VulgarHandGestures
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2008
- Messages
- 326
lmfao @ this post
that's been one of our major arguments since the question of banning metaknight came up.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The Official "Should/Will Metaknight be banned?" Thread (LISTEN TO THE SBR PODCAST!)
- Thread starter SamuraiPanda
- Start date
- Status
that's been one of our major arguments since the question of banning metaknight came up.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
His recovery is average, he however, can recover from anywhere off-stage that isn't death.
In exchange for not having the best recovery, he gets an insane edguarding game.
Highly unlikely, unless their counters tend to be outright eliminated for whatever reason (*cough cough MK*), characters without counters and that are soft counters to many characters tend to do better then characters who simply are good at destroying a number of characters.
King DDD has a large number of "issue" match-ups that this current metagame surpresses, he's probably the most likely candidate for falling with MK's elimination, more so then Snake. Game and Watch, not as much, but still reasonable so. ROB, similar case.
Of course it's debatable, but my reasoning is a great deal more logical then any counters offered so far.
For Yoshi it can work because he has a long ranged grab, and an insane pivot grab. But no character without a ranged grab can hope to reliably grab MK, and with characters that have infinites against him, he'll be on guard for grabs.
Keep in mind, Yoshi, a character with a death grab on MK, is just a neutral against him... that should tell you something.
Do you really think an MK spacing well will let you shieldgrab him, all his attacks are safe on block, and most far outrange your grab... not gonna happen.
Lol... no.
Yoshi has a deathgrab on MK and it's only a neutral. Wario has NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of getting that grab off unless MK makes a major mess-up, a smart MK will prioritize not getting grabbed and poke you safely.
The ganondorf boards went through the exact same issue with Wario, their conclusion, "he's not gonna get grabbed".
It lessons Wario's disadvantage a little because it gives a good punishment option should MK mess up... but not gonna happen.
He doesn't have the **** MK has, but an overly broad criteria risks banning him as well once the MK-less metagame has developed at all.
Which lessons his existing disadvantage... albeit slightly.
As long as MK plays it safe, he will not get grabbed in this match-up. Just like the ice-climbers don't generally grab people.
...
high tier characters tend to have good match-ups against low tier characters.
But on an individual level, tier placements do not play a factor in match-up decision making.
Then your friends are doing it wrong.
The moral of the story is any MK who gets grabbed by Wario is doing it wrong.
Well, at least after the chaingrab is confirmed, if it occurs, at this points, the rewards of that range might outweigh the risks, which makes grabs a legitimate possibility. But no MK wil ever be in your grab range if he's good at all if this is confirmed.
Or Yoshi.
Happens once in a while, but it's not even remotely reliable.
Which is the point, it's unreliable, once in a 3-stock match is highly generous.
Deathgrab, got it on a lot of people, Snake included.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=178435
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
most reasonable criteria, including those by overswarm, are strict enough that Marth doesn't have a shot at being banned. Besides, Game and Watch seems a much more likely candidate for Best in game post MK
Dark Sonic
Smash Hero
^^How so when Marth has an advantage on G&W?
Sorry, what?
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
most people KNOW what the ICs can do and so conciously avoid being grabbed.
Dark Sonic
Smash Hero
It's hard to grab people as Ice Climbers. If the opponent spaces well they will not get shield grabbed. However, they do have a few grab setups if I'm not mistaken. But when constantly looking out for grabs...it's not hard to avoid grabs.
But anyway their death grabs are generally not considered as the deciding factor in their matchups.
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
excuse me? he does? I was under the impression that was an even matchup.
Dark Sonic
Smash Hero
^^Marth boards have it listed as 60:40 Marth's favor
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=186736
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=186736
The best criteria for banning is to ban once the game devolves to "play X character or lose".
It encompasses anyone and everyone should they become too powerful.
Metaknight is not quite at this level yet, therefore he should not be banned.
OS's "criteria" is a load of poopy created to describe Metaknight's current position.
Anyone who wants to ban him now is a scrub. Thankfully, that seems to be the minority.
The criteria that is in "harm of banning Marth once MK is gone", is the one based on the reasons you pro-banners gave us. We don't think Marth should be banned, but based on some of your logic, then Marth should also be applicable.
I hope that makes sense.
It encompasses anyone and everyone should they become too powerful.
Metaknight is not quite at this level yet, therefore he should not be banned.
OS's "criteria" is a load of poopy created to describe Metaknight's current position.
Anyone who wants to ban him now is a scrub. Thankfully, that seems to be the minority.
The criteria that is in "harm of banning Marth once MK is gone", is the one based on the reasons you pro-banners gave us. We don't think Marth should be banned, but based on some of your logic, then Marth should also be applicable.
I hope that makes sense.
Who will dominate if MK is gone is (still) not relevent to whether MK needs to be gone or not.
It's a strawman slippery slope argument. Marth will need his own discussion and observation to see his impact on the metagame to determine what will happen. At this point, you absolutely can't predict he will need banning if MK goes.
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
G&W boards say it's even http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=4862349#post4862349
DRaGZ
Smash Champion
Board bias! *I say that as though the R.O.B. boards don't have them either, hehehehe*
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
I meant in match-ups that aren't to their advantage.
Generally speaking anyway, their death grab is more a deterrent then anything else, if I understand it correct. It forces characters to fight in spacing disadvantageous to them or get grabbed.
However, if you're fighting say, Marth, how often is he gonna get grabbed?
edit:
*adds to "fight-it-out" match-ups*
Regardless, Marth outclasses G&W in this match-up.
Turtle is good but Marth can reliably DI out of it and counter it, or counter the move itself, or up-b out of shield. I don't remember if he can up-B within the move like in Jab combos, but I'm pretty sure it's the case. Ftilt also clashes with it. Since Marth has less start-up, he's in a better position after clashes.
Regardless, Marth's defensive game>turtle.
He really doesn't have any other offensive moves one a class anywhere approaching Marth's defensive game, and his defensive game is respectable, but Marth's offense outranges and in many cases simply beats it.
Marth: 60-40.
Check Emblem Lord's summery, he's pretty much the authority on everything Marth.
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
yeah... characters who are comfortable outside of IC's danger zone tend to beat them pretty well don't they? I know Zelda does.
I actually knew about that since the original posting of it.
brinboy made it sound like it was a new AT.
Unless chaingrabs are AT's now.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Technically they fall under the definition, but they're generally classified differently.
Regardless, it's what gives Yoshi the neutral here.
Not really. If Dedede counters ROB, Snake, DK and most of the high tier and has (with MK gone) only 1 slight disadvantage vs Top tier (Falco) it's very likely, that he surpasses Marth, who still has a rough time vs Snake and Dedede himself.
I'm pretty sure without MK, the tiers will look like this:
Top:
Dedede
GaW
Snake
~
Marth
Falco
ROB
GaW loses his worst match-up and has only problems with Snake and Marth but has the advantage over Falco and ROB (and everything that's lower...)
Snakes match-up's won't change too much but GAw can surpass him. Marth still doesn't destroy anything worth mentioning and still has his fair share of troubles with Dedede and Snake
Timbers
check me out
DDD has issues with Falco and GaW.
Marth 60:40's both of those characters.
Marth 60:40's both of those characters.
choknater
Smash Obsessed
G&W as well
^ what?
Either way, I didn't want to start a "how-will-the-tiers-look-like-without-MK-debate", I just wanted to point out, that there are characters, who could end up better than Marth. After all, he's not the only one, who has the most trouble with him...
Either way, I didn't want to start a "how-will-the-tiers-look-like-without-MK-debate", I just wanted to point out, that there are characters, who could end up better than Marth. After all, he's not the only one, who has the most trouble with him...
Timbers
check me out
then why did you just say that gaw has a "slight advantage" on DDD 5 minutes ago? lol.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
You're missing the entire point.
Eliminating MK affects the mentioned characters a great deal more then simply eliminating one match-up from their charts.
For all the mentioned characters, it eliminates a counter (in some cases, a hard counter) in the charts of their counters, in some cases hard counters.
Suddenly, for DDD and Snake, Olimar and Pikachu become a great deal more viable. Toon Link is an example for G&W.
That's just a few examples, picked from their own match-up boards, only God knows who else is really a counter to those high tier characters because a lot of boards aren't being very complete with their match-up threads.
Marth has no counters and will be far more successful in an MK-less enviroment then any of the above, they all have skeletons in the closet, that once MK is gone, will suddenly play a very major role in the metagame. This will in turn result in their results falling considerably, therefor boosting Marth relative to them.
Stop dreaming. The only thing, that change, when MK is banned, is that there are more characters viable. However, this only applies to top tiers. Pikachu or Olimar still won't be tourney viable, since they just aren't good enough to compete even if they have some advantage (unless played by someone like anther...)
I still don't want to debate about something, that may not even happen and lies in the far future...
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Why?
They're both inherently good characters, without a hard counter and an almost hard counter that is nearly omni-present in the metagame, they'll do considerably better, and won't be eliminated first round, each successive round, they eliminate more Snakes and DDDs.
Realistically speaking, in both cases they are characters that were expected to do well, but just aren't for an odd reason that nobody understood. Then people began to realize how much MK changes the metagame. Without MK, both characters will see a very significant bump in standings.
And won't change whether MK should be banned or not anyway, no matter who comes to the lead or how effective they are.
Just because a second character may eventually require banning is no reason to not ban this one. "You're burning your hand on the stove!" "Yeah, but if I take it off this pot I'm stabilizing might tip over and then I'd have to clean up the water that was in it!"
No...address the main problem first.
It's the same thing as in Melee. ICs were good, Falcon was good and Puff was good - they were all high tier yet it still took a player like Mango or ChuDat to get tourney rankings...even though they were tourney viable, they just didn't stand a chance vs the dominance of Fox, sheik and Marth.
I can see Pika moving up though, since he wins vs Dedede and Snake...
I can see Pika moving up though, since he wins vs Dedede and Snake...
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
And if you do it hapazardly and the water spills onto some electrical equipment, causing a fire, what then? "Oh, I wish I hadn't taken my hand off the stove!", too late.
The point is, if we're gonna do this, we have to do this right. We can't have criteria that is so broad it causes a character that is merely the best to be banned in the future. I believe the entire point of this is that a Marth ban would be unwarranted, but a natural extension of the same logic.
So, dealing with an immediate issue at the expense of a long-term issue is generally NOT a good idea. Long-term consequences of actions mus ALWAYS be considered.
Of course they're not gonna become incredibly powerful overnight, and truthfully nobody expects them to.
However, the very fact that they are viable will reduce both Snake and DDD's tournament standings quite significantly. Since the very beginning, Snake especially has been propelled by MK into very high standing. Without that field-clearing ability, there is no way their standings will remain even close to what they are now.
Why do you say that now? It's just as hypothetical as Marth becoming #1
There's no electrical equipment around to cause a fire if water gets on it. I ought to know, I made the analogy.
The point is, a second character becoming dominant is *not* a reason to let the metagame continue to suffer further damage. You can say it's not been tested enough yet, you can say he's not dominant enough yet, you can say he's beatable, you can even say you hate the idea of banning any character, but saying someone else may have to be banned if he's banned is irrelevent. That will be its own discussion if it even happens which hasn't been demonstrated beyond being a good chance -- and even then total domination to the point of considering banning the second character hasn't been proven in the least.
Edit: If you want to talk about long term consequences, that is in fact what I'm trying to address: I see long term damage that won't be easily recovered from if MK remains on the scene too much longer. That's what most of this debate is about in fact, in one form or another -- exactly how much damage there is, how much worse it will get and how lasting it will be.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Of course it's hypothetical, but it's very logical.
I explained the reasoning very explicitly, Olimar and Pikachu, they're good characters, primarily held back by this one very bad match-up.
Naturally, characters that they counter will fall in standings if they suddenly become prevalent in the metagame, and being inherently good characters, with the sudden removal of this issue they will become significantly more prevalent in the metagame after the ban, assuming it happens.
Your analogy doesn't, mine does.
Your analogy involves you being lucky enough to not cause long term damage, mine explains what can happen if you can't consider long term consequences.
Not really. If we can't develop an acceptable critieria that only bans characters that are in fact warranted for a ban then this suggests that the character himself is not warranted for a ban, because he hasn't disinguished himself enough from the rest of the cast.
Though as far as I am concerned MK is banable, given my caveat of the need for significant additional testing, to make absolutely sure it's warranted. My issue here is not with the baning of MK per say, I am merely insisting that a responsable ban criteria be developed.
Simply put, I see no justification for believing that the damage caused will be greater then if we prematurely ban the character.
*sigh*
Your hand's on a lit burner, oops! But wait, if you take your hand off the burner you may have to go to the hospital, and you can't afford to pay the bills! Decisions, decisions.
Just take it one step at a time.
I see it as being nearly the same. However, I believe at the point of banning there will be some damage no matter when it happens. The difference will be that if he does need banning, doing it earlier will prevent more damage later. If it's delayed, more players will be lost and then those we may lose to banning him will be lost as well.
It does assume he needs to be banned. If he *doesn't* need to be banned my whole point falls apart entirely, but I haven't seen a great deal of evidence suggesting he's not closing in on the ban-worthy point.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
One step at a time gets you killed.
Long-term consequences are generally far more damaging then short-term.
*bolding added
That's exactly the issue here. Sure he seems banable at the moment, but without extensive testing, how do we know that he deserves banning?
We don't. Thus we must spend more time on the issue, making a rash decision and finding out that we banned a completely legitimate character is NOT constructive in this context.
Banning is a last resort, because it's a RARELY reversed measure, because once a character is banned, they almost completely disappear from the game as played by competitive players, occasional friendlies maybe, but those are playing to learn, and what utility is learning how to fight a character you will never see in tournaments?
For that reason I cannot accept a banning of MK at this point, he might seem deserving of it at this moment, but he has not held that spot long enough to be sure.
PS. Whatever happened to the timetable idea, that was the best idea the thread had...
Browny
Smash Hater
I think its about time people dropped this whole marth thing. he shouldnt even be mentioned in the same sentence as MK when you discuss whos ****** tournaments all over the place and forcing top players to dtop thier mains to use him.
Seriously? A first degree burn is worse than losing your hand and having expensive hospital bills? Who knew.
To spell it out: If you take your hand off the burner now, you'll probably escape with a first degree burn which won't even require a hospital visit. If you leave it on based upon the slim chance that you already have a burn that requires a hospital visit, the burn will only continue to get worse until you lose the hand completely.
Now, you may fail to get analogies, and you may fail to understand real life consequences, but I think you should just try to just argue with the idea the analogy represents rather than the analogy itself. It'll keep things clearer for everybody in the end.
[Edit] Sorry, that last bit came off harsher than I intended. I get surly when I'm tired. Leaving it up here since I already said it though
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
*bolding added.
That was what I was doing...
I was arguing with the rule "one step at a time", I did not even reference the analogy.
In that particular case the long-term and short-decision results were better in the same decision, therefore the analogy fails to actually oppose my argument, so there was no point in arguing against it. I therefore did not comment on it.
Get it?
It is relevant because he would be bannable under the same criteria, it is overly broad, and if a narrow enough criteria cannot be developed that is a useful distinction, then maybe he doesn't warrant a ban.
Both are important issues to consider.
ToxicWaltz
Smash Rookie
I'm sorry... I'm not understanding this problem with MK.. I've never really played against one who did a whole lot to me.. but from thinking Pit seems like a good counter. I've watched several videos of MK owning turnies and such.. seems he needs people to not be able to recover. Pit can recover better then well... anyone.. so that doesn't work... a good Pit can mirror shield some of MK's more powerful moves... though.. I'd be nice to know if Pit's >B has priority over MK's moves. Pit's arrow can mess up MK's recovery. Seems like Pit would be MK's counter.
Now.. I'm not a pro.. I don't claim to be.. I've never really played against any pros... I don't have all the god tact down... but I think I'm rather skilled for only playing against my friend and comps... this seems logical to me.. and I would like it if any one of the more experanced players out there would give this a chance and try it out against a good MK main.
Now.. I'm not a pro.. I don't claim to be.. I've never really played against any pros... I don't have all the god tact down... but I think I'm rather skilled for only playing against my friend and comps... this seems logical to me.. and I would like it if any one of the more experanced players out there would give this a chance and try it out against a good MK main.
- Status