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

[Yuna]

Honestly Yuna, if I didn't have you around to make you jump through hoops like an angry tiger, General Discussion would be so boring.

I haven't been to General Discussion for months. ZOMG! You were wrong on something! How could you! We can never trust anything you say ever again!

Sure, but it's a controlled environment. Xyro was facing the same people he normally does, just without the possibility of MK, and did much better.

Without the possibility of having to face some of the best players in the world, such as M2K...

And to respond to Yuna seriously for a second (eek!), yes, I believe HOBO16 is a good argument for anti-ban, or possibly a good argument for a temp ban.

So why are you bringing it up? Aren't you pro-ban?

 

[pure_awesome]

lol@the last three or four 2v2 matches at ECRC having 3 meta knights

I had heard MK wasn't even very good in doubles (which I admittedly know little about.)

Anyone know what the deal with that is?


And by not very good, I mean not clearly the best in the game at doubles like he is in singles.

I haven't been to General Discussion for months.

Right.

And General Discussion was boring.

Just like I said.

Watch those hypotheticals man, they'll get you.

ZOMG! You were wrong on something! How could you! We can never trust anything you say ever again!

Nope. Good try though.

Score one for the good guys!

 

[Red Arremer]

Actually, the Metaknight mains did really well despite not being able to Metaknight it up.

But Kirby, Diddy and whomever are not their mains. They didn't invest as much time into these characters than into Meta Knight, and not as much into these non-Meta Knights as Xyro, PhantomX, Razer, etc. did.

lol@the last three or four 2v2 matches at ECRC having 3 meta knights

What does this prove?

That's one situation in a different playstyle (doubles), at one single tournament.

Cherry picks, as Red Ryu called them, sure do suck.

 

[Popertop]

Actually, the Metaknight mains did really well despite not being able to Metaknight it up.

1: Razer (snake/diddy)
2: Gnes (Diddy/dedede)
3: Phantom X (wario)
*4: Dojo (diddy/kirby)
5: Utd Zac (GW)
5: Hylian (GW)
7: FlipHop (diddy)
*7: Dphat (marth)
9: Espy (sonic)
9: Mr 3000 (Sonic)
9: Cy (wario)
9: Broly (marth)
*13: Romeo (falco/snake)
*13: Light (sheik)
13: Xyro (SAMUS!!!!)
13: Royr (marth)


Though to be honest now that I'm looking at the results, I'm more questioning Sonic's two top 9 placements than I am Xyro's Samus.

Btw, this is actually HOBO16, 17 hasn't happened yet as far as I know.

And to respond to Yuna seriously for a second (eek!), yes, I believe HOBO16 is a good argument for anti-ban, or possibly a good argument for a temp ban.

those two sonics place high normally, espy places high even against MK.

and I think Xyro had an easy bracket or something, although his matches with KRD were epic......

I am for temp-ban

 

[Yuna]

Right.

And General Discussion was boring.

Just like I said.

Watch those hypotheticals man, they'll get you.

Good attempt at BS:ing.

This is what you said:
"Honestly Yuna, if I didn't have you around to make you jump through hoops like an angry tiger, General Discussion would be so boring." - You're implying you do have me around and hence, you're not being bored, not stating that you're being bored since I'm not around.

Your attempt to rewriting the rules of the English language has failed spectacularly. English is my 3rd language, isn't it supposedly your 1st?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

What does this prove?

That's one situation in a different playstyle (doubles), at one single tournament.

Cherry picks, as Red Ryu called them, sure do suck.

I've said it before but this whole thing is opinion-based. There's no "proof" here. Accept it or get out.

 

[pure_awesome]

Has Espy always repped Sonic? In the back of my mind I had him associated with Marth.

Knew about 3000 though.


I'm still questioning just how much we would gain from a temp ban that we couldn't also gain from not banning at all. I mean, at the end of the time limit, or at the rediscussion, we would just be left with a bunch of information and no real way to associate it with MK.

That being said, while I don't support a temp ban, I'm certainly not opposed to it.

But Kirby, Diddy and whomever are not their mains. They didn't invest as much time into these characters than into Meta Knight, and not as much into these non-Meta Knights as Xyro, PhantomX, Razer, etc. did.

Right.

So you think that if they had devoted the same amount of time to these characters, (Diddy/Kirby for instance), they'd be doing just as good, provided they didn't have any MK's to fight?

This is what you said:
"Honestly Yuna, if I didn't have you around to make you jump through hoops like an angry tiger, General Discussion would be so boring." - You're implying you do have me around and hence, you're not being bored, not stating that you're being bored since I'm not around.

Your attempt to rewriting the rules of the English language has failed spectacularly. English is my 3rd language, isn't it supposedly your 1st?

Actually no, English is my second. Montreal and baguettes and pamplemousse and all that jazz.

But really, Yuna? Telling me what I meant? That's a new low. It's a simple if/then statement. If you weren't here, it would be boring. This is only further proven by the fact that when you weren't here, it was boring.

Like:

"Boy Mr. Sun. If you weren't here, it sure would be dark."
"Ah-HA! But I wasn't here last night!"
"...and it was dark."

I mean, really Yuna? Really?

 

[Ripple]

Actually no, English is my second. Montreal and baguettes and pamplemousse and all that jazz.

you can speak to grapefruits????

 

[Yuna]

I'm still questioning just how much we would gain from a temp ban that we couldn't also gain from not banning at all. I mean, at the end of the time limit, or at the rediscussion, we would just be left with a bunch of information and no real way to associate it with MK.

Finally we agree on something.

Actually no, English is my second. Montreal and baguettes and pamplemousse and all that jazz.

Ah, c'est ca.

But really, Yuna? Telling me what I meant? That's a new low. It's a simple if/then statement.

I'm telling you what what you said meant.

If you weren't here, it would be boring. This is only further proven by the fact that when you weren't here, it was boring.

But you didn't say "here" (Tactical Discussion), you said "there", General Discussion!

Like:

"Boy Mr. Sun. If you weren't here, it sure would be dark."
"Ah-HA! But I wasn't here last night!"
"...and it was dark."

I mean, really Yuna? Really?

Yes, that's not strawmanning reality at all.

You: If you weren't around in General Discussion, it would be very boring.
Me: I haven't been in General Discussion for months.

So it's not that it would be boring in General Discussion if I weren't there because I haven't been there for months in the first place, thus, my absense is already making you bored.

Je suis desolé si tu ne comprends pas que j'essaye de te dis parce que ton anglais est mauvais (<-- ?).

 

[pure_awesome]

you can speak to grapefruits????

Sure! Most french people can, because they're so fruity.

Har, har.


Anyway, thank you Yuna for providing me with with a little while of entertainment, but I think the point where you tell me what I was trying to say when I said something is the point where I don't even have to hold the hoop up anymore.

See you around. You spelled "essaie" wrong and conjugated "dire" wrong, by the way, but otherwise very good. It would be "j'essaie de te dire". Also, you would need a "ce" before the "que" so that the last part of your sentence is referring to the unmentioned subject, I.E. "what I am trying to tell you"

 

[Yuna]

Anyway, thank you Yuna for providing me with with a little while of entertainment, but I think the point where you tell me what I was trying to say when I said something is the point where I don't even have to hold the hoop up anymore.

Didn't I just tell you in the post you obviously read that I wasn't dictating to you what you were trying to say but telling you what what you actually said means? Because what you were trying to say obviously didn't match what you actually said.

See you around. You spelled "essaie" wrong and conjugated "dire" wrong, by the way, but otherwise very good. It would be "j'essaie de te dire". Also, you would need a "ce" before the "que" so that the last part of you sentence is referring to the unmentioned subject, I.E. "what I am trying to tell you"

Well, French is technically my fourth or fifth language (not fluent).

 

[master-fresh]

Hey I thought this disscussion was about mk not fruity people lolololol

should mk be banned or not?

im too lazy to read all the posts lolol

 

[deepseadiva]

Didn't I just tell you in the post you obviously read that I wasn't dictating to you what you were trying to say but telling you what what you actually said means?

I highly enjoy this sentence.

 

[Curaga]

Excuse my ignorance, but how does MK destroy Marth?

One of my close friends hold up well with MKs, playing a defensive Marth. (Bruce Lee, art of the intercepting fist) Only occaisonally getting agressive with Fair combos to sweep MK across the stage. Obviously MK has speed, and is difficult to dodge, but doesn't Marth's quirks, power, and counterattack/parry keep him on a good MK level?

 

[Kyari]

Alright, what's a "quirk" anyway? His attacks seem really standard to me. There is no such thing as a "f-air combo" with Marth, certainly not across the stage. You do have to play a defensive Marth to beat MK, but I'd say the real reason those MK's lose to him is because they don't know wtf they're doing, honestly. Or he's just a better player than all of them.

Where IS this magical place of Marth triumphing over all MK's anyway?

 

[Alus]

Hey I thought this disscussion was about mk not fruity people lolololol

should mk be banned or not?

im too lazy to read all the posts lolol

Ok here are the arguments about MK that I keep hearing…

First everyone tries to explain how MK is too good by bringing up how easy he was to learn. Then some crazy idea that MK makes everyone’s metagame slower aside from his came to mind. Then it was stated that MK wasn’t unbeatable. So ultimately the argument was like…

[ Metaknight should be banned period. You guys all constantly keep looking over the problem…Its not just that he is too good, or has a absence of machup disadvantages, too easy to learn or impossible to gimp etc. Those reasons are excuses…The real reason is that there is NO reason to use another character…The character has absolutely no disadvantages and continues to pick up advantages…And that this problem AlWAYS leads to everyone (over time) choosing and continuing to choose the same character and that THIS IS THE GROUNDS FOR A BAN!!!

As for the “unbeatable argument” HE WAS BROKEN…And the infinite cape glitch was unbeatable, that is, before it got banned. The logic in this subject was challenged because of the simple question “why?” as in “Why are we limiting metaknight? It is silly to limit a character more and more rather than ban him. Should we remove akuma’s air hadoken fireballs? (which reflects the infinite cape ban discussion) or make some stupid rule like “You may only use 30 air hadokens before you are disqualified” (which reflects the planking argument with few differences.) ]

There was also a argument about how in the history of competitive fighting games that there was some kind of “food chain” between characters. How the best character had a disadvantage to a character that was lesser…who was disadvantaged against another char.and then that character had a disadvantage VS the “best” char.
Their was also the case of machup relation…

Lets pretend that there are 8 characters named :

Character A
Character B
Character C
Character D
Character F
Character G
Character H

Pretend that all of Character A’s matchups were 50/50’s

So pretend that in a certain game…:

Character A machups: AvA=ditto, AvB=50/50, AvC=50/50, AvD=50/50 , AvE=50/50, AvF=40/60, AvG=55/45, AvH=60/40

Character B machups: BvA=50/50, BvB=ditto, BvC=30/70, BvD=60/40 , BvE=40/60, BvF=30/70, BvG=55/45, BvH=30/70

Character C machups: CvA=50/50 cvB=70/30, CvC= ditto, CvD=40/60 , CvE=60/40, CvF=60/40, CvG=30/70, CvH=20/80

The point above was to illustrate how the top 3 could relate to each other…

Why is this important? While you may think that it is better to play as MK in any situation…It isn’t… don’t believe me? Then count how many characters actually have a direct weakness to MK (A.K.A worst machup.)

Their was also the issue of giving MK a disadvantage through a handicap… but lets not get into that…]

 

[Kyari]

Ultimately, planking is only a problem because it draws out tournaments, and it's something we just don't want do deal with. You can't really compare planking to any camping in SFIV. Camping is fundamentally different because the person camping must be in the lead to do so. Time runs out quickly in SFIV, so if the camper is behind in HP and the time runs out, they lose.

Everyone has to deal with camping in SFIV... as a matter of fact, if you don't camp Zangief you CANNOT win. The better campers of SFIV have an advantage against Zangief because of this fact... I'm currently picking up Akuma because Chun-Li doesn't do too well against him (EDIT: In fact, only a few characters do). Seth also ***** him because he can't win without camping period.

 

[wiiman217]

No

I vote "No". Personally, I think it's a stupid question. Even if Meta Knight is a popular, relatively easily-mastered character, he's one of the many that you can choose from, and should not, under any circumstances, be discriminated against, or criticized for, his "popularity" in choice-due to his small-learning curve and strategically-based moves, that although may seem unfair to an opponent, in reality, are completely fair to competition-given the choice to play as any character in the roster. Do I hear any arguments?

 

[Kyari]

That's something the Smash community will never understand. So many fighting games have a character where there's really no reason not to use that character because they have no bad matchups, and 6-4's against most of the characters in the game.. I'm going to make a comparison really quick to SFIV - According to a recent tier list made for SFIV (http://www.eventhubs.com/guides/2008/oct/17/street-fighter-4-tiers-character-rankings/), Sagat only has four matchups that are 5-5, the rest are in his favor. Why is Sagat not banned? Even if there are other characters that have no bad matchups alongside Sagat (Ryu), there's no reason to use them (Ryu) when you can have it even easier against the rest of the cast by using the one who is superior to him (Sagat). So why doesn't SFIV dwindle down to nothing but Sagat vs Sagat, and if it does, why don't they consider banning him?

 

[Darxmarth23]

There is no middle ground in this debate. No compromise.

The percentages won't be changing much either. Right now I would give them an absolute deviation of two. And as we progress in time that "2" will be getting smaller.

End this for now. Wait till we get Apex and Genesis results.

 

[salaboB]

The point above was to illustrate how the top 3 could relate to each other…

Why is this important? While you may think that it is better to play as MK in any situation…It isn’t… don’t believe me? Then count how many characters actually have a direct weakness to MK (A.K.A worst machup.)

The problem isn't that it's better to play MK in any situation, but it is better to play him when you don't know what your opponent will pick - then you don't run the risk of being put into one of those disadvantaged matchups. That means 2 out of 3 matches it's smartest to play MK - first round during double blind picks, and during your opponent's counterpick after you win one.

The only time you might try to do otherwise is if you know your opponent is a better player than you and you're hoping for a first round advantage so you can win on the third counterpick (You'd assume loss of the second round counterpick from the better opponent), but then a smart opponent would know they were better, pick MK, and likely beat you with the even chances.

That's something the Smash community will never understand. So many fighting games have a character where there's really no reason not to use that character because they have no bad matchups, and 6-4's against most of the characters in the game.. I'm going to make a comparison really quick to SFIV - According to a recent tier list made for SFIV (http://www.eventhubs.com/guides/2008/oct/17/street-fighter-4-tiers-character-rankings/), Sagat only has four matchups that are 5-5, the rest are in his favor. Why is Sagat not banned? Even if there are other characters that have no bad matchups alongside Sagat (Ryu), there's no reason to use them (Ryu) when you can have it even easier against the rest of the cast by using the one who is superior to him (Sagat). So why doesn't SFIV dwindle down to nothing but Sagat vs Sagat, and if it does, why don't they consider banning him?

Let me ask you this:

Just because masochists like to hurt themselves, should we do the same?

(No, I'm not calling other fighting communities masochistic for not banning characters. I'm trying to get some justification for why it impacts us what other competitive communities have done, if a ban of MK is determined to be the best option for Brawl.)

 

[Kyari]

You're not understanding something. You point to MK needing to be banned because "there's no reason not to use him so therefore MK vs MK is the only future of Brawl", yet this is a forecast that doesn't reflect history. As the accusator you have to prove that MK vs MK is the only future of Brawl, and not base it off of a theoretical concept such as which character is the best.

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

Just because masochists like to hurt themselves, should we do the same?

:flame:
I thought it was Emo people who hurt themselves.

But in all seriousness, so many times people have compared Brawl to other communities that did ban the character that they claimed fit that scenario, and now, when we find ourselfs with another community that mirrors ourown, there is a problem with comparing ourselves to them?

"Kyari
You're not understanding something. You point to MK needing to be banned because "there's no reason not to use him so therefore MK vs MK is the only future of Brawl", yet this is a forecast that doesn't reflect history. As the accusator you have to prove that MK vs MK is the only future of Brawl, and not base it off of a theoretical concept such as which character is the best. "

What Kyari said.
:flame:

 

[salaboB]

You're not understanding something. You point to MK needing to be banned because "there's no reason not to use him so therefore MK vs MK is the only future of Brawl", yet this is a forecast that doesn't reflect history. As the accusator you have to prove that MK vs MK is the only future of Brawl, and not base it off of a theoretical concept such as which character is the best.

I haven't said MK vs MK is the only future of Brawl, you're putting words in my mouth based on what others have said.

I have said that not playing MK is putting you at an immediate disadvantage, and no other character in the game is so immune to bad matchups, so the competitive game will be improved with him gone.

But in all seriousness, so many times people have compared Brawl to other communities that did ban the character that they claimed fit that scenario, and now, when we find ourselfs with another community that mirrors ourown, there is a problem with comparing ourselves to them?

Actually, it's been anti-ban doing the majority of "Soandso isn't banned so MK shouldn't be banned" or "Akuma is obviously broken and MK isn't so MK shouldn't be banned." I only started using the "SF2 HDR Akuma has been banned so what do you say about that?" argument because the past 2 debate threads were so full of comparisons to other, unrelated communities to support not banning MK.

Really though, I don't think any other community is directly relevant to this discussion. It should be what's best for Brawl, not what was best for <insert random other fighter that you think is similar> here.

 

[Alus]

That's something the Smash community will never understand. So many fighting games have a character where there's really no reason not to use that character because they have no bad matchups, and 6-4's against most of the characters in the game.. I'm going to make a comparison really quick to SFIV - According to a recent tier list made for SFIV (http://www.eventhubs.com/guides/2008/oct/17/street-fighter-4-tiers-character-rankings/), Sagat only has four matchups that are 5-5, the rest are in his favor. Why is Sagat not banned? Even if there are other characters that have no bad matchups alongside Sagat (Ryu), there's no reason to use them (Ryu) when you can have it even easier against the rest of the cast by using the one who is superior to him (Sagat). So why doesn't SFIV dwindle down to nothing but Sagat vs Sagat, and if it does, why don't they consider banning him?

The only reason MK is anything like Sagat is because we made MK so by limiting his abilitys.

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

The only reason MK is anything like Sagat is because we made MK so by limiting his abilitys.

:flame:
Except for the Infinite Dimensional Cape (which is a glitch) and Planking (which is banned for everyone, not just Metaknight, he's just the best at it), what else did we do? Honestly, I'm just trying to stay with the times. What else did we stop?
:flame:

 

[Alus]

:flame:
Except for the Infinite Dimensional Cape (which is a glitch) and Planking (which is banned for everyone, not just Metaknight, he's just the best at it), what else did we do? Honestly, I'm just trying to stay with the times. What else did we stop?
:flame:

That is beside the point... The point follows this question:

How many other fighting games did people choose to eliminate character abilities? (any abilities... even glitches or being the best at something everyone else can do)

 

[Kyari]

I haven't said MK vs MK is the only future of Brawl, you're putting words in my mouth based on what others have said.

I have said that not playing MK is putting you at an immediate disadvantage, and no other character in the game is so immune to bad matchups, so the competitive game will be improved with him gone.

Actually, it's been anti-ban doing the majority of "Soandso isn't banned so MK shouldn't be banned" or "Akuma is obviously broken and MK isn't so MK shouldn't be banned." I only started using the "SF2 HDR Akuma has been banned so what do you say about that?" argument because the past 2 debate threads were so full of comparisons to other, unrelated communities to support not banning MK.

Really though, I don't think any other community is directly relevant to this discussion. It should be what's best for Brawl, not what was best for <insert random other fighter that you think is similar> here.

Fair enough then. I wasn't specifically targeting you when I said that, it was toward the argument itself that people had presented - namely, the poster before me. However, what I said about it still stands.

What you say about MK still falls into what I have said as well - not playing and maining Sagat would put you at an immediate disadvantage when in tourney. Many people have tried to say that MK isn't the worst matchup for many characters, and that DDD or Marth **** most of the lesser characters much harder - it was then counter-argued that despite this, MK was still the best character to use overall considering his overall matchups and having no weakness whatsoever. So, by that same logic, even though Ryu in SFIV has no bad matchups and is the only one to whom this applies, it could be counter-argued that despite this, Sagat is still the best character to use overall considering his overall matchups are much better and he has no weakness whatsoever.

It's not about what other fighting game communities have done, it's about proving that your opinion about what is "better" is true, AND actually justifies a ban.

 

[gameandwatch 4 Lyfe]

i havent read much in this thread but has anyone brought up competitive pokemon? they ban pokemon all the time, not because those pokemon are "broken", per se, but if those pokes were allowed literally EVERYONE would have them. in competition there would be little diversity, seeing that every team had to have a mewtwo (for example). structuring your own team and having a unique strategy is what makes the game truly competitive.

metaknight is mewtwo. every one uses him, or is forced to completely focus their approach to the game to counter him. i think this takes away from strategic planning in cp's, and quite obviously limits diversity. 50% of the community wants a ban... i dont see how a ban would screw anything up... no one will become the new MK...

i lean slightly towards banning mk, but i agree this discussion has become pretty pointless. i really feel that a decision should be made after genisis, whether it be ban or no ban. 6 months of "well should we ban him" is getting pretty ridiculous

 

[Kyari]

Pokemon is not a fighting game. It's hard enough to compare fighting games to each other as it is, an argument trying to compare a fighting game to a Pokemon game is getting a little absurd (just like this thread).

 

[Alus]

i havent read much in this thread but has anyone brought up competitive pokemon? they ban pokemon all the time, not because those pokemon are "broken", per se, but if those pokes were allowed literally EVERYONE would have them. in competition there would be little diversity, seeing that every team had to have a mewtwo (for example). structuring your own team and having a unique strategy is what makes the game truly competitive.

metaknight is mewtwo. every one uses him, or is forced to completely focus their approach to the game to counter him. i think this takes away from strategic planning in cp's, and quite obviously limits diversity. 50% of the community wants a ban... i dont see how a ban would screw anything up... no one will become the new MK...

i lean slightly towards banning mk, but i agree this discussion has become pretty pointless. i really feel that a decision should be made after genisis, whether it be ban or no ban. 6 months of "well should we ban him" is getting pretty ridiculous

In my opinion... RPG's Cardgame's etc. Do not have the technical skill (in this case... the need for quick thinking and the use of reflex) To be compared to fighters...you can always perform a move as easy as the next guy, It basically simulates fights for you...Nice try though thanks

Everything else though I agree with you by the way...

 

[cutter]

Mewtwo is more like Akuma; an unstoppable juggernaut that is hopeless for like 95% of pokemon to beat.

Or at least Deoxys-A would be lol.

 

[Flayl]

Looking at Street Fighter 4 matchup charts got me thinking we seriously need to revamp Smash's matchup numbers. It's probable lots of the 6-4 in this game are actually 7-3.

 

[gameandwatch 4 Lyfe]

i was referring mainly to the strategic element of smash... it's not all technical lol (especially brawl )

a matchup chart should definitely be made. not the ****ty ones found here lol

 

[S0crat3s]

I voted no last round, but yes this round.

I have nothing against Meta Knight or people that main him, but I'm getting a bit tired of seeing so **** many of them at tournaments--I've even started assuming that at least a handful of people play him because of tiers. I don't usually lose to Meta Knight (Wario and G&W being my pet peeves), but ****, I would like to see more variety.

Of course, not a permanent ban. That would be stupid. I'm just curious as to how tournaments would be like without Meta Knight.

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

:flame:
2skilled4u, we can look at Melee and find many glitches that probably wouldn't fly well in matches, from the Box Glitch to the Freeze Glitch to the YoYo Glitch. I'd need to do research to find more of them in other games.

i havent read much in this thread but has anyone brought up competitive pokemon? they ban pokemon all the time, not because those pokemon are "broken", per se, but if those pokes were allowed literally EVERYONE would have them. in competition there would be little diversity, seeing that every team had to have a mewtwo (for example). structuring your own team and having a unique strategy is what makes the game truly competitive.

metaknight is mewtwo. every one uses him, or is forced to completely focus their approach to the game to counter him. i think this takes away from strategic planning in cp's, and quite obviously limits diversity. 50% of the community wants a ban... i dont see how a ban would screw anything up... no one will become the new MK...

http://www.smogon.com/dp/articles/intro_comp_pokemon
"Ubers are Pokémon that are considered too powerful for the OU metagame. The Uber tier is not meant to be a balanced tier, and therefore isn't the main metagame. Every Pokémon is allowed in this tier.

OverUsed is the main metagame and used for most competitive battles and tournaments. It is the balanced tier that bans as few Pokémon as possible. However, placement in OU is based on usage rather than power, because power is difficult to gauge objectively. A Pokémon is OU if it shows up in 1 out of every 20 teams in the standard metagame. "
http://www.smogon.com/dp/articles/intro_comp_pokemon


That came straight from the website that is the basic hub of information for compeditive Pokemon. The Overused Tier is for people that are used the most. In that sense, Metaknight is the Salamance or Scizor of Pokemon. Akuma is the Mewtwo of Pokemon. Again, the key-difference in the two tiers is that OU Pokemon are used the most and are quite good, but Ubers are TOO strong for the game. Every Pokemon can be used in an Uber Competition because if someone is dumb enough to try to use a Butterfry in the same group that Ho-oh is used, go ahead. Funny as heck for anyone to watch the little bug get burned into cinders.

Metaknight, despite having his own tier, is not disadvantaging any other character (that isn't already considered bad to play) except for like what, 2 people? And only by like what, 60-40? Oh Dear.

The reason why we don't play with the Low tiers in one tournament, mid and low in another, and then everyone in the upper tournaments is because Pokemon is a statistics based game. You can mathmatically calculate how your Pokemon will do against others, and the results will not change. In Brawl, your skill and practice is what will allow even a skilled Captain Falcon to defeat a Novice Metaknight. Very hard to do, but still possible. In Pokemon, you definitely win or lose. No "skill" required. Just intelligence.


I'm fine with comparing a fighting game community to another fighting game community (if you must or find it relevant), but an RPG Community to a Fighting Community seems a weird comparison to make. A Orange to a Tangelo is one thing. An Orange to a Chicken-Leg is another.


Oh, and Salabob, I never said that it was one side that made the comparisons over the other towards other communities. I know for a fact both sides have done it.
:flame:

 

[Falconv1.0]

That is beside the point... The point follows this question:

How many other fighting games did people choose to eliminate character abilities? (any abilities... even glitches or being the best at something everyone else can do)

Melee had a couple glitches banned, I'm pretty sure a lot of other games have glitches that are banned. Planking is banned for making tourney's last forever than because it's too good.


Stop spouting ignorant **** like a moron now m'kay? Bringing up glitches or strategies that slow down the game as a reason to ban him when we can ban those without any issue is ****ing ********, and shows how little you know about other fighters.

 

[Kamikaze*]

You guys can expect a lot of people to quit if you ban him. Just sayin.

Then the tournies will be even more dead.

 

[rathy Aro]

Saw this posted by illinialex24:

This is the (near) future of brawl finals! Stop this madness!

Spoiler

I'm still anti-ban, but pro-ban arguments are more lol-tastic

 

[Da-D-Mon-109]

:flame:
Anthro, that is quite funny if someone honestly think's that is going to happen.

And Falcon, not that I mind it too terribly, but do you have to be so Harsh? You're smart, but you kinda come off as a Bad-A (didn't know that the BadA** wasn't censored, didn't mean to cuss) when you don't necesarilly have to be. This situation should be handled with the utmost respect and intelligence, and when one person gets mad, it usually spreads like wild fire, eventually sewing the seeds of ignorance. If someone says something remotely stupid like "BAN METAKNIGHT BECAUSE HE HAS INFINITE CAPE GLITCH", have at them, but wait until people prove themselves to be worth it before you think about putting them down.
:flame: