complexity1234
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Messages
- 145
stfu and read the thread. Answered like 30 times.
Short answer: Mostly top metaknight mains flooded that tourny, hardly any representation of other good mains were there.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Should Metaknight be Banned? ***Take 3***
- Thread starter SamuraiPanda
- Start date
- Status
Short answer: Mostly top metaknight mains flooded that tourny, hardly any representation of other good mains were there.
At no point in your post did you disagree with me except for the part that I bolded. I agreed that others being banned is unlikely. I also said that those two statements are subjective (it says it right there). I want to assume you actually read my post and if that's the case, don't just agree with my points and then disagree with my conclusion. Explain your reasoning clearly and rationally so that you can bring both of us closer to the right answer.
Why does this keep being brought up.
Smash will always be seen as immature and stupid for trying to turn that children party game into street fighter. Like it or not that is how it is and will always be viewed.
Again, it says right next to it subjective. I don't see it as a relevant point, I'm just listing all the moderately reasonable points both subjective and objective. If you read my explanation that lead to my conclusion it never comes up.
Falconv1.0
Smash Master
lil note on Kiby vs Marf-not as bad as Mk vs Kirby, which is definitely 6/4. At least that's a lot of people's opinions. I just shield grab a lot and kinda dont notice the numbers LOL.
2Dcomplex
Smash Rookie
fact: metaknight is the only non-boss charactrer with "meta" in their name
he's stealing all the metagames and he shoud be banned :S
he's stealing all the metagames and he shoud be banned :S
Nic64
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,725
has anyone actually quit just because MK is still legal? I remember OS was supposed to quit if he wasn't banned and make video's to help scrub meta knight's dominate and that never happened
FrozenFire13
Smash Ace
Just go with a temporary ban and see what develops from there. I see no need to a perma ban.
Brinzy
Godfather of the Crimean Mafia
Mmm, thanks for that info. Apparently they've changed a few of their fights up...
Mecakoto
Smash Journeyman
I have considered it more then once. The only thing keeping me going is the fact that I like to play as Luigi and I've seen what top players can do with Weegee.
zhao_guang
Smash Lord
I just saw a Luigi take home a ChuDat biweekly against a bunch of MKs, and MK ***** Luigi hard. He shouldn't be banned :/
Mecakoto
Smash Journeyman
Deathcarter
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 1,358
A 4/6 matchup is not that cut and dry. Take the Ganondorf vs. Mr. G&W matchup. If you look at the Ganondorf summary in the G&W matchup thread, all the G&W has to do is to not make mistakes against Ganondorf as he can capatilize on those mistakes easier than most mid/low tiers due to his range and G&W dies from 4 strong hits from the King. On the other hand, if the G&W does not give Ganondorf those opprotunities, then Ganondorf can't do ANYTHING to him and the match is an surfire victory.
What is to say that MK's 4/6 matchups are not like that. Simply put, MK has much less things that are exploitable by the other characters than G&W does. A 4/6 matchup with DDD, Snake, G&W, Falco, Diddy, Wario, and even Marth is different than a 4/6 matchup with MK as a lot of characters can exploit something those 7 top tiers have.
Here is an example, Kirby vs. MK and Kirby vs. Ice Climbers. Both are 4/6 matchups, but Kirby can at least separate the Ice Climbers and capatilize on the opprotunity to destroy Nana (though he is not as adept at that as say MK or Jigglypuff) if he lands a hit on them. What can Kirby do against MK that other characters can't though? Maybe he doesn't get overwhelmed by MK that easy, dodges his edgeguarding, and kills him earlier than someone like Peach. But Kirby can't exploit MK that easily while MK can do that to Kirby much more easily. Both MK and the Ice Climbers brickwall Kirby to an almost equal extent. But the Ice Climbers, unlike MK, have something Kirby can take advantage of somewhat easily.
tl;dr, a 4/6 matchup ratio is not to be taken very seriously as it is a very gross simplification of a dynamic between two characters.
(btw, playing Devil's Advacate here)
AvaricePanda
Smash Lord
Genesis will easily be the biggest Brawl tournament to date. It's a national tournament. Heck, it's international; some people from other countries are coming just for this tournament. Last I checked (which was a while ago) there were over 600 people registered for either Brawl and Melee.
WHOBO has been proven to be a pretty bad example multiple, multiple times in this thread. For one, the attendance wasn't really enough to be national (140~ish people? Or something like that).
Plus, the top MKs around the country came to this. Tyrant came, DSF came, Dojo came, and M2K came. However, the top of everyone else didn't exactly show up to this. Ally wasn't there. Anther wasn't there. ADHD wasn't there. Atomsk wasn't there. Fiction wasn't there. Among many others. These people like always break top 10, at least, and I'm almost certain there wouldn't have been an exception at WHOBO...if they had showed up.
And the MK thing was placed near some people's names when they only used MK like, a couple of games during the entire tournament.
Apex won't be as large as Genesis, and telling people to quit their mains they've used for months just one month before the largest tournament EVER is an absurd idea. For those on-the-fence people or the people close to it, waiting for Genesis tournament results and seeing how it played out is the best idea, and THEN we can determine whether MK should be banned or kept.
Cease Tick
Smash Ace
Weird, I've always considered Kirby vs Marth as much harder than Kirby vs Meta.
I'd like to point out some flaws in this Polling system.
First, this poll and its title naturally attract people who want him banned. This skews results immediately.
Second, the addition of the "Not sure" makes these results completely incompatible with the last 2 polls. Changing such a variable makes this poll insignificant. No matter how unofficial this set of polls is, it deserves the basic treatment of a decent survey because people will look at this.
Thirdly, I believe the "Not sure" option takes away from "No" votes primarially. If people are not sure they will not vote, they need to make up their mind or keep quiet, and they don't need an option tailored just for their indecisiveness (and therefore worthlessness to this survey). At this last Novembers election, the ballot did not read Obama, McCain, or Not Sure. If you want to know A or B, you cannot add C.
First, this poll and its title naturally attract people who want him banned. This skews results immediately.
Second, the addition of the "Not sure" makes these results completely incompatible with the last 2 polls. Changing such a variable makes this poll insignificant. No matter how unofficial this set of polls is, it deserves the basic treatment of a decent survey because people will look at this.
Thirdly, I believe the "Not sure" option takes away from "No" votes primarially. If people are not sure they will not vote, they need to make up their mind or keep quiet, and they don't need an option tailored just for their indecisiveness (and therefore worthlessness to this survey). At this last Novembers election, the ballot did not read Obama, McCain, or Not Sure. If you want to know A or B, you cannot add C.
Remzi
formerly VaBengal
Honestly, If I have to hear another recommendation for a temp ban I'm going to stop reading this topic.
What will a temp ban accomplish? Pro-bans are happy for a few months? When that period ends, I can guarantee that MORE people than ever before would use MK because it would be a new enthralling feel. To add to that, we'd all lose matchup experience and he'd **** us even more until we readjust. Then things eventually go back to normal, nothing accomplished.
What will a temp ban accomplish? Pro-bans are happy for a few months? When that period ends, I can guarantee that MORE people than ever before would use MK because it would be a new enthralling feel. To add to that, we'd all lose matchup experience and he'd **** us even more until we readjust. Then things eventually go back to normal, nothing accomplished.
Hm, according to most people, the second counter after MK is Kirby. Kirby is near even with MK, and easy to many people, or easier. Depends on who you fight best. Once again, matchup numbers mean nothing. That's why different people say different things about the matchups.
zhao_guang
Smash Lord
I wish it had <____<
Xyro77
Unity Ruleset Committee Member
i vote yes
But you see... all you need to do is second a counter to any one of those three and you are in the clear. People don't like MK NOT because he destroys people's mains, but rather you cannot second another character to counter MK.
Shadow 111
Smash Lord
EXACTLY. there are plenty of great players that don't main mk... i think you guys are blowing this waaaayyy out of proportion.
There are only a couple of mks who have been getting top placings in tournaments lately... if there are a bunch of RANDOM mk players getting top 8 in a national... then sure... ban him... but that won't happen, because the smarter players don't lose to him just because he's mk. plenty of ppl have shown that he can be beaten with other chars.
Twin_Scimitar
Smash Cadet
From what I have read of this thread. The majority of people who have made it clear that they "don't know", or are "on the fence" are leaning towards pro ban. So I disagree with your assertion that the majority of votes would be "no". I agree that they majority of people that are perfectly neutral would vote no, but there are many more I don't know's that are leaning pro ban (if the people who have posted is an accurate indication).
I do completely agree that the "Not Sure" option is stupid. If people are not sure they should just not vote, like in the presidential election. This hasn't really been talked about much, but I agree that the "Not Sure" addition was a bad decision, and I'm not sure why they bothered skewing the results of this poll just to know how large the "swing vote" was. Since this is really the only utility gained in offering the "Not Sure" option.
As to your first point... well I don't care about it. lol. No offense meant.
I believe you originally ranted about your position, and said you were pro-ban. Then you said I voted yes once at least ten pages later. You are now saying it again. I'm pro-ban, but spam of this variety is unnecessary and has been going on in this thread much too often.
I just want to add some fuel to the fire by asking a simple question...
If Meta Knight is banned, should it be okay for a player to play as MK if his opponent agrees?
Warning: If you say "no", you are admitting to everyone that you are an ideological troll who is just out to force people from playing as Meta Knight for benefit of your own beliefs.
Warning: If you say "yes", you are admitting to everyone that you only think MK should be banned because he is unbeatable, when he obviously isn't and everyone knows it.
Q.E.D.
If Meta Knight is banned, should it be okay for a player to play as MK if his opponent agrees?
Warning: If you say "no", you are admitting to everyone that you are an ideological troll who is just out to force people from playing as Meta Knight for benefit of your own beliefs.
Warning: If you say "yes", you are admitting to everyone that you only think MK should be banned because he is unbeatable, when he obviously isn't and everyone knows it.
Q.E.D.
As long as all parties come to an agreement, then I was under the impression that any rule can be broken, so long as the above is valid.
Then again, the TO can just boot both of them for breaking the rules to begin with.
I think, to your enlarged question, I'll answer Not Sure.
SkylerOcon
Tiny Dancer
It was Boss who took home ChuDat's Biweekly. Boss is undoubtedly one of the greatest players in the world because he is able to win like that.
I'm for the ban and all, but saying that MK shouldn't be banned because Boss beat a bunch of MKs is like saying MK should be banned because M2K wins every tourney he goes to with MK. It's stupid, and is clearly a bad argument.
So why not give us an answer to your own question, what would you say?
AvaricePanda
Smash Lord
Oh yeah Shadow, you helped me remember another point I wanted to bring up.
Everyone's saying that MK's super easy to pick up. That really doesn't matter at the competitive level. All of the MKs that are placing well are good players that have been placing well. Some random guy who only used MK for a week didn't get 3rd at WHOBO. Random people at mid-large tourneys aren't going to place well just because they pick MK.
Everyone's saying that MK's super easy to pick up. That really doesn't matter at the competitive level. All of the MKs that are placing well are good players that have been placing well. Some random guy who only used MK for a week didn't get 3rd at WHOBO. Random people at mid-large tourneys aren't going to place well just because they pick MK.
You're an idiot. Temporary banishment can be for more than just a god **** "catch up" for other characters.
A temporary banishment, with the premise that after this period of time the community is then given the question of whether he should be permanently banned or not, due to being able to experience and see a competitive brawl that doesn't include meta knight completely has a different path and REASON to what your reason a temp ban would be stupid. Continue to be ignorant Bengalz.
Edress gave a really nice example, and his post was directly after my last one and both had the same premise. Food is banned to make brawl a better competitive game, who cares how broken meta knight is or is not, would brawl be a competitive game without him? How would people even be able to properly say yes or no without a proper TESTING of it?
Brinzy
Godfather of the Crimean Mafia
Maybe a match-up number isn't best (though I use them because it's a short, simple way to get a point across), but while match-ups are different, I personally think you could've used a better example.
Rather than Kirby vs. ICs, a character that is pretty unique in its own right, how about Kirby vs. Zelda? While you say that there are things that can be done to the ICs to beat them which don't apply to MK, the same argument can be made but changed up a bit. Zelda, on average, kills Kirby earlier than MK does. She also does not take Kirby on in the air or use the Tornado, but instead she forces him to get close and she overrides tons of his attacks. There are similarities and differences between these two match-ups, but the point here is that Zelda has characteristics about her that gives Kirby harder times in some areas and easier times in others.
Kirby can't exploit the same things on both characters, but he can, bottom line, find an exploitation. MK does have exploitable traits, such as lacking a projectile (so you don't have to worry about projectile spam, at least), being light, and moving slowly in the air. They may not be weaknesses, but Kirby can take advantage of stuff like this. I don't see why match-ups have to be insanely different for MK to the point where they're special. The same could be argued for the ICs or Olimar.
I'm anti-ban, so I have no problem if people want to play MK against me regardless of the rules in place. No conflict of interest here!
LoyalSoldier
Smash Apprentice
Yea just like there are plenty of people without cancer, but it doesn't mean cancer can't be a problem.
As for what I think on the issue. I don't think it has reached the point of a ban, but it would not shock me if we start to see MK be banned at tournaments.
A1lion835
Smash Champion
The problem with banning characters is that if we ban mk, then there will be people who want snake banned, and then people who want X character banned...until we're stuck doing Sandbag dittos.
How many times has this kind of thing been shut down in this thread alone?
popsofctown
Smash Champion
This argument is horrible. anti-banners make legit points, points like this one and ones that are ultimately the same as this one are HORRIBLE.
First of, its anecdotal, which is not admissable in a debate anyway.
Second, it has nothing to do with the central argument of the pro-ban side. (ok, the pro-ban side minus first time scrubs who post whining in this thread)
The pro-ban side argument is that the we have reached a point where the only correct character to pick as the one you will practice and play in a tournament is Meta Knight. This itself is arguable, but the minimum criterion for this to be true is that he either a) has only good matchups across the board or b) has good matchups, and any number of even matchups with characters whose matchup spreads are significantly worse.
These conditions mash the counterpick system to paste, and also damage character variety as those of us who play to win all pick meta knight en masse.
Luigi winning a ChuDat Biweekly has nothing to do with that. There is no reason to believe that the Luigi player couldn't have won the tournament even more comfortably if he played and practiced Meta Knight. There's no debate. He simply outplayed his opposition in a way that drowned the characters anyone was using into the background. It doesn't challenge that Meta Knight has a broken matchup spread. You're not even trying to challenge it, you're also conceding that Meta Knight >> Luigi.
tl;dr, players beating players is not admissable evidence in a debate about whether a certain character can beat every other character in the game.
Remzi
formerly VaBengal
A temp ban is not necessary to get a glimpse of the metagame without MK. Tourneys in which MK is not allowed can be held as testing, that way such an extreme action (a ban) doesn't have to be taken. Some TOs are already banning MK, why can't those tourneys be looked at?
Also, a temp ban would obviously cause a major shift in the metagame, which would have to be shifted AGAIN if it is decided that he shouldn't be banned because MK would come back.
No need for any of that. A temp ban is pointless.
- Status