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

[NinjaLink]

Fox doesnt 'really' get wrecked just have to approach it the right way. Cort used MK on my crew member and he used fox to beat his MK. Tourney match :-p

 

[XienZo]

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

And thus, we can't immediately dismiss either side; we have to think it over.

 

[salaboB]

And thus, we can't immediately dismiss either side; we have to think it over.

That was not the point you were originally defending.

 

[XienZo]

Honestly, I'm not defending any points. I'm just looking for problems in other people's arguments.

I have no problem bashing MK bans one post, and then preaching why MK is broken the next, as long as they don't contradict each other.

 

[Advent Lee]

Honestly, I'm not defending any points. I'm just looking for problems in other people's arguments.

I have no problem bashing MK bans one post, and then preaching why MK is broken the next, as long as they don't contradict each other.

Me 2. I'm pretty neutral on the debate, but more of a "Devils Advocate"



-advent-

 

[-Nana-]

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

No problem. I disagree with a lot of what you say but what Yuna quoted from you is true. It's already happened haha so I really don't know what he's talking about. Everything should be done to make it balanced and competitive, I just don't think banning Meta Knight is one of those things.

 

[OverLade]

XD The anti ban side had some pretty horrible arguements.

Nado has little to no priority and Up B doesn't kill. WTF??

And his moveset doesn't stand out? He's practically lagless and unpunishable by half the cast.

BAN THE META.

 

[_Phloat_]

XD The anti ban side had some pretty horrible arguements.

Nado has little to no priority and Up B doesn't kill. WTF??

And his moveset doesn't stand out? He's practically lagless and unpunishable by half the cast.

BAN THE META.

I hate how half the arguers on each side make their case worse rather than better =\.

I don't have a stance, so I stay out. Duh =P

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Rider is your avatar?

?

Fate/Stay Unlimited Codes is a brooooken game.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Jman115]

I say give it another 3-4 months then do a temporary ban if things continue the same way. With the temporary ban in effect, we will have a chance to see if it really will improve the situation or go down the "slippery slope."

 

[OverLade]

And Metaknight's Moveset isn't too good?

His moves don't have range? Perfectly spaced fairs have equal range as Snakes Ftilt and are far harder to punish.

 

[OverLade]

And Metaknight's Moveset isn't too good?

His moves don't have range? Perfectly spaced fairs have equal range as Snakes Ftilt and are far harder to punish.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Fox doesnt 'really' get wrecked just have to approach it the right way. Cort used MK on my crew member and he used fox to beat his MK. Tourney match :-p

Dtilt~ftilt~Fair=Fox getting zoned.

Dthrow~hypen smash=painful for Fox.


Its bad since Fox is a character who approaches committedly. So if you shield any of his aerials you can grab him out of it (though he can move away a bit which means you won't get hit and you can dash grab him)

I never knew Cort used MK @_@

 

[DerpDaBerp]

When metaknights worst matchup is himself, it means he's good enough to be banned.

agreed.........

 

[ShadowLink84]

agreed.........

Yun from SF3 says hi,
Magnet from MvC2 says hi.

Seriously I wish stupid people would stop posting when they clearly have no clue what constitutes a ban.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Yun from SF3 says hi,
Magnet from MvC2 says hi.

Seriously I wish stupid people would stop posting when they clearly have no clue what constitutes a ban.

ok...well im not disagreeing with you here. im kinda neutral and leaning towards the no-ban side. but what do you think constitutes a ban then?

 

[ShadowLink84]

ok...well im not disagreeing with you here. im kinda neutral and leaning towards the no-ban side. but what do you think constitutes a ban then?

MK would have to show a clear dominance of the metagame and show that he is causing stagnation.
This in turn would show he is causing overcentralizing because the game becomes pick MK, or you will lose.
Mind you MK does not **** everyone.
What he does do is affect the CP system.
So if I choose MK no matter who my opponent chooses I can just CP them with DDD to ensure I always have the advantage.

*shrug*
Its too early anyway.

 

[DerpDaBerp]

I've always been biased against Meta Knight because:

• I don't like him as a character
• He's uncomfortable to play as (in my opinion)
• His style of play is just utterly annoying.

However, while I dislike Meta Knight in almost every way, I do not support his banning. While many may exploit him easily (noobs and pros alike), he's merely an obstacle that takes some adjusting to get over. He, like all characters, can be beaten, and hence, should not be banned. While he has more ups than downs - in general - than all of the other playable characters, there are others who possess some better ups than he. Meta Knight is ranked as the best character because he has the most advantages over all other characters, not because his advantages are individually better than the advantages that others have.

To beat Meta Knight, you must exploit the advantages that other characters have to topple his array of ups to turn them into downs. Like said many, many times, "the best offense is a good defense," so you can potentially turn his many advantages into disadvantages with proper strategy.

uh... no.

your suggestion is just an obvious statement. Say something constructive.

To potentially turn his advantages into disadvantages with proper strategy? What? That's like trying to make a 4-sided triangle. Any strategy able to clearly beat Meta Knight is way too far off to hope for and even if one were found it would be 1. probably exclusive to some character, 2. not worth the difficulty of implementing into a match against a really good MK.

More and more people exploiting Meta Knight as a broken character are hurting the smash community

 

[Shady Penguin]

A soft ban sounds great right now (If that's the correct term for what I'm thinking of). There's no large majority on either side, but most people seem to want him banned, so I think that is deserving of a test ban.

If things are shown to be better without Meta, there will be more than enough ban supporters and results to justify getting rid of him for good. If things don't improve, MK stays and the pro-ban side won't be able to make much of a point to get him banned.

 

[XxBlackxX]

*shrug*
Its too early anyway.

exactly.

in a couple months, if nothing has been resolved, i would support a temporary ban.


@shady, just because "many people seem to want him banned" doesnt mean he should be banned. i mean, what kinda argument is that? hypothetically say, if "many people" want ______(insert character banned) they should be banned?

 

[Shady Penguin]

exactly.

in a couple months, if nothing has been resolved, i would support a temporary ban.


@shady, just because "many people seem to want him banned" doesnt mean he should be banned. i mean, what kinda argument is that? hypothetically say, if "many people" want ______(insert character banned) they should be banned?

It's sure worth a test. If MK really is hurting things, we can get rid of him without having to deal with the problems he's causing for longer than we have to.

If MK isn't causing any real harm, he'll be back in all his glory and these debates will be over.

I don't see how waiting for a temporary ban is any better. The chances of these debates ending themselves over a few months without action is very slim. I say we get this over with.

 

[DerpDaBerp]

MK would have to show a clear dominance of the metagame and show that he is causing stagnation.
This in turn would show he is causing overcentralizing because the game becomes pick MK, or you will lose.
Mind you MK does not **** everyone.
What he does do is affect the CP system.
So if I choose MK no matter who my opponent chooses I can just CP them with DDD to ensure I always have the advantage.

*shrug*
Its too early anyway.

The "pick MK, or you will lose" effect is pretty much taking effect right now. Why wait for a chunk of the smash community to lose interest because Meta Knight was being kept around before we decide he's too large of an outlier?

 

[Greenpoe]

The "pick MK, or you will lose" effect is pretty much taking effect right now. Why wait for a chunk of the smash community to lose interest because Meta Knight was being kept around before we decide he's too large of an outlier?

The community is choking itself. More and more people are quitting because of MK. I've talked to ex-tourney players about Brawl, trying to get them back, and they say, "Metaknight broke that game."

 

[DerpDaBerp]

exactly.

in a couple months, if nothing has been resolved, i would support a temporary ban.


@shady, just because "many people seem to want him banned" doesnt mean he should be banned. i mean, what kinda argument is that? hypothetically say, if "many people" want ______(insert character banned) they should be banned?

If the "many people" referred to actually constitutes the majority, then yes, that is EXACTLY why he should be banned. It's not a question of ethics: if most, I repeat, if MOST players would prefer to not have to deal with MK in the professional scene, then ban him.

We're waiting on some abstract idea of counterpicks and new strategies to find a way to allow him to continue. I suppose I don't have to worry though, most people will wind up being pro-banMK if no solution is found in a few months. And if one is, and MK is found then to be considerably less problematic, then all the better for Brawl. Either way I'm satisfyied.

 

[XxBlackxX]

The "pick MK, or you will lose" effect is pretty much taking effect right now. Why wait for a chunk of the smash community to lose interest because Meta Knight was being kept around before we decide he's too large of an outlier?

well...one of the problems we have is that we dont know for sure if he is too broken to be allowed. and another thing is many people complain about it instead of trying new things that could potentially end the debate we are in right now. for example, characters like diddy and yoshi are proven to be either neutral or slight advantage (55:45 i belive) though diddy is only on FD. while anyways, these characters arent being explored enough as options against MK imo. the other day i heard some arguments about olimar as a option too. another potential characters could be the ICs, whose grabs have so much potential. anyway, my point was that until we have been sure that NOTHING will ever beat MK or at least be disadvtanged for him, we shouldnt ban him, at least, not yet.

 

[XxBlackxX]

If the "many people" referred to actually constitutes the majority, then yes, that is EXACTLY why he should be banned. It's not a question of ethics: if most, I repeat, if MOST players would prefer to not have to deal with MK in the professional scene, then ban him.

We're waiting on some abstract idea of counterpicks and new strategies to find a way to allow him to continue. I suppose I don't have to worry though, most people will wind up being pro-banMK if no solution is found in a few months. And if one is, and MK is found then to be considerably less problematic, then all the better for Brawl. Either way I'm satisfyied.

majority of people without a correct reason is NOT what should constitute a ban. unless, of course, that said majority happens to be ALL of the smash community, which is clearly not the case at the moment.

 

[Harbinger631]

The community is choking itself. More and more people are quitting because of MK. I've talked to ex-tourney players about Brawl, trying to get them back, and they say, "Metaknight broke that game."

They're just not great players. The best players have no problem with MK, as seen here: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=204527

Overswarm, one of the pro-ban debaters, who listed so many reasons why MK can easily overwhelm the rest of the cast, didn't even place in the top 8. Brawl still comes down to player skill, not choosing MK.

 

[XxBlackxX]

They're just not great players. The best players have no problem with MK, as seen here: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=204527

Overswarm, one of the pro-ban debaters, who listed so many reasons why MK can easily overwhelm the rest of the cast, didn't even place in the top 8. Brawl still comes down to player skill, not choosing MK.

well....some people may be better at analyzing than actually playing the game. now im not talking specifically about Overswarm or any one person, it just is sometimes true.

 

[DerpDaBerp]

well...one of the problems we have is that we dont know for sure if he is too broken to be allowed. and another thing is many people complain about it instead of trying new things that could potentially end the debate we are in right now. for example, characters like diddy and yoshi are proven to be either neutral or slight advantage (55:45 i belive) though diddy is only on FD. while anyways, these characters arent being explored enough as options against MK imo. the other day i heard some arguments about olimar as a option too. another potential characters could be the ICs, whose grabs have so much potential. anyway, my point was that until we have been sure that NOTHING will ever beat MK or at least be disadvtanged for him, we shouldnt ban him, at least, not yet.

I see where you're coming from, but it's pretty hard for me to believe that with all the people interested in the MK situation that not enough people are exploring the options. It seems to me that all the counter-strategies being suggested are way to insubstantial to make any difference. "Olimar can u-air him". The entire time? Enough to beat him more than not? I doubt it. It's not just that MK has the advantage against almost all characters individually, it's that even if Diddy and Yoshi and maybe Olimar can be shown to counter him reliably, does that mean then that MK and those mentioned are the only ones that will occupy tourneys? Solution in sight or no, MK is forcing the eligibility of characters to be changed and most of all, narrowed.

 

[Shady Penguin]

majority of people without a correct reason is NOT what should constitute a ban. unless, of course, that said majority happens to be ALL of the smash community, which is clearly not the case at the moment.

We should have a temporary ban and find how who's right.

If the majority is right, MK's out of here for a correct reason. If the majority is wrong, they should just get over MK being in for a correct reason.

You have yet to provide a reason why a temporary ban wouldn't be a good idea right now.

 

[Yuna]

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.

No, you are wrong. Anyone saying that the ruleset is written to make the game "as as good as it can be" (as good as it can be (da K.I.D.'s words) and anyone saying the ruleset is written to make the game "as Competitive as possible" (your words) is wrong.

We write the rules to create a Competitive game, that is not what I'm contesting. But the notion that the rules are written to maximize Competition is plain wrong.

If we wanted that, we'd remove every single element of randomness from the game, including certain moves (or characters altogether, since banning moves is, IMO, stupid) and certain stages that are, at the moment, not banned.

We'd also ban every single character in Top and at least half of the characters in High. Because if we ban Meta Knight, according to the pro-ban side, several characters would now become viable. I'll be generous and number that at 5. If we ban all of Top and High, then at least 10 characters would magically become viable (because there's nothing really wrong with them... aside from the fact that they get gimped, chaingrabbed, infinited and a ton of other BS things by the Tops and Highs).

Now, we're not doing that. We're not even contemplating doing that. Why? Because the rules are not written to maximize Competition, the notion I was contesting.

Why do people think this? Why do they think the rules are written to maximize Competition? They are written to create a Competitive playing field and if something is found to limit Competition to a certain (intolerable) degree, it's removed from play.

But what makes people think we remove things to maximize Competition? Because, really, in the most extreme of extremes, if we really wanted to maximize Competition, we'd ban everyone but one single character. Because then all that would matter would be individual skill. That's the pinnacle of Competition.

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.

I'm perfectly movable. I just haven't seen much out there to warrant my opinion to move. Narrow minded? How, exactly? I'm not anti-ban. I'm anti-kneejerkedness.

I'd also like you to define "elitist", because, really, I cannot see how I could possibly fit into the mold of "elitist" (as defined by any credible dictionary).

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

We've had a ton of tournaments with MK banned since when now? Also, every single thing besides "It's just one tournament" I just said still applies.

Cause =/= Effect

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.

No, they do not. There's a reason why there are certain characters not even Azen will play in Competitive play, despite the fact that he plays Peach (yes, Peach lovers, Peach is pretty low!) at tournaments.

Why? Because there are a whole slew of characters who face terrible matchups (in the neighborhood of 80-20) against the Tops and Highs due to infinites, chaingrabs, random BS combos, locks, certain characters' camping, etc.

They can do well and the Tops and Highs are quite beatable by several Mids and a few below that, but the reason why they're all Mids and Below is because most of them eventually run into some of those horrible, horrible matchups (of which many aren't Meta Knight, but instead D3 or G&W, Falco, Snake or Marth).

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

Why do people think Snake would be next? With Meta Knight gone, Snake won't be doing as well as he's been doing insofar.

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

Too bad he doesn't have the facts straight, neither did you.

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?

I'm sorry, "The ruleset is not written to be 'as good as it can be/as Competitive as possible/the least random" = We do not ban things to do all of that, ever, since when now?

You want to make the metagame the least random as possible? D3, Peach, G&W, Luigi, begone from the metagame now. Several stages that are not banned at the moment, begone now.

See, the argument I was refuting was the extreme "We ban things to make the game as XXXXX as possible". I never said anything except that we do not ban things to such an extent as to make the game "as XXXXX as possible".

This, in no way, means "We never ban"/"We do not ban"/"We ban very rarely"/"We ban very seldom", etc., etc., etc.

We bad items because they are bad for Competition. But we do not everything that is even in the slightest bad for Competition.

Nana, you seem like a nice guy, even if you seem to have an entirely incorrect view of my person (again, please define exactly how I am "elitist"). Link_Ridley, I have no idea about you. But you both need to read my posts through before replying to them. Half of the people who argue against me really need to read through my posts before replying to them with a refutation.

When I say "X", I'm not saying "X... plus this and this and that". I'm not saying "Y". I'm not saying "Z, the translation of X if we pass it through Babelfish in two different languages first". If you're going to reply to me to refute my arguments, reply only to what I'm actually saying, or if necessary, reply to what is reasonably inferred by what I'm saying, not something that's a variation or strawman of what I'm saying.

I did not argue anything except for the fact the rules of Competitive Smash are not written to "maximize" anything.

 

[XxBlackxX]

I see where you're coming from, but it's pretty hard for me to believe that with all the people interested in the MK situation that not enough people are exploring the options. It seems to me that all the counter-strategies being suggested are way to insubstantial to make any difference. "Olimar can u-air him". The entire time? Enough to beat him more than not? I doubt it. It's not just that MK has the advantage against almost all characters individually, it's that even if Diddy and Yoshi and maybe Olimar can be shown to counter him reliably, does that mean then that MK and those mentioned are the only ones that will occupy tourneys? Solution in sight or no, MK is forcing the eligibility of characters to be changed and most of all, narrowed.

well, do you ever see a lot of olimars in tournies? yoshis? ICs? Diddy may be the only semi-popular character out of the ones i mentioned. and if any of them counters MK reliably, then MK's popularity will drop due to that most ppl will pick one of them as a second, and eventually, slowly, character variety will increase, though MKs and his counters will still be kinda promient.

@shady
well, heres one reason: it would be unfair to the MK players to endure a temporary ban when there are reason not to.

 

[Yuna]

We should have a temporary ban and find how who's right.

If the majority is right, MK's out of here for a correct reason. If the majority is wrong, they should just get over MK being in for a correct reason.

You have yet to provide a reason why a temporary ban wouldn't be a good idea right now.

This depends on which argument you want to use as your main argument to ban Meta Knight.

If it is "He's too good, he doesn't give the others a reasonable chance at winning" (with "reasonable" being subjective), then removing him from play with neither prove nor disprove that he's "too good".

If it is "He's over-centralizing the metagame", removing him won't really conclusively prove anything, either but it's strongly suggest whether or not removing him from play would free up the metagame for more characters to take their "rightful place" in the top placements of tournaments.

 

[DerpDaBerp]

majority of people without a correct reason is NOT what should constitute a ban. unless, of course, that said majority happens to be ALL of the smash community, which is clearly not the case at the moment.

So either the majority keeps suffering because of the stubborn minority, or we wait for the minority to have their opinions changed. No matter what happens, NO MATTER WHAT, some group of people, whether large or small, will be dissapointed. I am pro majority satisfaction. The smash community would be healthier even with a dissatisfied minority than if we allow MK to remain and deteriorate the # of players.

I hope we can resolve the issue sooner than later to prevent any more "losses". lets not wait for an undefined solution.

 

[Yuna]

So either the majority keeps suffering because of the stubborn minority, or we wait for the minority to have their opinions changed. No matter what happens, NO MATTER WHAT, some group of people, whether large or small, will be dissapointed. I am pro majority satisfaction. The smash community would be healthier even with a dissatisfied minority than if we allow MK to remain and deteriorate the # of players.

I hope we can resolve the issue sooner than later to prevent any more "losses". lets not wait for an undefined solution.

Or how about you provide conclusive proof? We're not saying we do not want a ban, ever. We're saying that according to the evidence currently available to us, it is our opinion that it is not sufficient to ban Meta Knight.

The majority is not always right. It's the most idiotic argument ever. The counter-argument would be something every single child with a mother who's watched television anytime in the past 20 years would've hurled at them already:
If all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you elect to do it as well?

Just because a majority wants something doesn't mean it's right if they want it for the wrong reasons, if they're wrong, etc., etc., etc.

Now, as opposed to the American Presidential election where there's really no conclusive proof of which party is the most qualified as a lot of the time, neither candidate has held that particular office, with Meta Knight's case, we can quantify his strengths and weaknesses (which do exist, if very limited in level and quantity), we can hurl arguments, facts, proof, anecdotes, tourney results, etc., etc. at each other.

Just saying "The majority wants this" doesn't mean either side is right. If someone brought in 2000 people who would vote for items to be re-instated into Competitive play, would we automatically do that? After all, the majority would want it, right?

 

[Overswarm]

They're just not great players. The best players have no problem with MK, as seen here: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=204527

Overswarm, one of the pro-ban debaters, who listed so many reasons why MK can easily overwhelm the rest of the cast, didn't even place in the top 8. Brawl still comes down to player skill, not choosing MK.

Overswarm also doesn't play Brawl. He just goes to MWC events... the last one was in september. I still won doubles and got 9th in singles, losing only to two matchups I am unfamiliar with. Chew on that.

 

[XxBlackxX]

So either the majority keeps suffering because of the stubborn minority, or we wait for the minority to have their opinions changed. No matter what happens, NO MATTER WHAT, some group of people, whether large or small, will be dissapointed. I am pro majority satisfaction. The smash community would be healthier even with a dissatisfied minority than if we allow MK to remain and deteriorate the # of players.

I hope we can resolve the issue sooner than later to prevent any more "losses". lets not wait for an undefined solution.

stubborn minority? well first of all, it seems like both sides have a pretty strong arguments. and the results both here and in the poll thread are not conclusive. Pro-ban is only winning by about 200 votes. and, we are not stubborn if we actually believe in our arguments and its not like we are not listening to your side of the arguments. we are.

 

[DerpDaBerp]

well, do you ever see a lot of olimars in tournies? yoshis? ICs? Diddy may be the only semi-popular character out of the ones i mentioned. and if any of them counters MK reliably, then MK's popularity will drop due to that most ppl will pick one of them as a second, and eventually, slowly, character variety will increase, though MKs and his counters will still be kinda promient.

@shady
well, heres one reason: it would be unfair to the MK players to endure a temporary ban when there are reason not to.

I'm pretty sure if a relatively unpopular character was shown to counter MK well, MK players wouldn't decrease in #'s. Not to mention that if a singular character was shown to have a reliable anti-MK strategy, MK mainers would simply take the time to counter them. A vicious and unnecessary circle.

And again, MK mainers = minority. Besides, they know perfectly well that they're causing all this trouble and playing with him none the less. Why value them so much?

 

[DerpDaBerp]

stubborn minority? well first of all, it seems like both sides have a pretty strong arguments. and the results both here and in the poll thread are not conclusive. Pro-ban is only winning by about 200 votes. and, we are not stubborn if we actually believe in our arguments and its not like we are not listening to your side of the arguments. we are.

sorry, I kinda intended the "stubborn minority" to be based on a hypothetical growing of the gap. but still....

 

[XxBlackxX]

"We're not saying we do not want a ban, ever. We're saying that according to the evidence currently available to us, it is our opinion that it is not sufficient to ban Meta Knight. "

yes, and in the meantime, i think even pro-ban supporters should be trying new things to counter MK instead of just complaining, as my post above stated.

@ pieman because they are still part of the community! you cant just go screw MK users theyre a minority!

EDIT: also, stop using majority/minority arguments. the majority is useless without proof that they are correct. the minority cannot be ignored if they can provide evidence that they are correct. as of now, neither side has.