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

[Master Raven]

burden of proof is on the person making the positive statement.

How does it also not fall on the person making the negative? No one could just say "X counters Y" without going into detail at least.

 

[Shark Week]

How does it also not fall on the person making the negative? No one could just say "X counters Y" without going into detail at least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

 

[hippyman69]

THIS IS DEDICATED TO ALL YOU 08'ERS.

Bear in mind i realise that i myself am an 08'er. However, this is ridiculous. You make me ashamed to be an 08'er even though ive spent 9 long years playing smash bros. I feel like your stupid is contagious. Just let this stupid thread die. There is CONSTANT BICKERING WHICH IS GETTING NOWHERE. No-one is going to ban meta-knight anytime soon. He is good yes, but just give it more time. The game has been out for less than a year. STOP F*CKING WHINING!!! I take it most of you arguing a ban do not play meta knight. So just take some more time to think about your options with your mains. LOSE MORE AND SEE WHY YOU LOST. If a much longer time has past and the situation is still the same, then ban okay?? But seriously, stagnating metagame???

You have freakin ages to develop it over time even with metaknight ****** at the top. its not like you have a dead line to meet with the meta game and the longer you leave meta knight unbanned the less you will find out. No. Its so unlikely that sakurai (who is a *** IMO) will make another smash game. So take your time ppl. stop fuggin crying. remember the days (some of you wont cuz ur brawl noobs) of smash 64?? Man, the balance there was seriously screwed for some chars. just chillax. seriously.

tl;dr just wait more plox b4 bannage and stop arguing. everyone is disagreeing and it'll just be a tug of war with no foreseeable winner.

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^Do you know why you fail?

 

[XienZo]

I actually believe this constant bickering is getting somewhere.

We're getting new ideas, like the time-table concept.

 

[CR4SH]

And so begins the ***gotry

Nice job making intelligent discussion.

I think this excludes you from being taken seriously. Honestly.

Would I like to see MK banned? Yes, I'd love it. Do I think it would make the game more fun? Yep, for sure.

Do I think a ban on MK is warranted, or even a good idea? Nope, not a bit. MK is entirely beatable, even if you do have to spend quite a bit of time figuring out exactly how. More importantly though, there are quite a few reasonable, intelligent arguments against an MK ban. I see it sort of like, "the burden of proof is on the state", if you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt, that MK should be banned, then most likely he shouldn't. I don't think anyone can.

The best argument I can find is that, to be on completely equal footing with someone that plays metaknight, you HAVE to play metaknight. Anyone that does not know how to play metaknight, is immediately at a disadvantage. There is no other character that this can be said for. (notice I didn't say, you can't win, I said you're at a disadvantage. i.e. uncompetitive)

 

[hippyman69]

^^Do you know why you fail?

Tell me why. i would like to know

 

[The Halloween Captain]

M2K once mentioned he thought the MK matchup against Lucario was 60:40 in Lucario's favor. Anyone know if this is true? Or is it an exagerration?

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^Because if you had read the first post, you'd see this is serious business

But seriously, read the first post.

That's also my last pic.



for now


!!!

 

[SkylerOcon]

Mario's makes MK mains think twice before using the Shuttle Loop. The newly found FIHL will scare MK mains from using the Tornado. The matchup isn't nearly unwinable, I assure you.

But my opinion remains the same. MK will never be banned. He's just not broken enough.

 

[hippyman69]

^^Because if you had read the first post, you'd see this is serious business

Yeah ive read it. and im with the OP in waiting. course its serious. all im saying is ppl just stop their ****ing whining and arguing. just wait it out. this thread really needs no more discussion as pretty much all the points for and against are out there and are just repeating themselves. its just beating a dead horse. thread has nothing left to give.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

M2K once mentioned he thought the MK matchup against Lucario was 60:40 in Lucario's favor. Anyone know if this is true? Or is it an exagerration?

Well? M2K is pretty good, but the Lucario mainers were a little sceptical. However, M2K is also comprehensive. Any thoughts?

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^Well, people will still be talking about Metaknight's matchups, how long is a reasonable timeline for waiting, what would constitute a ban at the end of said timeline, what would have to change to prevent a ban, ect. This thread was actually being very productive a few pages ago. You should also notice that the thread itself was created by a SBRoomer (as in, they are in support of this thread), so "letting it die" is not exactly what they had in mind from the beginning.

Well? M2K is pretty good, but the Lucario mainers were a little sceptical. However, M2K is also comprehensive. Any thoughts?

M2K may have just overreacted. I mean, wouldn't the Lucario mains be basically begging to have an advantage on MK?

If that is still his opinion then maybe he should clearly explain why he believes so, as the community as a whole does not see it that way.

 

[Shark Week]

i read a post m2k made, many months ago, stating his belief that captain falcon had high/top tier potential, citing various points that i don't remember anymore.

you can draw your own conclusions.

 

[RP`]

I disagree.
I think to an extent, it would.
Once MK is banned, people will start to see banning things as an acceptable way to "balance" the game.
"Snake's too strong!"
BANT
"CG's are CHEAP!(D3, Falco, Marf, etc)"
BANT

People won't say "Snake's too strong" and try to ban him. The difference between Snake and MK is MK has no hard counters or bad matchups. Only "neutral" ones that are ultimately in his favor. If Snake begins to dominate the tourney scene if MK is gone, you will see people maining/seconding DK, D3, Pikachu, Olimar, and ROB. Why? Because according to the matchup chart they are counters to Snake, so there is still a balance and you won't need to also main Snake to have the best chance of winning. Then if you want to counter Snake's counters, then you must learn to play a new character, so it is a never ending circle that comes down to who you want to be adept with. IMO that's what the competitive scene should be about: Mastering the characters... not having to main/second one specific character that everyone and their dogs also play. And for chain grabs, people have been playing around them for months already. I don't think it is really an issue anymore.

 

[AlexX]

it most certainly will. it is a well documented fact that many of the country's best players have dropped their old mains, most fairly high on the list, because they felt there was no point to playing anyone besides metaknight.

How does that prove that more characters will become tournament viable? If anything that just proves that overall viability won't change because people will remain playing upper-tier characters with MK gone.

 

[Shark Week]

How does that prove that more characters will become tournament viable? If anything that just proves that overall viability won't change because people will remain playing upper-tier characters with MK gone.

are you kidding?

EDIT: banning mk would necessarily lead to increase of representation for least one character, and probably more like ten, assuming every single mk player doesn't quit.

EDIT AGAIN: dark sonic said it better. i'm just appalled you couldn't see it yourself.

 

[Dark Sonic]

How does that prove that more characters will become tournament viable? If anything that just proves that overall viability won't change because people will remain playing upper-tier characters with MK gone.

The upper tier characters will see more play, and thus characters with advantages or even matchups against some of them will be more viable. Counterpicking will also become slightly more viable, because the opposing character would actually have disadvantagous matchups (except Marth, but he's also got a rediculous amount of even matchups, and a high learning curve to get to the point of even matchups). So you could main a mid tier character and second a high tier to cover your disadvantages, while not being able to completely rely on said secondary due to counterpicking.

Just sayin'

 

[Manic_1]

I agree that this needs more time. At least until the game has been out for a year. That said, even if someone does find a single counter. It would just boil down to everyone playing either MK or the counter. (at least this is what happens in games like Magic) and I would still constitute that as ban worthy.

 

[The Real Inferno]

I've read a few pages and if I see one more person say "Well Super Turbo is old and we haven't waited that long, Metaknight need mroe time!" I'm going to scream, because I'm pretty tired of ******* who managed to read Sirlin's articles, thinking they know anything about the Super Turbo meta. For the record there wasn't a "waiting period" for Akuma, he was banned so fast you could have missed it if you blinked. I too am really worried with the "Well wait a little longer" comments I see as the vagueness lends itself toward being repeated over and over. There does need to be a definite length of time if you're serious about reviewing a character for a ban. If the character really does need to be banned, not banning it early is just damaging the metagame as people waist time learning the character and then have to learn a new character or end up leaving because their main is no longer playable. Continually stalling a decision only to later ban their character isn't fair to them. I think there needs to be a very defined time and that at the end of that tmie SBR needs to make a definitive decision one way or the other so the community as a whole can move the **** on with it.

(forgive any typos I can't find my glasses)

 

[Steeler]

inferno without glasses?

AW FAWK

anyway, it's hard to set a timetable on it, but at some point people have to realize that the metagame right now is fairly stabilized anyway and little will change...i mean, dayum, the first tier list came out really quickly because we already know so much about this game.

 

[jiovanni007]

Anyway, the ban on MK may sound like a bunch of people johning at first, but when you look at it very closely you may see that it could be closer than you can imagine. We all know that MK is never at a disadvantage when he fights. We all know he has ridiculous tactics. We all know that he can die at 70~80%. We all know that he builds damage faster than [insert racially sensitive metaphor]. The fact of the matter is that Mk overcentralizes the metagame. MK may not be God tier material, but the fact is that he overcentralizes the metagame. I said the same thing twice in a row because Mike Jones does it and I for some reason remember a lot of his lines and I happen to hate his guts, hopefully everyone remembers that sentence if nothing else.

So here are the examples. At one time, people realized that Mk was frickin good. At one point in the metagame of Brawl, Snake could successfully counter MK to a great extent and actually led him in the tournament standings because of this. No other characters were able to beat MK, so Snake usage skyrocketed since he could beat MK. Thus MK single handedly forced the smash community to use Snake more. Eventually, MK players found a way to successfully counter Snake consistently to the point that MK is now a Snake counter. Without Snake to counter MK, he quickly shot up the tournament standings. Snake is beginning to normalize with the rest of the top and high tier characters (slowly, but surely) and MK is still rising with no sign of slowing.

The point here isn't that MK is just so overwhelmingly overpowered, considering he does lose to characters that aren't MK. His matches aren't 100:0, he does have mostly 70:30 and 60:40 matches. This means that he is beatable, but almost every character is at a distinct disadvantage. So again MK is going to overcentralize the metagame by forcing players to pick certain characters for fear that they will be forced to fight against a Meta Knight. A character doesn't have to be that powerful to merit a ban, but as long as it is powerful enough to consistently dismantle the rest of the competition, it is banworthy.

Even if one counter is discovered, then the entire Brawl metagame will eventually be based on MK and his counter.

copy/paste from my regional thread

/endtopic

 

[AlexX]

are you kidding?

EDIT: banning mk would necessarily lead to increase of representation for least one character, and probably more like ten, assuming every single mk player doesn't quit.

EDIT AGAIN: dark sonic said it better. i'm just appalled you couldn't see it yourself.

You both seem to not be understanding me.

What I'm saying is that banning MK will have no previously unviable characters magically become viable. Ones like Ganondorf, Jigglypuff, and Captain Falcon suck too much for the loss of MK's existance to make any difference on their viability. You can try to say the possibility of CP-ing makes more characters viable, but the characters that are not viable right now don't really counterpick anybody, they're just plain terrible.

With MK gone, yeah, we'll be seeing more Snake, Dedede, Falco, and G&W, etc. players, but we won't be seeing any more Power Suit Samus or Link players, because they're still bad characters.

 

[Steeler]

You both seem to not be understanding me.

What I'm saying is that banning MK will have no previously unviable characters magically become viable. Ones like Ganondorf, Jigglypuff, and Captain Falcon suck too much for the loss of MK's existance to make any difference on their viability. You can try to say the possibility of CP-ing makes more characters viable, but the characters that are not viable right now don't really counterpick anybody, they're just plain terrible.

With MK gone, yeah, we'll be seeing more Snake, Dedede, Falco, and G&W, etc. players, but we won't be seeing any more Power Suit Samus or Link players, because they're still bad characters.

I don't think anyone is arguing that MK is the only reason that Old Manondorf, Jiggles, Phat Samus, Oldie Link, and Falcown aren't placing in tourneys. They aren't bottom tier because MK beats them.

This applies more to characters like...Ice Climbers, for example. Everyone knows ICs have ridiculously godly chain grabs. And that a good IC will make you lose a match if you let him grab you three times. So why aren't we seeing more IC's in tourneys?

META KNIGHT.

According to Dangr's matchup chart, MK is ICs only really bad matchup, because he outranges ICs and can separate them well. And since there are so many MKs, ICs mains aren't very viable in tourneys because you are bound to run into 2 or 3 MKs on your way to the top of a quality tournament. So now ICs have to pick up a secondary to battle these MKs, which, as the OP suggests, is often MK himself.

 

[infomon]

This applies more to characters like...Ice Climbers, for example. Everyone knows ICs have ridiculously godly chain grabs. And that a good IC will make you lose a match if you let him grab you three times. So why aren't we seeing more IC's in tourneys?

META KNIGHT.

I think you're wrong. Although MK might very well be the IC's worst matchup, that's not what's stopping ppl from maining the ICs. It's because they have the hardest learning curve in the game, they take an excrutiating amount of time to get used to.... and they don't have many fanboys cuz they're not even from a legitimate game. Noone chooses not to main ICs because of MK being an unmanageable counter.

If MK wasn't around, we'd just see a few more Snakes/Falcos/D3s dominating the tournament scene. On that note, it's not exactly like those characters aren't perfectly viable tournament characters right now. MK is hard to beat, and is overpopular because he's the best, but a bunch of other characters continue to prove themselves to be viable.

 

[salaboB]

I think you're wrong. Although MK might very well be the IC's worst matchup, that's not what's stopping ppl from maining the ICs. It's because they have the hardest learning curve in the game, they take an excrutiating amount of time to get used to.... and they don't have many fanboys cuz they're not even from a legitimate game. Noone chooses not to main ICs because of MK being an unmanageable counter.

Actually...

Super hard learning curve = tons of time to master.

Most popular character in the game being an extremely hard match = why bother?

You've got your work cut out for you if you really want to convince people that the ICs aren't being practiced in large part due to how many MKs are in every tournament.

 

[RazeveX]

Hmm... what a conundrum....

I know! How about everyone stops taking stupid pills? THAT'S A GREAT IDEA!

I'm sure you'll all think how biased this is from a coming Metaknight main (one of many), but the idea of banning any character is really really stupid...

This is how THE GAME WAS MADE. DEAL WITH IT. I'm sure everyone (even MK mains) would prefer it if it were completely balanced, but it isn't. If winning is your top priority and you don't care enough to actually try to get better with your main, then PLAY MK. If that makes you whine about how it ruins Brawl's metagame and causes everyone to play Metaknight, then DON'T. If you can't handle either of these, then GO PLAY ANOTHER GAME. It's that simple.

This thread may have had some merit when we were all in the dark, but now it's just embarrassing for the Brawl community. Lock it while you can, and maybe the shame of sooky Brawl players may stay partially hidden.



Lastly, I want to make it clear that i chose Metaknight way before Brawl released (or was even conceived). I'm just saying that to prevent some of the flames i will likely receive.



Lots of love,

RazeveX

 

[Jigglymaster]

Hmm... what a conundrum....

I know! How about everyone stops taking stupid pills? THAT'S A GREAT IDEA!

I'm sure you'll all think how biased this is from a coming Metaknight main (one of many), but the idea of banning any character is really really stupid...

This is how THE GAME WAS MADE. DEAL WITH IT. I'm sure everyone (even MK mains) would prefer it if it were completely balanced, but it isn't. If winning is your top priority and you don't care enough to actually try to get better with your main, then PLAY MK. If that makes you whine about how it ruins Brawl's metagame and causes everyone to play Metaknight, then DON'T. If you can't handle either of these, then GO PLAY ANOTHER GAME. It's that simple.

This thread may have had some merit when we were all in the dark, but now it's just embarrassing for the Brawl community. Lock it while you can, and maybe the shame of sooky Brawl players may stay partially hidden.



Lastly, I want to make it clear that i chose Metaknight way before Brawl released (or was even conceived). I'm just saying that to prevent some of the flames i will likely receive.



Lots of love,

RazeveX

This is coming from a MK main. Basically hes agreeing that MK is competley broken and you have to play him if you want to win but says he shouldn't be banned and that you should just deal with it. >________>
NICE, GG

 

[Snail]

This is coming from a MK main. Basically hes agreeing that MK is competley broken and you have to play him if you want to win but says he shouldn't be banned and that you should just deal with it. >________>
NICE, GG

^ This. xD

When something in the game makes it unplayable (not saying MK does, but bear with me) does the community just have to "deal with it" and continue playing a game that would be so much better without the broken element?

Exactly. MK doesn't completely kill the tournament scene, but he greatly reduces the number of viable characters, variety and fun. As more and more people start to play him because they're tired of losing because of an inherent disadvantage against an ever growing number of players... eventually the tournament scene will consist of about 90% Meta Knights.

The whole "removing an aspect of the game" argument is stupid. Meta Knight himself removes an aspect of this game, variety in character usage. We can lose one character in tournaments and play 15 others or continue playing the 5 characters that can actually win against MK. I'd go for the first option.

 

[GofG]

So basically you're calling the smash scene incompetent in general and saying they should make no decisions with regards to their game?

Not that I'm in favor of banning Metaknight....yet. But I'd say that it's more than resonable to just bring the idea up for debate.

The reason why we have a Smash Back Room is for people who are competent enough to make decisions regarding our game. THOSE PEOPLE are the competent players.

 

[Lord Viper]

I knew there would be another thread like this. -_-;

Anyways, Meta Knight I guess brings the hate around now, with the unlimted Down-B and his Basic-B spam to the max in all. But I don't know if that would make everybody happy though, I mean this would be the first Smash Bros game that they finally ban a chracter for having little to no match ups. Even though Meta Knight can be beat, I guess people have to try more harder to win I suppose, some might call it imposable if you face a really good Meta Knight player, well then again, my friend that main's Meta Knight stopped playing because he was thinking he might get banned in the first place. O_o

But over and all, Meta Knight is good, but not that good to the point that you can destroy anyone with out a sweat, so banning him would be crazy, but sadly it would make most of the tourney rounds more.... funner.

 

[RP`]

Hmm... what a conundrum....

I know! How about everyone stops taking stupid pills? THAT'S A GREAT IDEA!

I'm sure you'll all think how biased this is from a coming Metaknight main (one of many), but the idea of banning any character is really really stupid...

This is how THE GAME WAS MADE. DEAL WITH IT. I'm sure everyone (even MK mains) would prefer it if it were completely balanced, but it isn't. If winning is your top priority and you don't care enough to actually try to get better with your main, then PLAY MK. If that makes you whine about how it ruins Brawl's metagame and causes everyone to play Metaknight, then DON'T. If you can't handle either of these, then GO PLAY ANOTHER GAME. It's that simple.

This thread may have had some merit when we were all in the dark, but now it's just embarrassing for the Brawl community. Lock it while you can, and maybe the shame of sooky Brawl players may stay partially hidden.



Lastly, I want to make it clear that i chose Metaknight way before Brawl released (or was even conceived). I'm just saying that to prevent some of the flames i will likely receive.



Lots of love,

RazeveX

Nearly every popular multiplayer game (that is worth a ****) has waves of updates and fixes to help balance the game, instead of just playing the game it was originally made like the way YOU want. And why? Because almost no multiplayer game will ever be close to balance upon release. Nintendo isn't releasing any updates for SSBB, so at the moment the game is how the community makes it. So if the community thinks it will be better off fixing the game the way we want and it is also in our ability to do it, then why shouldn't we? Never mind if the game was being updated it will only be in the casual community's interest (who it was designed for). So if we wanted to play the game the way it was intended to be played, then we are obviously doing it wrong. We are talking about competition here... so our interests and Ninentdo's interests are obviously different.

 

[epic of DE]

Well...how about before any further arguements on whether MK should be banned or not why not do something close enough to an experiment?

Lets say we have two tournaments: Singles, standard stock, stage, and time for SBR

In one tournament MK is allowed to be used freely with no restrictions whatsoever.

In the second tournament MK is not allowed to be used at all so everyone is forced to use other characters.

Granted there are a large number of "what if" situations but lets assume that both have the same number of entries and the exactly same people that enter it and see what occurs and what differences there are to the matches and the overall matches.

Its a BIG hypothetical idea...

 

[Dark Sonic]

You both seem to not be understanding me.

What I'm saying is that banning MK will have no previously unviable characters magically become viable. Ones like Ganondorf, Jigglypuff, and Captain Falcon suck too much for the loss of MK's existance to make any difference on their viability. You can try to say the possibility of CP-ing makes more characters viable, but the characters that are not viable right now don't really counterpick anybody, they're just plain terrible.

With MK gone, yeah, we'll be seeing more Snake, Dedede, Falco, and G&W, etc. players, but we won't be seeing any more Power Suit Samus or Link players, because they're still bad characters.

Well, Sonic for one becomes a more viable character, wth his only really bad matchups being Metaknight, Wario, and Luigi. Now you're probably going to say "but he still has really bad matchups against Wario and Luigi!," to which I respond second DDD who beats them both and is not to technically difficult to maintain.

So I just gave an example of a low tier character that becomes more viable with Metaknight gone, thanks to the idea that you can hard counter his only hard counters.


By seeing more Snake/DDD/Falco/G&W players, you will also be seeing more Olimar/Pikachu/DK/ect characters that serve as hard counters to said charcters, while also seeing occasional mid/low tier character mains who second said hard counters to cancel their own characters' hard counters.

 

[infomon]

By your reasoning, anyone could second Wario and keep Sonic totally unviable. Wario destroys your Sonic main, forcing you to pick a high tier second, allowing them to pick their main. So you might as well just main that high-tier, since you'll inevitably have to be using it. I don't see how we're any further.

Sonic has a miserable time with Wario, and a very hard matchup with Falco and G&W afaik. Hmm, looks like a number of high tiers to me.

Edit: Hmm, I glossed over the details of the SBR counter-picking system which could work in Sonic's favour. But it still means Sonic's not reliable as a double-blind pick, so you'll have to pick your high tier second to start with anyway. Blah blah blah mmmmmeh.

 

[Fizzi]

So let's say the ban on MK is applied.

Casual player shows up at a tournament cause he's the best player among all his friends. He plays meta knight exclusively with his friends. We tell him he can't play meta knight. What does he do?

This I see as being a problem because there are a lot of casual smash players which aren't aware of the community.

 

[HeroMystic]

The point here isn't that MK is just so overwhelmingly overpowered, considering he does lose to characters that aren't MK. His matches aren't 100:0, he does have mostly 70:30 and 60:40 matches. This means that he is beatable, but almost every character is at a distinct disadvantage. So again MK is going to overcentralize the metagame by forcing players to pick certain characters for fear that they will be forced to fight against a Meta Knight. A character doesn't have to be that powerful to merit a ban, but as long as it is powerful enough to consistently dismantle the rest of the competition, it is banworthy.

Even if one counter is discovered, then the entire Brawl metagame will eventually be based on MK and his counter.

This is my greatest fear thus far, that not -all- characters will be able to counter Metaknight in due time, but only one will be able to. Therefore we'd be only seeing Metaknight and that counter.

The fact that the metagame revolves around trying to find ways to topple Metaknight (especially when it's going this for this long) is in fact a problem of itself. When the entire community is trying to defeat one character, that really starts to get you wondering if time spent trying to do this is entirely worth it.

You both seem to not be understanding me.

What I'm saying is that banning MK will have no previously unviable characters magically become viable. Ones like Ganondorf, Jigglypuff, and Captain Falcon suck too much for the loss of MK's existance to make any difference on their viability. You can try to say the possibility of CP-ing makes more characters viable, but the characters that are not viable right now don't really counterpick anybody, they're just plain terrible.

With MK gone, yeah, we'll be seeing more Snake, Dedede, Falco, and G&W, etc. players, but we won't be seeing any more Power Suit Samus or Link players, because they're still bad characters.

All characters are tournament viable, just some better than others. Just because they are bad doesn't mean people won't play as them. My three mains are considered suckage and I'll still go to tournaments with them, even if all three of them are considered horrible match-ups for Metaknights, which brings me to another point.

I main Mario, so his three nightmare matchups are Game and Watch, MK, and possibly DDD due to the infinite. G&W is fairly beatable if you play your cards right, and DDD is beatable if you avoid being grabbed. MK however, is like a guy with a rock fighting against a tank. Does this mean Mario is not tourney viable? No, but it'll be nearly impossible for him to win a tourney when there's 15+ Metaknights mains, and even more who second him as a "I'm geting my *** kicked" backup.

Banning MK isn't about tournament viability, it's about making the tournaments have more variety in characters and lessen one-sidedness, cause for the majority of excellent players playing other characters, their only problems are if their characters are prone to infinities (Mario, DK, some others) and really long chaingrabs (Fox).

This is how THE GAME WAS MADE. DEAL WITH IT.

Dumbest post in this thread yet.

Well...how about before any further arguements on whether MK should be banned or not why not do something close enough to an experiment?

Lets say we have two tournaments: Singles, standard stock, stage, and time for SBR

In one tournament MK is allowed to be used freely with no restrictions whatsoever.

In the second tournament MK is not allowed to be used at all so everyone is forced to use other characters.

Granted there are a large number of "what if" situations but lets assume that both have the same number of entries and the exactly same people that enter it and see what occurs and what differences there are to the matches and the overall matches.

Its a BIG hypothetical idea...

The problem with this is that it can't only be done once, but a few more times. First impressions can be faulty. Although, I do like concept as a whole.

EDIT

Casual player shows up at a tournament cause he's the best player among all his friends. He plays meta knight exclusively with his friends. We tell him he can't play meta knight. What does he do?

I'm sure if a casual Smash player goes into a tourament, it'd be one that ignores SBR rules and probably allow items. Otherwise he's dumb for not checking the rules.

 

[infomon]

Fizzi: I'm glad someone finally brought that up. There is a real problem when the competitive scene for a game cuts itself off from normal people.. Disabling items is fine for sure, but "no items final destination fox only" = lolfail. It's like the people that wanted the no-tripping-code as tournament standard..... No. That means people can't even be playing the right game unless they've become a part of the SWF community enough to know to apply the hack, have a copy of TP and the codes, etc. etc......

ok that was a rant, but still Banning a character is a bold step that has serious negative social consequences surrounding the game.

I know MK is an amazing character, but the tournament results still show a lot of non-MK characters winning and/or doing well. The people here calling for a timeline to ban MK.... that might be fine, but a deadline is meaningless unless we've determined the criteria for what should determine a ban. When I look at the tournament results, it doesn't indicate to me that the current situation merits a ban; instead it looks like MK-dominance could become a problem down the line, when the supposedly non-viable characters get essentially shut out of competition. Right now it just looks like MK is the best character, and an enormous amount of scrubs main him for that reason, while a diverse slew of characters continue to perform admirably.

Edit: HeroMystic's post beat me here lol. Also,

I'm sure if a casual Smash player goes into a tourament, it'd be one that ignores SBR rules and probably allow items. Otherwise he's dumb for not checking the rules.

No. I was playing Melee for years amongst various social circles, before I ever observed or entered a tournament. Items were usually off because it became clear, even to scrubs, that they interfere too much with the actual game. The no-items convention existed outside of the SBR-style tournament scene.

Many people don't join the tournament scene until later in the game's life. It's very possible that some of the best Brawl players we'll ever have haven't even started playing the game yet. Picking the rules too early (both stage and character bans) just pushes these people away from our community, because we're the ones playing in a bubble with arbitrary rules. ie. we become the scrubs.

Edit: (moar) When I showed up for my first tournament, I had only seen the rules the day before. I was like, "oh neat, no items, strange to see so many stages are banned, and not PokeFloats. Oh well." If the rules had said "Ice Climbers are banned" I would have said WTF is this BS and left.

 

[Fizzi]

That is where I was going with that infzy, thank you for elaborating . I also believe that the quote in the OP has flaws.

Mario has a nearly unwinnable matchup against MK (or so I hear), so I need to use a secondary to take care of MK. But who do I pick up? Snake? No, MKs have learned how to beat all but the best Snakes out there. G&W? No, he still doesn't do great against MK. DDD, Falco, ROB? Nope, one of their worst matchups is MK right now. So I have to pick the one and only character that can handle MK: MK himself.

This here, is precisely the problem. You are looking for a character that does "great" against meta knight. Then you go on to say that MK can handle MK, you say "can handle" because saying "does great" does not make sense. All dittos are inherently 50:50, both players have an equal chance of winning and so the better player will, in theory, win. Snake is close to even with MK. Diddy is about the same. So even though it may not be completely true, let's just say they have 50:50 matchups with MK. If that's the case... choosing them against MK is just as good as choosing MK.

And that's when I discover that my MK, a character I only recently picked up, is better than my Mario in every possible situation. Soon I just stop playing Mario altogether because it is so much simpler and more effective to just play MK.

This would happen in any situation even similar to this and cannot be used as an argument for banning MK. Let's say I'm once again a mario main. Let's say mario does very bad against DK (I don't know if this is actually true, but just accept it for now). In order to beat DK, I pick up marth (let's say he does well vs DK). I practice to get my marth good enough to beat DK. I then start to notice that my marth does better or just as well in almost all matchups. This is because marth is better than mario. This will happen in almost any situation of someone going to a character which is higher on the tier list and cannot be used as an argument for banning MK.

Snake? No, MKs have learned how to beat all but the best Snakes out there.

Wait? So someone playing snake will beat someone playing meta knight if the snake player is better? Tournament results still show, that just because a ton of people are playing meta knight.... Meta knight is not winning all tournaments. MK is hard to beat. The players winning tournaments with other characters, clearly can beat MK. The OP itself stated that it is only talking about the top level. If MK really was deserving of a ban, don't you think that top MK players should be close enough in skill to the top players playing other characters that would make a top MK player win every event? I'm sorry, but I don't quite see that happening at this time.

 

[Sky`]

Ban Sonic. :3