-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Why we can't wait to ban Metaknight
- Thread starter Overswarm
- Start date
- Status
_Keno_
Smash Lord
No its not, the best character shouldn't have ZERO bad matchups, most top characters in other games have at least one or two out of favor match-ups, even if slightly.
Well, yeah, thats what makes a character best in a game. I would be willing to bet that every character that is top in a game is ranked really high in multiple categories. What makes Metaknight different is that he is ranked 1st in virtually every category.
It's funny. The ban criteria we're currently using for this game is the same blanket criteria that doesn't properly cover games that eventually die from a character not being "ban-worthy" but is still killing the game.
Wasn't there a MK ban thread up earlier that used Tekken 4's Jin as an example? Maybe SBR should try to set a precedent?
_Keno_
Smash Lord
We should, but it likely won't happen.
There are also plenty of games where the top character has NO bad match-ups. SF4's Sagat and BlazBlue's Rachel are prime examples. That doesn't make them broken and certainly not ban-worthy.
No he's not, you're exaggerating. He's a really good character, but he has issues like any other character. If not, then ADHD wouldn't have beaten M2K. Ally wouldn't beat MKs. I definitely wouldn't beat MKs.
If you think he's the best in "virtually every character", then I'm afraid you fall into that category of players that need to learn the match-up.
Inui
Banned via Warnings
I would tell him to eat a ****.
<3
Yeah, it won't work here. At all.
SF4 Sagat 60/40's almost the whole cast or worse and loses no match-ups.
Guilty Gear's Eddie is just like Sagat with one even match-up in Testament, IIRC.
Melee Fox does not have any bad-matchups.
Nobody whines to ban these characters.
MysteriousSilver
Smash Ace
Just posting my support of this topic. Overswarm usually has good ideas, seems like.
HeroMystic
Legacy of the Mario
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,473
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- NNID
- HeroineYaoki
- 3DS FC
- 2191-8960-7738
Inui's post is the greatest I've seen in this thread.
CR4SH
Smash Lord
Simple single sentence answers to line quotes?
You're pretty easy to impress.
You're pretty easy to impress.
HeroMystic
Legacy of the Mario
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,473
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- NNID
- HeroineYaoki
- 3DS FC
- 2191-8960-7738
It's Inui, he doesn't need to make dramatic long-drawn posts to be impressive.
mangojuice
Smash Rookie
If tournament attendance declines, everyone loses. Do what's best for the community.
It really is that simple.
The fact that people need to learn to play, or are too lazy to learn the matchup, or that in reality MK is just really popular, or that there is no valid reason or a set of rules to warrant a ban, or that MK prevents diversity of character usage, or anything you can possibly think of is completely and utterly irrelevant. It could make no sense, but if it is best for the community, make it so.
You don't need frame data or brawl know how to figure this out. It's common sense.
Think of the brawl community as a corporation. You have the top players as the big cheeses - CEO's and Directors. They get paid the big bucks. Then you have peons that do nothing but get their paychecks and just go home happy they were able to make a living (in this case your avg player that gets his tournament fix with hopes of getting better). Now how do the CEO's get the big checks? They need the Peons to do all the grunt work of course. If Peons not happy and quit, the CEO's are also not happy because all of a sudden, the company isn't making money and they don't get their fat checks.
It really is that simple.
The fact that people need to learn to play, or are too lazy to learn the matchup, or that in reality MK is just really popular, or that there is no valid reason or a set of rules to warrant a ban, or that MK prevents diversity of character usage, or anything you can possibly think of is completely and utterly irrelevant. It could make no sense, but if it is best for the community, make it so.
You don't need frame data or brawl know how to figure this out. It's common sense.
Think of the brawl community as a corporation. You have the top players as the big cheeses - CEO's and Directors. They get paid the big bucks. Then you have peons that do nothing but get their paychecks and just go home happy they were able to make a living (in this case your avg player that gets his tournament fix with hopes of getting better). Now how do the CEO's get the big checks? They need the Peons to do all the grunt work of course. If Peons not happy and quit, the CEO's are also not happy because all of a sudden, the company isn't making money and they don't get their fat checks.
¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯
Smash Legend
Suck his **** moar, pl0x.
but iunno, inui gets drunk, punches lions and posts fenix right stuff wenever hes supr creal posting
superyoshi888
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,026
So, I'm not going to skim through all of these pages. But, here's the question I want to ask:
Do you have tournament data with a more liberal stage list?
IIRC, many stages that were banned/moved to cp removed decent counterpicks/starters against MK. And, IIRC, quite a few of them were done so to limit the potency of Dedede's CG. If MK keeps the number of Dedede players down, why do we not expand the starter and counterpick lists a bit?
Also, I believe Smash 64 Pikachu also has quite the reputation, yet no one wants to swarm over to ban him.
Do you have tournament data with a more liberal stage list?
IIRC, many stages that were banned/moved to cp removed decent counterpicks/starters against MK. And, IIRC, quite a few of them were done so to limit the potency of Dedede's CG. If MK keeps the number of Dedede players down, why do we not expand the starter and counterpick lists a bit?
Also, I believe Smash 64 Pikachu also has quite the reputation, yet no one wants to swarm over to ban him.
Except for the whole "banning MK" thing.
Oh and let's try to keep this thread open, folks. Which probably means a little less Inui ****riding.
HeroMystic
Legacy of the Mario
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,473
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- NNID
- HeroineYaoki
- 3DS FC
- 2191-8960-7738
Ew, no. That's disgusting. Meatriding is better.
On a semi-serious note: The stage list DOES need to be expanded.
_Keno_
Smash Lord
I said most, not all... w/e
You're right about sf4, but Sagat only has to **** 1/3 the characters mk does.
Idk anything about Guilty gear, never liked it. I'll assume you are right.
Don't troll me, you know the differences between fox and MK. Fox is very beatable, since melee relies more on skill rather than character choice (much moreso than brawl). Foxes weren't even top 5 at genesis or P4 (from what I recall). Melee match-ups are outdated too.
You lost a ton of credibility with this post. I'll let you figure out why.
Delvro
Smash Ace
The tournament attendance portion of your argument was one that I am glad to see and is an argument that I use often. I've personally seen someone quit the tournament scene because of MK and MK alone (Exile). Plain and simple, the game stops being fun.
You can argue technicalities and match-ups and "magical MK counters" all you want, but the truth is that MK's existence makes the game less fun and makes people quit.
And while we're on the topic of SF4, last time I checked (which I admit was some time ago), Sagat, Ryu, and Gouken were all top-tier characters with no matchups worse than 50-50. That I'm fine with. =\
You can argue technicalities and match-ups and "magical MK counters" all you want, but the truth is that MK's existence makes the game less fun and makes people quit.
And while we're on the topic of SF4, last time I checked (which I admit was some time ago), Sagat, Ryu, and Gouken were all top-tier characters with no matchups worse than 50-50. That I'm fine with. =\
MarKO X
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2008
- Messages
- 2,542
- Location
- Brooklyn
- NNID
- legendnumberM
- 3DS FC
- 2595-2072-2390
- Switch FC
- 531664639998
joke all you want, he's absolutely correct.
in other games, the top tier characters have few, if any, bad matchups.
Sagat in SF4 and ST (O.Sagat in ST, obviously).
Kage in nearly every Virtua Fighter.
Fox in Melee.
Pikachu in Smash64
Yun or Chun in 3s (debatable about who's the best, but overall win against everyone)
Mag-f*cking-Neto, Sentinel, Storm, and Cable in MvC2
GWM in MvC1
Wolverine in any other vs. series game
etc.
but there's a difference between those game and this game. And no, it's not the difference between being a standard fighting game and a different fighting game.
_Keno_
Smash Lord
Everyone saying "fox in melee" loses credibility in my eyes. He neither dominates nor is broken.
Oh well, I like playing melee more anyways. Good luck, brawl.
Not liking guilty gear? Responding to Inui? Whatever. If I lost credibility due to either of those, I give up with you people.
Oh well, I like playing melee more anyways. Good luck, brawl.
The problem with saying "We have no ban criteria" is that no character has been damaging enough to the game (ie, one of the Smash games) to ever need a ban before. So we have to work at it from the other side:
When a character is too damaging to the game to be left unbanned, their attributes become the basis for ban criteria.
When a character is too damaging to the game to be left unbanned, their attributes become the basis for ban criteria.
Trent
Smash Champion
Good read OS.
HeroMystic
Legacy of the Mario
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,473
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- NNID
- HeroineYaoki
- 3DS FC
- 2191-8960-7738
@Cheap Peach: You compared skill and character choice from Melee to Brawl. True as that may(probably) be, it's irrelevant when it comes to banning a character.
theunabletable
Smash Lord
Actually I DO agree with you here. Theoretically Melee Fox might have no bad matchups, but practically it seems not to be the case.
Comparing Brawl to other fighting games isn't really a good counter argument to MK's dominance... In o0ther fighting games you're required to get in, combo, then knock em back to deal damage (about 3-5 decent combos would finish the game), making the top characters able to be punished to a VERY good degree if they fall for the opponent's traps. In Brawl, we have to hit a couple of almost-no-combos-in-Brawl hits here and there, get MK to 130-160% (his momentum cancel) and hit him with a strong move, then repeat 2 more times to FINISH ONE MATCH. That's a WHOLE buttload of more effort than any other fighting game, INCLUDING Melee since Melee is closer to an actual fighting game than Brawl!
MK might not look like much when compared to other characters like SF2 Akuma (in a quicker-matched combo-happy game), Garchomp (in a 1/2/3-hit-kill game practically), Sagat (same as SF2 Akuma), Magneto/Storm/Sentinel/Cable (the majority of their community was against the ban back then), Fox (in a WAY faster-to-finish and punishment-more-effective game [where's the Brawl equivalent of uthrow/utilt>rest?])... But in a game where the objectives take that much longer to accomplish, the opponents that much harder to punish and the goals that much harder to reach, the problems that an even harder-to-punish character who's leagues above every other character might create are greatly magnified... You COULD punish that Sagat by playing some quick footsies and making him kick the air 2-3 tiems to end a match... But how many times do you have to outplay an MK in a single match to take out his 3 stocks, in a game where punishment isn't even remotely similar to the other mentioned games?
Think about it...
And no matter the plea of the people, no one is going to come up with an universally agreed-upon criteria for banning anything in Brawl until some final, permanent decision that won't be changed whatsoever is given to MK. Most of the people agreeing/disagreeing with the suggested criterias will be too biased due to their positions in the whole "MK" debate, trying to manipulate the criteria to fit their positions.
MK might not look like much when compared to other characters like SF2 Akuma (in a quicker-matched combo-happy game), Garchomp (in a 1/2/3-hit-kill game practically), Sagat (same as SF2 Akuma), Magneto/Storm/Sentinel/Cable (the majority of their community was against the ban back then), Fox (in a WAY faster-to-finish and punishment-more-effective game [where's the Brawl equivalent of uthrow/utilt>rest?])... But in a game where the objectives take that much longer to accomplish, the opponents that much harder to punish and the goals that much harder to reach, the problems that an even harder-to-punish character who's leagues above every other character might create are greatly magnified... You COULD punish that Sagat by playing some quick footsies and making him kick the air 2-3 tiems to end a match... But how many times do you have to outplay an MK in a single match to take out his 3 stocks, in a game where punishment isn't even remotely similar to the other mentioned games?
Think about it...
I bolded it cuz it makes me feel pretty :nerd:
And no matter the plea of the people, no one is going to come up with an universally agreed-upon criteria for banning anything in Brawl until some final, permanent decision that won't be changed whatsoever is given to MK. Most of the people agreeing/disagreeing with the suggested criterias will be too biased due to their positions in the whole "MK" debate, trying to manipulate the criteria to fit their positions.
Nitrix
Smash Ace
Wonderful post OS. I agree completely. MK should be banned.
J4pu
Smash Champion
I took the liberty of making your point more applicable by crossing out the games where you listed more than 1 top character
It sounds like you think this is pro-ban material, but if people show that these top-tier characters are more dominant than MK when it takes so much more to beat MK then it only shows he is less "broken" than we were thinking.
I am pro-ban btw
theunabletable
Smash Lord
3 times.
In the case of ICs anyway
MajorMoses
Smash Journeyman
Funny how I was just listening to the SBR Podcast on Metaknight a moment ago. Coincidences bring laughs but Metaknight doesn't. Excellent points all around, Overswarm.
Oh come on, man, you know what I mean. D:3 times.
In the case of ICs anyway
How many times do you have to outplay (and punish) an MK (in the middle of a fight for one of his stocks), during a 3-stock match (compared to a single health bar match for the other games/heavier-punishment-faceted gameplay of Melee)?
_Keno_
Smash Lord
Skill vs Character choice isn't totally irrelevant, especially not as irrelevant as comparing brawl to a non-smash game. All other fighting games lack elements that the smash series has (of course they also have elements that smash doesn't). Like every fighting game is based on either KO-ing through damage or ring-ing out opponents (soul-cal style ring outs). Melee and brawl are purely ring outs (a quite different type of ring out). Edge-guarding, recovery, gimping (some of the main reasons metaknight ***** ) aren't in other games, and therefore can not be compared to brawl.
_Keno_
Smash Lord
Ah, thanks =)
Ugh, why do you even post here? Trolls are such vile creatures.
MK being broken isn't the main pro-ban argument, I'm pretty sure of this at least.
This has always been my problem with the current MU ratios.
A 55:45 MU ratio doesn't ever sound like (in practice) winning 55% or so of the time -- or even "slightly" easier victory. It sounds like that applies to every encounter during the match, and over the course of the match (Since Brawl matches are made up of so many little encounters that you often disengage fully between) the actual results tip farther and farther towards the advantaged side.
Maybe it's just me...
I wasn't trying to add onto the pro-ban material, I just want people to stop comparing totally different games as if it actually mattered... Not add some new theoretical info.
theunabletable
Smash Lord
I was joking... that's why I added the "
"
That's actually a fair point (or sounds like it anyways... my knowledge on other competetive games that aren't Melee/Brawl is rather pitiful).
But it's happened, so it's not like it's impossible or anything. Which is what, imo, matters.
I dunno. A picture of the pillsbury doughboy signifying "Close but no cookie"?
- Status