Mk Ban

Purple · Aug 10, 2009

Pretty small post, pretty easy to converse and debate.

For the most part everyone knows that MK is a broken character, while matchups are supposedly even, M2K Has shown time and time again that there isn't really too much you can do to a good metaknight player, and that using metaknight is the best option on pratically ANY counterpick you can think of.

So...

Why is it Pro-Ban can win in the MK poll, however pro-ban is not the solution? The Back Room decided that in order for MK to be banned it had to be a 66 percent vote.

Let's think about this.

You're running for president against the former school president, you work hard to get the facts out there to the students and in the end, it's worth it, you just barely win in vote percentage. HOwever, since it wasn't a certain vote percentage, the former class president still won. It doesn't make sense.

It's practically saying "we're acknowledging that metaknight in fact should be banned and a majority of smash thinks so, however we're just not going to do it."

discuss..

____

Side arguement

Why are stages like jungles japes banned in places. it doesn't make sense either. Characters like falco, dedede, peach, etc. Have stages where they would be ideal. We have Mk who is turbo broke, so these ground breaking stages are very helpful for matchups that are too rough to deal with regularly.

Peach and Jiggs had mute city, it was a practical guaranteed win against space animals. Plank recently banned mute city because he didn't like it (from pound 4 mind you). But is that truly fair? It's something that helps a lower tier character get just a bit better, however it's taken away, just so an already top tier character, can have less competition. How fair is that?! O_O

Crimson King · Aug 10, 2009

As much as I vehemently oppose any video game topics in the Debate Hall, I'll leave this run.

aeghrur · Aug 10, 2009

Because the SBR believes that a self-elected aristocracy will be better for the smash community than a democracy due to the large amount of uneducated voters.

Purple · Aug 10, 2009

Crimson King said:
As much as I vehemently oppose any video game topics in the Debate Hall, I'll leave this run.

sorry crimson, i just had my view of the mk poll and it was something i thought maybe a few others besides me would enjoy discussing.

aeghrur said:
Because the SBR believes that a self-elected aristocracy will be better for the smash community than a democracy due to the large amount of uneducated voters.

and then people look at the vote and feel it's idiotic and it's as if they want to make sure mk doesn't get banned, even when the proof of his skill being beyond all characters is practically obvious.

m2k's a genius

aeghrur · Aug 10, 2009

Of course MK's better than all other characters.
That's why he's the top of the top.
That alone doesn't warrant him a ban.

Mewter · Aug 10, 2009

aeghrur said:
Of course MK's better than all other characters.
That's why he's the top of the top.
That alone doesn't warrant him a ban.

QFT

Banning MK would probably do more damage to the community than having him unbanned. He may be cheap, but he's not godly. You can still beat him.

aeghrur · Aug 10, 2009

Mewter said:
QFT

Banning MK would probably do more damage to the community than having him unbanned. He may be cheap, but he's not godly. You can still beat him.

Actually, MK is godly, just not under the current ruleset, and even then it's arguable considering EDC is technically not banned.
And either way, the community is hurt because of this issue.

Also, I'd like to know Mewter, what do you think about the way the SBR is chosen and such? I personally don't agree with it because there's no way to check the admissions process and such, but the SBR also has no power, so it kind of makes me not care, lol.

Mewter · Aug 10, 2009

aeghrur said:
Actually, MK is godly, just not under the current ruleset, and even then it's arguable considering EDC is technically not banned.
And either way, the community is hurt because of this issue.

Also, I'd like to know Mewter, what do you think about the way the SBR is chosen and such? I personally don't agree with it because there's no way to check the admissions process and such, but the SBR also has no power, so it kind of makes me not care, lol.

The SBR? I'll be honest. I don't know much about them. :laugh:

From what I've heard, they're a group of "elite" smashers that decide on rules and such, and they're only picked by other members of the SBR?

It would be great if this was straightened out before I answered your questions.

Deleted member · Aug 10, 2009

Yes. The SBR is invite-only. This is inherently a problem when dealing with issues such as the Meta Knight ban, where the community is so obviously divided and the only thing stopping the ban are a couple purple names. The 2/3rds majority is also incredibly arbitrary - sure it's a standard, and one they've been using since the creation of the SBR, but that doesn't make it any less arbitrary. To find a majority of something, crack a dictionary open and read the definition. 51% > 49%, and that's all that matters.

By the way, your latest presidential election had about a 4-5% difference.

Mewter · Aug 10, 2009

Well then, people should be elected to the SBR by the "commonfolk" rather than invited by its members. That way, you have a more accurate representation of what the people want. Obviously, what the people wanted was a MK ban. I don't have a problem with that. But at the very least, the SBR should make admission half election, half invite.

But really, requiring a 2/3 vote for something is way too much. If two thirds of all people wanted MK banned, then we wouldn't be having these fierce debates. It would be more of a gang- up. It should be obvious that there is not going to be a 2/3 ban vote.

And Del, Obama didn't really win. He would have needed 2/3 of all votes in order to win; you know, the majority. I guess the United States will have to lay off electing a president until November later this year.

TheBuzzSaw · Aug 11, 2009

The SBR is not a democracy. If you really feel that the SBR is so corrupt, go form your own organization. However, keep in mind that the SBR houses a collection of the brightest minds, best players, and biggest contributors. It is not a popularity contest. >_>

As for Meta Knight, he is certainly unbalanced, but if he were truly "broken", how do you explain the fact that Snake won Genesis?

Mewter · Aug 11, 2009

TheBuzzSaw said:
The SBR is not a democracy. If you really feel that the SBR is so corrupt, go form your own organization. However, keep in mind that the SBR houses a collection of the brightest minds, best players, and biggest contributors. It is not a popularity contest. >_>

As for Meta Knight, he is certainly unbalanced, but if he were truly "broken", how do you explain the fact that Snake won Genesis?

I was explaining my own ideals of how the Back Room should work. I still believe that a 66% vote is way too many people, that need to vote yes in order to ban him (I'm anti-ban). Maybe 60% or 55% would have been better? I just think it could/should have been a bit different.

And I hope that the second part wasn't addressed to me, since I never said MK was broken; I only said he was cheap.

Edit:
Oh, and don't take offense to this post. I mean it in the sincerest way.

aeghrur · Aug 11, 2009

TheBuzzSaw said:
The SBR is not a democracy. If you really feel that the SBR is so corrupt, go form your own organization. However, keep in mind that the SBR houses a collection of the brightest minds, best players, and biggest contributors. It is not a popularity contest. >_>

Or so it is said.
Obviously they have some respectable people, but there's no way to check whether they are the brightest minds or not, especially with some bright minds such as Shadowlink and Adumbrodeus not being in there while still contributing a lot to the community.
How can you be sure that a self-elected aristocracy is made of the brightest minds? What's there to make sure of this? The word of other people in the SBR? The assumption that we should trust them as is?

Oh, and I did not say they were corrupt per say, just that they might not necessarily be the smartest there is, and we have no way to check if this is true or not.

As for Meta Knight, he is certainly unbalanced, but if he were truly "broken", how do you explain the fact that Snake won Genesis?

No open use of EDC nor planking despite the SBR recommended ruleset not banning either.
IDC also makes MK broken, but the community bans the tactic, unlike most other competitive communities out there who simply ban characters as opposed to certain tactics.

RDK · Aug 11, 2009

TheBuzzSaw said:
The SBR is not a democracy. If you really feel that the SBR is so corrupt, go form your own organization. However, keep in mind that the SBR houses a collection of the brightest minds, best players, and biggest contributors. It is not a popularity contest. >_>

As for Meta Knight, he is certainly unbalanced, but if he were truly "broken", how do you explain the fact that Snake won Genesis?

There have been numerous accounts of people in the SBR admitting that they don't even play Brawl.

That being said, everyone from the DH who voted pro-ban should be ashamed of themselves. Suffice it to say that there will be new criteria used in the next purge.

Firus · Aug 11, 2009

I think you can make a pretty good argument against having total democracy or voting by all members of SWF or anything.

http://www.smashboards.com/news/blogs/134364/736/metaknight-should-not-be-banned

(While I agree with his premise, his logic is extremely flawed, obviously...)

It irks me a little that the SBR almost single-handedly controls the future of competitive Smash, but there's really no better way to do it.

Plus, just think about all of the people who think that banning items and stages is just a john would come here and start getting involved in the voting decisions, either just naturally or possibly to sabotage competitive Smash. Because there are people that hate that people play the game competitively, that play it in that matter, and SmashBoards in general.

RDK · Aug 11, 2009

There's no possible way in hell that the blog post you just linked to is serious.

Riddle · Aug 11, 2009

RDK said:
There's no possible way in hell that the blog post you just linked to is serious.

You don't remember Maxfire?? He's an admin now that he's left since he is a smashboards legend. Seriously search threads by MaxfireXSA and you wil find many such gems.

Mewter said:
I was explaining my own ideals of how the Back Room should work. I still believe that a 66% vote is way too many people, that need to vote yes in order to ban him (I'm anti-ban). Maybe 60% or 55% would have been better? I just think it could/should have been a bit different.

Ever heard of a super-majority? Since the banning of MK is actually changing something then we should be sure we want to do it. 51% of people wanting to ban MK is not being sure of it, so the alternative of keeping things the same is used. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority (check the section on 2/3 majority).

TheBuzzSaw · Aug 11, 2009

Riddle said:
Ever heard of a super-majority? Since the banning of MK is actually changing something then we should be sure we want to do it. 51% of people wanting to ban MK is not being sure of it, so the alternative of keeping things the same is used. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority (check the section on 2/3 majority).

I was just about point this out. You beat me to it.

Banning Meta Knight is more than a mere preference of how the game should be played. It really is a game-changing vote. It will force MK mains to learn another character. It alters many dynamics of the roster by removing a character (a first in the smash community). I agree 100% with requiring a 2/3 vote on an issue such as this. Even if my vote "won", I would not feel comfortable with a 50.01% victory.

Purple · Aug 11, 2009

TheBuzzSaw said:
The SBR is not a democracy. If you really feel that the SBR is so corrupt, go form your own organization. However, keep in mind that the SBR houses a collection of the brightest minds, best players, and biggest contributors. It is not a popularity contest. >_>

As for Meta Knight, he is certainly unbalanced, but if he were truly "broken", how do you explain the fact that Snake won Genesis?

my opinion of how snake won genesis is laughable.

By the way M2K destroyed Ally at Genesis.

Snake is very good, but he's NOTHING like Metaknight, it just seems like it against bad MK's

Example, diddy vs m2k seems 50-50 because of alot of hypothetical qualities (MK's slow horizontal movement, diddy's faster horizontal movement). Then was settled there when ninjalink won against M2K a while ago. Then Ninjalink ended up agreeing that M2K was sandbagging him so that MK wouldn't be banned.

I mean, since SBR seems to openly say that this tourney shows if metaknight should be banned, M2K knows when to sandbag, tourneys that aren't ban worthy he wins easily.

Mewter said:
I was explaining my own ideals of how the Back Room should work. I still believe that a 66% vote is way too many people, that need to vote yes in order to ban him (I'm anti-ban). Maybe 60% or 55% would have been better? I just think it could/should have been a bit different.

And I hope that the second part wasn't addressed to me, since I never said MK was broken; I only said he was cheap.

Edit:
Oh, and don't take offense to this post. I mean it in the sincerest way.

forget that, if anti-ban won, then it wouldn't have been ban because it's too close, granted ban makes alot of people leave the community, but if they don't want to support the community with it's changes, then why bother playing the game? M2K openly said that if mk was banned he would quit, people are only not wanting him banned because of a few purple names, also note that M2K can't get 1st constantly unless he uses MK

Purple · Aug 11, 2009

apologies for double post, got pretty quick on the reply button XD

also guys remember that there's another sub arguement in my original post.

i also would like to disagree that with SBR's current ruleset, MK is overpowered, he has no stage where he can honestly be overpowered by a character.

in EC at least, jungle japes is banned (falco), green greens is banned (peach), corneria is banned (dedede) etc. However rainbow cruise isn't banned, which is GREAT for mk

aeghrur · Aug 11, 2009

RDK said:
There have been numerous accounts of people in the SBR admitting that they don't even play Brawl.

That being said, everyone from the DH who voted pro-ban should be ashamed of themselves. Suffice it to say that there will be new criteria used in the next purge.

You just hate me don't you?
:cry:

CRASHiC · Aug 11, 2009

RDK said:
There have been numerous accounts of people in the SBR admitting that they don't even play Brawl.

That being said, everyone from the DH who voted pro-ban should be ashamed of themselves. Suffice it to say that there will be new criteria used in the next purge.

If our vote was to be based purly off of the opening arguments by both sides, as opposed to personal opinions on the terms broken, you had to vote pro-ban.
As I've stated before, in Street Fighter HD Remix, Akuma had several even matches, and had not won every major national tournament, but after fighting for months over the issue, he was banned. This same criteria can be applied to Metaknight.

Assuming that because of a disagreement there is a lack of logic is foolish.

RDK · Aug 11, 2009

CRASHiC said:
If our vote was to be based purly off of the opening arguments by both sides, as opposed to personal opinions on the terms broken, you had to vote pro-ban.
As I've stated before, in Street Fighter HD Remix, Akuma had several even matches, and had not won every major national tournament, but after fighting for months over the issue, he was banned. This same criteria can be applied to Metaknight.

Assuming that because of a disagreement there is a lack of logic is foolish.

No, it's not foolish, it's realistic. The entire OP pro-ban argument was full of appeals to emotion and idiotic reasoning bordering on the scrubby. It boggles my mind that actual Debate Hall members voted pro-ban in that poll.

And if people knew what actually constitutes being "broken" in a competitive fighting game, it wouldn't have come down to that anyway.

Mewter · Aug 11, 2009

TheBuzzSaw said:
I was just about point this out. You beat me to it.

Banning Meta Knight is more than a mere preference of how the game should be played. It really is a game-changing vote. It will force MK mains to learn another character. It alters many dynamics of the roster by removing a character (a first in the smash community). I agree 100% with requiring a 2/3 vote on an issue such as this. Even if my vote "won", I would not feel comfortable with a 50.01% victory.

The system really was ridiculous, though. About 54% of the community voted yes, and 46% voted no. I would say there is a sufficient majority there to make a decision. Additionally, this means that more people wanted him banned than those that didn't want him banned, so really, all that is happening is the greater side practically loses its vote just because it didn't meet the conditions of having a 66% vote. This was not a 50.01% percent victory, it was a 54% victory, and if I remember correctly, Barack Obama had a 53% popular vote victory in the 2008 election. Del had it right.

Meta Knight, however, is not broken, believe it or not. A good example of what constitutes brokenness would be Mewtwo from Pokemon Red, Blue, and Yellow. Mewtwo's defenses were off the charts along with incredible HP, his speed was entirely unmatched by all but (maybe) Electrode, and his offense was God Tier. He knew almost every powerful attack in the game at that time, and even a 2-year old could win with him, so he was dubbed broken and banned from competitive play. People made strategies and 6 Pokemon teams solely to beat one Mewtwo, being the superman that he was.

Meta Knight, however, is not quite that far on the "brokenness" meter, so he'd be just very cheap and annoying. Sure, he's got better safety options, and huge priority on a lot of his attacks, and he's devastating if played correctly. BUT, he can be beaten and there's still a lot of time left to develop characters. Things might not change much over a few years, but we may get a clearer picture of whether or not MK really is ban material (IDC makes him ban-able, but it's not allowed) and even then he's on the verge.

CRASHiC · Aug 11, 2009

RDK said:
No, it's not foolish, it's realistic. The entire OP pro-ban argument was full of appeals to emotion and idiotic reasoning bordering on the scrubby. It boggles my mind that actual Debate Hall members voted pro-ban in that poll.

And if people knew what actually constitutes being "broken" in a competitive fighting game, it wouldn't have come down to that anyway.

I saw no emotional appeals in any of Fiction's argument, rather, a use of frame rate data to show a lack of any weaknesses, among other arguments that did not apply to emotions. Co18 and Fiction can both handle MKs on their own exceedingly well. In a tournament of nearly all Metaknights, WHOBO, Co18 was the highest ranked player who did not main or second Metaknight in the tournament, and used a character that has a 60-40 against Metaknight, and was knocked out of the tournament, only by 2% on the last set because of a time out. I don't have to provide an example of how Fiction is not a scrub.

Another valid argument I remember reading in the argument was the difficulty in regulating the IDC in tournament.

Akuma is considered a broken character in Street Fighter HD Remix, and has many of the same properties that Metaknight has, having only a handful of even matchups, winning most, not all national tournaments, and he is considered ban worthy.

I am not disclaiming that metaknight should or should not be banned, but to discredit the argument to ban Metaknight as foolish, ignorant, and scrubish really has no place.

TheBuzzSaw · Aug 11, 2009

Mewter said:
The system really was ridiculous, though. About 54% of the community voted yes, and 46% voted no. I would say there is a sufficient majority there to make a decision. Additionally, this means that more people wanted him banned than those that didn't want him banned, so really, all that is happening is the greater side practically loses its vote just because it didn't meet the conditions of having a 66% vote. This was not a 50.01% percent victory, it was a 54% victory, and if I remember correctly, Barack Obama had a 53% popular vote victory in the 2008 election. Del had it right.

Meta Knight, however, is not broken, believe it or not. A good example of what constitutes brokenness would be Mewtwo from Pokemon Red, Blue, and Yellow. Mewtwo's defenses were off the charts along with incredible HP, his speed was entirely unmatched by all but (maybe) Electrode, and his offense was God Tier. He knew almost every powerful attack in the game at that time, and even a 2-year old could win with him, so he was dubbed broken and banned from competitive play. People made strategies and 6 Pokemon teams solely to beat one Mewtwo, being the superman that he was.

Meta Knight, however, is not quite that far on the "brokenness" meter, so he'd be just very cheap and annoying. Sure, he's got better safety options, and huge priority on a lot of his attacks, and he's devastating if played correctly. BUT, he can be beaten and there's still a lot of time left to develop characters. Things might not change much over a few years, but we may get a clearer picture of whether or not MK really is ban material (IDC makes him ban-able, but it's not allowed) and even then he's on the verge.

54% over 46% is still not a big margin in this regard.

The presidential example is terrible. We are going to have a new president regardless. Even a 50.01% victory is acceptable.

The vote regarding Meta Knight is not an election where we decide whether we want to keep him or not (as if each character had to be voted in term after term). This vote is about uprooting him and pulling him from the game. Generally speaking, all characters "deserve" their spots in the game. That is why I support a 2/3 voting system in this case.

And for the record, I voted pro-ban in the poll. I don't see MK as quite broken, but I agree with the arguments that he is forming a metagame black hole. All decisions revolve around him. Why would I favor a 2/3 vote if I "really really really wanted him out"? The fact is that I feel the community should be more unified in such a decision. I bet I could post a poll about banning Yoshi for just being a dumb character. Should he be banned because I happen to rally 51% votes from 4chan idiots?

cF=) · Aug 11, 2009

This WEBSITE is a metagame black hole compared to SRK. A summary of our failure:

1)We banned Wobbling because someone had the guts to reach the pinnacle of ICs metagame, even when it was known FOR YEARS that this technique could lead to a stock off.
2)We decided to ban items in Brawl, because we outlined the general rules for this game with the melee mindset, which is imo, not the right one to use when you have in your hands a sequel that is very far in every aspect from it's predecessor.
3)Now we want to ban a character that is better than the rest of the cast, but still not good enough to take Genesis (since Ally is a Snake player).

The very fact that we go on and on with our judgmental mistakes makes me feel like we shouldn't have this dumb system of politics that decides whether a rule set is deemed good or not by few selected members of an online forum. Step your ****ing game up, son.

.Marik · Aug 11, 2009

The evidence suggesting MetaKnight is a broken character is quite frankly, pretty obvious and overwhelming.

How is MetaKnight not? You're just in denial if you think MetaKnight's "just the same" as Snake, and Tournament results show MetaKnight is twice as good, and is also a low-learning curve character, whereas Snake is high.

I've stated my opinion on the subject numerous times, but MetaKnight wil never be banned in mainstream Brawl, maybe a few Tournaments here and there, but nothing serious, nothing that will change the Brawl scene.

I can go dig up the posts, if anybody is interested. But the Brawl community doesn't have the initiative to ban MetaKnight, due to the notion being a disfavoured one, even though the evidence persists and is undeniably true.

Of course MetaKnight can be beaten, but it's considerably harder compared to the rest of the cast, and MetaKnight is stronger in almost every single possible aspect in an already over-centralized metagame.

I really don't care, since Yoshi has a ton of hard matchups waiting for him either way.

RDK · Aug 11, 2009

CRASHiC said:
I saw no emotional appeals in any of Fiction's argument

My god.

Go read the thread again:

6. Metaknight detracts from the metagame.
7. Meta Knight is a very serious detriment to the mid level of play.
8. The community favors a ban.
Counterpoint #2- Metaknight really IS too good/over centralizing

^ Those are just a few. None of the points on the pro-ban side have anything to do with anything; it's just random nonsense aimed to evoke an emotional response about "the state of the metagame". Maybe if pro-ban spent more time gathering evidence that fits the actual ban criteria the decision would have turned out differently.

Another valid argument I remember reading in the argument was the difficulty in regulating the IDC in tournament.

So you're equating the move IDC with the character Metaknight? Again, what does this have to do with anything? 2 completely unrelated topics. As if a banned stall tactic has any bearing on whether or not a character is bannable. Characters could stall in Melee, too, should we have banned those?

Akuma is considered a broken character in Street Fighter HD Remix, and has many of the same properties that Metaknight has, having only a handful of even matchups, winning most, not all national tournaments, and he is considered ban worthy.

By who? I assure you, nobody that matters. And even if he's considered ban-worthy, he's not banned.

I am not disclaiming that metaknight should or should not be banned, but to discredit the argument to ban Metaknight as foolish, ignorant, and scrubish really has no place.

It is foolish and scrubbish, for reasons the anti-ban camp has screamed ever since this whole nonsense started. If people knew anything about competitive fighting games then the Smash community wouldn't be the hilarious pile of **** of competitive fighting game communities. People like you, who seem to think that there's nothing wrong with having a pro-ban stance, only make the problem worse.

cF=) said:
This WEBSITE is a metagame black hole compared to SRK. A summary of our failure:

1)We banned Wobbling because someone had the guts to reach the pinnacle of ICs metagame, even when it was known FOR YEARS that this technique could lead to a stock off.
2)We decided to ban items in Brawl, because we outlined the general rules for this game with the melee mindset, which is imo, not the right one to use when you have in your hands a sequel that is very far in every aspect from it's predecessor.
3)Now we want to ban a character that is better than the rest of the cast, but still not good enough to take Genesis (since Ally is a Snake player).

The very fact that we go on and on with our judgmental mistakes makes me feel like we shouldn't have this dumb system of politics that decides whether a rule set is deemed good or not by few selected members of an online forum. Step your ****ing game up, son.

Banning items is completely different than banning Metaknight. Why are you equating the two?

I hate when people say "BRAWL IS WAAAAYYY DIFFERENTZORZ THAN MAYLAY; LETZ USZE TEH ITEMS LOL112!!!121. No, no it's not "way different". Stop saying it is.

MarikYoshi said:
The evidence suggesting MetaKnight is a broken character is quite frankly, pretty obvious and overwhelming.

How is MetaKnight not? You're just in denial if you think MetaKnight's "just the same" as Snake, and Tournament results show MetaKnight is twice as good, and is also a low-learning curve character, whereas Snake is high.

Nobody said Metaknight is "twice as good". Stop making stuff up.

I can go dig up the posts, if anybody is interested. But the Brawl community doesn't have the initiative to ban MetaKnight, due to the notion being a disfavoured one, even though the evidence persists and is undeniably true.

Please, post your undeniable evidence of Metaknight fitting any of the accepted ban criteria! Surely this is groundbreaking news on a community-wide level! Why have you kept this information to yourself, whilst the Smash community has continued to wallow in its own squalor?

Of course MetaKnight can be beaten, but it's considerably harder compared to the rest of the cast, and MetaKnight is stronger in almost every single possible aspect in an already over-centralized metagame.

Already over-centralized? Around what?

And people wonder why nobody takes pro-ban seriously.

Bowser King · Aug 11, 2009

cF=) said:
2)We decided to ban items in Brawl, because we outlined the general rules for this game with the melee mindset, which is imo, not the right one to use when you have in your hands a sequel that is very far in every aspect from it's predecessor.

Brawl with items would be chaos. With just smashballs alone, characters like MK and snake would get better not worse.

MK has good range, multiple jumps and he can break the smashball fairly easily. Snake can do all those except multiple jumps but he does a lot better job at busting it open. Both of there final smash will result in an almost guaranteed kill (snakes not so much but even with airdodges and spot dodging, it's still hard to get around).

Characters with low mobility would sink even further down and seeing how almost all the top tiers are extremely mobile, it would only make the gap larger.

Plus, items bring way to much luck in to a game that many fighting communities already call heavily luck driven.

Just because some members on SRK (those that even know a bit about competitive smash disagree with them) think we need items to make this game competitive doesn't mean there right.

TheBuzzSaw · Aug 11, 2009

The entire items argument is wrong. Items were given a chance. The SBR (among others) actually tested items out. Everyone started fresh. Items were not banned due to peer pressure from the Melee scene. At worst, Melee players accelerated their demise, but items were found to be ridiculous soon after Brawl's release.

aeghrur · Aug 11, 2009

cF=) said:
This WEBSITE is a metagame black hole compared to SRK. A summary of our failure:

1)We banned Wobbling because someone had the guts to reach the pinnacle of ICs metagame, even when it was known FOR YEARS that this technique could lead to a stock off.
2)We decided to ban items in Brawl, because we outlined the general rules for this game with the melee mindset, which is imo, not the right one to use when you have in your hands a sequel that is very far in every aspect from it's predecessor.
3)Now we want to ban a character that is better than the rest of the cast, but still not good enough to take Genesis (since Ally is a Snake player).

The very fact that we go on and on with our judgmental mistakes makes me feel like we shouldn't have this dumb system of politics that decides whether a rule set is deemed good or not by few selected members of an online forum. Step your ****ing game up, son.

Hm, don't forget we had to limit MK though.
We had to ban IDC and install a ledgegrab rule for planking just so he's not broken anymore.
Although, EDC cannot really be banned due to the nature of it. It's hard to enforce a ban on EDC, and that move could make MK broken.
Also, planking could make MK broken as well, and it's not actually explicitly banned in the SBR ruleset. =/

.Marik · Aug 12, 2009

RDK said:
Nobody said Metaknight is "twice as good". Stop making stuff up.

I said MetaKnight is. Sure, the gap between MetaKnight and Snake is shrinking, but that's only because of Ally. Again, the evidence persists.

Please, post your undeniable evidence of Metaknight fitting any of the accepted ban criteria! Surely this is groundbreaking news on a community-wide level! Why have you kept this information to yourself, whilst the Smash community has continued to wallow in its own squalor?

Undeniable evidence? Simply look at Tournament result threads, and even Ankoku's thread! It's all there!

And people wonder why nobody takes pro-ban seriously.

Nobody takes the anti-ban seriously either, unable to provide fresh arguments as to why MetaKnight shouldn't be banned.

But, since you never read my entire post and aren't disproving anything I mentioned, I'll re-quote my last statement.

I really don't care, since Yoshi has a ton of hard matchups waiting for him either way.

So, in reality, even though evidence suggests MetaKnight consistently meets ban criteria, I personally don't care. I'm slightly leaning towards pro-ban, but only because of surmounted evidence.

Anyways, MetaKnight didn't get banned, as many predicted, myself included. I play Yoshi, a low-tier and high-learning curve character. I'm going to be challenged either way.

I also gave anti-ban arguments before. MetaKnight is like the top predator of a food chain.

Remove MetaKnight, and the other living organisms in the environment will grow considerably in numbers, and since there's no top predator to help steady the population of other animals, they will excessively multiply and topple the cycle. So, Falco's, Snake's, Diddy's, Ice Climbers's, Dedede's, and the like will instead take over. And since I play Yoshi?

I'm having problems either way.

TheBuzzSaw · Aug 12, 2009

Tournament results can be used to reinforce other types of evidence, but they are inadequate otherwise. Using tournament result logic, Marth clearly should have been banned in Melee. It reached the point where Marth started winning everything.

.Marik · Aug 12, 2009

TheBuzzSaw said:
Tournament results can be used to reinforce other types of evidence, but they are inadequate otherwise.

Agreed. Let me explain myself further.

I understand Tournament results are only a single factor regarding the overall picture.

But look at MetaKnight's matchups. Most are in his favour, few are neutral, and none are disadvantaged against him.

They go hand in hand together, these two pieces of the puzzle. Tournament results and excellent matchups.

Solid evidence.

As for Marth in Melee, he's no longer considered the best. The metagame was still evolving, but it's been a year now, and MetaKnight keeps improving and getting better. I think MetaKnight's substantially better in Brawl now than Marth ever was, and ever will be, in Melee.

RDK · Aug 12, 2009

MarikYoshi said:
I said MetaKnight is. Sure, the gap between MetaKnight and Snake is shrinking, but that's only because of Ally. Again, the evidence persists.

Yeah, Metaknight is the best character in the game; even better than Snake.

So what? How does that count as evidence? You've provided nothing except the fact that he has almost no disadvantageous matchups, and that he wins a lot of tournaments. You still have failed to show why he breaks any of the current ban criteria, and until you do, nobody's going to listen.

"Yay! Metaknight has great matchups! That's unfair, let's ban him!"

Apparently you think unfair should be criteria for banning. By your logic 60-40 matchups would be unfair. Then we would be stuck with neutral matchups only in brawl. Sounds like fun!

And BTW, there's a huge difference between having a favorable matchup and "shutting them down". You're making it seem like MK effectively counters the majority of the cast. He doesn't.

Undeniable evidence? Simply look at Tournament result threads, and even Ankoku's thread! It's all there!

Yeah, he wins a lot of tournaments. What's your point? So did plenty of other characters in the history of Melee.

Is he anti-competitive? Does he overcentralize the metagame? Does he break or prevent competition?

You cry about anti-ban not coming up with evidence, when all you can do is point to nonexistent tournament results (you didn't even provide any links) and Ankoku's thread, as if somehow that was relevant to Metaknight being bannable.

Nobody takes the anti-ban seriously either, unable to provide fresh arguments as to why MetaKnight shouldn't be banned.

Suddenly we need fresh arguments as to why MK shouldn't be banned? You guys haven't even refuted the old ones.

Every time a new game is released, we do not retest every single thing that was tested before unless it has changed in such a significant way that it requires retesting. Brawl is still very much like Melee, despite the new mechanics. It hasn't changed in such a way that the old criteria no longer apply.

We have precedence, we have past experiments and findings (and new ones for Brawl) supporting out position. You, as the one advocating a change, have the burden of proof. You have to show that your way is better than ours.

So, in reality, even though evidence suggests MetaKnight consistently meets ban criteria

No, he doesn't. Honestly, do you even understand what you're saying? You've shown no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that he meets ban criteria.

I hope you understand why you're wrong. Character diversity and prevention of metagame stagnation isn't valid reasoning to institute a ban. Using your arbitrary logic we should ban half of the characters and strategies and techniques in the game to have more character diversity and more fun, despite it being anti-competitive to do so.

Host your own tournaments.

.Marik · Aug 12, 2009

RDK said:
"Yay! Metaknight has great matchups! That's unfair, let's ban him!"

That's not what I meant. The issue goes a lot deeper than that, obviously.

Apparently you think unfair should be criteria for banning. By your logic 60-40 matchups would be unfair. Then we would be stuck with neutral matchups only in brawl. Sounds like fun!

No, I think a character that can't be countered and isn't disadvantaged in any way, shape or form, is criteria for a ban. Do you suffer from selective hearing? It's like you totally disregarded my entire bottom half of the post you just replied to. I don't really care if he gets banned or not. I even provided anti-ban arguments.

And BTW, there's a huge difference between having a favorable matchup and "shutting them down". You're making it seem like MK effectively counters the majority of the cast. He doesn't.

Okay, good point. But does he have a counter? Even a stage counter? A strategy that doesn't rely on the MetaKnight player messing up and getting punished? Didn't think so...

Yeah, he wins a lot of tournaments. What's your point? So did plenty of other characters in the history of Melee.

You can't really compare the two games, Melee is a lot more in-depth, and no character has won nearly as consistently or often as MetaKnight. At least in Melee, the better player prevailed and won by implementing skill.

Is he anti-competitive? Does he overcentralize the metagame? Does he break or prevent competition?

No, but MetaKnight definitely makes the diverse options of Brawl quite limited. Since every knowledgable player knows the worth of MetaKnight, there are a ton of people maining or using him as a secondary. A ton.

You cry about anti-ban not coming up with evidence, when all you can do is point to nonexistent tournament results (you didn't even provide any links) and Ankoku's thread, as if somehow that was relevant to Metaknight being bannable.

I mentioned the threads. Even with the results, it's common knowledge that Tournaments are simply overrun with MetaKnight players. How is it not relevant? The points of MetaKnight are more than almost the bottom 25 characters put together. Yes, that alone doesn't warrant a ban. But see, I never said I wanted him banned, just that the evidence makes this a genuine possibility.

Suddenly we need fresh arguments as to why MK shouldn't be banned? You guys haven't even refuted the old ones.

Tournament results. Talk to Xyro or something, a SBR member that wants MetaKnight banned, unlike myself who honestly already explained why it didn't matter whether or not the pro or anti-ban side won.

Ever ytime a new game is released, we do not retest every single thing that was tested before unless it has changed it such a significant way it requires retesting. Brawl is still very much like Melee, despite the new mechanics. It hasn't changed in such a way the old criteria no longer apply.

That would be true, except the existance of MetaKnight. A groundbreaking character with no weaknesses, and is such an easy character to pick up and use. Most people can learn his most advanced style of gameplay in about a week. Could the same be said for Melee? Sure, but Fox players actually had to implement their knowledge and not just press buttons. In a competitive sense, Brawl is not meant to be played competitively, unlike Melee.

We have precedent, we have past experiments and findings (and new ones for Brawl) supporting out position. You, as the one advocating a change, have the burden of proof. You have to show that your way is better than ours.

You're making me sound like an elitist. I'm not claiming I have knowledge over several notorious members responsible for making the decisions, but I do have common knowledge and somewhat support both sides. I'm merely trying to disprove the seemingly endless array of anti-ban members, who believe without a doubt people are whining and acting like complete scrubs. "Lol, no johns!" "Lern2matchups".

It would be easier if Sakurai didn't intentionally make Brawl casual, and didn't strengthen MetaKnight to a degree which warranted him to show off his franchise. Sure, MetaKnight is not impossible to beat, but he's very, very, challenging in the hands of a decent player, who can literally just pick MetaKnight up and play, even in the midst of experienced players who main Toon Link, Ganondorf, Yoshi, Zelda, and virtually every single character below A Tier.

I hope you understand why you're wrong. Character diversity and prevention of metagame stagnation isn't valid reasoning to institute a ban.

Opinions and valid Tournament results can be wrong now? News to me.

Using your arbitrary logic we should ban half of the characters and strategies and techniques in the game to have more character diversity and more fun, despite it being anti-competitive to do so.

I never said anything along those lines, had no intention of doing so either. You've taken everything out of context.

Again, I honestly couldn't care if MetaKnight gets the banhammer or not. Brawl is Brawl to me, and I play a mediocre character. AT's that advance the metagame of said character, and don't disrupt the way the game is played normally, should be allowed. Techniques? I have no problems with those. Why would anybody? I never said anything like that.

Host your own tournaments.

Naw, I'm quite content going to Tournaments whether MetaKnight is banned or not.

cF=) · Aug 12, 2009

Why such scrubbiness, if game designers decided that Brawl physics and character balancing would allow metaknight to be superior to the rest of the cast, then you go along with it, or you don't enter in metaknight infested tournaments. The whole argument about "balancing" things out is also bs, because that's not how you competitively play a game, or make a good player out of yourself. If you play to win, you enter a tournament with the biggest amount of chance possible, and if that means taking a character with no bad match ups, then you do!

The only case where I see a character ban possible is if the character was not balanced at all, such as if you play boss characters using a cheat code (this makes Master Hand a banned character, ie).

M.K · Aug 12, 2009

cF=) said:
Why such scrubbiness, if game designers decided that Brawl physics and character balancing would allow metaknight to be superior to the rest of the cast, then you go along with it, or you don't enter in metaknight infested tournaments. The whole argument about "balancing" things out is also bs, because that's not how you competitively play a game, or make a good player out of yourself. If you play to win, you enter a tournament with the biggest amount of chance possible, and if that means taking a character with no bad match ups, then you do!

The only case where I see a character ban possible is if the character was not balanced at all, such as if you play boss characters using a cheat code (this makes Master Hand a banned character, ie).

This argument is absolutely terrible and I am absolutely sick of seeing it everywhere.
"Don't enter in metaknight infested tournaments". What the hell? Are you seriously saying that I should base my tournament entrance on whether or not Metaknight is being played?
Not only would I have no way to access that information before I'm actually IN the tournament, if not entering tournaments with Meta-Knight is what the Brawl competitive scene comes down to, then it's sad. Very sad, I've lost hope.

I've never actually gotten a clear answer to this, I'm not saying I'm for or against the ban, but I'd like to hear the anti-ban's rebuttal to the fact that Meta-Knight does, in fact, break the counterpick system by having no unfavorable match-ups, few neutral match-ups, and plentiful advantageous match-ups?

SuSa · Aug 12, 2009

Their rebuttal to that was "You don't need to counterpick. It's an option sometimes to try and make the matchup in your favor. If you can't, all well. Smash was never designed around counterpicking."

/IIRC

Mk Ban

Hi guys!

I am become death

Smash Champion

Hi guys!

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Deleted member

Guest

Smash Master

Young Link Extraordinaire

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

You know what? I am good.

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Young Link Extraordinaire

Hi guys!

Hi guys!

Smash Champion

Smash Hero

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Young Link Extraordinaire

Smash Lord

is a social misfit

Smash Hero

Have It Your Way

Young Link Extraordinaire

Smash Champion

is a social misfit

Young Link Extraordinaire

is a social misfit

Smash Hero

is a social misfit

Smash Lord

Level 55

Banned via Administration

Information

Network