a few that worked, but not really.

If it was really that easy to figure out how to beat it, the thread wouldn't've been made. BTW, that thread was contributed to by average users. It's a compilation of the community's collective knowledge.

 

[infomon]

^
^
what naucitos said

brinboy, posts like this contribute nothing, either make a new statement or let the argument stand on its own.

As for Sonic.... KID is one of the more knowledgeable voices on the Sonic forums, you're better off trusting him rather than some matchup thread, unless more of the (respected) Sonic boards ppl are involved and the thread is quite recent.

 

[da K.I.D.]

^^^ the voice of reason^^^

sonic doesnt lose flat out to anybody but MK
everyone else is style and knowledge dependant

example X beats kenneth's snake enough so that he play olimar against him.
but nobody plays olimar against me, because i do very well against him, but at the same time JesiahTEG's snake lights me up to the point that i play fox, wolf, AND D3 against snake

p.s. on paper sonic loses to just about everyone, hence my sig...
but in practice sonic does a lot better than what the matchup is on paper, because sonic has many more options in many situaitions than most characters, but on paper alot of those things that we do to win is just dismissed as "mind-games" and "player skill" neither of which can effectively be included on an on paper matchup discussion

 

[da K.I.D.]

Natch, i play yoshi, so i may have a skewed view on the tornado, but i have seen the tornado discussion thread, and i think there were TWO characters that didn't have a reliable answer to it, i know yoshi has upwards of 4.
It also took me 4 seconds to find out that the sonic boards think that the sonic vs match matchup is almost completely unwinnable
EDIT: I'm curious, what exactly is this 'research'?

1. you are like the guy that says tornado isnt that good because ganons up smash beats it...

in what universe is a ganon EVER going to pull that off...
just because a character has reliable answers, doesnt mean that they are practical...
2. my research is learning what sonics by name, place where, what place they get, how consistent they are and who they lose to

 

[Naucitos]

1. What? How does that make any sense, a reliable answer by DEFINITION means something that is reliable, and can be relied on, and thus IS practical.
2. How consistent the player is? What does that mean? Other than that, ok, although i don't see why it wouldn't be represented in the matchup thread

 

[salaboB]

1. What? How does that make any sense, a reliable answer by DEFINITION means something that is reliable, and can be relied on, and thus IS practical.

A reliable answer is something that doesn't clank. It doesn't mean you'll be in position to use it.

Do you really think most MKs will let you get a Ganondorf upsmash off against them? It's reliable in that if you do land it, you'll knock MK out of the tornado. It's not practical in that you won't be landing that anytime soon against a half decent (Or better) MK.

 

[choknater]

I still think IC's and Snake have even matchups against MK. *shrug*

 

[Brinzy]

Anyone who thinks sonic isn't tourney viable hasn't played a good sonic >_>

Who said this? I asked if he was tourney viable.

Actually, ignore this.