Fourth and final community vote about Meta Knight.

[Azuzu]

Okay, you obviously didn't understand what I was trying to say with that first statement. Whatever, irrelevant.

That's a horrendous example. If Metaknight had a 100-0 match up on everyone, he would be ****ing broken. We ban broken characters.

Look, if you wanted to ban a character because he invalidates a portion of the cast, there are better options than Metaknight. Period.

It wasn't a horrendous example because in your previous post you made it sound like regardless of how good he was, he shouldn't be banned. My example was the most extreme scenario to show that at a certain point he does have to be banned. Would 90-10 have been better? How about 80-20? How would I express the fact that at some point he has to be banned better?

While it's debatable that any single character invalidates more cast members than metaknight, a point which I don't have the knowledge to argue on, the fact remains that metaknight is still much more common of a match, even if he beats them 65-35 instead of 80-20. In other words, other characters may have better matches, but being less common, they are less of a threat. If you apply simple mathematical expectation to this scenario, it's pretty obvious how much many characters would benefit.

 

[Red Arremer]

Well, that's kind of the point. Snake doesn't really have any hard counters but, for most characters, he's more managable than Metaknight. ROB's a great example. Normally, the match up is "put down the controller and go grab a beer" bad unless you absolutely outplay the MK player but with Snake it's definately easier to deal with in comparison.

Uhm, sorry, I usually respect you a lot but that's a pretty dumb example, FMOI.

Using a character whose hardest matchup is indeed Meta Knight as example for why Meta Knight is ****** more than Snake is dumb, to repeat it.

Why don't you take a character who's, y'know, not having Meta Knight as hardest matchup?

Let's take for example Falco. He will definitely have an easier time against Meta Knight than against Snake. That is because Meta Knight is not his hardest matchup and Snake is harder. Oh wait, I just used the same logic as you did. Whee.

You gotta have to compare ALL characters, picking one - and one that is destroyed by Meta Knight on top of that - is just not the way to go.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Mk/Sonic is 55:45 - 6:4 MK's favor (surprise).

That is not bad/managable.

with MK gone, Sonic's more problematic MUs (I said this earlier too) are going to be more prominent, specifically Marth, who would much rather have MK gone.

I would consider G&W if he didn't get ***** by Snake who would also see a rise if MK got banned. It still doesn't help that he'd be a bit more showcased though (just a little bit... or it might be the same case), I heard G&W struggles with MK but I might be wrong there.

Although I wouldn't have to correct you if nobody would talk about about characters/they didn't know, so that's why I didn't bother explaining the first time.

Good to see you're paying attention though.

Who cares.
marth is an easier matchup than MK.
G&W is annoying for Sonic,.
screw popularity it means nothing in this debate.

If MK is causing incredible overcentralization then he is ban worthy.
He isn't though soooo yeah.

 

[iRJi]

Okay, you obviously didn't understand what I was trying to say with that first statement. Whatever, irrelevant.

That's a horrendous example. If Metaknight had a 100-0 match up on everyone, he would be ****ing broken. We ban broken characters.

Look, if you wanted to ban a character because he invalidates a portion of the cast, there are better options than Metaknight. Period.

Somewhat true, and also false. There is infact better characters to C/P people with depending on who you are playing, but the character that they choose in most cases can also be C/P'd back. Simply stating that each character has a C/P.

In MK's case, that is not true. MK to this day has zero bad matchups. Even though he still has even matchups, he has no negitive matchups. In that sense is what breaks the counter pick system.

 

[hat!]

If MK does get banned, does that mean some characters would rise in tiers?

 

[Kinzer]

Shadowlink, that (that being popularity) is not my point though.

I am saying that Sonic would not benefit from MK leaving because assuming the tier list is affected any by tourney results/representation (some of it should count, but not make up the majority), then Marth and perhaps G&W would suddenly start to pose more of a threat, at least to Sonic's position, I don't know/care about characters besides Marth and to a smaller extent G&W who would benefit with him gone.

Also please explain to me: a fellow Sonic player, how/why Marth is an easier MK then MK when we: the Sonic community, have been going over about the exact opposite.

I understand overcentralization is a reason to ban a character, I also acknowledge that MK is not to that point yet, or ever will be, so what exactly are we arguing here?

 

[AvaricePanda]

Melo don't be stupid. Why would you ban one character if they make one other useless. That character can still be countered. You should read the first page, speaking of how MK ruins the cp system by not having anyone or any stage to stop him.

This argument...lol.

No bad stages? Final Destination against Diddy or ICs. Halberd vs. Snake. While he has no universal bad stages, he does have stages that he does worse on against certain match-ups, which almost every character has. Wario doesn't really have universal bad stages, nor does Snake, Diddy, or a lot of characters, really.

No bad match-ups? First, you're implying that

1) Brawl relies heavily on the (character) CP system.
2) A 55:45 match-up not in a character's favor makes them counterable or stoppable.

Both of which are untrue.

1) How many top players honestly counterpick characters? How many players in general honestly counterpick characters? At lower levels of play, it might happen if you happen to have played around with D3 and are playing an annoying Donkey Kong, or you just don't feel like fighting Fox as your main, so you pick Pikachu. But at mid-high levels of play, counterpicking characters isn't nearly as effective. Why? Because you're trying to play a character who has maybe 1/10th of the experience that your main and your opponent's main does, and playing them only because they have a 55:45 or 60:40 match-up against them. In reality, sticking with your main is usually the best bet for a match-up that isn't worse than 65:35, unless you've really put in time into your secondary.

Especially in high levels of play, where there are known top mains of their charcaters. You probably aren't going to beat CO18's D3 with your Falco you've played for a week, even though, "FALCO HAS THE ADVANTAGE LOLOLOLOLOLOL."

2) This ties in well with one, but a 55:45 match-up is just a slight advantage. While one character may have the better tools in the match-up, it's not overwhelming, and the better skilled player or most knowledgable of the match-up can still easily win. Let's suppose that MK has a 55:45 match-up that everyone agrees it to be that way, pretend it's ICs (note the word pretend). Does that suddenly mean, to the pro-ban's eyes, that MK wouldn't be ban-worthy anymore? That, "Well if you encounter an MK, you can always counterpick ICs!"

yeah...

 

[BSP]

If MK does get banned, does that mean some characters would rise in tiers?

From what i ve heard, people with a bad matchup with mk will go up( assuming that they aren't destroyed by other characters). Some people may go down since there will be more of X person.

 

[Eddie G]

If MK does get banned, does that mean some characters would rise in tiers?

Nothing is guaranteed at this point, but it would definitely open a window for experimentation.

 

[Melomaniacal]

It wasn't a horrendous example because in your previous post you made it sound like regardless of how good he was, he shouldn't be banned. My example was the most extreme scenario to show that at a certain point he does have to be banned. Would 90-10 have been better? How about 80-20? How would I express the fact that at some point he has to be banned better?

While it's debatable that any single character invalidates more cast members than metaknight, a point which I don't have the knowledge to argue on, the fact remains that metaknight is still much more common of a match, even if he beats them 65-35 instead of 80-20. In other words, other characters may have better matches, but being less common, they are less of a threat. If you apply simple mathematical expectation to this scenario, it's pretty obvious how much many characters would benefit.

Oh, I get what you're saying. And you're right, there is a point where a character should be banned. And I'm saying MK is not at that point, at all. So he destroys a few characters. So does Sheik, so does DDD, so does Marth, so does Diddy, so does G&W.

The majority of MKs match ups are 60:40/65:35 his advantage. There are only a few (that matter) that are much worse. Even so, match ups at this point are very squishy, and could lean either which way. But they aren't going to all suddenly become 80:20's across the board. No. Metaknight is the best character, and that's it.

Melo don't be stupid. Why would you ban one character if they make one other useless. That character can still be countered. You should read the first page, speaking of how MK ruins the cp system by not having anyone or any stage to stop him.

Are you talking about my Sheik comment? That was ****ing sarcasm.

Somewhat true, and also false. There is infact better characters to C/P people with depending on who you are playing, but the character that they choose in most cases can also be C/P'd back. Simply stating that each character has a C/P.

In MK's case, that is not true. MK to this day has zero bad matchups. Even though he still has even matchups, he has no negitive matchups. In that sense is what breaks the counter pick system.

And that's really the only pro-ban argument that I like, haha.
I think it's arguable if he has any bad match ups (obviously no significantly bad match ups). He has a few close-to-even match ups, and at that point, the better player wins, which sounds fine to me.

 

[ken109]

Wow this ban mk thing was more serious than i thought.

 

[UberMario]

I'm not really a fan of tiers, but if MK is banned I see:

Pit Rising
Kirby Rising
Mario Rising
Olimar Rising
Captain Falcon Rising
Yoshi Really Rising
Snake Falling
Zelda Falling
Wario Falling

BTW, can someone please tell me what the gentleman's rule is?

 

[ThaRoy]

If MK does get banned, does that mean some characters would rise in tiers?

If MK gets banned, then people would rush to se D3, Snake, Falco, Wario, and Diddy. Most characters who struggle against MK are in the mid-tiers, and those characters usually have just as much of a problem with other characters. So there'd be a rise in usage of other characters, but as far as the tiers go, I don't believe so.

 

[pastaboy]

diddy doesnt have a bad stage you say.LOL

 

[fkacyan]

If MK does get banned, does that mean some characters would rise in tiers?

That's extremely debateble. I'm not sure the pro-ban camp actually has thought through all the effects of what happens with an environment without MK. Odds are we'll see the other top-tier characters get a lot more play, and cause a lot of lower tier character who could deal with Meta and not the others drop.

For example, ZSS, who does fine against Meta but has much more of an issue with Falco, Snake, and D3, who are all characters I would expect to see a ton of once MK drops off the face of the metagame.

 

[Eddie G]

This argument...lol.

No bad stages? Final Destination against Diddy or ICs. Halberd vs. Snake. While he has no universal bad stages, he does have stages that he does worse on against certain match-ups, which almost every character has. Wario doesn't really have universal bad stages, nor does Snake, Diddy, or a lot of characters, really.

I lol'd right here.

MK himself has no bad stages, even against certain matchups on those stages. Those certain stages just boost whatever strengths each respective character can use against MK at those stages. MK still possesses each of his strengths with no notable enhancements of any sort of weakness to deal with. That's all.

Halberd: Boosts Snake, doesn't help nor hurt MK.

FD: Boosts Diddy, doesn't help nor hurt MK.

And so on.

 

[SmashChu]

Few notes:

1)Someone has mentioned this before I'm sure, but how do we know what will happen when he is banned. Someone else may dominate a void.
2)Game & watch is a great Meta-Knight counter. No one will believe me, but from my experience, he is (was a Meta-Knight player who told me)
3)Meta-Knight wins in tournaments, but always loses online. Why?
4)In the finals of Evo, Meta-Knight was not there. Why?

 

[Inui]

Same reason why Snake would be going down, and not be the best IMO.

Snake beats every character in the game except Dedede. He's the best character with MK gone easily.

If anyone hasn't noticed already, Xyro voted for Yes with both his main account and his TGM account which Affinity pointed out earlier.

>_>

lol, oh well

 

[Sephiroth27]

"Banning MK will completely balance the game" is not a pro-ban argument. If it is, I'll vote "No."

 

[BSP]

I'm not really a fan of tiers, but if MK is banned I see:

Pit Rising
Kirby Rising
Mario Rising
Olimar Rising
Captain Falcon Rising
Yoshi Really Rising
Snake Falling
Zelda Falling
Wario Falling

BTW, can someone please tell me what the gentleman's rule is?

If a character is low tier to begin with, they usually have more than one character stopping them. That being said, i don't really see how yoshi, falcon, or mario could rise JUST by the removal of mk. How would snake and wario fall?

I think this might be going off topic a little

 

[Red Arremer]

"Banning MK will completely balance the game" is not a pro-ban argument. If it is, I'll vote "No."

Well it's not an actual argument, but apparently that's what a lot of Pro-Ban people here in the public poll actually do think.

 

[Azuzu]

Then let me refresh your memory:
If Meta Knight gets banned, the Top and High Tier characters will see the leftovers of the former Meta Knights join their ranks. You will see more Snakes, more Dededes, more Falcos. This will definitely NOT make more character variety, except for more character variety among the Top and High Tiers. It will simply lack Meta Knight and there will be other S Tiers and maybe some A Tiers filling these spots.

Thank you. This is put much better than your reply previously, and brings up very good points.

There is two significant jumps in logic here though:

1) Every metaknight main will move the a A or S tier. This simply isn't true, some will quit the game entirely, others will move to mid/low tiers. By the way, metaknights leaving the community is a TERRIBLE side effect, as people leaving any tight community like the smash one is a shame. If many metaknights would do this, it may reverse my opinion on the ban entirely, not that my opinion is that strong to start with. I wrote a big post on page 121 that no one read(lol) that goes into this.

2) Other S and A tiers win more on average than metaknight. You are implying that the characters are no better off, but their average matchup ratio increases significantly. I bet that if you compare the matchups of every low/mid tier vs metaknight with the average matchup of every low/mid tier vs every A/S tier combined, metaknight alone would have a better average matchup. This also assumes even distribution of MKs among A/S tier, which is naive, but I hope this illustrates my point.

I know that nationals would still be won by S/A tiers, no one's saying otherwise. I'm saying that it would *significantly* improve most low/mid tier characters expected matchup ratio for an average tournament.

 

[fkacyan]

Well it's not an actual argument, but apparently that's what a lot of Pro-Ban people here in the public poll actually do think.

Several people, especially mid-tier mains, overfocus on how bad MK beats their character and don't realize that the characters others will fall back to will be pretty bad for them as well.

 

[iRJi]

This argument...lol.

No bad stages? Final Destination against Diddy or ICs. Halberd vs. Snake. While he has no universal bad stages, he does have stages that he does worse on against certain match-ups, which almost every character has. Wario doesn't really have universal bad stages, nor does Snake, Diddy, or a lot of characters, really.

You are right about having characters who else do not have bad stages. However, most of these situations can also be solved by a simple strike of a stage, or a ban. That puts you back to square one. Not to mention If you lose the first match, what exactly can a MK not ban that you can simply get a stage advantage on? most characters can only C/P MK on so few stages, and a lot of the stages in this game are more in MK's favor then others.

No bad match-ups? First, you're implying that

1) Brawl relies heavily on the (character) CP system.
2) A 55:45 match-up not in a character's favor makes them counterable or stoppable.

Both of which are untrue.

To tell you the truth, this game does involve on counter picking, esp. now more then before. Many people are picking up characters to handel what their main character can not do. Some people now still stay the same character, but reguardless of that fact it still is a game where it is more of a C/P system.

1) How many top players honestly counterpick characters? How many players in general honestly counterpick characters? At lower levels of play, it might happen if you happen to have played around with D3 and are playing an annoying Donkey Kong, or you just don't feel like fighting Fox as your main, so you pick Pikachu. But at mid-high levels of play, counterpicking characters isn't nearly as effective. Why? Because you're trying to play a character who has maybe 1/10th of the experience that your main and your opponent's main does, and playing them only because they have a 55:45 or 60:40 match-up against them. In reality, sticking with your main is usually the best bet for a match-up that isn't worse than 65:35, unless you've really put in time into your secondary.

Especially in high levels of play, where there are known top mains of their charcaters. You probably aren't going to beat CO18's D3 with your Falco you've played for a week, even though, "FALCO HAS THE ADVANTAGE LOLOLOLOLOLOL."

Although true in the sense of not a lot of top players C/P, if they wanted to they have the option. Like i said a bit earlier when Melo posted about the C/P system; MK, despite the fact that he has even matchups, still has no bad matchups.

 

[Eddie G]

Well it's not an actual argument, but apparently that's what a lot of Pro-Ban people here in the public poll actually do think.

"Completely" is an exaggeration of what the pro-ban's argument really is. I'm sure pro-ban just seeks an "increase" in balance. "Complete balance" is never going to be an achievable goal and I'm sure they know that already.

 

[UberMario]

If a character is low tier to begin with, they usually have more than one character stopping them. That being said, i don't really see how yoshi, falcon, or mario could rise JUST by the removal of mk. How would snake and wario fall?

I think this might be going off topic a little

Pit, Kirby, and Yoshi have awesome air games (although Yoshi has to more precise or risk SD-ing)

Less people will be desperate to be anti-MK by using Snake and Wario.

Captain Falcon will get popularity out of nowhere because of all the MKs that are no longer playing as MK.

Zelda . . . . . I forgot why.

Mario has relatively large advantage against Diddy (his cape cancels out the effects of banana-guarding.)

That's what I think anyway.

 

[hat!]

ooh yeah, that makes a lot of sense to see those with bad mk match-ups rise and those with other bad match-ups fall.
thanks for your guy's input.

 

[Eddie G]

Several people, especially mid-tier mains, overfocus on how bad MK beats their character and don't realize that the characters others will fall back to will be pretty bad for them as well.

Bull-droppings.

I main Peach. Such an issue is certainly not my concern. It still has nothing to do with why I've made my decision on the matter. The same most likely applies to many others.

 

[ETWIST51294]

3)Meta-Knight wins in tournaments, but always loses online. Why?

cause online suck eggs.

 

[aeghrur]

"Completely" is an exaggeration of what the pro-ban's argument really is. I'm sure pro-ban just seeks an "increase" in balance. "Complete balance" is never going to be an achievable goal and I'm sure they know that already.

Not unless you play Starcraft. :D

 

[ShadowLink84]

Shadowlink, that (that being popularity) is not my point though.

I am saying that Sonic would not benefit from MK leaving because assuming the tier list is affected any by tourney results/representation (some of it should count, but not make up the majority), then Marth and perhaps G&W would suddenly start to pose more of a threat, at least to Sonic's position, I don't know/care about characters besides Marth and to a smaller extent G&W who would benefit with him gone.

Except marth is easier to deal with than MK. WHy in the hell do the sonic boardstink marth is a bad matchup?
Seriously...

in anycase, looka t your argument.
G&W and Marth would become bigger threats. That is bringing in popularity because popularity concerns the amount of usage a character would see in tournaments.
It is irrelevant.

Also please explain to me: a fellow Sonic player, how/why Marth is an easier MK then MK when we: the Sonic community, have been going over about the exact opposite.

Because most of the sonic community sucks. lol/

Seriously
Marth is far from a bad matchup.
Think of it this way, anything Marth could do MK could do better.
The only area that Marth out performed MK, was defense.

Most likely, the issue is that Sonic mains are having issue dealing with Marth's defensive options, even though Sonic has the means and tools to deal with Marth's defensive gameplay.

In terms of movement, we beat Marth.
His OOS options are hurt by Sonic's jump canceling abilities.
So really, it isn't a bad matchup for Sonic.

Certainly Marth does have an advantage, but nothing beyond 60-40.
Don't jump into the ****.

I understand overcentralization is a reason to ban a character, I also acknowledge that MK is not to that point yet, or ever will be, so what exactly are we arguing here?

That the arguments of pro ban need to defeat the basic principles of what deems a ban and have yet to do so.

 

[mackman]

Probably 90% of the objections to the ban have been "Stop whining, get better." If you acknowledge that Mk is better than everyone else by a significant margin when you say this, then what you are saying is "It's not enough to be better than the other person in order to win, you have to be way better than he is in order to win."
MK , with his worst match-up being around 60-40 in his favor, means that good players will frequently lose to people inferior to them in skill. I'm not saying always. I'm just saying that since we acknowledge that Mk has the advantage over literally everyone, we also acknowledge that this means that MK mainers can get away with being worse, skill-wise, than someone who plays any other character. How is this acceptable? I thought we wanted to find out who was better skill-wise, not who plays the better character. Snake has characters where he is disadvantaged, meaning someone with equal skill can counterpick against him and potentially win. MK does not have any matchups where he is disadvantaged, meaning that the MK player never has to worry about actually being better than the other person.
Also, even though my post count is low, i've been playing melee and brawl since their respective releases. I am not just some noob off the street.

 

[Johnny Citrus]

Pit, Kirby, and Yoshi have awesome air games (although Yoshi has to more precise or risk SD-ing)

Less people will be desperate to be anti-MK by using Snake and Wario.

Captain Falcon will get popularity out of nowhere because of all the MKs that are no longer playing as MK.

Zelda . . . . . I forgot why.

Mario has relatively large advantage against Diddy (his cape cancels out the effects of banana-guarding.)

That's what I think anyway.

CF will get popular if mk is banned? Are you serious? CF gets ***** by EVERY character except maybe Ganon.

 

[UberMario]

The Captain Falcon thing was a joke OK? Although he does need more development . . . .

 

[*JuriHan*]

.

I would love a game where are characters are viable. That would be great. Unfortunately, you won't find that in Brawl, and you won't find that in any competitive fighter. You also won't find it in Brawl if MK is banned.

Everyone is smash64 was viable save a few, lol

 

[fkacyan]

Bull-droppings.

I main Peach. Such an issue is certainly not my concern. It still has nothing to do with why I've made my decision on the matter. The same most likely applies to many others.

I would be willing to bet 90% of the people who voted pro-ban did moreso because they have issues with MK personally rather than as a balancer.

Hell, of the people I know I can pick out a few.

That you expect people to be unbiased (And expect me to believe them to be unbiased) is extremely naive.

 

[Eddie G]

Everyone is smash64 was viable save a few, lol

There are only a few.

 

[Inui]

MK , with his worst match-up being around 60-40 in his favor,

Everyone should ignore the rest of your post after this garbage, ignorant statement.

Even the most ultra pro-ban players ever, like Praxis and Overswarm, don't believe such nonsense.

 

[AvaricePanda]

I lol'd right here.

MK himself has no bad stages, even against certain matchups on those stages. Those certain stages just boost whatever strengths each respective character can use against MK at those stages. MK still possesses each of his strengths with no notable enhancements of any sort of weakness to deal with. That's all.

Halberd: Boosts Snake, doesn't help nor hurt MK.

FD: Boosts Diddy, doesn't help nor hurt MK.

And so on.

Hmm?

Okay one, if it boosts Snake and doesn't help nor hurt MK, how is it the stage not hurting MK? He's playing on a stage with a really low ceiling, against a character who kills really well off the ceiling.

Whether or not it's technically "helping Snake," or "hurting Meta Knight," is irrelevant, as ultimately Meta Knight is getting a disadvantage because he's going to die earlier.

 

[SuSa]

Snake beats every character in the game except Dedede. He's the best character with MK gone easily.



lol, oh well

My signature would like to argue otherwise, as well as a good 3/4th (or any good) Snake main.

Inui, you don't know what the **** you are talking about.