The SBR's Official Position on Metaknight

[Kennahh]

Glad to see something from the BR.
Even more so that MK will stay on the recommended rules.
I would just hate to see where the metagame would go without MK driving it to keep pushing forward.

MK isn't pushing the metagame forward, he's actually hurting it, because no one cares about anything but the MK match-up.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

A large part of the reason why most people voted against the ban was that simply ban proponents either couldn't or wouldn't present clear criteria of what constitutes a bannable character.

Since pro-ban is asserting the brokenness of MK, they have the burden to demonstrate this. They must A: Present a set of criteria that can clearly and reasonably OBJECTIVELY determine that a character is "too good" (whatever that means); B: Convince people that these criteria are the "right" ones, i.e. that they are meaningful and appropriate; and C: Show that the tournament data fit their criteria for character bans.

As far as I and many others are concerned, we're barely past part A if at all. A big reason for that is that it comes down to differences in people's philosophy about competitive gaming. What constitutes 'ban-worthy' to one person may not to another. For some, simply being unfun is enough for a ban; for others, nothing short of taking 90% of top 8 places at large tourneys is enough. There are probably about as many ban criteria as there are SBR members, which is why this thing is so difficult to get a handle on, and I would venture to say that this is the main source of so much disagreement within the SBR; as has been stated it was about 70/30, which is not a trivial minority.

The main point I'm trying to make is that personal feeling isn't good enough. We need data, and we need to answer questions like "IF a character is banworthy, HOW would we know?" How can we take a bunch of data and assess the validity of banning the character? WHY do we want to ban a character? What are we ultimately hoping to achieve when all is said and done? How can we seriously consider a character ban without these questions answered? I am not satisfied with the answers that pro-ban people have posited to these questions, which is why I voted not to ban.

 

[brinboy789]

stuff about ban criteria

well, since we obviously dont have one, i try to compare to other games ban criteria...and apparently MK doesnt meet the other games ban criteria. but the pro-ban people go noooo other games are different so we cant really decide on a ban criteria

 

[The Real Inferno]

Other games don't have "ban criteria". Nobody has ever sat down for them and come up with a solidly defined set of rules for bans. They just either banned a character or didn't. It's usually pretty ****ed obvious when something needs to be banned or not. In the cases where something banworthy is not banned, that game dies a laborious death (SNK vs. Capcom: Chaos anyone?)

 

[brinboy789]

Other games don't have "ban criteria". Nobody has ever sat down for them and come up with a solidly defined set of rules for bans. They just either banned a character or didn't. It's usually pretty ****ed obvious when something needs to be banned or not.

well not ban criteria. more like since akuma was banned, we caa tell that if MK was @ akumas strength level, then he should be banned. he is among the same lines as Yun, from SF3, and Yun wasnt banned.

 

[pockyD]

if the criteria is "it's obvious", then the mere fact that it's up for "consideration" is reason enough to not ban it

 

[The Real Inferno]

Akuma is one of the most extreme examples of banworthiness to ever be using though and any comparison to him is almost unfair. He was a busted-*** boss character meant to be broken and hard to beat from the start. There are countless other characters much like (most of them property of SNK who has a habit of doing this to their games). I'm not a pro-banner, but I just don't like seeing people trying to force a comparison to Akuma or Yun or Old Sagat, or ****ing Zero or SSJ4 Gogeta even Kabal. The list goes on.

And since we brought up SF3:TS I'd like to point out that in my opinion Meta is much more like Chun Li if you take into consideration, ease of use and only one possible (and yet still arguable) bad matchup in Yun. Besides, I like Chun Li more, Yun is a ***got.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I think that it -should- be feasible to look at other sufficiently large gaming communities for their ban criteria. The supposed problem is that MK wins too many tournaments or whatever, so I should think ban criteria apply to any game as long as the tournaments are structured basically the same way, regardless of what the game actually IS.

To my knowledge, very few characters are banned because of outright brokenness. The standard example is Akuma in ST, but I don't think Akuma is the right standard, because he is WAY better than everyone else...it's not even remotely close. It just wouldn't be a very useful ban criterion if we held everything to the Akuma standard; I'd be suprised if anything ever approached him in another ostensibly competitive fighting game. So what else is there? I'm not a big expert in Guilty Gear XX, although I do TRY to play it well, but it's my understanding that in XX, Eddie is basically in a tier of his own, and in XX's time he took the majority of the top 8 places in major tourneys. Yet I heard nothing of discussions about banning Eddie. Now like I said I'm not an expert so the facts might not be 100% (and if anyone could correct me I'd appreciate it), but just as an example, as far as I can tell, MK has not reached Eddie's level of dominance, and there was no ban talk in that scenario.

 

[Overswarm]

A large part of the reason why most people voted against the ban was that simply ban proponents either couldn't or wouldn't present clear criteria of what constitutes a bannable character.

Since pro-ban is asserting the brokenness of MK, they have the burden to demonstrate this. They must A: Present a set of criteria that can clearly and reasonably OBJECTIVELY determine that a character is "too good" (whatever that means); B: Convince people that these criteria are the "right" ones, i.e. that they are meaningful and appropriate; and C: Show that the tournament data fit their criteria for character bans.

As far as I and many others are concerned, we're barely past part A if at all. A big reason for that is that it comes down to differences in people's philosophy about competitive gaming. What constitutes 'ban-worthy' to one person may not to another. For some, simply being unfun is enough for a ban; for others, nothing short of taking 90% of top 8 places at large tourneys is enough. There are probably about as many ban criteria as there are SBR members, which is why this thing is so difficult to get a handle on, and I would venture to say that this is the main source of so much disagreement within the SBR; as has been stated it was about 70/30, which is not a trivial minority.

The main point I'm trying to make is that personal feeling isn't good enough. We need data, and we need to answer questions like "IF a character is banworthy, HOW would we know?" How can we take a bunch of data and assess the validity of banning the character? WHY do we want to ban a character? What are we ultimately hoping to achieve when all is said and done? How can we seriously consider a character ban without these questions answered? I am not satisfied with the answers that pro-ban people have posited to these questions, which is why I voted not to ban.

I'd like to let it be known that I posted my criteria months ago and asked everyone to post their own criteria so we could at least see what was agreed on, was then ignored by the majority, told by others they would never post criteria, and the only anti-ban criteria was incredibly vague or would require ridiculous criteria like "Metaknight has to take all the money spots in every national tournament on a consistent basis", meaning he wouldn't be banned until the summer at the very least. The thread was then locked.

 

[brinboy789]

I'd like to let it be known that I posted my criteria months ago and asked everyone to post their own criteria so we could at least see what was agreed on, was then ignored by the majority, told by others they would never post criteria, and the only anti-ban criteria was incredibly vague or would require ridiculous criteria like "Metaknight has to take all the money spots in every national tournament on a consistent basis", meaning he wouldn't be banned until the summer at the very least. The thread was then locked.

well, OS, we cant have the head of the MK ban commitee write the ban criteria, can we?

 

[The Real Inferno]

I think that it -should- be feasible to look at other sufficiently large gaming communities for their ban criteria. The supposed problem is that MK wins too many tournaments or whatever, so I should think ban criteria apply to any game as long as the tournaments are structured basically the same way, regardless of what the game actually IS.

As I stated, there have never really been any set criteria for a ban. They just happen as things come along and seem to be constantly restructured to fit the game it applies to. I believe that the Ban criteria should be drafted up by a small committee of intelligent -NEUTRAL- players who have no stake in the matter. That means no MK mainers, no adamant pro-banners or adamant anti-banners.

 

[Sinz]

I'd like to let it be known that I posted my criteria months ago and asked everyone to post their own criteria so we could at least see what was agreed on, was then ignored by the majority, told by others they would never post criteria, and the only anti-ban criteria was incredibly vague or would require ridiculous criteria like "Metaknight has to take all the money spots in every national tournament on a consistent basis", meaning he wouldn't be banned until the summer at the very least. The thread was then locked.

New Mexico still supports you Overswarm.

1 out of 50 states banning MK still :/

1 out of 50 states happier
1 out of 50 states at a disadvantage against all of the other states :/

 

[Overswarm]

well, OS, we cant have the head of the MK ban commitee write the ban criteria, can we?

You're right. I should probably have told everyone to post their ban criteria and look for things that were synonymous across all viewpoints and use that as a starting point. My bad.



What's your criteria, Inferno?

 

[The Real Inferno]

I'm working at the moment, but if you would really like to hear my own personal ban criteria, I wil gladly provide it in a couple of hours. Though I still stand by that any single person's ban criteria is obviously inherently flawed.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I'd like to let it be known that I posted my criteria months ago and asked everyone to post their own criteria so we could at least see what was agreed on, was then ignored by the majority, told by others they would never post criteria, and the only anti-ban criteria was incredibly vague or would require ridiculous criteria like "Metaknight has to take all the money spots in every national tournament on a consistent basis", meaning he wouldn't be banned until the summer at the very least. The thread was then locked.

You've been at this for months now, and you're determined if nothing else; you don't try once and then give up, so I don't really buy your complaint above. I might agree that taking 100% of money spots for 6 months straight in large tourneys is probably over the top (but if they really can back that position up with consistent logic, who are we to call it ridiculous?), but thanks to the politicizing of the argument, which we all know who is largely responsible for, instead of us all trying to figure out what the 'right' answer is, the burden of evidence card has been forced on those who would ban. It is their onus to come up with the criteria, and other people's inability to come up with ones that satisfy them IN NO WAY absolves them from this. I can't speak for everyone else but I've been harping on criteria from the beginning and have tried to force the issue multiple times. Edrees made some good points but ultimately I don't think that line of questioning led anywhere. So I'm still waiting to have that discussion, myself.

 

[TheWaft]

ah. so sad. I was really hoping MK would be bad. But, ya don't get everything you want eh? Seriously though, i cannot play against him for my life.

 

[Overswarm]

You've been at this for months now, and you're determined if nothing else; you don't try once and then give up, so I don't really buy your complaint above. I might agree that taking 100% of money spots for 6 months straight in large tourneys is probably over the top (but if they really can back that position up with consistent logic, who are we to call it ridiculous?), but thanks to the politicizing of the argument, which we all know who is largely responsible for, instead of us all trying to figure out what the 'right' answer is, the burden of evidence card has been forced on those who would ban. It is their onus to come up with the criteria, and other people's inability to come up with ones that satisfy them IN NO WAY absolves them from this. I can't speak for everyone else but I've been harping on criteria from the beginning and have tried to force the issue multiple times. Edrees made some good points but ultimately I don't think that line of questioning led anywhere. So I'm still waiting to have that discussion, myself.

I asked for criteria BEFORE I was instructed to just take it to the public.

 

[Deleted member]

I'd like to let it be known that I posted my criteria months ago and asked everyone to post their own criteria so we could at least see what was agreed on, was then ignored by the majority, told by others they would never post criteria, and the only anti-ban criteria was incredibly vague or would require ridiculous criteria like "Metaknight has to take all the money spots in every national tournament on a consistent basis", meaning he wouldn't be banned until the summer at the very least. The thread was then locked.

really? We've been over this before. I wasn't vague at all.

Reasons that a character should be banned:

1. Breaks standard gameplay. Character does not adhere to the fundamental mechanics that determine how you would play the game with any other given character exempt from this category. This is why Pokemon banned Wobufett, if you're looking for a functional example. In essence, this character "breaks" game play, which is where we get "broken". It is coincidental that breaking game play usually leads to an unbeatable character, but that's not the case. I You could say that Melee Ice Climbers are "broken" because you can only grab one at any given time, but it's such a stretch that no one really cared.

2. Character is unbeatable. Character has no opposition for whatever reason. This is best conveyed by the Akuma example. Metaknight is nowhere near this definition of unbeatable. I don't mean like "I'm a smasher I can't beat MK waaaa!" I mean more like no matter how talented you are, you are simply not going to physically be able to beat this character. It isn't happening, regardless of skill.

Only one category of the above two must be met. I can't think of any examples where both happen anyway.

Reasons that a character should not be banned:

1. Over-centralization. The character is heavily played. I don't really see how this is a relevant argument at all. People will play to win, and you want to punish that by banning the best character? Of course the best character is going to be played the most often in a competitive community that encourages "playing to win" where the most common line at any tournament is "no johns". Even if 80%+ of smashers played MK, punishing the most logical choice for playing to win will kill the game's competitive spirit more than said character will.

2. Lack of counters. Tons of competitive games in every genre have games and characters without counters. Why are we the only community to have problems with it? At least if MK's worst match was 75/25 in his favor, it would be borderline close enough to refer to "unbeatable character" argument in favor of banning him. Metaknight has shown to have several close matches, even if he doesn't have any counters. These characters are debatable, but my list has Snake, DDD, GAW, Diddy, DK, and Pikachu as decently even matches for Metaknight.

Which comes to my next point. What are tournaments really measuring? I have always felt that tournaments measure the best player through a combination of things- consistency, character choice and mastery, metagame and familiarity with current trends. Are we such poor players that we look for a counter rather than choosing a character on equal terms to fight MK? Why don't players look for even characters and try to best the opponent? Shouldn't the better player win anyway? I have seen several people pick up a new character to fight Metaknight, but I've seen many, many more complain that he has no counters and give up.

3. Makes other characters not viable. This is exactly how tiers work. Characters are higher tier because they are expected to win more. If they don't, they fall on the next tier list. This is why a tier list should strive for current accuracy and be updated constantly to retain value. Higher tier characters win because they beat lower tiered characters. This is exactly how a competitive game should function, we should not aim to punish this unless, again, said character falls into the "unbeatable" category. Metaknight does make some characters not viable. They were simply never meant to fight him, and he counters them. This is not because of Metaknight as a character, but rather the observable effect of a higher tiered character beating a lower tiered character.

However, if you're looking for characters that make others not viable, Falco and DDD do a much better job at it than MK can. At least MK, in his extremely one-sided matches, you can outskill him for the most part, player dependent. Some characters cannot ever beat Falco or DDD provided basic character knowledge. No matter how good your DK is, you're going to have serious problems beating a mediocre but basically knowledgeable DDD player.

Reasons that we should not or cannot ban MK:

1. Metaknight is neither unbeatable, nor breaks standard gameplay. Now, assuming his infinite cape stall was not banned, ok, that would offer some debate of some kind. As stalling is banned, this argument no longer exists.

2. We are not the full community. Smashboards can ban a character, and even allisbrawl might follow suit, but we simply don't carry enough weight to move the majority of players. Local tournaments or those not listed on smashboards will probably still have MK as legal regardless of our actions. We might be at the heart of the competitive community, but we don't comprise all of it.

3. It encourages tournament hosts to deviate from our recommended rule-sets. In a community this small, we don't want to divide our community from halves into thirds. Right now we already have a battle between Melee and Brawl tournaments. I really don't want to see Melee vs Brawl vs Brawk minus MK.

4. As long as people are still beating MK with other characters, our arguments against him don't hold any weight. A victory for non-MK nullifies every given reason so far to ban him.


------------------------------------------

tl;dr

Reasons to ban a character-
1. Character breaks game play.
2. Character is unbeatable.

I think I was quite clear and direct, and I've stood by these 2 criteria for quite some time now.

 

[swordgard]

really? We've been over this before. I wasn't vague at all.



I think I was quite clear and direct, and I've stood by these 2 criteria for quite some time now.

Hmm, sorry but metaknight does break gameplay in a few ways. All of his ground based move bypass any sort of priority, which makes it that as long as you have more range you will win any clash. This is not the case for any other character. Tornado works the opposite, its one of the few moves that can clank up in the air(also with upbs after attack), which actually was made so that every other move had no priority or very little in the air(remember that in the air there usually is no priority system, its who touches the other first that wins)

EDIT: Yes i am pro ban, but this is not the reason why i am posting this. I just want facts to be straight and precise.

Double edit: Akuma is beatable, but you had to be over skilled to dodge his comboes. Your second ban criteria is either too vague or too harsh.

 

[SirroMinus1]

ah. so sad. I was really hoping MK would be bad. But, ya don't get everything you want eh? Seriously though, i cannot play against him for my life.

I was hoping MK would be bad too =/

 

[Deleted member]

extreme range and priority are top tier attributes. They do not break game play. Akuma had something like this for his fireball. It was amazing, and specified characters could not ver, ever beat it. But this isn't why he was banned. Akuma was banned because he fit the OTHER criteria of being unbeatable, NOT because he broke game play.

Breaking game play would be like removing free movement, disabling controls, eliminating basic structures such as DI, etc. Removing the player's ability to play the game in any means. Metaknight actually has this in the form of the Infinite Cape glitch, which was swiftly banned for that very reason.

This is also the basis for my argument as to why Wobbling should be banned in Melee, as it is functionally similar to putting your controller down. There is no means of self defense once you are grabbed.

edit:

Akuma is beatable, but you had to be over skilled to dodge his comboes. Your second ban criteria is either too vague or too harsh.

Just a reminder, all theoretical smash scenarios assume that both players are the best possible skill level that we can observe from our most recent competitive play. This let's us examine the debate at hand ceteris paribus, rather than losing focus and attributing claims to possible 3rd party causes, such as a skill gap.

 

[swordgard]

extreme range and priority are top tier attributes. They do not break game play. Akuma had something like this for his fireball. It was amazing, and specified characters could not ver, ever beat it. But this isn't why he was banned. Akuma was banned because he fit the OTHER criteria of being unbeatable, NOT because he broke game play.

Breaking game play would be like removing free movement, disabling controls, eliminating basic structures such as DI, etc. Removing the player's ability to play the game in any means. Metaknight actually has this in the form of the Infinite Cape glitch, which was swiftly banned for that very reason.

This is also the basis for my argument as to why Wobbling should be banned in Melee, as it is functionally similar to putting your controller down. There is no means of self defense once you are grabbed.

I am sorry, i didnt say he had extreme priority on the ground. He has ultimate priority. Nothing EVER clashes. Thus he breaks the basics of gameplay on the ground. Basically its like removing any point to many of the attacks in the game. You render them useless because as long as he outranges he also outpriorize, which isnt the case for any other character.

 

[SirroMinus1]

Hmm, sorry but metaknight does break gameplay in a few ways. All of his ground based move bypass any sort of priority, which makes it that as long as you have more range you will win any clash. This is not the case for any other character. Tornado works the opposite, its one of the few moves that can clank up in the air(also with upbs after attack), which actually was made so that every other move had no priority or very little in the air(remember that in the air there usually is no priority system, its who touches the other first that wins)

EDIT: Yes i am pro ban, but this is not the reason why i am posting this. I just want facts to be straight and precise.

Double edit: Akuma is beatable, but you had to be over skilled to dodge his comboes. Your second ban criteria is either too vague or too harsh.

Many Arcades reprogrammed there Arcade machines so akuma wouldn't be playable he was just all around to broken. And i doubt any great player would lose with him. if not in a mirror match/ditto

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I asked for criteria BEFORE I was instructed to just take it to the public.

Well great, but that doesn't change the situation any. And IIRC the thread was locked to make for the consolidated MK thread, not for any sort of disregarding of your posts. It was locked and the new one opened on the same day. So I must call no johns on that. Don't think I'm singling you out personally, I've taken issue with proposed ban criteria from people on both sides of the debate. I don't like the criteria you brought up because they aren't very well-defined and subject to interpretation. I'm not suggesting we go back and debate THOSE criteria, I think it would be better to start over. However this thread is not the place; my post initially was simply to explain the no-ban votes, or at least my take on it.

 

[NinjaLink]

I am sorry, i didnt say he had extreme priority on the ground. He has ultimate priority. Nothing EVER clashes. Thus he breaks the basics of gameplay on the ground. Basically its like removing any point to many of the attacks in the game. You render them useless because as long as he outranges he also outpriorize, which isnt the case for any other character.

I mentioned this before. His attacks doesnt clash. Only his glide attack clashes and his tornado at times. His glide attack clashed with ikes Fsmash lmao. The sword itself is invincible.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Wobbling itself isn't a fair comparison, because of the comparison of scale. Wobbling, in all honesty, affects less than 1% of competitive Smash players because IC mains are so rare to begin with. The debate over wobbling, in my opinion, was an existential debate over the nature of competition, because practically speaking, the decision to either ban or not ban wobbling has no real affect on tournament outcomes. The only IC player to win a regional/national tournament in 2007 was Chu Dat, and that was at a tournament where wobbling was banned.

I've said this before, but I think the debate over Metaknight really speaks to deeper and more basic problems with Brawl, both the game and the community.

 

[Asdioh]

I am sorry, i didnt say he had extreme priority on the ground. He has ultimate priority. Nothing EVER clashes. Thus he breaks the basics of gameplay on the ground. Basically its like removing any point to many of the attacks in the game. You render them useless because as long as he outranges he also outpriorize, which isnt the case for any other character.

*waits for a response to this*

If I'm hearing you right, Meta Knight's sword is basically better than any other sword character in the game, not necessarily in range but 100% in priority?

 

[Deleted member]

I am sorry, i didnt say he had extreme priority on the ground. He has ultimate priority. Nothing EVER clashes. Thus he breaks the basics of gameplay on the ground. Basically its like removing any point to many of the attacks in the game. You render them useless because as long as he outranges he also outpriorize, which isnt the case for any other character.

If he had ultimate priority, would not the players just abuse that and always win? We can observe that this is not the case. You are bending my criterion to fit your definitions when they do not.

edit: ZSS side B.

edit 2:

Wobbling itself isn't a fair comparison, because of the comparison of scale. Wobbling, in all honesty, affects less than 1% of competitive Smash players because IC mains are so rare to begin with. The debate over wobbling, in my opinion, was an existential debate over the nature of competition, because practically speaking, the decision to either ban or not ban wobbling has no real affect on tournament outcomes. The only IC player to win a regional/national tournament in 2007 was Chu Dat, and that was at a tournament where wobbling was banned.

I've said this before, but I think the debate over Metaknight really speaks to deeper and more basic problems with Brawl, both the game and the community.

While you are right, I am addressing the theory behind it, not the popularity.

 

[NinjaLink]

If he had ultimate priority, would not the players just abuse that and always win? We can observe that this is not the case. You are bending my criterion to fit your definitions when they do not.

edit: ZSS side B.

her side b does clash at times and the hitbox is weird. its like at both ends of the attack.

 

[Deleted member]

her side b does clash at times and the hitbox is weird. its like at both ends of the attack.

if MK had ultimate priority, the side B would never hit because (insert metaknight attack here) would beat it. we can observe this to not be the case.

 

[Asdioh]

if MK had ultimate priority, the side B would never hit because (insert metaknight attack here) would beat it. we can observe this to not be the case.

Isn't that because it has a longer range?

I could be wrong, but I think Swordgard basically meant that Meta Knight's ftilt, fsmash, dtilt, dsmash, and whatever else you wanted to argue goes THROUGH every attack, and never clashes.

I don't know if this means that he will trade blows with someone, or always win. @_@

I might be understanding incorrectly, but that's what it sounded like.

 

[NinjaLink]

if MK had ultimate priority, the side B would never hit because (insert metaknight attack here) would beat it. we can observe this to not be the case.

i understand that but this case is kinda different. This is a range issue. ZSS Side B prolly has the biggest range period so of course he beats that. Its similar to GWs attacks. Priority up the azz but it either beats out most things or clashes. Problem is his range.

 

[Xyro77]

ignore.....

 

[Deleted member]

If we really wanted to stretch the meaning of ultimate priority, we could say that MK's rapid A is a wall of invincibility.

Obviously, the guy who posted that didn't mean it that way at all, but it still serves its purpose of refuting his argument. Trades are a common feature of this game. If MK had ultimate priority, trading blows would never happen.

If you want to dumb down the meaning as much as possible instead, you could say "sure, Metaknight has ultimate priority because his sword is a disjointed hitbox" which would be true, but it would also fit Ike, Link, Marth, Pit, and anyone else with a disjointed hitbox into his definition of broken.

Regardless of the degree, it doesn't work.

 

[Xyro77]

i understand that but this case is kinda different. This is a range issue. ZSS Side B prolly has the biggest range period so of course he beats that. Its similar to GWs attacks. Priority up the azz but it either beats out most things or clashes. Problem is his range.

zair is longer

New Mexico still supports you Overswarm.

1 out of 50 states banning MK still :/

1 out of 50 states happier
1 out of 50 states at a disadvantage against all of the other states :/

hey. I run TX. i might join you

 

[swordgard]

i understand that but this case is kinda different. This is a range issue. ZSS Side B prolly has the biggest range period so of course he beats that. Its similar to GWs attacks. Priority up the azz but it either beats out most things or clashes. Problem is his range.

See, this is what i mean. Metas sword do break the ground system. And fyi AZ, every meta will abuse this over and over. Why do you think you can actually go through snakes tilt with those? What it means is that it completely breaks the game, the problem lies within range. Stop deforming my argument, he bypasses the priority system only leaving in acount range. This means that as long as you can outrange(which he can agaisnt almost anyone), then he will win, regardless of priority.


Oh and umbreon, this doesnt apply to other sword chars, they can actually clash on the ground like every other attack,.

 

[NinjaLink]

If we really wanted to stretch the meaning of ultimate priority, we could say that MK's rapid A is a wall of invincibility.

Obviously, the guy who posted that didn't mean it that way at all, but it still serves its purpose of refuting his argument. Trades are a common feature of this game. If MK had ultimate priority, trading blows would never happen.

If you want to dumb down the meaning as much as possible instead, you could say "sure, Metaknight has ultimate priority because his sword is a disjointed hitbox" which would be true, but it would also fit Ike, Link, Marth, Pit, and anyone else with a disjointed hitbox into his definition of broken.

Regardless of the degree, it doesn't work.

Thats the thing. the other swordsman clashes. Just think about it. Have u ever seen mk clash? He doesnt. the only drawback to it is he cant stop projectiles so good. As for his rapid a. All the hitboxes arent in front of him at all times and u can hit him from above or someone with longer range.

 

[Asdioh]

See, this is what i mean. Metas sword do break the ground system. And fyi AZ, every meta will abuse this over and over. Why do you think you can actually go through snakes tilt with those? What it means is that it completely breaks the game, the problem lies within range. Stop deforming my argument, he bypasses the priority system only leaving in acount range. This means that as long as you can outrange(which he can agaisnt almost anyone), then he will win, regardless of priority.


Oh and umbreon, this doesnt apply to other sword chars, they can actually clash on the ground like every other attack,.

Can you give me some examples, or confirm that my previous post is correct?

I would give an example with Kirby vs Meta Knight, but you probably know other characters better so give an example of something you're more comfortable with.

 

[swordgard]

Oh and i forgot, actually UM said something which his totally false. He said youd never see trades with mk, such trades only happen when both chars hit each other at the same time, never will you see otherwise such trades .


Asdioh, i cant say for kirby upb since this sword is actually a disjointed AIR hitbox, where there is no priority and it is a b move. Otherwise, any attack kirby may do on the ground can be cancelled by a simple ftilt(even an fsmash) since mk outranges kirby and bypass his priority.

EDIT: Was that all it really took to prove how broken he is? I mean it took over 50 pages on the other thread and noone can provide me how bypassing the priority system on the ground isnt broken. And in the air he does the opposite and since priority values are low by default in the air since they arent usually used, he has near ultimate priority over there too(IE see tornado or the clang from afterattack upb)

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Who cares if MK has some high priority moves or not. Tourney results are the bottom line. Pointing out good things that MK has only explain what we ALREADY observe; they just explain why he is as good as he is. They don't all of a sudden make MK a more bannable character any more than proving a mathematical theorem suddenly makes it true in the universe.