Fourth and final community vote about Meta Knight.

MarKO X · Jul 31, 2009

Galuuda said:
OH GAWD, didn't see my last post lawl...but yia...where's da juice and cookies?

wtf is juice?

Clai · Jul 31, 2009

ShadowLink84 said:
That isn't just the issue though, it means that everything eventually falls down to using MK because he is so safe. This lets you control the CP system since MK is an answer toe verything, Not the best choice but is very safe.
Like i said, he does not have to be unbeatable in order to be ban worthy.

If we're talking about players who are just starting in terms of figuring out matchups and what-not, then yes, to them Metaknight would be the best choice for them. We're talking about high level play, though, where everyone who has reached that level has progressed enough with their mains that they can reliably pass through any matchup that doesn't completely invalidate their character. Metaknight, by himself, even considering the stages the MK player can counterpick, only invalidates a small number of characters. Therefore, in high levels of play, your main is the best choice a great majority of the time. Metaknight doesn't overcentralize anything.

Correct but we assume high level play where such nuances are not important.
We assume the characters are of high level and ignore the player who tends to bring in tons of issues,

I assure you that any high-level player who hasn't used MK seriously would do really bad against another high-level player if he was deluded enough to think that counterpicking MK will solve his/her problems.

My error it probably came out wrong.
What i mean is they try their hardest, but they may not play their best.
Again i bring up M2k vs ally, where he was spiked by an easily avoided Fair from Snake.

If you then look at the match he played a week later, he played against ally much better.
You are trying your hardest at that moment, but it may not be your best.

That's why we can't rely on a single match to determine these things. However, since May, Ally has been going around even against M2K, so we can't call all of Ally's victories flukes. That's why I said "barring extreme circumstances," I was trying to discredit the last few games of M2K against Ally at Genesis, where apparently M2K's body was breaking down.

How so? My argument is keeping the player out of the debate.
Explain?

Any time we're dealing with terms like "high-level play" and bring up specific matches, we are bringing the players into the argument. Players are a large part of the argument, as it doesn't matter if any character is unbeatable on paper if not enough people do it in practice to call it overcentralizing.

Correct, but it isnt just having an advantage though it is part of it, its because it falls down to MK being the best choice overall, and thus, everyone must use him otherwise, they risk getting a bad amtchup.

Yes, but Metaknight doesn't invalidate enough characters to make this risk needlessly high. Soft disavantages are slightly bad, but for the most part, they're entirely winnable. Thus, the concept of "everbody must use Metaknight to avoid a bad matchup," is really more like "If people are so senselessly paranoid that that they must never have a slightly disadvantageous matchup ever ever, they should pick Metaknight." Thankfully, most people aren't like this.

That's your first error. You are automatically assuming that the character in question must be much better than everyone else. This is not true.
The character only has to overcentralize by nature. He doesn't have to be the equivalent of Akuma or even Old Sagat. He simply must overcentralize the game.

If this is really the driving point behind the ban, then the community is a bunch of whiners and I've lost a great deal of respect for them. You can easily start a panic with just the slightest manipulation; the public outlook, though, is often not reality.

As such, my argument is that he over centralizes not because he is so much better, but because he is so much safer than other choices.
By playing MK alone you limit your opponents CP choices greatly, both stage and character wise, they can only counter this incredible resistance with MK himself to ensure no disadvantage.

Again, how many characters does Metaknight invalidate? Last time I checked, using any character but the 5 or so characters that Metaknight absolutely destroys does not equal limiting your opponents counterpick choices greatly. If you just stick with your main and counterpick a stage that your character is good at, the risk factor decreases significantly. Yes, you still have a slight disadvantage more often than not, but that's the price you have to pay for going up against the best character in the game. It's nothing that will lead to hopelessness or anything.

Not necessarily true. Mind you matchup often argue on neutral stages where there isn't much inteference, counterpicking itself is meant to influence those matchups and move them in either way for the player.

I sure hope people on the other boards talked about those stages when they discussed the matchup with Metaknight. I mean, if the threat of a certain stage is so large that suddenly people are flocking over to use Metaknight to feel safer, the people maining the other characters would at least talk about it. Right? Right...?

So a matchup for Diddy on FD is not the same as it would be on Rainbow cruise.
Do you understand or am I being vague?

What I mean is that the Diddy player should be adaptive enough to work around the disadvantages brought to them by counterpicking a stage and nullify these disadvantages as much as possible. You don't become a high-level Diddy player by winning on FD all the time. You should be able to work on all stages and be good enough that you present a good chance of winning no matter where the Metaknight player takes you.

I am not pro-ban so its rather hard to articulate such thoughts.

Adumbrodeus told me you were anti-ban and are essentially just playing devil's advocate. No matter, at least someone's arguing my points with me.

Except that is NOT the requirement for a ban.
MK is the best, but being the best is not the only requirement to being ban worthy.
You must also over centralize.

As such my argument aims to prove that metaknight over centralizes.

So if enough people whine about a character, they could remove him from the game? I mean that's essentially what I'm getting from you. Being the best and the most overused character in the game is already going to centralize the metagame as it is. How much do we need to go before it becomes overcentralzing?

M2k is losing to ally.
Ally is losing to m2k.
Those players are NOT the characters, they are the users, they are influenced by everything.
As such we refer to only the characters.

Simply because Ally may destroy a sonic with falcon does not change the matchup. It can be used as indirect support, offering the possibility, but is not solid evidence because of the mere fact the players are human.

If Ally destroyed (I have no idea who the best Sonic main is) with Falcon, it'd certainly raise some eyebrows and force people to think about the matchup a different way. People who create these match-up ratios aren't infallible. They can't cover every option a player can think of when they look at a particular match-up. If one person breaks through a bad matchup and beats the best player who uses this "constricting character," then other players can realize that they haven't thought about the match-up that way before and follow his example.

The status quo is that of overcentralization, thus, I aim to prove it by showing that MK's incredible resistance to the CP system causes the game to over centralize around him.
Not that he is so much better that he requires a ban.

That's not how we should be looking at this ban, but if you're so adamant about it (or pretending to be, since you're actually anti-ban), I'm just going to stop talking about it. I've already discussed how overcentralization can actually mean crying like a bunch of babies about it.

If you have a large enough skill gap, even the worst of matchups can be won.
You are relying too much on inductive reasoning and it hurts your argument.

Except top players are beating other top players, despite the so-called risks. Come on, Shadowlink, you should have known that's what I meant (unless I say so, I always assume that players are playing within their skill level)

You are missing the point.
yes he is better.
He is NOT much better than the other characters, he is rarely the best choice.
He is the safest, and thus, overcentralizes.

Usually the best character is the safest choice, though. This applies to many other games as well. If he's not the best choice in the majority of cases, regardless of who you use or where you like to play on, then he can't be overcentralizing. He's just centralizing the metagame as much as the best character in the game would normally centralize.

But it is true.
Why choose DK against DDD where infinites are allowed?
or Mario, Luigi, Samus or Bowser?

Why go Fox against Pikachu?
Play to win is all that matters , not the subjective behavior.

If people are dedicated enough to pit their mains against other characters that have an insanely good match-up against them, that they will work tirelessly to scrape any kind of advantage they can get even though the odds are greatly stacked against them, and all of this done because they think they would have a better chance of winning than if they choice another character that can deal with the matchup better, who's to say that they can't put all of that work in?

Use him against m2k. I don't play MK.
Tell me how well you fair.
No I am serious, I am very interested in your performance.

I would love to fight M2K. However, I think I should work on the match-up by fighting mid-level MK's before I go off and do anything crazy. I mean, I just recently started using Ganon against Metaknight.

irrelevant.

You being more comfortable with a character will not change the character. All it does is reflect upon the players behavior and performance.
The player is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

But player's performance is... like... everything. I mean, all of the tournament placings are based on the performance of players. I mean, we're talking about getting Metaknight banned because he has 22% of the placings, right? A heck of a lot of people are comfortable with using Metaknight.

Well its just everything else that gets you, not just the gimping.

Getting gimped affects my Ganon more than anything else. I can handle the rest pretty fine.

The issue is that the X factor or human factor, does not matter or play a part in the argument at hand.

It can be used as support for the POSSIBILITY, but cannot be used as solid evidence.
Otherwise, its simply the exception that proves the rule.

When it translates into tournament placings, then it starts to matter, because we're trying to see if Metaknight is putting a stranglehold on the tournament scene.

Red Arremer · Jul 31, 2009

Azuzu said:
The plain and simple fact is, the community will suffer if mk is banned, becoming even more divided over the topic. I think 6 months to a year down the road though, the community will greatly benefit, so I like to think of it as a "long term" investment.

That's a "what if", just like it's a "what if" that everyone will pick up Meta Knight and he'll take all tournament placings in the future.

I personally doubt the community can benefit from a ban, it will hurt a part of the community, and about a half of it is not only a small part of the community, neither it's all Meta Knight mains.

Brawl's competitive value will suffer and big video game events like EVO, Genesis etc. more than likely won't add Brawl into their game roster anymore.

This is actually the reason I decided to go completely anti-ban. The whole community is suffering by the whole discussion, and will definitely suffer by banning Meta Knight.

People will quit - not only Meta Knights - because of how ridiculous the whole debate is. And simply play other games, like BlazBlue or something.

Several characters will actually suffer from it, and guess what: It's Low Tiers. Bowser, Sonic, Ness, Jigglypuff - characters who fare okay against Meta Knight will now see an increase of Snakes, Falcos, Dededes, Ice Climbers; characters that utterly destroy them.

fkacyan · Jul 31, 2009

Several characters will actually suffer from it, and guess what: It's Low Tiers. Bowser, Sonic, Ness, Jigglypuff - characters who fare okay against Meta Knight will now see an increase of Snakes, Falcos, Dededes, Ice Climbers; characters that utterly destroy them.

This. I'm not sure why people are so ready to say "It'll all be OK!" without considering the actual effects that this change will have on the metagame.

GwJ · Jul 31, 2009

So, you're pissed about letting the bad characters do badly?

Rykoshet · Jul 31, 2009

Thiocyanide said:
This. I'm not sure why people are so ready to say "It'll all be OK!" without considering the actual effects that this change will have on the metagame.

Characters that werent tourney viable will still not be tourney viable, what's your point?

Asdioh · Jul 31, 2009

Hey guys should I vote Yes? I'm seriously considering it, despite voting "No" in the past two polls.

Red Arremer · Jul 31, 2009

GwJumpman said:
So, you're pissed about letting the bad characters do badly?

No, I'm "pissed" about the Pro-Ban side saying how everything will be so much more balanced and there'll be so much more diversity and so much more characters viable.

MarKO X · Jul 31, 2009

especially since, according to the anti-banners, low tiers are low anyway.
so why do the low tiers suddenly matter to you?

the ricemaker · Jul 31, 2009

*link edited out*

This is why MK should be banned.

GwJ · Jul 31, 2009

Don't do that. You took that from the sonic boads. GTFO

DON'T CLICK THE LINK

fkacyan · Jul 31, 2009

Rykoshet said:
Characters that werent tourney viable will still not be tourney viable, what's your point?

If that's the case, what does this change actually do?

I'll be honest, people who quit because they can't beat one character aren't people I'm concerned with keeping in the community.

Remzi · Jul 31, 2009

Peach becomes viable
ROB becomes viable
Marth becomes viable
Olimar becomes viable

Right now, none of those characters statistically SHOULD be winning.

The ban helps to even out the higher end of the tier list. Nobody said it would save Ganondorf and Samus.

Red Arremer · Jul 31, 2009

MarKO X said:
especially since, according to the anti-banners, low tiers are low anyway.
so why do the low tiers suddenly matter to you?

Then why would it make so much more characters viable? Whom? Marth? Already is winning tournaments. Peach? Maybe, but Snake still gives her huge trouble. R.O.B.? Don't kid me, they don't even try to play the game.

MarKO X · Jul 31, 2009

Thiocyanide said:
If that's the case, what does this change actually do?

I'll be honest, people who quit because they can't beat one character aren't people I'm concerned with keeping in the community.

the change makes more top and high tiers viable.
obviously the absolutely unviable characters will remain unviable.
but instead of one character winning a lot, you'll have more than one character winning a lot.

Rykoshet · Jul 31, 2009

Thiocyanide said:
If that's the case, what does this change actually do?.

Creates a web of counters amongst the rest of the actually tourney viable characters. A sonic that didnt want to fight snake pre-meta ban isn't going to want to fight snake post-meta ban so you do nothing to the characters that had to bust *** to get first anyway.

Note that this is on paper and I'm not about to argue a difference in 5% so if someone plans on doing it do yourself a favor and **** right off.

2. Snake
3. Wario
4. Falco
5. Diddy Kong
6. King Dedede

7. Marth
8. Mr. Game & Watch
9. Pikachu
10. Olimar
11. Ice Climbers
12. R.O.B.
13. Kirby

14. Lucario
15. Zero Suit Samus
16. Toon Link
17. Pit
18. Donkey Kong

EVERY character on that list is fully capable of taking a tournament going on without secondaries and still loses out to another character on that list.

Adding ONE character to the top removes the bottom 5 from reasonable viability maybe excluding ZSS, maybe.

GunmasterLombardi · Jul 31, 2009

Thiocyanide said:
This. I'm not sure why people are so ready to say "It'll all be OK!" without considering the actual effects that this change will have on the metagame.

Like I said, temporary ban. I never thought of it being a good thing to permanently ban him with all the people that play him.
I'm dumb for voting so early.

GwJ · Jul 31, 2009

Spadefox said:
Then why would it make so much more characters viable? Whom? Marth? Already is winning tournaments. Peach? Maybe, but Snake still gives her huge trouble. R.O.B.? Don't kid me, they don't even try to play the game.

The ones that are left do. Don't make assumptions that you can't back up.

Falconv1.0 · Jul 31, 2009

Asdioh said:
Hey guys should I vote Yes? I'm seriously considering it, despite voting "No" in the past two polls.

Nope.

Maybe you shouldn't vote at all when you need to turn to people who may not know what the **** they are talking about for and opinion, but that's just me and my ability to think.

MK's ban will not make any character besides maybe Marf good, for everyone else it's just another 6/4 if not 55/45 matchup. Nothing is going to be easier, just one match up you don't like will be replaced by different characters in a match up you don't ****ing like.

GwJ · Jul 31, 2009

Falconv1.0 said:
Nope.

Maybe you shouldn't vote at all when you need to turn to people who may not know what the **** they are talking about for and opinion, but that's just me and my ability to think.

MK's ban will not make any character besides maybe Marf good, for everyone else it's just another 6/4 if not 55/45 matchup. Nothing is going to be easier, just one match up you don't like will be replaced by different characters in a match up you don't ****ing like.

ROB, he's a 65:35/70:30 matchup for us. It's nigh unwinnable unless you're playing BYAA! from Ohio.

Red Arremer · Jul 31, 2009

Rykoshet said:
EVERY character on that list is fully capable of taking a tournament going on without secondaries and still loses out to another character on that list.

Adding ONE character to the top removes the bottom 5 from reasonable viability maybe excluding ZSS, maybe.

Lucario? Donkey Kong? Zero Suit Samus? You mean, like, these characters who only have a slight disadvantage and of whom 2 are getting hard countered by Dedede would actually place better without Meta Knight?

Are you serious?

Rykoshet · Jul 31, 2009

Spadefox said:
Lucario? Donkey Kong? Zero Suit Samus? You mean, like, these characters who only have a slight disadvantage and of whom 2 are getting hard countered by Dedede would actually place better without Meta Knight?

Are you serious?

Dead serious. Without the infinite DKs here will fight dededes so the existence of the hard counter doesn't stop people from doing it (and in the case of bum, prevailing. Which I will admit is due to his higher level of play). Every character on that list gets hard countered by another character on that list, I mentioned that off the bat. So forgive me if I don't see your actual point.

*_Echo_* · Jul 31, 2009

BengalsRZ said:
Peach becomes viable
ROB becomes viable
Marth becomes viable
Olimar becomes viable

Right now, none of those characters statistically SHOULD be winning.

The ban helps to even out the higher end of the tier list. Nobody said it would save Ganondorf and Samus.

i agree

Red Arremer · Jul 31, 2009

Rykoshet said:
Dead serious. Without the infinite DKs here will fight dededes so the existence of the hard counter doesn't stop people from doing it (and in the case of bum, prevailing. Which I will admit is due to his higher level of play). Every character on that list gets hard countered by another character on that list, I mentioned that off the bat. So forgive me if I don't see your actual point.

I don't see your point either. One slightly disadvantaged matchup does not completely invalidate a character, that's bull****, sorry.
That's like saying that Falco is completely unviable because he has trouble with the Ice Climbers, and that's even a hard matchup for him.

Clai · Jul 31, 2009

Rykoshet said:
Dead serious. Without the infinite DKs here will fight dededes so the existence of the hard counter doesn't stop people from doing it (and in the case of bum, prevailing. Which I will admit is due to his higher level of play). Every character on that list gets hard countered by another character on that list, so I don't see your actual point.

Spadefox's actual point is that adding Metaknight to that list you made up does not stop ANY of the five characters you said he would invalidate from winning. The only way that one character removes the viablity of another character is when that one character hard-counters that character. Otherwise, it's a very winnable matchup, so stop johning.

fkacyan · Jul 31, 2009

I'm having issues phrasing my reply properly, Ryko, so you'll have to do with the short version: At what point can we determine that it is the character, and not the player, that is winning sets right now?

I'd argue that the system you speak of is worse; if each character was actually hard-countered by another on that list, than Smash would turn into a game of glorified rocks-paper-scissors and arguably be worse than it is now; player skill would factor in far less.

Zubiri · Jul 31, 2009

I've seen little players who cant beat a good meta knight player with another character and then when choosing meta knight, give a good battle.

jmanxiv · Jul 31, 2009

I am a noob but it doesn't take a genius to realize that MK has no CP hence there's no reason to main anyone else if you want to win

Johnny Citrus · Jul 31, 2009

BIGM1994 said:
olimar isnt that bad if you know the matchup, if you know it well its 50/50. And d3 and snake is 50/50 also. Mk imo is 50/50 wit 3 characters, dem being diddy, wario, snake, snake is 55/45 meta to me.

Lol BigM Olimar and mk don't go toe to toe try 60-40 mk's favor at least.

With that said I am starting to feel more anti ban as I'm reading some of these arguments.

∫unk · Jul 31, 2009

Spadefox said:
That's a "what if", just like it's a "what if" that everyone will pick up Meta Knight and he'll take all tournament placings in the future.

I personally doubt the community can benefit from a ban, it will hurt a part of the community, and about a half of it is not only a small part of the community, neither it's all Meta Knight mains.

Brawl's competitive value will suffer and big video game events like EVO, Genesis etc. more than likely won't add Brawl into their game roster anymore.

This is actually the reason I decided to go completely anti-ban. The whole community is suffering by the whole discussion, and will definitely suffer by banning Meta Knight.

People will quit - not only Meta Knights - because of how ridiculous the whole debate is. And simply play other games, like BlazBlue or something.

Several characters will actually suffer from it, and guess what: It's Low Tiers. Bowser, Sonic, Ness, Jigglypuff - characters who fare okay against Meta Knight will now see an increase of Snakes, Falcos, Dededes, Ice Climbers; characters that utterly destroy them.

LOL

perfect example of why you shouldn't hold purple names in high regard.

have you even been to/tried a mk-banned tourney? do you even go to tournies (seriously i have no idea who you are)?

bowser sonic ness jiggs weren't consistently ****** any decent mk's anyway... maybe while they didn't know the matchup but you could make that case for ANY matchup

but honestly this isn't to boost already-unviable characters... it's to boost the other viable characters (mid/high tier)

Rykoshet · Jul 31, 2009

Spadefox said:
I don't see your point either. One slightly disadvantaged matchup does not completely invalidate a character, that's bull****, sorry.
That's like saying that Falco is completely unviable because he has trouble with the Ice Climbers, and that's even a hard matchup for him.

One extra severely and blatantly overused disadvantaged matchup severely reduces the viability of a character.

phi1ny3 · Jul 31, 2009

Rykoshet said:
Dead serious. Without the infinite DKs here will fight dededes so the existence of the hard counter doesn't stop people from doing it (and in the case of bum, prevailing. Which I will admit is due to his higher level of play). Every character on that list gets hard countered by another character on that list, I mentioned that off the bat. So forgive me if I don't see your actual point.

Don't make assumptions.
Lucario hardly gets hard countered.
At most, he's arguably "soft countered", which is still up for debate.
Most of those other chars still do well with MK up on that list (DK + ZSS are also decently winnable with MK around).
Many lucarios actually want MK around lol, at least for their characters benefit (although some really, really hate him).

POKE40 · Jul 31, 2009

jmanxiv said:
I am a noob but it doesn't take a genius to realize that MK has no CP hence there's no reason to main anyone else if you want to win

But if someone "sucks" at playing Meta Knight,
that person won't get far.

decent CF > bad MK

MarKO X · Jul 31, 2009

Zubiri said:
I've seen little players who cant beat a good meta knight player with another character and then when choosing meta knight, give a good battle.

i think we've all seen it sir. i think we've all seen it.

jmanxiv said:
I am a noob but it doesn't take a genius to realize that MK has no CP hence there's no reason to main anyone else if you want to win

yes, but thats not the sole reason to ban a character.

MorphedChaos · Jul 31, 2009

Spadefox said:
No, I'm "pissed" about the Pro-Ban side saying how everything will be so much more balanced and there'll be so much more diversity and so much more characters viable.

It will be though, thats what you don't see. Instead of seeing like in Genisis...

1. Snake
2. MK
3. MK
4. MK

you would see...

1. Snake
2. Wario
3. Ice Climbers
4. ZSS
5. D3
6. Falco
....

And it goes on and on. More diverse placing, instead of the top spots being taken by MK and one exceptional player.

Also, for more characters, losing MK makes much of the B tier and some of the C tier more viable, as MK annihilates some of those characters, like Peach and R.O.B.. With MK gone, you gain much better placing diversity as well as more characters. Some of the non-tourny viable characters like Ganondorf wont gain anything, but then they aren't tourny viable, are they?

As for the Argument that Snake will take over like MK has? MK has NOT been banned or temp banned, and the few times he was this was disproves with very diverse tourny outcomes instead of seeing only Snake, so losing MK helps diversity to a huge degree. (If someone could dig up one of those MK-banned tournies, I'd be thankful.)

Clai · Jul 31, 2009

Zubiri said:
I've seen little players who cant beat a good meta knight player with another character and then when choosing meta knight, give a good battle.

So they were meant to be Metaknight mains all along. Good for them. Seriously, I'm sick of these stories about a group of x friends who can't beat Metaknight with a certain character they've been playing for 4 hours and then when they use Metaknight, they're suddenly good. Guess what? They were either made to be Metaknight mains or they're just too lazy to work with the character they want to use in order to beat Metaknight.

There is no honor code among your group. If they're really good with Metaknight, let them be Metaknight. That's it!

momochuu · Jul 31, 2009

Johnny Citrus said:
Lol BigM Olimar and mk don't go toe to toe try 60-40 mk's favor at least.

With that said I am starting to feel more anti ban as I'm reading some of these arguments.

See? MK doesn't even have an even matchup with himself. I think that's pretty banworthy.

Red Arremer · Jul 31, 2009

JunkInTheTrunk said:
LOL

perfect example of why you shouldn't hold purple names in high regard.

Well, unlike a lot of people in this thread, I at least don't lie or spit wrong information. =)

have you even been to/tried a mk-banned tourney? do you even go to tournies (seriously i have no idea who you are)?

No, because in my region, Meta Knight is no problem. Besides, I don't know who you are either, so why should I give a ****? If you disregard me just because you don't know of me placing all over tournaments in the States (considering travelling there would cost me a few thousands of $), then it's your own fault.

bowser sonic ness jiggs weren't consistently ****** any decent mk's anyway...

That's because they're bad characters and playing them in a tournament wouldn't make sense since they are Low Tiers. But banning Meta Knight won't profit any of these characters, quite the contrary, they will get even less viable, because they lose one of their easier matchups.

Additionally, ever heard of FOW and Shugo?

MorphedChaos said:
It will be though, thats what you don't see. Instead of seeing like in Genisis...

1. Snake
2. MK
3. MK
4. MK

you would see...

1. Snake
2. Wario
3. Ice Climbers
4. ZSS
5. D3
6. Falco
....

If you already go 6 tournament placings with these made up results, do your creditibility a favor and actually use the other 2 placings from Genesis.
1. Ally - Snake
2. M2K - Meta Knight
3. Tyrant - Meta Knight
4. Dojo - Meta Knight
5. ADHD - Diddy Kong
6. DEHF - Falco

Oh lookie, there's 2 other characters. But that doesn't help your cause, right, cause it doesn't say Meta Knight.

Also, I really doubt that results would be THAT equally spread, that's really just a fantasy world you're living in there.

Rykoshet · Jul 31, 2009

Thiocyanide said:
I'd argue that the system you speak of is worse; if each character was actually hard-countered by another on that list, than Smash would turn into a game of glorified rocks-paper-scissors and arguably be worse than it is now; player skill would factor in far less.[/color]

I'd argue that player skill (as in understanding the game on a far more diverse level) would actually be a greater factor. You'd be forced to understand what is and isn't a doable matchup and be forced to know more than one character just in case. You would be rewarded for being a more fleshed out player rather than just knowing one matchup like the back of your hand. As it stands you can go through a tournament knowing practically nothing but the meta knight matchup and hedge your bets elsewhere with the concept that "They're probably as foreign to this matchup as I am"(and let's face it, that bet is usually right) and make a respectable placing and you know that much has been proven plenty of times.

GwJ · Jul 31, 2009

FOW is exceptionally good, just like Ally. Shugo is good but he beat Overswarm's MK. That's not saying much.

Fourth and final community vote about Meta Knight.

Should Meta Knight be banned from competitive Brawl?

Yes

No

Smash Champion

Smash Lord

Smash Legend

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Not Asidoh

Smash Legend

Smash Champion

Smash Cadet

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

formerly VaBengal

Smash Legend

Smash Champion

Smash Champion

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Legend

Smash Champion

Smash Journeyman

Smash Legend

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Smash Rookie

Smash Apprentice

Smash Apprentice

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Not the Mama

Smash Lord

Smash Champion

Smash Lord

Smash Lord

Smash Legend

Smash Legend

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

Information

Network