Should Metaknight be Banned? ***Take 3***

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Let me try to break it down for you.

Akuma was banned because he was broken.
Why is being broken a bad thing?
Because being broken means he shuts down every other character period.
Why is shutting down every other character period a bad thing?
Because it turns competitive play into who can play the broken character the best.
Why is competitive play turning into who can play the broken character the best a bad thing?
Because it stifles the diversity of the game.

Your quoted post stating why Akuma was banned only supports the idea that diversity is a valid reason to ban something.

And in order to ban MK we have to argue why he is br0ken. The arguements thus far are mostly overcentralized gameplay, Counterpick system useless and having no bad match-ups.

Match-ups is a bit controversal for declaring br0ken as he still does have even match-ups, wario, snake and diddy are among a few that go near or at even with MK.

The CP system is a more through arguement as no stage can be used against MK that will give him a disadvantage and any stage that gives the opposing player a decent advantage can be banned by the MK user (ex. MK banning FD against diddy)

Overcentralization I think is a valid arguement as well. There really are a lot of MK users attending tournaments.

So now it just comes down to if people really agree that MK is broken with the current arguements or not.

 

[woody72691]

meta knight is soo over rated, people keep telling me the great things about him but it still doesnt impress me, this what happened with sheik but atleast sheik had game and not cheap *** moves imo

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

meta knight is soo over rated, people keep telling me the great things about him but it still doesnt impress me, this what happened with sheik but atleast sheik had game and not cheap *** moves imo

There are only 2 moves you can seriously say are cheap, tornado and maybe UpB, but that is about it.

Watch some vids of the top MK players doing games against people other than MK dittos and you'll see why MK is really good. To me the number one reason MK is good is because he can keep pressure on you the whole time and once off stage (depending on your recovery) you have pretty much lost a stock if the MK is any good.

 

[Affinity]

The poll needs to be re-done without a Not Sure option.

 

[TheJerm]

I agree. So I can vote not to ban him xD

 

[woody72691]

There are only 2 moves you can seriously say are cheap, tornado and maybe UpB, but that is about it.

Watch some vids of the top MK players doing games against people other than MK dittos and you'll see why MK is really good. To me the number one reason MK is good is because he can keep pressure on you the whole time and once off stage (depending on your recovery) you have pretty much lost a stock if the MK is any good.

i've watch so many MK vids to fill a 50 gallon tank, more boring to watch than Fox

 

[|RK|]

Let me try to break it down for you.

Akuma was banned because he was broken.
Why is being broken a bad thing?
Because being broken means he shuts down every other character period.
Why is shutting down every other character period a bad thing?
Because it turns competitive play into who can play the broken character the best.
Why is competitive play turning into who can play the broken character the best a bad thing?
Because it stifles the diversity of the game.

Your quoted post stating why Akuma was banned only supports the idea that diversity is a valid reason to ban something.

Uh-huh. And Akuma was actually broken. Far moreso than MK, who isn't even broken. They banned him not for diversity, but because you literally couldn't beat him. On top of that, from what I'm hearing he was a hack character anyways. MK is not broken. Diversity still isn't a bad thing. Stop connecting ideas in a pitiful attempt to save your argument. They weren't meant to be connected anyways. Akuma was banned because he was unbeatable. Period. Don't go connecting anything, as it's pretty apparent that you've lost.

 

[bobson]

Uh-huh. And Akuma was actually broken. Far moreso than MK, who isn't even broken. They banned him not for diversity, but because you literally couldn't beat him. On top of that, from what I'm hearing he was a hack character anyways. MK is not broken. Diversity still isn't a bad thing. Stop connecting ideas in a pitiful attempt to save your argument. They weren't meant to be connected anyways. Akuma was banned because he was unbeatable. Period. Don't go connecting anything, as it's pretty apparent that you've lost.

:|

They banned him not for diversity, but because you literally couldn't beat him.

And being unbeatable matters because people wanted to do more than lose to Akuma because people WANTED DIVERSITY GOD****IT.

 

[|RK|]

:|


And being unbeatable matters because people wanted to do more than lose to Akuma because people WANTED DIVERSITY GOD****IT.

Or they just didn't want a completely broken character.

 

[bobson]

Or they just didn't want a completely broken character.

BECAUSE THEY WANTED DIVERSITY YOU FNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGRRRHGLBNBFLSSFN

**** this. I don't even support the ban, why am I arguing with your bull****.

 

[1048576]

Broken is broken because it gimps diversity.

 

[|RK|]

BECAUSE THEY WANTED DIVERSITY YOU FNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGRRRHGLBNBFLSSFN

**** this. I don't even support the ban, why am I arguing with your bull****.

Find proof of your statement and I'll listen. It seems like you're connecting things through your own logic. Wait, you are connecting things. They banned him because he was broken. Okay? He was broken. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it. Period. He was broken. You do not know the other reasoning.

Why are we still arguing about another community that doesn't even believe in the competitive value of our game? :/

 

[Twin_Scimitar]

BECAUSE THEY WANTED DIVERSITY YOU FNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGRRRHGLBNBFLSSFN

**** this. I don't even support the ban, why am I arguing with your bull****.

I feel your pain. Just let it be. It's the Garchomp argument all over again. For those of you who don't know about it please save the stop making comparisons bs for another poster. K thx.

 

[Wildfire393]

@RP': I did read the thread, but I don't remember a lot and I don't feel like reading backwards... oh, there's one!

Diversity:

People Can Instantly Win More When Playing As Him:

MK Is Broken:

If you feel diversity is not important, then I greatly pity you. I'd really hate to play a version of Brawl where it becomes simply "whoever is better at playing MK wins". If you have ever played something else that involves bans, you would see that diversity is one of the main reasons that bans are put into place. Look at Magic: the Gathering. The last time cards were banned, it was because the deck that used those cards made up more than 60% of the metagame. And the majority of the other decks being played were decks that were specifically geared to beat that deck and still lost about half the time. Look at Pokemon. A Pokemon was recently banned because it was discovered that 80 out of the top 100 teams on Smogon (a competitive server) ran that Pokemon and a similar percentage ran at least two counters to that Pokemon.
Basically, it boils down to this - If one character is decidedly better than every other character in the game, then there are two possible choices to play. That character, and anything that is a Hard Counter to that character (one might be able to argue for the slight playability of counters to its counters). But when you are talking about a character like Metaknight that has no Hard Counters, then the metagame suddenly is very small. We're not talking Fox/Falco/Sheik/Marth/Peach small (which was the common metagame in Melee). We're talking that the equivalent of Melee's top two or maybe even three tiers in terms of playability would be reduced to a single character.

 

[woody72691]

ok if garchomp is uber than why the hell isnt snover and its evoltuionly line (**** the stats for a moment) because it has the same ability as garchomp but with hail. but everyone is like

GARCHOMP ****ING OWNS
get over it uber or not i'll use him my ****ing own way with my sandstorm team

and it's been 412 days since the release of brawl and Meta Knight still sucks. and i do mean it. go and bash me all u want but imo its true stop saying hes god cause any character can take out each other.

 

[Eyada]

Or they just didn't want a completely broken character.

Broken means unbeatable or reducing the game to an unplayable state.

In the context of an Akuma vs. Akuma mirror match, Akuma is not broken.

Akuma beats Akuma. This means that he is not unbeatable. Akuma also does not glitch the game or render it unplayable in any other fashion.

An entire tournament of Akuma v. Akuma matches is completely playable and the outcome would be determined entirely by skill.

No other characters can beat Akuma, but, according to your logic that diversity is irrelevant, that doesn't matter.


So, please, stop. And think. Logically.

If one thinks that diversity (i.e., the lack of overcentralization) is a non-factor in determining ban-worthiness, then the following argument is valid:

1.) Any character that is unbeatable or that reduces the game to an unplayable state is broken.
2.) Akuma can be beaten by Akuma.
3.) Therefore, Akuma is not unbeatable.
4.) Akuma vs. Akuma is a playable match-up, the outcome of which is determined by skill.
5.) Therefore, Akuma does not make the game unplayable.
6.) Therefore, Akuma is neither unbeatable nor does he cause the game to be unplayable.
7.) Therefore, Akuma is not broken.
8.) Thus the Akuma ban is unwarranted.

That argument is flawed because that definition of broken doesn't account for impact on diversity.

However, if you consider overcentralization (i.e., a lack of diversity) as a valid criteria for a ban, it becomes obvious that Akuma is indeed ban-worthy.

And that is why he was banned. Overcentralization. The game became "use Akuma or lose." That state of affairs came to be as a symptom of his being very close to broken, true, but a game of only Akuma mirror matches is not broken. It is overcentralized. And thus he was banned.

 

[Twin_Scimitar]

ok if garchomp is uber than why the hell isnt snover and its evoltuionly line (**** the stats for a moment) because it has the same ability as garchomp but with hail. but everyone is like

GARCHOMP ****ING OWNS
get over it uber or not i'll use him my ****ing own way with my sandstorm team

and it's been 412 days since the release of brawl and Meta Knight still sucks. and i do mean it. go and bash me all u want but imo its true stop saying hes god cause any character can take out each other.

Snover and its evolution Abomasnow bring hail.

I believe you are refering to Mamoswine (pre evolve is swinub), which has snow cloak. Which is comparable to Garchomp's Sand Veil. Stats matter, Weaknesses matter, Hail vs. Sandstorm matters. Your argument is absurd. In any case I don't want to argue about whether or not Garchomp is uber. Garchomp was voted uber 39-15, and he was voted uber because of the over centralization that was brought up by Wildfire's post. That's the point of bringing up Garchomp.

 

[woody72691]

Snover and its evolution Abomasnow bring hail.

I believe you are refering to Mamoswine (pre evolve is swinub), which has snow cloak. Which is comparable to Garchomp's Sand Veil. Stats matter, Weaknesses matter, Hail vs. Sandstorm matters. Your argument is absurd. In any case I don't want to argue about whether or not Garchomp is uber. Garchomp was voted uber 39-15, and he was voted uber because of the over centralization that was brought up by Wildfire's post. That's the point of bringing up Garchomp.

and your a ******* but u dont see me complaing about it. and i thought i said **** the stats for a moment. anyways your the most abusive person here. whatever, the court still stands GARCHOMP IS NOT OVERRATED ALAKAZAM IS!!

 

[Minwu]

I hate Fox taking Top 10 spots in all Melee tourneys.

No, Martha and Jigglypuff are where it's at, if anything. But since people can think Fox and not be wrong, Melee. Isn't. Unbalanced.

 

[woody72691]

every tourny i entered for Melee it was always a forx player winning it. thats what i hat about melee the annoying fox

 

[MajinSweet]

You can complain all you want about MetaKnight hurting diversity, but that has nothing to do with banning criteria. The best characters in any fighting game will hurt diversity. Even without MetaKnight, Brawl is still a very unbalanced game. It will still be dominated by a select few characters. The giant middle tier and down won't magically start beating Snake, Falco, and Dedede.

every tourny i entered for Melee it was always a forx player winning it. thats what i hat about melee the annoying fox

Your few isolated examples don't mean much. Fox while arguably the best character in Melee, and yes I said that it's arguable, never dominated the Melee scene. Several other characters can go toe to tow with him up to the highest levels of play. Hell, even some low tier characters have decent and very winnable match ups with him. There was a time when people speculated that Fox would dominant the scene.

 

[Asdioh]

If you feel diversity is not important, then I greatly pity you. I'd really hate to play a version of Brawl where it becomes simply "whoever is better at playing MK wins".

That's basically what you're playing right now, to an extent :]

Broken means unbeatable or reducing the game to an unplayable state.

In the context of an Akuma vs. Akuma mirror match, Akuma is not broken.

Akuma beats Akuma. This means that he is not unbeatable. Akuma also does not glitch the game or render it unplayable in any other fashion.

An entire tournament of Akuma v. Akuma matches is completely playable and the outcome would be determined entirely by skill.

No other characters can beat Akuma, but, according to your logic that diversity is irrelevant, that doesn't matter.


So, please, stop. And think. Logically.

If one thinks that diversity (i.e., the lack of overcentralization) is a non-factor in determining ban-worthiness, then the following argument is valid:

1.) Any character that is unbeatable or that reduces the game to an unplayable state is broken.
2.) Akuma can be beaten by Akuma.
3.) Therefore, Akuma is not unbeatable.
4.) Akuma vs. Akuma is a playable match-up, the outcome of which is determined by skill.
5.) Therefore, Akuma does not make the game unplayable.
6.) Therefore, Akuma is neither unbeatable nor does he cause the game to be unplayable.
7.) Therefore, Akuma is not broken.
8.) Thus the Akuma ban is unwarranted.

That argument is flawed because that definition of broken doesn't account for impact on diversity.

However, if you consider overcentralization (i.e., a lack of diversity) as a valid criteria for a ban, it becomes obvious that Akuma is indeed ban-worthy.

And that is why he was banned. Overcentralization. The game became "use Akuma or lose." That state of affairs came to be as a symptom of his being very close to broken, true, but a game of only Akuma mirror matches is not broken. It is overcentralized. And thus he was banned.

quoted for truth

Now, I have not played Street Fighter, but it is clear that Akuma was far better than Meta Knight.

The question is, how good is too good? If you think about it on paper, the Meta Knight matchup is truly unwinnable for the vast majority of the cast. He simply has multiple better options for most of his opponent's options. If the game had hitstun, things might be different...but it doesn't. If you DO manage to punish a mistake Meta Knight makes (which is pretty tough for a lot of characters to do) you can't follow through with it due to his fast combo breakers and lack of hitstun.

I think that diversity is a good enough reason to ban a character that I see being played more and more every month.

I did vote "no" for now, but if it becomes clear that Meta Knight is too popular at GENESIS (and I will not accept any "but the other characters were underrepresented!!11" johns) then I will expect a revote and my opinion may very well change.

 

[Twin_Scimitar]

and your a ******* but u dont see me complaing about it. and i thought i said **** the stats for a moment. anyways your the most abusive person here. whatever, the court still stands GARCHOMP IS NOT OVERRATED ALAKAZAM IS!!

Ha Ha. Trolls are funny.

 

[woody72691]

i mean seroius people. i dont care who u are, how can u say this guy is a god when pit is just like him.

 

[Asdioh]

i mean seroius people. i dont care who u are, how can u say this guy is a god when pit is just like him.

It's pretty obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

i mean seroius people. i dont care who u are, how can u say this guy is a god when pit is just like him.

Over statment of the century. Pit does not equal MK.

 

[Falconv1.0]

It's pretty obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're telling me Pit doesn't have transcendent priority, a tornado, and all even match ups?

 

[|RK|]

Broken means unbeatable or reducing the game to an unplayable state.

In the context of an Akuma vs. Akuma mirror match, Akuma is not broken.

Akuma beats Akuma. This means that he is not unbeatable. Akuma also does not glitch the game or render it unplayable in any other fashion.

An entire tournament of Akuma v. Akuma matches is completely playable and the outcome would be determined entirely by skill.

No other characters can beat Akuma, but, according to your logic that diversity is irrelevant, that doesn't matter.


So, please, stop. And think. Logically.

If one thinks that diversity (i.e., the lack of overcentralization) is a non-factor in determining ban-worthiness, then the following argument is valid:

1.) Any character that is unbeatable or that reduces the game to an unplayable state is broken.
2.) Akuma can be beaten by Akuma.
3.) Therefore, Akuma is not unbeatable.
4.) Akuma vs. Akuma is a playable match-up, the outcome of which is determined by skill.
5.) Therefore, Akuma does not make the game unplayable.
6.) Therefore, Akuma is neither unbeatable nor does he cause the game to be unplayable.
7.) Therefore, Akuma is not broken.
8.) Thus the Akuma ban is unwarranted.

That argument is flawed because that definition of broken doesn't account for impact on diversity.

However, if you consider overcentralization (i.e., a lack of diversity) as a valid criteria for a ban, it becomes obvious that Akuma is indeed ban-worthy.

And that is why he was banned. Overcentralization. The game became "use Akuma or lose." That state of affairs came to be as a symptom of his being very close to broken, true, but a game of only Akuma mirror matches is not broken. It is overcentralized. And thus he was banned.

Okay, then, but Brawl isn't "use MK or lose". Akuma completely strips other characters' viability, right? Then... alright, fine, you win. HOWEVER! Again, Brawl isn't use MK or lose. Right? So in THIS case, diversity is irrelevant, especially since the game has not reached said point, and over 70% of the community use different characters. While it is true that MK is played more than most characters, that doesn't make him ban worthy.

Oh, and like someone said, when the only character able to beat a character is themselves, then something is wrong with the game. When you look at it as giving everyone in the cast viability, then the Akuma ban IS warranted, with or without diversity/overcentralization.

So, what I said stands, except I change it to "In this case, diversity, or lack thereof, is not a reason to ban a character."

 

[woody72691]

Over statment of the century. Pit does not equal MK.

and its obvious u dont look at the attack styles of both instead of going right to marchups. duh stupid troll brawl is teens not *******. now stop spamming

 

[Falconv1.0]

and its obvious u dont look at the attack styles of both instead of going right to marchups. duh stupid troll brawl is teens not *******. now stop spamming

And it's obvious you have no idea how match ups work or what being a troll is.

 

[Grunt]

I hate Fox taking Top 10 spots in all Melee tourneys.

that almost never happens. lol

 

[1048576]

Okay, then, but Brawl isn't "use MK or lose". Akuma completely strips other characters' viability, right? Then... alright, fine, you win. HOWEVER! Again, Brawl isn't use MK or lose. Right? So in THIS case, diversity is irrelevant, especially since the game has not reached said point, and over 70% of the community use different characters. While it is true that MK is played more than most characters, that doesn't make him ban worthy.

Oh, and like someone said, when the only character able to beat a character is themselves, then something is wrong with the game. When you look at it as giving everyone in the cast viability, then the Akuma ban IS warranted, with or without diversity/overcentralization.

So, what I said stands, except I change it to "In this case, diversity, or lack thereof, is not a reason to ban a character."

Please to look at the results of the last WHOBO

 

[Falconv1.0]

Please to look at the results of the last WHOBO

Are you...an idiot or something? I mean you seriously can not tell me you missed the thousands of times we shot down that bull ****.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

and its obvious u dont look at the attack styles of both instead of going right to marchups. duh stupid troll brawl is teens not *******. now stop spamming

And the attack sytles are completely different. Pit does not have what MK has going for him. Mk's tornado ***** shields and most pretty much every single attack possible and can be moved around. Pit gets closest with angel ring and that is only on the ground and is situational.

Plus, pit has poorer range than MK does on pretty much all attacks and they do not combo into each other well.

Everything pit has is geared for a defensive playstyle while MK is an all out offence.

Pit KOs at higher pecents then MK does and has a lot harder time gimping.

 

[|RK|]

Please to look at the results of the last WHOBO

I am obviously responding to the competent poster, Eyada.

 

[woody72691]

And it's obvious you have no idea how match ups work or what being a troll is.

and yet your still a retart, matchups dont matter to me and u are a troll.

 

[salaboB]

Okay, then, but Brawl isn't "use MK or lose". Akuma completely strips other characters' viability, right? Then... alright, fine, you win. HOWEVER! Again, Brawl isn't use MK or lose. Right? So in THIS case, diversity is irrelevant, especially since the game has not reached said point, and over 70% of the community use different characters. While it is true that MK is played more than most characters, that doesn't make him ban worthy.

Oh, and like someone said, when the only character able to beat a character is themselves, then something is wrong with the game. When you look at it as giving everyone in the cast viability, then the Akuma ban IS warranted, with or without diversity/overcentralization.

So, what I said stands, except I change it to "In this case, diversity, or lack thereof, is not a reason to ban a character."

What about when the only certain even matchup is the character itself?

Nobody can even agree on someone that is 50/50 with MK, let alone advantaged against him.

At what point does the "No disadvantaged matchups" get bad enough to merit banning?

 

[|RK|]

^Hey. Hey woody.

Shut up.

 

[|RK|]

What about when the only certain even matchup is the character itself?

Nobody can even agree on someone that is 50/50 with MK, let alone advantaged against him.

At what point does the "No disadvantaged matchups" get bad enough to merit banning?

I said I was talking to Eyada.

 

[bobson]

So, what I said stands, except I change it to "In this case, diversity, or lack thereof, is not a reason to ban a character."

If stifling diversity to a huge extent is a reason to ban a character, it's always a reason to ban a character. Metaknight just isn't at that point yet.