The SBR's Official Position on Metaknight

[Browny]

fffff

how many times do i have to say, I want to hear what people think if this rule was applied to THEIR region. when you go to tournies, does it get annoying having every second person counterpick metaknight for 2 matches if they lose the first match? etc. whether my state needs this rule or not is irrelevant. TO says it, not a single tourney goer has had any complaints about the rule, it stays.

 

[infomon]

mokay, fair enough.

Effectively noone in my city plays MK so we actually try to encourage ppl to pick him up so we get the matchup experience, but noone really does lol. so idk

 

[Master Raven]

I don't care if they CP MK for their next two matches because clearly the better player is going to win. No one good should be losing to someone who randomly CPs MK.

 

[Browny]

What makes you think its random? I find it hard to believe that any competitive tourney goer doesnt at least use Metaknight sometimes. Hes not hard to learn, and everyone knows how to play him well after fighting against so many/watching tourney videos no doubt.

 

[The Milk Monster]

I like Australia's idea.
It seems odd, but it's unique, and it's keeping Meta from over running the scene.

 

[A New England Winter]

Aussie's idea is pretty cool, but it may only work within that region. I mean, yeah, there would be more stages, more viable characters, the entire tier list may or may not change, but we have to think of the next in like, Snake. I'm not 100% percent certain that Snake wouldn't just take over the scene. I mean, look at the Tier List, or the Character Rankings list. Numbers don't lie, gentlemen.

 

[BentoBox]

M2K. Snake is not taking over anything. D:

 

[Browny]

ugh

People, this idea has only been implemented in one city in australia. In the entire country MK is dominating the rankings list even harder than he is in the US in terms of how many x points ahead he is over 2nd and 3rd. Even if MK had to share all of his victories with snake to get 50% of the points, MK would still be in the lead by a considerable margin (since quite a few people use MK with a whole range of backups, not only snake). you can not apply the 'slippery slope' theory to this rule, since the numbers dont lie, MK will still be top tier and probably will never drop from #1 in the aussie rankings list even if this rule was applied to the entire countries tournaments

 

[Ninja]

i find it ridiculous that banning ANY character was up for discussion. work harder people, thats what makes games fun ya know and for the record, metaknight is not god

 

[DMG]

i find it ridiculous that banning ANY character was up for discussion. work harder people, thats what makes games fun ya know and for the record, metaknight is not god

With planking, he is god.

Without it, he's still the best.

lol.

 

[Surri-Sama]

Why not main MK, the same reason you dont main pikachu in Smash64, because you can win with others

 

[lordhelmet]

I love Meta Knight in the Kirby games lolz

But in Brawl he is just way to cheap to play -.-

 

[mimic_king]

i find it ridiculous that banning ANY character was up for discussion. work harder people, thats what makes games fun ya know and for the record, metaknight is not god

this

Spoiler

10chars

 

[Ninja]

besides its too early to tell who's good and whose not. let's just wait in see instead of complaining about it

 

[Smooth Criminal]

besides its too early to tell who's good and whose not. let's just wait in see instead of complaining about it

Where have you been for the past 8 or so months, bro? Seriously.

The game is not that young any more. In lieu of that, along with tourney data (compilation of Brawl's metagame) and hands-on time, I think it's safe to assume that MK's lofty position is going to remain that way for a lonnnnnng time.

But I do agree with you on the whole "DO NOT BAN" thing. It's stupid to ban MK.

And why is this topic still open?

Smooth Criminal

 

[da K.I.D.]

taboo should be a character

id main him in a heartbeat

 

[Vyse]

edit: oh yeah. it's funny b/c Australia doesnt really have any good MK's to worry about (or so I've heard), and they solved that issue before it had a chance to start.

Lies. When Australia's best players come together for a tournament, the MK's definitely come out to play. Queensland's best player (Amaterasu) is an MK player that has consistently placed first in every tournament we've held.

Kulla mains Snake and MK and gave Amaterasu a real run for his money ($300 to be exact) at Queensland Brawl Buddies last year.

Top 8 for that tournament went like this:

1: Amaterasu (Metaknight)
2: Kulla (Metaknight/Snake)
3: Hotdog (Metaknight/Kirby)
4: Triss (Olimar)
5: ACCELERATE (ROB)
5: Scrubs (Falco/Kirby)
7: Shaya (Marth)
7: OptimusBen (G&W)

Recently Amaterasu came up against Cobalt at the Melbourne Ranbat Finals and Cobalt beat him with Snake (Switching to GnW once, but GnW lost).

MK can be a very dominant character when Australia's best comes together, however, he's not dominating the scene.

Australia's most recent tournament, SummerSmash 09, held in Queensland came up with the following results:


1: Amaterasu [Metaknight]
2: Shaya [Marth/Falco]
3: Accelerate [ROB]
4: Jezmo [Wolf/Metaknight]
5: Hotdogs [Kirby]
5: Jei [Pit]
7: Moose [Ike/Marth/Pit]
7: Meteor Master [Ness] <---- I'm not f***in kidding. Insane.

As you can see, as time has progressed, players have gotten better, and there's a bit more variety there (Or at least, less MK).

Jamage's rule for South Australia may work for them, and it's probably necessary as there isn't that many players there. Personally, I don't think we'd ever see that type of rule spread to the rest of Australia.

It's ban, or don't ban.

Saying people win just because they main MK is an insult to the skill of some of these players.

Either way, East Coast Australia is dealing with the problem like America is. We're over the whole debate and we're moving on.

 

[PraKirJaq]

Granted, its long long past, but is it possible to see the original SBR debate? I'd like to see what the SBRers said about MK (matchups, etc). Just wondering.

 

[Hylian]

Granted, its long long past, but is it possible to see the original SBR debate? I'd like to see what the SBRers said about MK (matchups, etc). Just wondering.

Lol that would take you soooo long to read. It's over twice the length of this topic >_>.

 

[Justblaze647]

Lol that would take you soooo long to read. It's over twice the length of this topic >_>.

So is that a yes or a no?

 

[Surri-Sama]

There was a pod cast with some good debate material if I remember correctly, I dont remember where i seen it though >_<

 

[DanGR]

First off, I'm anti-ban as of now. I think it's too early to ban a character.

I'm starting to see the effects of MK in my state though. We started off with only 2 MK users. (We have a soft ban. People were heavily discouraged from using him in the beginning) Now we've got 3 MK mains, one of which abandoned their other character, and three others (inlcuding me) that are beginning to pick him up purely from the pressure of having to fight other MKs. For me, I main Olimar. I can handle MK with him, but it's considerably easier just to use MK in the matchup.

Thoughts?

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

First off, I'm anti-ban as of now. I think it's too early to ban a character.

I'm starting to see the effects of MK in my state though. We started off with only 2 MK users. (We have a soft ban. People were heavily discouraged from using him in the beginning) Now we've got 3 MK mains, one of which abandoned their other character, and three others (inlcuding me) that are beginning to pick him up purely from the pressure of having to fight other MKs. For me, I main Olimar. I can handle MK with him, but it's considerably easier just to use MK in the matchup.

Thoughts?

This is what some of the pro-ban people think. It's easiest to fight MK with MK, so eventually everyone will pick him up as a 2ndary for when other ppl play MK, so everybody will end up playing MK, at least as a secondary. This will cause a lot more matches to be MK dittoes, so people didn't want this to happen, thus them wanting to ban it.

I don't think this will happen, because there will be who triumph over amazing MKs, and they will be the true elite

 

[DanGR]

Of course everyone isn't going to switch over to MK- just those that want to give themselves the best chance to win. There will always be the people that want to use different characters for whatever reason. End the end though, they'll find out that they're not winning as much as those who use MK and are on the same skill level. Meh...

 

[KevinM]

Why not main MK, the same reason you dont main pikachu in Smash64, because you can win with others

Coming from Surri whom mains Pika

 

[Surri-Sama]

Coming from Surri whom mains Pika

lol you butt, my point is there are many people who don't main pikachu or Kirby (btw the Kirby of smash64 is the EXACT same as MK) and still win tourneys, tis fact!

 

[Shankyrhodes]

Does not compute.

 

[mimic_king]

Another man down, banned so soon. Why do people even join if they're just going to post something stupid?

 

[infomon]

Another man down, banned so soon. Why do people even join if they're just going to post something stupid?

It's advertising spam. He was a bot.

 

[Jigglymaster]

lol you butt, my point is there are many people who don't main pikachu or Kirby (btw the Kirby of smash64 is the EXACT same as MK) and still win tourneys, tis fact!

SSB64 is so Balanced its not even funny. Isai can beat a pro pikachu with Link if he wanted to.

SSB64 shouldn't be compared to brawl at all. SSB64 tier list is basically pointless.

 

[mimic_king]

SSB64 is so IMbalanced its not even funny.

Fixed. I agree that ssb64 shouldn't be compared to brawl, but Isai could beat ANYone. Using him doesn't prove anything. ssb64 was the most imbalanced game ever.

 

[Xzax Kasrani]

dude r u dumb any character could win in that game(maybe not samus but c'mon XD)

 

[mimic_king]

throwing someone was so overpowered. kirby was freakin cheap. everything in that game was so powerful. this all = IMBA

 

[adumbrodeus]

64 actually had a good philosophy, break everyone. If everyone's broken, nobody is broken.

The problem? They forgot to break a number of characters (such as Link) while Pikachu (and to a lesser degree Kirby and Ness) proved immensely broken.

It's far from a paragon of balanced gaming.

 

[eet]

i think it's safe to assume that the entire smash series is broken...

 

[mimic_king]

64 actually had a good philosophy, break everyone. If everyone's broken, nobody is broken.

The problem? They forgot to break a number of characters (such as Link) while Pikachu (and to a lesser degree Kirby and Ness) proved immensely broken.

It's far from a paragon of balanced gaming.

...i'm just going to assume that you're saying ssb64 is imba. or you can explain in simpler terms.

 

[metaXzero]

IIRC, 64 had such a high hitstun that 1-hit could equal 1 stock for alot of the cast against each other (ignoring Samus who can't really combo). While Pikachu and Kirby are clearly better then everyone, even they are not immune to being comboed to death.

 

[mimic_king]

theoretically no one is immune to being comboed to death. by certain characters, maybe, but every character has at least one character that can combo them to death. im still trying to find out if there is one character who can combo everyone to death. probably fox in melee.

 

[adumbrodeus]

...i'm just going to assume that you're saying ssb64 is imba. or you can explain in simpler terms.

I'm saying that the balance philosophy was make everyone broken so nobody was broken (cause if everyone is immensly powerful at about the same level then nobody is much better then anyone else, aka balance).

Certain characters just didn't end up strong enou however, and the characters that weren't strong enough were absolutely screwed against the better characters.

That means it's imbalanced.

IIRC, 64 had such a high hitstun that 1-hit could equal 1 stock for alot of the cast against each other (ignoring Samus who can't really combo). While Pikachu and Kirby are clearly better then everyone, even they are not immune to being comboed to death.

0-deaths don't mean that something is unbalanced. It's more the distribution among characters. IF everyone can 0 death combo anyone off any hit, that's not inherently unbalanced. But it's also probably a bad idea from a design prospective.

 

[metaXzero]

^I never said 0-deaths=imbalance. I was actually believe what you said about 64's balance philosophy (overpowered combos spread across everyone=balance.

IIRC, Link's actually decent. It's just his recovery wrecks him harder then anything.