Should Metaknight Be Banned? The Poll (LISTEN TO THE SBR PODCAST!)

[ROOOOY!]

If Meta Knights win every tourney, that means everyone would want to main him too, unless you know, he is defeated. :] (not sure if this is what you mean, but that is what I got out of it).

I'm not claiming to be an expert, because I'm not American so don't really take part in that tourney scene, but just looking at results, top 8 particularly, it's more or less completely Metaknight in a LOT of tournaments (the latest HOBO for example, along with MANY others.)
It's the fact that so many people have bandwagonned to him because he's so stupidly easy to play that merits a ban. Beating a GOOD MK in a tournament is too difficult (don't tell me I'm wrong and note like the tiny handful of people who actually can, I know >_>) with any other character, because nearly every character is at a disadvantage. The only counterpick Metaknight has is..himself >_>, hence more people playing him.
That for me is a deciding factor.

You MK haters should just come over to England lol. Hardly anyone plays him over here because we generally have more dignity then mashing B to win tournaments over here.

 

[bigman40]

I'm not sure it was insulting, the Yoshi boards have always been a positive and supportive place compared to many of the other boards -- even when everyone was calling Yoshi low tier and his ATs hadn't been found, his boards were busy being upbeat and looking for ways to improve him (And cheering on people who were using him competitively).

Cause that's how a true community works. People b****ing at each other won't get anything going anywhere. We already don't have as many reps as MK, Snake, or D3, so it's almost a natural feeling in just working to push a character as quickly as possible, and try to get everyone as good as they can be so when they can get to a tourney, they can at least rep Yoshi well.

Also, it may not be insulting (can't tell internet sarcasm), but they way it was presented, it really felt like an insult to the Yoshi boards...

 

[WakerofWinds]

.......no but its dumb arguing with people who just wont realize that your all ****ing idiots. Like i made a thread on metas even/bad match ups(and yes snake counters meta) and people all called me scrubs until m2k said i was right and they were all dumb. I just hate how dumb the brawl community is.

No...

What about the people who actually provided reasons for banning him OTHER then the matchup factor? You have yet to address those.

Also, out of all those posters in that topic...

Exactly 0 people called you a scrub, or referred to you as a scrub. All of them provided some kind of at least semi-valid reason as to why certain things may or may not be right or wrong. You even had some people supporting you. Sure, disagreements happen, it's a game. M2K isn't the final authority on everything. He's great, I'll give him that, and he knows his stuff, but just because he says one thing doesn't mean there isn't a valid argument to support another side.

Yes, I did just say that, wow.

 

[Lemming 1545]

Okay, was Sheik banned when she was at the top of the tier list during the Melee era? Were Fox or Falco? Moreover, was that possibility even seriously considered? Of course not. You wanted to beat top tier, either you got very very good, or you played top tier.

If we're banning Metaknight just because he's a (very) good character, then we've got some work to do. In fact, I propose that if we're voting on Meta, we should be voting on every other character too - because for every disgruntled player who's voting against Meta just because he pisses them off or they know that one obnoxious player who just whorenados the whole game or they're not very good against him, there's somebody else who'd be happy to take up the same issue with another character.

tl;rd version: Banning Metaknight at this point would be silly; Brawl hasn't been out for even a year yet; give it some time and tier lists will shift, weaknesses will be found, and he won't seem so overpowered anymore.

 

[Deoxys]

I didn't say it wasn't. I said I've never seen it legal.



Yes. You're dumb. Don't ever, ever insult Green Greens in my presence.

Green Greens has random elements? The bombs fall in set areas of the screen, and they only fall when the top blocks are missing, and at a set interval. If you're getting hit by bombs, you're either stupid and jumping in to the blast zone, or being launched by your opponents (your fault).

Yeah, I'm dumb, even though if you had read the post you're replying to you'd know that I mentioned that they fall in set areas. Sometimes you have to jump into the blast zone to attack them, which isn't stupid. Did you even read the SBR stage discussion?

Also, it's funny that you want to ban DDD's chaingrab infinite on the stage instead of the stage itself... That's why Shadow Moses and Onnet are banned.

And I'm the dumb one....

 

[Icntspll]

Okay, was Sheik banned when she was at the top of the tier list during the Melee era? Were Fox or Falco? Moreover, was that possibility even seriously considered? Of course not. You wanted to beat top tier, either you got very very good, or you played top tier.

If we're banning Metaknight just because he's a (very) good character, then we've got some work to do. In fact, I propose that if we're voting on Meta, we should be voting on every other character too - because for every disgruntled player who's voting against Meta just because he pisses them off or they know that one obnoxious player who just whorenados the whole game or they're not very good against him, there's somebody else who'd be happy to take up the same issue with another character.

tl;rd version: Banning Metaknight at this point would be silly; Brawl hasn't been out for even a year yet; give it some time and tier lists will shift, weaknesses will be found, and he won't seem so overpowered anymore.

Well there were around five top tier characters in Melee, right? There's only one in Brawl.

 

[salaboB]

tl;rd version: Banning Metaknight at this point would be silly; Brawl hasn't been out for even a year yet; give it some time and tier lists will shift, weaknesses will be found, and he won't seem so overpowered anymore.

tl;dr version: What are you basing this assumption on? You have no proof to even hope for such a thing.

 

[WakerofWinds]

Okay, was Sheik banned when she was at the top of the tier list during the Melee era? Were Fox or Falco? Moreover, was that possibility even seriously considered? Of course not. You wanted to beat top tier, either you got very very good, or you played top tier.

If we're banning Metaknight just because he's a (very) good character, then we've got some work to do. In fact, I propose that if we're voting on Meta, we should be voting on every other character too - because for every disgruntled player who's voting against Meta just because he pisses them off or they know that one obnoxious player who just whorenados the whole game or they're not very good against him, there's somebody else who'd be happy to take up the same issue with another character.

tl;rd version: Banning Metaknight at this point would be silly; Brawl hasn't been out for even a year yet; give it some time and tier lists will shift, weaknesses will be found, and he won't seem so overpowered anymore.

All of those characters who were really good like that had counter picks, and were possible to beat. It wasn't being COMPLETELY dominated by just one character, there were a few that did well here and there and in various match ups. We're not banning MK because he's a great character, there are other reasons behind it. Like the fact that in order to REALLY have a shot you need to play him, and so much of the smash community is switching to him. Where's the fun in just one character? Might as well just make a game called "Meta Knight's Marvelous Melee Extravaganza" And call it Brawl.

 

[The Slayer]

Voted yes.
No, not because "he's uber cheap, blah blah blah"
So if he's finally banned everyone can shut the hell up about this whole debate.

Christ...

I was going to suggest that as well, but I'll still say no to this regardless. If this keeps up however, I might change my mind because for that reason alone.

 

[Lemming 1545]

tl;dr version: What are you basing this assumption on? You have no proof to even hope for such a thing.

On the flipside of that argument, you have no proof that it WON'T happen. I'm not giving a 100% guarantee that Meta will be overthrown, I'm just saying I think it would make more sense to wait a little longer before going to measures as extreme as outright banning him.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Saying "Metaknight is too good so let's ban him" makes you a scrub. Also, not everyone who says scrub is quoting Sirlin. Scrub has been used to describe people who whine about things in multiplayer games for a long time. Every time I say "That's Hot" am I quoting Paris Hilton?

How else should I describe somebody who wants to make tournaments more fair by banning a "cheap" character? It's either scrubs or bad kids, I don't really care which one I use.

There shouldn't even be a discussion on banning Metaknight, while he has no bad matchups he certainly doesn't have a huge advantage in all of them either. Fox wasn't banned in Melee even though he had no bad matchups. Why are (most) Brawl players so **** whiny? Ledge camping, Metaknight, D3's infinites, they want everything banned.

I might be elitest, but only because the people who want metaknight banned are usually the same ones who think camping is cheap and the CG infinites should be banned too. At least Melee has a community that understands you shouldn't ban something just because it's good.

When MLG sees this poll they'll just sit there shaking their heads thinking "Why the hell did we buy this site?"

This.

Edit: BTW, I voted no. Why? Because it is absolutely ridiculous to ban a character that does not break the game mechanics in way, shape, or form. If this were the case, then other fighting game communities would have to start banning their top tier characters (Yun and Chun in SF3, Old Sagat in ST, etc).

Smooth Criminal

 

[smallwolf24]

I wonder if Majority would make the difference in this idea of MK being banned -.-

 

[WakerofWinds]

This.

Edit: BTW, I voted no. Why? Because it is absolutely ridiculous to ban a character that does not break the game mechanics in way, shape, or form. If this were the case, then other fighting game communities would have to start banning their top tier characters (Yun and Chun in SF3, Old Sagat in ST, etc).

Smooth Criminal

Old Sagat was soft-banned in Japan.

For good reasons too.

 

[salaboB]

On the flipside of that argument, you have no proof that it WON'T happen. I'm not giving a 100% guarantee that Meta will be overthrown, I'm just saying I think it would make more sense to wait a little longer before going to measures as extreme as outright banning him.

There have been many points for why a magical counter to or new weakness of MK is unlikely to be found. Let me bring up just a few of them:

*MetaKnight was known to be field-clearing for Snake even before it was discovered that he had at worst an even matchup for Snake. This dominance of his has not been a surprise it was only a misconception about Snake previously holding him back.

*MetaKnight has been found to have many responses to any given situation, more than any other character. People are finding new ways for him to break their opponent's best answers and none to deal with MK's responses. Basically, the only way MK has gone so far is to have matchups shift more and more in his favor.

*Brawl has been hammered searching for ATs from its very release, something that didn't happen with Melee. Not only has this been done more systematically, but it's been done by a larger population of players. Additionally, most Melee ATs were actually known about early and it was just application of them that was lacking -- there haven't been any ATs found in Brawl that people haven't tried to use competitively yet.

*More people playing as MK mean less people finding possible, hidden ATs with other characters. So something that's already unlikely to exist is becoming more and more unlikely to be found as people abandon these characters simply because with their current ATs they can't compete with MK.

So, I have reasons it is unlikely for new discoveries to bring MK down if you just "wait a little while longer" (Which is why I tl;dr'ed my previous response, I was shortening it). Do you have ones for why it is likely beyond just saying there aren't any against you?

 

[Skler]

i quit i cant stand to argue with these people. These idiots make the brawl community dumb.

This. It's like the saying goes "Don't argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

I love the people who say "voting yes to end the debate". Good job guys, voting no would end it just as well.

Everyone who wants MK banned shouldn't play competitive games, they should stick to Mario Party. Although then they might just start banning characters in that too, Mario is ****ing broken in bumper balls.

Edit: I'd love to argue over semantics some more though. You never argued against any of my points, just my use of scrub.

 

[salaboB]

This. It's like the saying goes "Don't argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

Which is why you're on the side with most of the anecdotal evidence and name calling, right?

Edit: I'd love to argue over semantics some more though. You never argued against any of my points, just my use of scrub.

Your points have been dismantled repeatedly in other places, and are based on flawed assumptions of what the people saying MK should be banned are getting at.

 

[Metro Knight]

Last time I checked Skyler, you only played Melee tournaments. How is melee treating you?

 

[Pluvia's other account]

So far the majority wants MK banned.

 

[Hype]

Scrubs voted yes

Spoiler

There is someone named "Scrubs" who happened to vote yes

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Old Sagat was soft-banned in Japan.

For good reasons too.

But is he banned over here?

No. He's not. Akuma was soft-banned over there, too. I don't see what you're trying to get at, man.

Smooth Criminal

 

[TLMSheikant]

It saddens me that sasukebowser and some others have voted yes. Going for the easy way to beat mk sigh. Anyway no way he shouldnt be banned(that coming from a TL main which btw TL has a lot of trouble in that matchup). I say we dont ban him but if someone is gonna use him then he must warn you before the match and before u pick ur character that way u r prepared and can "counterpick" against him an mk or diddy kong.

 

[bigman40]

I don't see why people are trying to relate bans that happen in different countries.....

 

[WakerofWinds]

But is he banned over here?

No. He's not. Akuma was soft-banned over there, too. I don't see what you're trying to get at, man.

Smooth Criminal

Main reason being Americans are extremely stubborn. (Being one, mind you) Any hint of taking favor away and we scream "NO!" like little girls and run away and argue about it until the day we die. Americans wouldn't be able to soft-ban him because it's based off an honor system, and any other type of ban would be "too harsh" Old Sagat isn't as bad as MK is at this point.

I'm not in favor of a ban to an extent. I'm in favor of finding AT's for other characters and developing them more. And if you think this can REALLY be done with MK dominating the way he is, you're sadly mistaken. I'm sorry to say.

 

[salaboB]

Since you're feeling all unanswered Skler, I'll humor you and address your points earlier in this thread.

Saying "Metaknight is too good so let's ban him" makes you a scrub. Also, not everyone who says scrub is quoting Sirlin. Scrub has been used to describe people who whine about things in multiplayer games for a long time. Every time I say "That's Hot" am I quoting Paris Hilton?

The thing is, almost everyone who labels people as scrubs invariably traces back to Sirlin. If that's not how you're using it, my apologies -- you're just misusing it because then it no longer matches up with Sirlin's definition or the definition most commonly used.

How else should I describe somebody who wants to make tournaments more fair by banning a "cheap" character? It's either scrubs or bad kids, I don't really care which one I use.

None of the serious pro-ban people have said MK should be banned for being "cheap" or that the goal is to make tournaments "fair". Whoever you're arguing against with this, it's not the reasonable posters. (So you also mislabelled a bunch of people as "scrubs" because you've gotten their argument wrong.)

There shouldn't even be a discussion on banning Metaknight, while he has no bad matchups he certainly doesn't have a huge advantage in all of them either. Fox wasn't banned in Melee even though he had no bad matchups. Why are (most) Brawl players so **** whiny? Ledge camping, Metaknight, D3's infinites, they want everything banned.

MK also has no stage counterpicks, and Fox had other issues bringing him down so that he could be defeated. If Fox was so great, how come Marth is the one who was talked about earlier as dominating all the tournies? Right, Fox didn't have the same set of advantages that MK does. The matchup dominance for MK is also only one aspect of why people want him banned, and nobody has said that solely having neutral-advantageous matchups is enough to ban him.

I might be elitest, but only because the people who want metaknight banned are usually the same ones who think camping is cheap and the CG infinites should be banned too. At least Melee has a community that understands you shouldn't ban something just because it's good.

Where exactly do you get this? Now you're just making stuff up to try to make the pro-ban side look bad. Also, Melee had nothing comparable to MK so you have no idea what they would or would not decide to ban if a character like him existed there.

When MLG sees this poll they'll just sit there shaking their heads thinking "Why the hell did we buy this site?"

Or they'll note the discussion that's going on and be glad they got a site where people are actually willing to talk things through.

 

[Gea]

While I'm not going to get into the depth of the discussion, but why does anyone think just banning MK will suddenly let lower tiered characters stand any more of a chance than they did before?

You'll just see more Snakes, DDDs, GWs, etc.

I'm not wanting to hear "BUT THEY HAVE COUNTERS." That's avoiding my question.

How are any low tier characters honestly more viable?

 

[SwordmasterXXXI]

.......no but its dumb arguing with people who just wont realize that your all ****ing idiots. Like i made a thread on metas even/bad match ups(and yes snake counters meta) and people all called me scrubs until m2k said i was right and they were all dumb. I just hate how dumb the brawl community is.

Oh, The Irony......

 

[BBQ°]

There is talk about balancing Brawl in the General Brawl Discussion forum using USB Gecko hacks. Want to know how to balance Brawl? Ban Meta Knight.

 

[crazygoose]

Or, heres a thought. How about this entire board go back to playing Melee and quit f@gging up Brawl for the rest of us.

 

[Lemming 1545]

So, I have reasons it is unlikely for new discoveries to bring MK down if you just "wait a little while longer" (Which is why I tl;dr'ed my previous response, I was shortening it). Do you have ones for why it is likely beyond just saying there aren't any against you?

None that couldn't be summed up as reiterating what I've already said, but I'll do it anyway: just because it looks bad and nothing's been found yet - even with your observant point about more people shifting to Meta meaning less looking for ways to counter him (which I hadn't thought of) - that doesn't mean that we must make a decision now now now. I would say wait until next March, at least. One year anniversary, or something. Not like a few extra months would kill, either way.

To clarify, I'm far from an expert here; I'm just stating my opinion as a largely detached observer - I don't play in the sort of competitive tournaments that most people here do, but it bothers me that even when I'm in a casual tourny, there's always that one guy who flips out and starts obsessing over counterpicks, et cetera.

The decisions you make on this board as to what's "fair"and what are "official" tournament rules carry repurcussions farther than you might think, and I just don't wanna take a load of crap for playing Meta at a casual get-together or no-prize tourny. I'm usually a Ganondorf/Lucas/Jigglypuff user, but once in a while I like to mix it up, and I like Meta because of his character, not his tier ranking (I'm not even very good as him!).

 

[WakerofWinds]

While I'm not going to get into the depth of the discussion, but why does anyone think just banning MK will suddenly let lower tiered characters stand any more of a chance than they did before?

You'll just see more Snakes, DDDs, GWs, etc.

I'm not wanting to hear "BUT THEY HAVE COUNTERS." That's avoiding my question.

How are any low tier characters honestly more viable?

The problem with MK is he doesn't even make the HIGHER tiered characters viable. There's at least some chance to win with MK gone.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

it is absolutely ridiculous to ban a character that does not break the game mechanics in way, shape, or form.

An argument can be made that MK does actually break game mechanics via planking the edge.

 

[Icntspll]

While I'm not going to get into the depth of the discussion, but why does anyone think just banning MK will suddenly let lower tiered characters stand any more of a chance than they did before?

You'll just see more Snakes, DDDs, GWs, etc.

I'm not wanting to hear "BUT THEY HAVE COUNTERS." That's avoiding my question.

How are any low tier characters honestly more viable?

It will obviously make the game a little more balanced. Metaknight isn't on the same level as Snake, DDD, GW, etc.

 

[Gea]

The problem with MK is he doesn't even make the HIGHER tiered characters viable. There's at least some chance to win with MK gone.

That's not what I asked.

It will obviously make the game a little more balanced. Metaknight isn't on the same level as Snake, DDD, GW, etc.

Once again, your answer seems to not match up with the question asked. Those characters will do better, yes. How will low tier characters fare better?

 

[rehab]

While I'm not going to get into the depth of the discussion, but why does anyone think just banning MK will suddenly let lower tiered characters stand any more of a chance than they did before?

You'll just see more Snakes, DDDs, GWs, etc.

I'm not wanting to hear "BUT THEY HAVE COUNTERS." That's avoiding my question.

How are any low tier characters honestly more viable?

I guess it's the principle of the idea that, without one character who is absolutely the best and who people, wanting to take the easiest path to winning (not dogging competitive mentalities or anything) won't be able to take quite as short a path as they used to be able to.

I think that idea's flawed but hey.

 

[Skler]

Which is why you're on the side with most of the anecdotal evidence and name calling, right?

I got called an elitest . It's a fact MK doesn't **** everyone in Brawl and has several even/almost even matchups. Sounds a lot like Fox in Melee, except Fox (and Melee) takes a lot of skill to play.

Your points have been dismantled repeatedly in other places, and are based on flawed assumptions of what the people saying MK should be banned are getting at.

No they haven't. MK does not have a 70-30 matchup against the entire cast. Metaknight does not have a 60-40 matchup against the entire cast. It just so happens almost every good player is picking up MK right now. If MK had a 70-30 on every character no other characters would place even remotely high. I see other characters getting in the top 3 of tournaments, outplacing several good MK players. That means MK isn't (too) broken.

Melee is going great, though I still dabble in Brawl at times. I might even enter Vigilante/s.p.i.c. tom's tourny because it's his last one.

Edit: Marth is Fox's main even matchup. It can be argued Falco has a tiny advantage over him, but aside from those two characters and Sheik Fox has an advantage over every character in the game.

My evidence of people wanting the CGing gone came from a tourny I went to where a DDD player was forced to stop his infinite against the wall. That's a fact, ask kevinM.

 

[The Real Inferno]

What I find interesting about this poll is not the number of votes, but the people who have voted. It shows that some top players are serious in their desire to ban Meta (not including OVerswarm whom was obvious already). Some of these people I wouldn't have expected. On the other hand, there are quite a few big names in the Not Ban section as well. Most of these were already obvious though.

Personally, I didn't vote.

 

[WakerofWinds]

That's not what I asked.



Once again, your answer seems to not match up with the question asked. Those characters will do better, yes. How will low tier characters fare better?

The second sentence answers what you asked. Listen if MK is there, the low tiers have 0 to no chance to actually place well in a tournament. With him gone, it's one more obstacle those lower tiers don't have to leap (or fly, in this case, with how good MK is) over. One more character they don't have to worry about. The slant lowers in their uphill search for the top, savvy?

 

[salaboB]

None that couldn't be summed up as reiterating what I've already said, but I'll do it anyway: just because it looks bad and nothing's been found yet - even with your observant point about more people shifting to Meta meaning less looking for ways to counter him (which I hadn't thought of) - that doesn't mean that we must make a decision now now now. I would say wait until next March, at least. One year anniversary, or something. Not like a few extra months would kill, either way.

Wanting to wait just in case is one thing, but saying such things as "likely" to find ways to bring MK down is another. I see no way it's anything but a long-shot hope that something will change against MK, no matter how much the decision is delayed.

Basically, I don't agree that it's obvious or likely that MK will be brought down if we only delay, and I'd prefer not to have that as a standing point against banning MK unless it can be supported. I agree we don't have to decide this instant, but at the same time MK is causing a slowdown in everyone else's development, only getting better, people are spending time on him (That will be lost if a ban goes into place), people are quitting Brawl because of him (That won't if a ban goes into place), and the ban going into place seems like the most likely outcome in the end anyway -- so doing it sooner will minimize the damages rather than waiting until he's caused so much trouble that 99% of the players can see it.

He can always be officially unbanned later if something is discovered, and I'm certain there will still be tournies that don't ban him, even if the MBR recommends a ban. I've never understood the anti-ban sentiments that this is the end of the game for MK forever if he does get banned now.

 

[Gea]

The second sentence answers what you asked. Listen if MK is there, the low tiers have 0 to no chance to actually place well in a tournament. With him gone, it's one more obstacle those lower tiers don't have to leap (or fly, in this case, with how good MK is) over. One more character they don't have to worry about. The slant lowers in their uphill search for the top, savvy?

Except that they still have just as small of a chance against DDD, GW, Falco, Snake, and Marth. I don't see how you can argue that replacing one with the other is making a case for low tiers to have an easier time.

 

[DUB]

I voted No. As broken as he his, I don't like the idea of a character getting banned from a smash game.