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

[da K.I.D.]

At the same time there can be development to work against this bannable method/tech

which is what happens before things get banned...


which is what is happening now before MK gets banned...

im sorry ppl, my post had a lot of implied meaning in it, im getting the feeling that i shoudl simplify it...


@seph.
that not the point, i dont really care if snake gets banned, looking at how things are going, if MK gets banned, theres a slight possiblility that he gets banned too. and i dont care as long as every thing goes through the same due process to come to the understanding on whether said character is hurting the game
if they go through the options, and do all the research and determine that MK is not banable for the better of the game, so be it. thats how its gonna go down...

 

[NinjaLink]

which is what happens before things get banned...


which is what is happening now before MK gets banned...

im sorry ppl, my post had a lot of implied meaning in it, im getting the feeling that i shoudl simplify it...

I get what ur saying. Honestly i vote for a temp ban cause ppl dont have the patience to learn their own character to beat another so instead they pick up that char just to beat that char which defeats the purpose. Which is why most char metagames scream fail.

 

[da K.I.D.]

why take 2 months to learn diddy when you can learn MK in 2 days...

i cant blame people that do it that way either...

 

[NinjaLink]

why take 2 months to learn diddy when you can learn MK in 2 days...

i cant blame people that do it that way either...

Stop inferring that i use diddy EVERYTIME i fight MK. Already stated i have done it with other chars.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Stop inferring that i use diddy EVERYTIME i fight MK. Already stated i have done it with other chars.

thats not what i meant...
sorry

i could have said any character, like snake or marth or yoshi

its just that while i was typing it, I was watching the diddy vid in your sig, so i just said diddy..


that one actually DIDNT have implied meaning in it, lol

 

[da K.I.D.]

i just want to correct a misconception here from a few pages back:

if we ban MK, its been said as an anti ban argument that if we ban MK we have to bann the next character (ppl please, do NOT get it twisted, that character is snake)because he'll be winning the tourneys and wont have bad matchups and whatnot.

Let me just say that I DONT CARE.

I care about playing brawl competitively and i want to do what will make the competitive community the best in the long run for the majority. And if banning MK will achieve that end,(and i really do think that it will) than so be it, and thats exactly what should happen.

And if later down the road, we come to the realisation that snake is without bad matchups that are not in his favor, and that he needs to be banned. than we will go through the same process that we are going through right now, and we will make that decision to do what is best for the game and those that play it. if that includes banning snake whent the time comes, we will do that.

and what if the next character (its DDD, dont argue this with me) comes up with something to make him too good for competition as well, we will ban that too, because we will do whatever is necessary to make the game as good as it can be.

Now, realise this, theres a very good chance that should MK be banned that the same fate will not befall anybody else... but should we go down that slippery slope, just know this.

We will cross that bridge when we get to it

for the record when I say "We" i dont mean that I am in the SBR, i mean "we" by all those of us involved in the competitive scene.

But yea, stop using the slippery slope argument, because all that is, is using unfounded claims to try and predict the future.

i dont care who gets banned, whether its MK, Snake, or Sonic, or CF, or Lucario, or Ganon, i dont care what the rules are, i dont care what the stages are...

If the rules are set for the best people to win and for everyone to have the most fun WHILE IN A COMPETITIVE ENVIORONMENT possible, than those are the rules that should be made.




re posted for it to be seen

 

[NinjaLink]

thats not what i meant...
sorry

i could have said any character, like snake or marth or yoshi

its just that while i was typing it, I was watching the diddy vid in your sig, so i just said diddy..


that one actually DIDNT have implied meaning in it, lol

ok :-). I'm happy again lol

 

[Mew2King]

ddd vs snake isn't that bad for snake. My snake usually beats atomsk's ddd

 

[pure_awesome]

I am thoroughly disappointed in this podcast debate. Tons of points given were not only flawed, but down right wrong. Many times the debate went very off topic, and as a lot of bias was present. It pains me to listen to this, christ.

Later on when I have time, I'm going to submit a post with responses to the points given in this pod cast.

I completely agree. It was all over the place. They obviously know alot, but none of them are very good debaters. I may just do the same as you.

Hell, I've got some time on my hands right now, we can debate if you want.

 

[A.A]

Well when i play people using Meta Knight i don't think its to big of a threat, now i want to know what people do with Meta Knight that makes him an uber. Is it the contiual spaming of his tornado move?

Any videos i can watch of MK doing his thing?

 

[NinjaLink]

Well when i play people using Meta Knight i don't think its to big of a threat, now i want to know what people do with Meta Knight that makes him an uber. Is it the contiual spaming of his tornado move?

Any videos i can watch of MK doing his thing?

and u reposted this? If u dont play competitively, u shouldnt contribute.

 

[JesiahTEG]

Well when i play people using Meta Knight i don't think its to big of a threat, now i want to know what people do with Meta Knight that makes him an uber. Is it the contiual spaming of his tornado move?

Any videos i can watch of MK doing his thing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1jPx9CgZ-M Here you go dude.

 

[Yuna]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1jPx9CgZ-M Here you go dude.

DK supposedly cannot work around MK spamming the Mach Tornado. Presenting a video of it is not really fair as there are only 3 or so matchups in which MK can spam the Mach Tornado like that. It's just an inherent weakness on DK''s part, not an inherent strength on MK's part (the Tornado is good, just not that good, most of the time).

We will do whatever is necessary to make the game as good as it can be.

No, we don't. You need to understand this.

The rulesets of Competitive fighting games, Smash included, are not written to "make them as good as they can be", no matter how often you state this. No, they aren't. We're not as ban-happy as you wish us to be. We don't ban anything remotely "un-Competitive" to make the game "as good as it can be".

No, we do not.

We're not going to ban this and this and this and this just because they limit the metagame to some extent. Because, really, if we're gonna do that, then we should ban all of Top and High because then we'd have a much more varied metagame than should we not do it.

Also, nobody really cares what you do not care about (nor do we care about the fact that you do not care about the fact that we do not care about what you do not care about). If we instate a ban, it has to be warranted (not in your mind, but in "our" (the collective's) mind), it must be logical, quantifiable and we must be able to defend it. And it must not set dangerous precedences.

 

[brinboy789]

i didnt bother listening to the podcast, can somebody tell me whether they agreed wit hthe ban, dont agree, or didnt draw conclusions?

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

That Uair musta been so decayed. <3s

XD

LMAO How does Snake decay his uair?

 

[Browny]

We're not going to ban this and this and this and this just because they limit the metagame to some extent. Because, really, if we're gonna do that, then we should ban all of Top and High because then we'd have a much more varied metagame than should we not do it.

no? what on Earth gives you that idea? see the results for hobo 12? a different character in every single top 8 place and you cant possibly get more varied than that

 

[Yuna]

no? what on Earth gives you that idea? see the results for hobo 12? a different character in every single top 8 place and you cant possibly get more varied than that

Yes, because one single tournament = scientific proof.

Because it's not at all logical that with Meta Knight, the character so many people are apparently flocking to, gone, people will choose other characters and play those instead. It's not at all about how they had very limited time before HOBO12 to prepare to the ban on Meta Knight .

Or, say, player skill. The players at HOBO12 played many different characters. Even with Meta Knight present, the HOBO11 results were pretty varied in the Top (if you remove Meta), so it's a given it'd still be pretty varied with Meta gone!

 

[-Nana-]

DK supposedly cannot work around MK spamming the Mach Tornado. Presenting a video of it is not really fair as there are only 3 or so matchups in which MK can spam the Mach Tornado like that. It's just an inherent weakness on DK''s part, not an inherent strength on MK's part (the Tornado is good, just not that good, most of the time).


No, we don't. You need to understand this.

The rulesets of Competitive fighting games, Smash included, are not written to "make them as good as they can be", no matter how often you state this. No, they aren't. We're not as ban-happy as you wish us to be. We don't ban anything remotely "un-Competitive" to make the game "as good as it can be".

No, we do not.

We're not going to ban this and this and this and this just because they limit the metagame to some extent. Because, really, if we're gonna do that, then we should ban all of Top and High because then we'd have a much more varied metagame than should we not do it.

Also, nobody really cares what you do not care about (nor do we care about the fact that you do not care about the fact that we do not care about what you do not care about). If we instate a ban, it has to be warranted (not in your mind, but in "our" (the collective's) mind), it must be logical, quantifiable and we must be able to defend it. And it must not set dangerous precedences.

I've come to the realization that you will simply say anything to make yourself feel like you've won an argument. I'm not for the ban either, but what you claim is wrong. Everything is done to make the game as balanced and as competitive as possible. That's the point of timed, stock matches, banned stages, counterpicking stage striking/banning. It doesn't appear necessary right now, but if it becomes so, MK will be banned to make the game more balanced and competitive.

Since you really have no urge to discuss and only shoot down other peoples' opinions and glorify your own, I would suggest you stop posting in this thread. No one cares about your narrow minded, unmoveable, elitist anti-ban opinions that don't hold up.

edit: There is plenty of proof Yuna. I just posted a few pages back a ton of tournaments with varied results.

 

[Browny]

but how would banning all the top and high characters make a more varied metagame? Hardly any of them outside of MK are so good that they cant be beaten. every character (with the exception of things like DDD v bowser) has a decent chance, and they can effectively develop strategies to help counter them all.

so far things like the sbr podcast make it seem like the majority of character boards time is spent trying to deal with MK. With MK in the picture, the 'metagame' is focused on him. Take him out and characters can spend time focusing on beating the other 38. From there its not like all attention will fall on snake, people have found ways to beat him and certainly knocked him off his #1 spot in rankings quick enough. I fail to see how removing half the list by taking out all of top and high would make a more varied metagame when theres only half as many characters to deal with. pretty simple maths

 

[AgentJGV]

Quick Question: who here actually enjoys playing as metaknight?

 

[-Nana-]

I do lol. I don't really use him in tourney or anything but he's mad fun to use.

 

[Gindler]

I'm probably the only person in the world that can't use MK. Then again I just refuse to use him all together with all of this "he's broken and needs to be banned" nonsense.

 

[The Slayer]

The podcast felt like an overview of everything that was said during this thread and some of them were the already said arguments that died a while ago. I didn't really like how the anti-ban side was using a lot of Melee & Brawl tournament results. Although the pro-ban had some proof behind them, some of their examples seem a little exaggerated and they didn't execute them very well. It changed my mind alright, but neither side seem to have a definite reason.

I enjoy using Meta-Knight, and I would enjoy him even more if I go to a local tournament one day, but it seems unlike.

 

[XienZo]

The Mario main story was pretty intriguing.

I haven't quite finished it but I can see where the two sides are going.

Too bad there wasn't anything completely new to the argument, but oh well...

 

[Master Raven]

Correct me if I'm wrong but MK ***** the **** out of Mario regardless. >_>

 

[da K.I.D.]

I've come to the realization that you will simply say anything to make yourself feel like you've won an argument. I'm not for the ban either, but what you claim is wrong. Everything is done to make the game as balanced and as competitive as possible. That's the point of timed, stock matches, banned stages, counterpicking stage striking/banning. It doesn't appear necessary right now, but if it becomes so, MK will be banned to make the game more balanced and competitive.

Since you really have no urge to discuss and only shoot down other peoples' opinions and glorify your own, I would suggest you stop posting in this thread. No one cares about your narrow minded, unmoveable, elitist anti-ban opinions that don't hold up.

edit: There is plenty of proof Yuna. I just posted a few pages back a ton of tournaments with varied results.

thank you very much.

i appreciate the fact that two people that have opposing views can still agree on how the community works and that whatever is in the best interest for the game will be done

and for the record, yes. MK does, in fact, **** the mess out of mario

 

[HeroMystic]

Correct me if I'm wrong but MK ***** the **** out of Mario regardless. >_>

That is somewhat correct. Mario has nothing on Metaknight except for his defensive tactics. It's not his worst match-up overall, but it's pretty rough.

EDIT: I listened to the podcast as well, and Overswarm gave a pretty mean argument, but so did the anti-ban argument.

@brinboy: go listen to the podcast. It's a good discussion.

 

[A.A]

and u reposted this? If u dont play competitively, u shouldnt contribute.

I reposted this because no one helped me out and it has gone a few pages back. How do you know i don't play competitively? You don't need to be ignorant, i can contribute if i want aslong as am obeying the forum rules.

@JesiahTEG-Thanx for the link

 

[Falconv1.0]

I reposted this because no one helped me out and it has gone a few pages back. How do you know i don't play competitively? You don't need to be ignorant, i can contribute if i want aslong as am obeying the forum rules.

@JesiahTEG-Thanx for the link

We know you dont play competitively because you ask and state noob things. You cant contribute to a discussion about the banning of a character when the people discussing it seriously are higher up there in the tourney scene.

 

[-Linko-]

DK supposedly cannot work around MK spamming the Mach Tornado. Presenting a video of it is not really fair as there are only 3 or so matchups in which MK can spam the Mach Tornado like that. It's just an inherent weakness on DK''s part, not an inherent strength on MK's part (the Tornado is good, just not that good, most of the time).


No, we don't. You need to understand this.

The rulesets of Competitive fighting games, Smash included, are not written to "make them as good as they can be", no matter how often you state this. No, they aren't. We're not as ban-happy as you wish us to be. We don't ban anything remotely "un-Competitive" to make the game "as good as it can be".

No, we do not.

We're not going to ban this and this and this and this just because they limit the metagame to some extent. Because, really, if we're gonna do that, then we should ban all of Top and High because then we'd have a much more varied metagame than should we not do it.

Also, nobody really cares what you do not care about (nor do we care about the fact that you do not care about the fact that we do not care about what you do not care about). If we instate a ban, it has to be warranted (not in your mind, but in "our" (the collective's) mind), it must be logical, quantifiable and we must be able to defend it. And it must not set dangerous precedences.

Then why do we ban items?

Don't say just because "they are random". It's just that our arbitrary rules say that random is bad for competition, and thus, should be banned.

We banned items to make the game "as good as it can be", just replacing "as good as" with "the least random". Because "less random" is indeed "good", isn't it?

 

[XienZo]

Then why do we ban items?

Don't say just because "they are random". It's just that our arbitrary rules say that random is bad for competition, and thus, should be banned.

We banned items to make the game "as good as it can be", just replacing "as good as" with "the least random". Because "less random" is indeed "good", isn't it?

Items=random
random=more advantage given regardless of skill
more advantage regardless of skill=less reward for skill
less reward for skill= less focus on skill
less focus on skill=less focus on metagame
less focus on metagame=less developed metagames
less developed metagame=less competition
less competition=bad for competition

There you go, our rules are no longer arbitrary.

 

[-Linko-]

Items=random
random=more advantage given regardless of skill
more advantage regardless of skill=less reward for skill
less reward for skill= less focus on skill
less focus on skill=less focus on metagame
less focus on metagame=less developed metagames
less developed metagame=less competition
less competition=bad for competition

There you go, our rules are no longer arbitrary.

So we do agree, we ban items because they are bad for competition, and removing them makes the game closer to the "as good as it can be" state.

It still counters Yuna's argument.

 

[salaboB]

Items=random
random=more advantage given regardless of skill
more advantage regardless of skill=less reward for skill
less reward for skill= less focus on skill
less focus on skill=less focus on metagame
less focus on metagame=less developed metagames
less developed metagame=less competition
less competition=bad for competition

There you go, our rules are no longer arbitrary.

By the way: Items spawn more in certain areas, so working on keeping control of the map so you can get to the most likely item spawns is one aspect they introduce. Once you get the item, there's more skill involved in using it to lead into combos and for your opponent in dealing with it (Run away, try to wait for an item they can use, prepare to catch it, whatever). I don't think anyone is suggesting all items don't make things more random, but there's been this Item Standard Play project that's worked very hard to find items that don't instantly win the game for you if you snag one. That's just fine as a competitive mode, you just have to practice at it.

While less practical, you can also take the approach of a series of short matches with all items on. Then the one game-winning item would have to be obtained multiple times for a less skilled opponent to win -- which most likely means the better player has screwed up in letting them be in position to get those items in the first place that many times. And if a little random itself is bad, we better ban G&W, Peach, and DDD because they have random moves that can let a less skilled player win if they get lucky at just the right time!

You're going to have to try a lot harder than just saying "items take less skill" if you want to actually demonstrate that. Do they introduce another random aspect and change how people have to play if they want to do as well as they will without items? Yes, you must modify your playstyle for items. But that doesn't mean that banning all items has been required, it was done because it's what was felt to be best for the gameplay. That's one aspect of why MK should be banned -- we did it for items when they didn't absolutely require it, so it can be done for other things as well.

 

[XienZo]

So we do agree, we ban items because they are bad for competition, and removing them makes the game closer to the "as good as it can be" state.

It still counters Yuna's argument.

Oh yeah, I was also suggesting to Yuna that we should find the optimal balance between banning characters and keeping enough to keep it competitive.

You know, like mathematically, the competitiveness of the game from banning centralizing characters would be f(x)(which increases at a decreasing rate as the # of banned characters grow), the competitiveness of the game from having more characters be g(x)(which decreases at an increasing rate as the # of banned characters grow), and just find the maximum of f(x)+g(x).

You know, calculus stuff. Its just that we don't have the actual equations so we have to use other means to find the maximum competitiveness.

By the way: Items spawn more in certain areas, so working on keeping control of the map so you can get to the most likely item spawns is one aspect they introduce. Once you get the item, there's more skill involved in using it to lead into combos and for your opponent in dealing with it (Run away, try to wait for an item they can use, prepare to catch it, whatever). I don't think anyone is suggesting all items don't make things more random, but there's been this Item Standard Play project that's worked very hard to find items that don't instantly win the game for you if you snag one. That's just fine as a competitive mode, you just have to practice at it.

While less practical, you can also take the approach of a series of short matches with all items on. Then the one game-winning item would have to be obtained multiple times for a less skilled opponent to win -- which most likely means the better player has screwed up in letting them be in position to get those items in the first place that many times. And if a little random itself is bad, we better ban G&W, Peach, and DDD because they have random moves that can let a less skilled player win if they get lucky at just the right time!

You're going to have to try a lot harder than just saying "items take less skill" if you want to actually demonstrate that. Do they introduce another random aspect and change how people have to play if they want to do as well as they will without items? Yes, you must modify your playstyle for items. But that doesn't mean that banning all items has been required, it was done because it's what was felt to be best for the gameplay. That's one aspect of why MK should be banned -- we did it for items when they didn't absolutely require it, so it can be done for other things as well.

I know that you can still maintain competitiveness with items. I'm just saying that we also have reasons why we banned them, and we just didn't go, "I'm bored, lets ban items" or anything. Those reasons might not be good enough, but we still didn't come up with banning items out of midair.

 

[Fletch]

Items=random
random=more advantage given regardless of skill
more advantage regardless of skill=less reward for skill
less reward for skill= less focus on skill
less focus on skill=less focus on metagame
less focus on metagame=less developed metagames
less developed metagame=less competition
less competition=bad for competition

There you go, our rules are no longer arbitrary.

By this logic, couldn't one argue for bans of characters such as D3, Peach, G&W, and Olimar over their random moves?

 

[The Real Inferno]

Copypasta from the other topic:

After listening to the whole podcast, I was originally going to give a full review of each point and judge the competitors based on their presentation, reaction to contrary data, supporting evidence for their facts and any other factors. However, I don't really have the time to do it now as I was expecting the download much earlier in the week. That said, here's a quick overview I have.

Overswarm- Clearly the most well-prepared for this debate, which is to be expected, he's been having it for months. Spoke clearly, supported his evidence firmly, and didn't let counter arguments get him flustered.

EdreesesPieces- Did okay, but was clearly far less prepared than Overswarm and so took a back seat for most of the time when he was still there. Didn't argue terribly, but tended to wander off track.

AlphaZealot- Well-prepared, though didn't seem ready to take on all angles of counter argument, leaving him looking a little weaker. Had extreme case of wandering off track.

UnbreonMow- Seemed horrifically unprepared for this. This is probably due to the fact he wasn't originally even supposed to be in it and ended up taking the spot of M2K. (This is probably a good thing as I've heard M2K's version of "debate"). Did very well despite this and stayed on topic.

Overall- The Proban side went into this with alot of public support and confidence. Anti-ban side had to gain ground obviously. The beginning of the debate showed a clear advantage as I agree with Samurai Panda on this. The second topic they picked up was a cluster**** of pointlessness though as neither side seemed have any strong evidence. Deeper into the fray, anti-ban came back strong, but pro-ban didn't back down to counter evidence easily. I'd say both sides argued very well but I cannot blame Panda for not picking a side in the end as neither side truelly solidified their case to the point where any nuetral should jump ship.

 

[rehab]

Does anybody saying items>mk actually like the idea of competitive item play? The possibility that a bomb capsule spawns out of nowhere and punishes somebody who could be in the midst of fighting for happening to have an active hitbox out at the time is just obviously worse than mk to me, I don't know how else to explain it.

 

[salaboB]

Does anybody saying items>mk actually like the idea of competitive item play? The possibility that a bomb capsule spawns out of nowhere and punishes somebody who could be in the midst of fighting for happening to have an active hitbox out at the time is just obviously worse than mk to me, I don't know how else to explain it.

I was simply explaining we've banned items because we feel they make the game less competitive, but if they were left in the game could still be competitive. It was to show why saying items being banned is unrelated to the idea of banning MK to make the game more competitive is untrue.

I know that you can still maintain competitiveness with items. I'm just saying that we also have reasons why we banned them, and we just didn't go, "I'm bored, lets ban items" or anything. Those reasons might not be good enough, but we still didn't come up with banning items out of midair.

There are reasons for banning MK, we didn't just come up with the idea out of nowhere either.

 

[Sovereign]

People of this thread listen up.



Meta Knight is a god of gods but, he can be beaten. All you need to do is pick a character that has equal or better agility. For example the best person to take out a master of Meta Knight with would be a person who has mastered Fox. Fox is much faster than Meta Knight in comparison of speed, and then he is also much more stronger, especially his infamous Usmash. Fox's only problem would be the range at which he would catch Meta Knight at, since he has no distorted hit boxes or anything of the sort, besides a puny blaster, that can't really be spammed anymore. Meta Knight is a very dangerous opponent, but he isn't unstoppable. Another character that would be of great use against Meta Knight would be one with an even greater and more distorted hit box. The solid choice for this would be Marth, since if you attack and hit on the sweetspot more damage is dealt, with a greater knockback. I'll continue this later, as I want to see some more opinons.

 

[Zankoku]

Fox gets wrecked pretty hard by Meta Knight, actually. And the fact that Snake gives Meta Knight trouble is completely contradictory to your theory.