The SBR's Official Position on Metaknight

[Asdioh]

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)

So it's true then? Even if I use Kirby's Fsmash, which is an amazing move, and has great priority/range/possibly disjointed/I don't really know these things

...a well-timed Ftilt will beat it?

That's the biggest problem I have against Meta Knight. Essentially all the attacks that good Meta Knight players will use beat essentially all of Kirby's attacks. The only time I am hitting Meta Knight is when he is not attacking, because he is stupid enough to shield/dodge/etc.

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.

But like Umbreon said, we're discussing players at the HIGHEST level of skill. Just because Meta Knight doesn't win doesn't mean he's not worthy of a ban.

Anther won a tournament this Saturday because he's incredibly good, not because Meta Knight isn't broken.

 

[swordgard]

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.

Actually they do because they show how much more evil he could be if someone started abusing this simple fact. And i merely said this because he posted criterias, i proved that he met one on two.

EDIT: Gonna go to sleep soon, NL and overswarm, please take on for me XD. Im tired of arguing over something when people try to change my argument to fit their views, especially when they tell me I am the one doing it.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Actually they do because they show how much more evil he could be if someone started abusing this simple fact. And i merely said this because he posted criterias, i proved that he met one on two.

Nobody is going to ban based on theory and hypotheticals. What matters is how these things are used in tourneys. If he could be 'that much more evil,' then we should see the tourney results to back that up. Until then...

 

[NinjaLink]

im not voting for either side but the akuma relation pops up. Yes akuma was broken but in japan top players always beat ppl who use him. They still banned the character though.

 

[swordgard]

Nobody is going to ban based on theory and hypotheticals. What matters is how these things are used in tourneys. If he could be 'that much more evil,' then we should see the tourney results to back that up. Until then...

Alright, if you say so, im only addressing Umbreons own criteria, remember. And also, to see if something can be banned, we have to give reasons as to why he could be considered broken. This is done by describing its mechanics and understanding the process it goes through to see if it really is as broken as it looks in the views of everyone in a match. I think my post did exactly this.

 

[Deleted member]

even if MK did have ultimate priority (he doesn't), you also can't stretch that priority to be game breaking. It does not give an unbeatable advantage, nor does it violate core game mechanics. I don't see the issue.

 

[swordgard]

even if MK did have ultimate priority (he doesn't), you also can't stretch that priority to be game breaking. It does not give an unbeatable advantage, nor does it violate core game mechanics. I don't see the issue.

He does technically have ultimate priority on the ground, as long as he outranges he has total and complete priority. And fyi priority is a core mechanic in this game. It was made to decide who would win in the event of a clash on the ground, which mk directly bypasses and he has most of the time more range, which makes him ground breaking.

 

[da K.I.D.]

transcendent priority on all attacks except tornado (which clangs with and continues through most attacks) and g air (which clangs with everything since the sword is invincible) is pretty indicative of damage to core game mechanics...

 

[JesiahTEG]

Like I've said in other threads, if you haven't played M2K for a good amount of time, you have no reason to want MK banned as you haven't seen half of what the character can actually do.

 

[Deleted member]

He does technically have ultimate priority on the ground, as long as he outranges he has total and complete priority. And fyi priority is a core mechanic in this game. It was made to decide who would win in the event of a clash on the ground, which mk directly bypasses and he has most of the time more range, which makes him ground breaking.

I'll make you a deal then. Next tournament you go to, use MK and beat top (canadian?) players with only ground moves. Then I'll move for a ban, and I'll also be able to persuade others to do the same, and I'll have observable evidence to back up that argument.

 

[JesiahTEG]

We look so cool posting back to back in red names with Pokemon avatars.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Just to spite the Poke Center mods...

C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!

On-topic:

Can't say I didn't see this coming. Though I think MK should be banned, personally, he's still beatable. I think the main problem right now is that he's put every other character in the game with the mindset 'How can I beat Meta-Knight?' which is just putting the metagame at a standstill.

 

[NinjaLink]

get a life jesiah LMAO

 

[JesiahTEG]

get a life jesiah LMAO

You have a signature of a monkey humping a flying ball. C'mon now.

 

[NinjaLink]

You have a signature of a monkey humping a flying ball. C'mon now.

I <3 Jesiah just for this post

 

[null55]

get a life jesiah LMAO

Lol agreed.

 

[JesiahTEG]

NL we didn't even chill at the tourney. What was up with that?

 

[The Real Inferno]

Criteria for a ban. Oh yay. Hey look colors!

Introduction- Okay, since Overswarm kindly requested what my own personal criteria would be for a character ban in Smash here it is. The following criteria do not apply to Meta Knight in particular and are of personal opinion. They do not in any way reflect how other people feel nor should they be taken seriously by any one side. Criteria like these should be pooled from many neutral persons like myself if one were to make a serious list of objective criteria.

Purpose of a Ban- To increase the longevity of the tournement scene and bring the game to a level of balance that is both enjoyable for a majority and still competitive. Fun is, however, not the main purpose of a ban and merely a side perk. Comeptitiveness is first and foremost the main goal and therefore the criteria for the banning of a character should reflect such. The removal of "boss" characters is exempt from these rules due to being of an extra-ordinary nature and often times being purposefully broken in some fundamental way.

Rules- To be banned a character must meet the following requirements. Failure to meet these requirements should result in no ban being considered. Once a character has met these requirements a ban should take place. If a character meets some of these requirements but not all, a ban should not take place. All requirements must be met simultaneously for a ban to be conclusively justified. Judgement via the criteria should not be passed by anyone previously holding stakes of personal gain in the event of a ban/not-ban. Bans should be overseen by an initially neutral party or be passed via a vote.

1. Character maintains a stranglehold on one third or more of tournament placings for a period of half a year or longer. One third is defined as the combined number of Top 8, 4, 2 and 1st place rankings as compared to those of other characters. One third is well within range to account for data skewing in one direction or the other.

2. Character wins (takes first place without previous agreement to split. In the event of an agreed finish, tournament finish is null and void as no conclusive data may be drawn) more than half of large scale/national tournaments. Large Scale tournaments are defined as tournaments from multiple states (3 or more) and consisting of over 90 entrants.

3. Character uniquely breaks a fundamental part of the process of tournament play. This is defined as the character is the only one doing this and no other character can. For example: This character cannot be counterpicked by stage, or this character cannot be counterpicked by any character, but all other characters can.

4. Banning of said Character does not cause any other character to immediately fit under rules 1-3. This is defined as a "slippery slope" in which banning of said character forces other characters to subsequentially be banned. If banning a character causes another character to become "broken" then the original character should not be banned. If another character already meets one of the first three rules before the banning of another character, then a ban may still be done. (Example: A new character meets rule 3 but not 1 and 2 until the first character is banned. The new character may be banned then)


Edited for color because Unbreon is totally racist!


Edit 2: Boss clause added.

Edit 3: Rule 4 expanded

 

[Deleted member]

Just to spite the Poke Center mods...

C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!

On-topic:

Can't say I didn't see this coming. Though I think MK should be banned, personally, he's still beatable. I think the main problem right now is that he's put every other character in the game with the mindset 'How can I beat Meta-Knight?' which is just putting the metagame at a standstill.

I play Ike, I want him banned too. I just refuse to vote to ban him unless I see something from him that ruins game play or makes him unbeatable.

I don't like MK at all, but I won't water down competitive play because he makes people go

 

[The Real Inferno]

Well there is my criteria for a ban. Please if I did not clarify something well enough let me know and I'll fix it to be better worded.

 

[Deleted member]

Well there is my criteria for a ban. Please if I did not clarify something well enough let me know and I'll fix it to be better worded.

looks good to me. I'd remove the nazi blue though.

 

[NinjaLink]

NL we didn't even chill at the tourney. What was up with that?

Idk. sicky-ness . T_T

 

[da K.I.D.]

@inferno

i like it but i have two things to say

1. number four should include two characters. because if there is 2 characters leagues above the rest than both of them should be banned because having only two characters does not make for good competition. i could also bring up SvC2 and say that there were 4 boss characters in that game but i wont.

2. people are just going to say that all of your criteria are based on popularity, i dont think they are, im just sayin...

 

[BrawlLover]

well if the sbr says it, i agree with it, it makes sense guys

 

[The Real Inferno]

looks good to me. I'd remove the nazi blue though.

Racist fine fine....

 

[Asdioh]

I'll make you a deal then. Next tournament you go to, use MK and beat top (canadian?) players with only ground moves. Then I'll move for a ban, and I'll also be able to persuade others to do the same, and I'll have observable evidence to back up that argument.

He was saying ground vs. ground. Obviously an aerial is going to beat a forward tilt.

But then again, MK is god mode in the air too

We look so cool posting back to back in red names with Pokemon avatars.

Except Umbreon is the coolest pokemon ever, whereas I don't even know wtf yours is since the pokemon games stopped being cool after Gold/Silver >__________>

I suppose that's a burn, sorry if it is ^_^

I think the main problem right now is that he's put every other character in the game with the mindset 'How can I beat Meta-Knight?' which is just putting the metagame at a standstill.

It is pretty frustrating when I spend most of my time thinking to myself "How do I beat Meta Knight?" or "How do I beat Snake" only to lose to some random Ness player because I'm totally unfamiliar with the matchup.

Well there is my criteria for a ban. Please if I did not clarify something well enough let me know and I'll fix it to be better worded.

The blue is fail, needs moar color change.

 

[The Real Inferno]

Nobody talks **** on Infernape.

Also, I'm beginning to think you all have dayjobs as interior decorators with all the color hating.

 

[BrawlLover]

only a few people hate blue on this forums as posts

 

[da K.I.D.]

It is pretty frustrating when I spend most of my time thinking to myself "How do I beat Meta Knight?" or "How do I beat Snake" only to lose to some random Ness player because I'm totally unfamiliar with the matchup.

lost to peach at my last tourney for this very same reason

 

[BrawlLover]

snake can be a jerkface too, many people aren't complaining about him

 

[Asdioh]

snake can be a jerkface too, many people aren't complaining about him

I'd honestly rather play a good Meta Knight than a good Snake. At least Meta Knight doesn't have invisible hitboxes, and he DIES when you smash him at 140%.

But I guess Snake has bad matchups, so that's the reason he's not considered "broken" like Meta Knight frequently is.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Alright, if you say so, im only addressing Umbreons own criteria, remember. And also, to see if something can be banned, we have to give reasons as to why he could be considered broken. This is done by describing its mechanics and understanding the process it goes through to see if it really is as broken as it looks in the views of everyone in a match. I think my post did exactly this.

Fair enough. Personally I don't think you necessarily need to bring up mechanics to support a ban. I think it is almost entirely a matter of dominance in tourney results. If he's 'too good' he'll win 'too much,' end of story. All this talk of priority and whatnot is just a red herring. Not that I'm against learning things about the game, it's just not that relevant, imo. At best, it makes us more confident in the validity of the results the more we learn.

InfernoRage:

I think you're on the right track, but 1 and 2 conceivably could have resulted in Marth or Fox being banned in Melee (not to mention probably a lot of characters in other fighting games), or at least on the chopping block; we weren't even close to dreaming of banning anyone in Melee, so we should be careful to make sure criteria retroactively agree with what we've done in the past. I do think though that these two criteria, perhaps with different numbers, are the most important thing to look at.

3 is kind of ill-defined. I mean, you are still faced with the problem of defining and measuring how much something "breaks" a game, since this generally is not a discrete thing, but comes on a sliding scale. That is, a character doesn't either simply "break or not break" some "fundamental part of the process of tournament play," it can be anywhere on the spectrum of (dis)advantage, unless it is something truly bizarre, like say, having a move that flips a coin and takes a stock from one character or the other based on the result. This like this are incredibly hard to come to an agreement about. I have to ask, why is simply being "too dominant" in tournaments (i.e. criteria 1 and 2) not enough?

 

[Deleted member]

with some exceptions, it's pretty easy to understand him. I'm not in the mood for nitpicking.

 

[CaliburChamp]

The SBR made the right decision. Congrats. Now lets talk about banning Snake...
Just kidding.

 

[petrie911]

4. Banning of said Character does not cause any other character to immediately fit under rules 1-3. This is defined as a "slippery slope" in which banning of said character forces other characters to subsequentially be banned. If banning a character causes another character to become "broken" then the original character should not be banned.

I disagree with this part. If character A is so overpowered that he warrants a ban, and, when banned, character B is so overpowered that he also warrants a ban, why do we go back to the originally unacceptable state of A being allowed? The sequence is unlikely to carry on forever, and if it does, the game in question is, in a sense, maximally imbalanced and should probably be abandoned.

For an extreme example, suppose that character B is Akuma-level overpowered, and character A literally has "press any button to instantly win", while the remaining characters are fairly well-balanced. Obviously, the only character ever used will be character A. After banning character A, we find that B is also horribly overpowered. By your 4th criterion, we never should have banned A, despite the fact that banning both A and B is obviously the correct solution.

For a more real example, consider the creation of the Ubers list in Pokemon. Kyogre is the first pokemon to obviously ban. It quite literally shows up on at least one team in EVERY Uber battle, because the rain support it gives is very useful and almost nothing can withstand a Specs Water Spout (seriously, even 252/252 Calm Blissey is 2HKO'd). With Kyogre gone, Rayquaza is the next thing that's horribly overpowered. The solution that everyone in the community agreed was the correct one was not to simply allow everything because one ban couldn't solve the problem, but to create the "OU" environment. There is some debate about the lower levels of the Ubers list, but everyone pretty much agrees that Kyogre, Lugia, Mewtwo, Deoxys-f, Rayquaza, Groudon, Dialga, Palkia, Rayquaza, Soul Dew Lati@s, Giratina, and Darkrai should remain firmly entrenched in the Uber tier.

Now admittedly, Pokemon and Brawl are rather different games, but the main idea is that unbanning something already decided to be broken does nothing to solve the problem of brokenness. A definition of broken should be able to be applied to any metagame without any reference to any bans already in place.

 

[z3r0C0oL]

Broken Tier : Meta & Snake

 

[Vyse]

The SBR didn't make a right or wrong choice. They made the only reasonable choice, considering the split on the issue.
[/post to subscribe to thread]

 

[The Real Inferno]

sorry it took me a bit to reply to critiques. Sleeping and all that crap.

InfernoRage:

I think you're on the right track, but 1 and 2 conceivably could have resulted in Marth or Fox being banned in Melee (not to mention probably a lot of characters in other fighting games), or at least on the chopping block; we weren't even close to dreaming of banning anyone in Melee, so we should be careful to make sure criteria retroactively agree with what we've done in the past. I do think though that these two criteria, perhaps with different numbers, are the most important thing to look at.

Well, obviously since this is just a personal criteria it will have some of my own personal bias in it. It is siply my belief that even if the criteria retroactively fit something else, we shouldn't be using melee as a launching point. that being said, even though some of 1 and 2 apply to Fox and Marth, they do not fit 3 and 4 and thus it wouldn't even matter for then. Dominance is fine as every fighting game ever has had one or two extremely dominant chars. This is why the other rules exist, to form a check and balance against rules 1 and 2.

3 is kind of ill-defined. I mean, you are still faced with the problem of defining and measuring how much something "breaks" a game, since this generally is not a discrete thing, but comes on a sliding scale. That is, a character doesn't either simply "break or not break" some "fundamental part of the process of tournament play," it can be anywhere on the spectrum of (dis)advantage, unless it is something truly bizarre, like say, having a move that flips a coin and takes a stock from one character or the other based on the result. This like this are incredibly hard to come to an agreement about. I have to ask, why is simply being "too dominant" in tournaments (i.e. criteria 1 and 2) not enough?

3 is tough to define but I think something like it is ultimately necessary. This rule covers a wide variety of occurrences under one rules so it's a little understandably vague I suppose and I should more correctly define it's scope. Basically if a character had an ability that altered the way the game can be played (an ability that could not be policed or specifically banned) and they fit the other criteria then they should be banned. For Akuma that would be the Air fireballs, something the game engine could not handle. For smash it would be Meta Knight's IDC if it wer eimpossible for us to ban the use of it outright. This rule also covers things that are obviously arguable such as matchups and counterpicks. These are something that really need to be settled, but are still up in the air, yet it is a necessary factor for us to be considering unfortunately.

I disagree with this part. If character A is so overpowered that he warrants a ban, and, when banned, character B is so overpowered that he also warrants a ban, why do we go back to the originally unacceptable state of A being allowed? The sequence is unlikely to carry on forever, and if it does, the game in question is, in a sense, maximally imbalanced and should probably be abandoned.

For an extreme example, suppose that character B is Akuma-level overpowered, and character A literally has "press any button to instantly win", while the remaining characters are fairly well-balanced. Obviously, the only character ever used will be character A. After banning character A, we find that B is also horribly overpowered. By your 4th criterion, we never should have banned A, despite the fact that banning both A and B is obviously the correct solution.

You are simply reading the question wrong. The rule is saying that we should not remove Character A if he's the only thing that keeps Character B in check. For exmaple, if Meta Knight is the only thing holding back Snake or Marth from absolutely -WRECKING- the rest of the cast, then Meta should stay. It's also worth noting that if we were forced to go into that slippery slope, like you said, the game obviously isn't worth playing. Let's look at your example.

Character B is Akuma. Character A is Zero from Capcom vs. SNK Chaos. Zero infinites everyone in the cast. He dominates every tournaments, completing 1 and 2. He also breaks gameplay by having an infinite on everyone, bringing him to 3. He is the only character that can do this. Having him banned, allows Akuma to **** everyone else. However, Akuma also breaks rule three by having a move no one else can handle. Zero does not break the game in this way, he doesn't have that move. Removing Zero didn't -cause- Akuma to meet rule 3, he always met rule three. He just now meets rules 1 and 2 as well. Rule 4 only applies in the event that the new character was not previously meeting at least one of the rules. Akuma could still be banned in this case. I hope that clears it up for you and I will edit my rules to reflect this.

For a more real example, consider the creation of the Ubers list in Pokemon. Kyogre is the first pokemon to obviously ban. It quite literally shows up on at least one team in EVERY Uber battle, because the rain support it gives is very useful and almost nothing can withstand a Specs Water Spout (seriously, even 252/252 Calm Blissey is 2HKO'd). With Kyogre gone, Rayquaza is the next thing that's horribly overpowered. The solution that everyone in the community agreed was the correct one was not to simply allow everything because one ban couldn't solve the problem, but to create the "OU" environment. There is some debate about the lower levels of the Ubers list, but everyone pretty much agrees that Kyogre, Lugia, Mewtwo, Deoxys-f, Rayquaza, Groudon, Dialga, Palkia, Rayquaza, Soul Dew Lati@s, Giratina, and Darkrai should remain firmly entrenched in the Uber tier.

Choice Scarf is better on Kyogre. He's too slow to pull off a Max power Water Spout otherwise before being hit by the fifty billion leads running Thunder. also, I usually lead Shedinja for this sole reason lol. That's besides the point. Pokemon is a vastly complicated game and the tier lists are up for -massive- discussion at any given time because the game constantly changes. Often times what makes a pokemon actually Uber is their ability. Examples of this are Kyogre, Wobbufett, and Manaphy. Others get by on massive base stats with good typing like Mewtwo, Rayquaza and Latias. A select few are Uber due to having perfect movepools and stats to send the Meta Game into overcentralized hell like Mew, Darkrai and Garchomp. Pokemon has to have it's own set of ban criteria to decide things by and these rules of mine obviously wouldn't work for such a different game.

 

[DarkISDA]

I personally want him banned, but I also am learning to play versus him, and he's not that bad of a threat, so either choice is fine with me.

 

[AlphaZealot]

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.

Since you talked in absolutes:
Bananas beat every move MK has, 100% of the time.
Actually, they beat every move every character has 100% of the time.
The only exception is if you through early and the other player is capable of catching it, but this is generally not a large problem.