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

[Deoxys]

That's only agreed on by the pro-MK crowd, strong matchups are not the only reason to ban him so having one neutral does not automatically prevent people arguing he should be banned.

If it's significantly worse than 50/50, it gets much more likely that it would prevent a ban. If it's just 45:55...that's hard to say.

Why? Fox only had one matchup that was worse than 5/5, and it's considered to be 45/55 by top players! And it was his clone!! Banning Fox would have been stupid, and banning MK if it becomes clear that he has at least a 45/55 matchup would be stupid as well. I mean, it's basically the definition of non-brokenness.

 

[WakerofWinds]

Wow, and I thought the people were joking when they said MK was an addictive drug.



We're moaning because thats the only thing we can do. The SBR decides nearly all of it. All we can do is inform and debate, which is basically whining.

Its how we work.

Ooooh, ooh, ooh. My sig *points.*

Not you specifically, most of this thread.

 

[Mortimer]

I am advocating that MK is banned, if he maintains his current state, when the metagame is sufficently mature.

Out of curiosity, why do you maintain that there's a possibility that a tech will be found against Meta Knight, but dismiss the possibility that, if such a tech exists, it will be found in with Meta Knight banned? They're both possibilities, and without proof either way, you can't say that one is more likely than the other.

 

[salaboB]

Why? Fox only had one matchup that was worse than 5/5, and it's considered to be 45/55 by top players! And it was his clone!! Banning Fox would have been stupid, and banning MK if it becomes clear that he has at least a 45/55 matchup would be stupid as well. I mean, it's basically the definition of non-brokenness.

Honestly, I misread your post initially and thought you said just 50/50. But I'm still standing by my edit, that 55/45 might not.

Basically, at that point it comes down to "If MK is still killing the competitive scene it may not be enough". That would have to wait to see what was going on, and other measures might be effective (Like teaching people how to use that character to take down MK) without banning.

 

[Deoxys]

Out of curiosity, why do you maintain that there's a possibility that a tech will be found against Meta Knight, but dismiss the possibility that, if such a tech exists, it will be found in with Meta Knight banned? They're both possibilities, and without proof either way, you can't say that one is more likely than the other.

Because we're not even deep enough into the metagame that we're waiting for a tech. We're still waiting to see how a top main of ZSS, Yoshi, Bowser, or DK would do against MK. What we're waiting for isn't a single technique that will be discovered, it's for someone to assemble a complete strategy for beating MK with their main that results in an unfavorable matchup for him.

 

[Mmac]

Why? Fox only had one matchup that was worse than 5/5, and it's considered to be 45/55 by top players! And it was his clone!! Banning Fox would have been stupid, and banning MK if it becomes clear that he has at least a 45/55 matchup would be stupid as well. I mean, it's basically the definition of non-brokenness.

You can't use Fox in context to defend MetaKnight. Fox was the best, but Marth, Sheik, and Falco was just as broken as he was, and even people like Peach and Falcon stood a chance.

MetaKnight is completely in a league of his own. He's like Fox, but with no Marth, Sheik, or Falco holding him back. Having one even matchup (Especially from one of the hardest to learn characters in the game) doesn't justify his dominance.

edit: I heard some success from ZSS, but Bowser and DK are just combo bait. They do well, but once MetaKnight gains momentum, it's going to be a uphill battle

 

[Vulcan55]

I feel obliged to post since I voted, so I will. (Though I have before, and actually hate discussing this topic now)
I feel that Meta Knight has not reached a ban-worthy state of "brokenness", therefore, I voted no.
If the meta-game continues in a similar fashion, then he should not be banned.
If the meta-game, in the future, comes to a point where no one but Meta Knight can win tournaments, then I would be in favor of a ban.
He isn't near that point yet, though.
Sure we can predict the future and say that people will just leave if he isn't banned, or that he will just become more broken, but that's all it is. Predictions.
No truth or fact behind it.
(Though, if he was banned, wouldn't the people that left come back?)

/2cents

 

[popsofctown]

lol @ XienZo

MK is an addictive drug, the only way to keep from getting hooked is to never start.


I would agree that if MK had a 40/60, then there would no reason to ban. Can everyone absolutely agree with that statement?

 

[adumbrodeus]

At least one thing seems to be agreed on: if MK has a matchup that's worse for him than 50/50, banning is out of the question.

Which is wrong...

If a single character still utterly controls the metagame, but one character beats that character, then MK is still bannable.

What will happen is that MK will clear the field for that character, still making the majority of the cast unviable, and then that character will actually win tournaments the majority of the time.

It'll be just like Snake before people realized that with good spacing, MK could beat Snake, to a great or lesser extent depending on how big the advantage is.

Unless that character is reliably infinited by a popular character or something, in that case it really depends.


But in all likelyhood, one counter will not change MK, he may not be the top, but he'll still be overcentralizing the metagame, just very SLIGHTLY less.

There are other characters that are similar enough to his size that it's vanishingly small a combo will be found on him that won't work on them. Same for his light weight.

Everything else is going into the realm of "incredibly unlikely" and saying he can't be banned as long as that's not been demonstrated false (An impossible thing to prove) and by that logic, Akuma shouldn't be banned. Since MK isn't even close to Akuma, we'll never be able to demonstrate to you that he's ban-worthy.


I have covered every reasonable occurance. You're having to go for the "Maybe there is a magical thing that MK will do if Bowser catches him with only one fire in the stream of fire breath while it's tipped halfway to its maximum that will stun him and drag him into the entire thing inescapably" results to have anything left, and that's just a ridiculous position to be trying to hold.


I never said it was impossible, whenever I have specifically said the chances of it being located I have said extremely unlikely (Or wording similar -- I believe in one case I forgot to include a modifier "vanishingly unlikely" and just said "won't be found" because I believe that in practice the odds of "one AT that only works against MK" existing is that unlikely). You haven't proven a thing against that, for some reason you're saying "it's possible so we should wait to ban him" disproves my "extremely unlikely and not worth waiting for to ban him"?

I'm asking you to demonstrate why it's a better chance than extremely unlikely, and you've given me nothing except high handed rhetoric and claims of your debating superiority. No evidence. You'll get no argument from me that it's possible (I agree, there could be something), but what you have yet to do is demonstrate that it's realistic for waiting for.

Then we were obviously arguing different things.

This is the statement I took issue with:

Right here. I'm not the one shifting the burden of proof, you are claiming a possibility so you must prove that possibility.

Possibility exists in a vacuum, there is never a need to prove it exists. If that wasn't what you meant, then I have a choice quote for you.

If you cannot say what you mean you can never mean what you say.

However, since I know that you are not arguing that it is impossible, I see no reason to continue this particular tangent, we are in agreement.

Now to the meat of your argument.




Understand that it's highly unlikely given character with one move, but complicated chains that just work are quite common. Chaingrabbing in general functions off that principal, think DDD's infinite on Luigi for an easy example. If one tiny insignifigant detail was off... most character specific combos would not work.


Now again, you're straw-manning my argument, I never suggested that it would be something like this that would necessarily happen, it was merely one of many possibilities.


But let me explain again why we still need at least some time.


The community is quite simply, too young. The easiest example of this is the fact that for my understanding of MK's match-ups I must work on community sentiment instead of hard data. Without reliable match-up data, we cannot be sure that MK is broken AT ALL.

Another perfect example of this is we don't have a good ban criteria. We have ambiguous terms like "overcentralization", but no list of actual attributes that has been heavily debated over, revised, and eventually been accepted that we can reference to.

Given those two facts, banning ANY CHARACTER even Akuma would be premature.

Once we have those two things, we can figure out how boarderline the character is (if at all) and from there, decide how long we can continue to wait for new discoveries (if any).



But until the data and the criteria exist, we have no way of truly knowing if MK is banworthy.

Out of curiosity, why do you maintain that there's a possibility that a tech will be found against Meta Knight, but dismiss the possibility that, if such a tech exists, it will be found in with Meta Knight banned? They're both possibilities, and without proof either way, you can't say that one is more likely than the other.

For the same reason I say that we can't wait until the metagame is "perfectly mature" and "sufficently mature" is all we should require.

The odds simply become far too small.

 

[AlexX]

(Though, if he was banned, wouldn't the people that left come back?)

People have argued they would, but the sad truth is they won't. Soul Calibur 3 resulted in people leaving the competative scene, and from what I can tell, Soul Calibur 4 didn't bring any of them back.

 

[rehab]

I thought Akuma was banned megafast on the obvious basis of being a retardedly op'ed fighting game boss character but whatever

 

[Fatmanonice]

Problem with the bolded part.

No one is going to look for a counter tactic to something that is banned. People will be more worried of the tournament setting to consider how to stop a banned character.

A temp ban could work to help other character play catch up with MK, but that the only reason I would consider a temp ban if it came to it.

We have a lot of people on these boards who do a lot of testing even if they rarely go to tournaments. A community of close to 200,000 people and we can't have 10-20 people specifically looking into character/strategy/stage counters for Metaknight for about a month?

If people did throw themselves heavily into whatever character they thought would best win tournies even during a temp ban (ie, completely ignored MK) then a temp ban would be the perfect way to check for the possibility of the metagame becoming even worse without him.

I'm not sure that's the most likely outcome of a temp ban though, I don't think people would just forget MK would be coming back soon.

That's the thing, we don't know what will happen which is why I think we should take a deep breath and give it a try even if it is for short time period like 2 weeks. As I said before, some local tournaments have tested this out and it has showed a greater variety in characters placing so what would happen in a large tournaments of 64+ people?

 

[Vulcan55]

Banned "megafast" in the US because he was obliterating (way worse than MetaKnight) the tournament scene in Japan.

 

[Deoxys]

People have argued they would, but the sad truth is they won't. Soul Calibur 3 resulted in people leaving the competative scene, and from what I can tell, Soul Calibur 4 didn't bring any of them back.

It's easier to find a game like SC than SSB though.

That's the thing, we don't know what will happen which is why I think we should take a deep breath and give it a try even if it is for short time period like 2 weeks. As I said before, some local tournaments have tested this out and it has showed a greater variety in characters placing so what would happen in a large tournaments of 64+ people?

We'll see at HOBO 12.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

That's why we have to balance it, and "sufficently mature" is the criteria not "completely mature".

In a perfect world we'd be able to have infinite testing on every ban, but I (and others) recognize that with a character this powerful, people will simply drop the game because it's no longer a worthy game for competative play.

Some players will leave before that acceptable threshhold is reached, that is WHY it's so critically important to create a consistent ban criteria and based on that, decide how long we must wait, to avoid losing other players unnessecarily.


I do think that if we have a set date, that will help stop the migration away, and we can move the timetable up or down as new discoveries are made (if any).


So that's my take, it's unfortunate, but it must be allowed to happen to a degree, because premature banning will cause worse issues in the long run (loss of MK mains and players who felt banning was pre-mature primarily, but also bad precident that can cause this to come up again in the future). We just have to make sure the effect is as small as possible while still making the ban (if it happens) fair.

Although I'm against the ban and Adumbrodeus is for it, the post sums up my concerns on the matter.

 

[Mortimer]

For the same reason I say that we can't wait until the metagame is "perfectly mature" and "sufficently mature" is all we should require.

The odds simply become far too small.

So you're contending that the possibility of a technique (or strategy, or whatever word you prefer) existing is greater than the possibility of said technique being found if Meta Knight is banned?

How do you compare the two possibilities to the extent that you can say one is too small, while the other isn't? Can you criticize somebody for disagreeing and saying the opposite, when you're dealing with unprovable possibilities?

 

[CR4SH]

OK, Metaknight is NOT akuma. He is NOT as broken as akuma, NOBODY is arguing that. Akuma is not on the edge of a ban, he's way the **** off the deep end.

Can we PLEASE stop comparing meta to akuma? It doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Also, this game is not that deep. Waiting x amount of months is almost unquestionably not going to change things much. For about 3 months we had variation and evolution in the metagame, since then it's been metaknight and everyone else. It's not like pit's arrows people, this problem isn't going to magically go away through the mythical "metagame". There just isn't that much to brawl. (ZOMG that means brawl is bad! no, it just means it's shallow.)

 

[Daimonster]

Strategies that we use against each character do not apply to MK.

Wall of pains=get tornadoed
grab traps=get d.tilted
Zoning=gets outspaced by the fast character that is MK

Just to list a few...I don't understand why people don't see how MK breaks all these.

The reason why you see big tournaments being MK/MK/MK is because he has an answer to everything. The metagame is and will be revolving around MK until he gets banned.

Do not come at me with "yoshi can beat MK"...ok so what? Lets count all the matchups that yoshi has a problem with...falco, snake..the list goes on and on.

 

[XienZo]

It's easier to find a game like SC than SSB though.

Ah yes, thats a very important factor. Its a mix of all kind of franchises, many of which are themselves not in fighter games. (Who actually is?) If I want to play as one of those characters, I have to play Brawl, or possibly a previous smashgame. Olimar doesn't exist in melee so I'm stuck.

Anyhow, this keeps people from giving up the game as fast as you'd think.

On the other hand, this would keep more of the newer people in, since many play it because they like the characters, while it wouldn't hold back a lot of hardcore-players, who just like the competitive atmosphere rather than the themed side of the game.

 

[Deoxys]

So you're contending that the possibility of a technique (or strategy, or whatever word you prefer) existing is greater than the possibility of said technique being found if Meta Knight is banned?

How do you compare the two possibilities to the extent that you can say one is too small, while the other isn't? Can you criticize somebody for disagreeing and saying the opposite, when you're dealing with unprovable possibilities?

It's easy; if MK is banned from tournaments, fewer top players (those who are able to play the matchup well enough for %ages to be determined) will play against MK, so they won't be developing a series of MK-specific tactics to deal with the matchup. Playing against other characters won't help your MK matchup as much as playing against MK at the level we're talking about.

 

[salaboB]

Edit: Snipped, Mortimer said it better at the top of the page so there's no need for my rambly wall of text here.

 

[WakerofWinds]

Okay, I know I don't speak for everybody, but I know I speak for at least a few people when I say this.

Sure, predictions, they happen. Don't we use predictions to our advantage in the real world? Don't we take them and test them using various ways. Keeping MK here is just one, we're doing that right now. We can switch it up some with some kind of temp ban or something... just to see(this isn't actually what I was talking about in the first sentence, but wanted to say it anyway)

Anyway, what I DO know a few people think about is this: What's more important to you? A character, or a community. Sure, there's no sure fire way of saying "this will happen, followed by this, this, this, and that." But is that a risk we're willing to take? You have to decide which side you lean on for which reasons, what MK is doing on terms of metagame, community, etc. Just look at this topic, he's pretty much single handedly divided up Smash Boards. Whats with that?

Also, for the record, nobodies banning MK in friendlies.

 

[adumbrodeus]

So you're contending that the possibility of a technique (or strategy, or whatever word you prefer) existing is greater than the possibility of said technique being found if Meta Knight is banned?

How do you compare the two possibilities to the extent that you can say one is too small, while the other isn't? Can you criticize somebody for disagreeing and saying the opposite, when you're dealing with unprovable possibilities?

Because of basic algebra actually.

You don't need to know the actual numbers behind something to be able to compare them on a proportional basis, it's very simple to make inferences about things on a relative level instead of a concrete level.


For example, we know the pool of players playing MK will be considerably lower if he is banned. If fewer players are playing a character the chances of something being discovered are obviously considerably lower then if 40%+ of players play MK. More tests mean higher chance. I can illustrate this principal mathmatically if you want...


But of course, this is more an issue for when we have hard data on MK's level of brokeness instead of sentiment, something that we as a community lack, and is needed before ANY BAN is warranted.

HOWEVER, you are misconstruing my argument, lower chance of discovery was only part of the equation, greater hurdles in recognition was the other issue.

OK, Metaknight is NOT akuma. He is NOT as broken as akuma, NOBODY is arguing that. Akuma is not on the edge of a ban, he's way the **** off the deep end.

Can we PLEASE stop comparing meta to akuma? It doesn't get anyone anywhere.

A lot of the Akuma arguments are Reductio Ad Absurdem, they do not assume the characters are the same, they merely apply the same logic to his situation. That is completely valid.

 

[Mortimer]

It's easy; if MK is banned from tournaments, fewer top players (those who are able to play the matchup well enough for %ages to be determined) will play against MK, so they won't be developing a series of MK-specific tactics to deal with the matchup. Playing against other characters won't help your MK matchup as much as playing against MK at the level we're talking about.

This is true, but at the same time it's not impossible. There are various scenarios that could lead towards less skilled players contributing to a strategy that would defeat Meta Knight. They might take a little longer to be noticed, but it's still possible, and even likely, that something would be found during a ban if it would be found without a ban.

 

[salaboB]

Because of basic algebra actually.

You don't need to know the actual numbers behind something to be able to compare them on a proportional basis, it's very simple to make inferences about things on a relative level instead of a concrete level.

Now this is just bad.

I'm sorry. I accepted your point about my position being untenable. But you can't hold this one either.

You have nothing that explains why the chances of finding an MK specific AT that won't be located vs. other characters is anything more than a vanishingly small possibility.

Similarily, you're saying the chances of finding strategies that work against MK if he's banned are vanishingly small.

No amount of algebra will help you determine which vanishingly small is greater than the other without some evidence on one side of its likelihood, and you have none for either.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

We have a lot of people on these boards who do a lot of testing even if they rarely go to tournaments. A community of close to 200,000 people and we can't have 10-20 people specifically looking into character/strategy/stage counters for Metaknight for about a month?

A small amount of people will, however, just like human development, people aren't going to look for a counter to a banned or forbidden technique/character/card/etc. when all that most people will care about it how to place high in tournaments.

Learning techs against MK isn't going to help you take down Marth at Hobo *insert number here* when MK is banned.

People aren't going to look for something without some incentive. In a tournament scene, where MK is legal, people are going to be looking for ways to fight against him. When he's banned, not so much. There will be people, out of curiosity or some other reason, who will want to find a way.

If MK was legal, there would be more incentive to find a way to beat him, thus we would find a way to beat him much faster if he was legal.

It's back to human development again, people aren't going to look for something, unless there is an urgency for it. The only exception being curious people or some other knowledgeable reason.

 

[CR4SH]

Because of basic algebra actually.

You don't need to know the actual numbers behind something to be able to compare them on a proportional basis, it's very simple to make inferences about things on a relative level instead of a concrete level.


For example, we know the pool of players playing MK will be considerably lower if he is banned. If fewer players are playing a character the chances of something being discovered are obviously considerably lower then if 40%+ of players play MK. More tests mean higher chance. I can illustrate this principal mathmatically if you want...


But of course, this is more an issue for when we have hard data on MK's level of brokeness instead of sentiment, something that we as a community lack, and is needed before ANY BAN is warranted.

HOWEVER, you are misconstruing my argument, lower chance of discovery was only part of the equation, greater hurdles in recognition was the other issue.



A lot of the Akuma arguments are Reductio Ad Absurdem, they do not assume the characters are the same, they merely apply the same logic to his situation. That is completely valid.

Algebra needs actual quantitative values (numbers anyone?) to make sense numbnuts. You can make an argument based on simple logic theory, but invoking algebra just makes you look goofy.

 

[XienZo]

Did anyone notice that after the initial influx of banners, the difference between the two has stayed the same?

 

[salaboB]

It's back to human development again, people aren't going to look for something, unless there is an urgency for it. The only exception being curious people or some other knowledgeable reason.

"I enjoy playing as MK"
"I want MK unbanned"
"I like to test my combos against everyone"

Are all reasons people will play MK against other people who might try a combo they just found (Of whatever nature) and discover it worked. Yes, it will be slower than if he were banned, but this is a game that people play for fun and MK will still be played somewhere in the community.

If nothing else, not all tournaments will ban him so those places will continue to have chances to locate tactics against him. This could even increase the odds of it being found! Bear with me:

Skilled Player 1 currently plays MK.
A ban goes into place for the big tournament.
Skilled Player 1 changes mains.
Skilled Player 1 discovers new combos with this main, due to a previously underdeveloped metagame.
Skilled Player 1 plays at the big tournament with their new main.
Skilled Player 1 plays at a small tournament that didn't ban MK, but uses their new main anyway because they're just that much better.
Mediocre Player 2 plays MK at that tournament.
Skilled Player 1 uses one of the new combos they discovered against that MK and notes he can't seem to get out of it.
Skilled Player 1 gets a friend who is good with MK (Or even decent) and tries the combo out until it is determined if it is escapable or not.

The combo doesn't even have to obviously be inescapable against other characters, just something effective that would get used against MK. You can replace that second tournament with a money match, friendlies, whatever. The possibility is there, and the increased development of the other characters serves to offset the decrease in playtime vs. MK.

So if MK is unbanned, you get more playtime vs. him but less development of ATs for other characters.
If MK is banned, you get less playtime vs. him but more development of ATs for other characters.

Show me why it's so much less likely to be located if he's banned, logically.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Did anyone notice that after the initial influx of banners, the difference between the two has stayed the same?

If your talking about the poll, then yes, it has stayed around, Pro 59 % - Anti 41%

 

[Mortimer]

For example, we know the pool of players playing MK will be considerably lower if he is banned. If fewer players are playing a character the chances of something being discovered are obviously considerably lower then if 40%+ of players play MK. More tests mean higher chance. I can illustrate this principal mathmatically if you want...

But of course, this is more an issue for when we have hard data on MK's level of brokeness instead of sentiment, something that we as a community lack, and is needed before ANY BAN is warranted.

HOWEVER, you are misconstruing my argument, lower chance of discovery was only part of the equation, greater hurdles in recognition was the other issue.

As time goes by, the chance that a Meta Knight counter will be found decreases. The counter doesn't necessarily exist, and as players explore the game, there is less uncovered territory to allow for its existence.

On the other hand, if such a counter exists, as time goes by under a ban, the chance that the Meta Knight counter will be found increases. Players will again explore the game, admittedly at a slower rate. But, since it exists, they will likely eventually stumble across it. Once they've discovered it, all it will take is an advanced player to recognize what they've done, and a new "Unban MK!" discussion will take place.

One scenario hinges upon the existence of the possibility, while in the other scenario, it already exists and is only waiting to be found.

Basically, the chances of a counter to MK existing (less than 100%, and falling) are lower than the chances of said technique being found if MK is banned (also less than 100%, but increasing over time).

 

[Genome Squirrel]

it was nice to see a match between a yoshi and a metaknight; it doesn't appear to be at the highest levels of play, but it gives yoshi's side some substance.
if you want to do more than rely on the sbr decision, then perhaps pro-banners should perform thorough matchup (through video) and statistical analysis. its end result would most likely be similiar to metaknight's match up discussion (even if you can't find proof he's broken you could find a flaw in his approach). in EVERY scenario you would have to PROVE something to the effect that no high level player using any other character than metaknight has a reasonable chance to beat a high level player using metaknight or that metaknight, as he was designed, is so inherently great that player skill is secondary to character choice in the match at a higher level. THIS SHOULD TAKE A LONG TIME AND INCLUDE THROUGH DISCUSSION OF MANY MATCHUPS. Theorycraft is interesting to talk about, but its so subjective you wont make any progress in proving metaknight is banworthy.

 

[DRaGZ]

Did anyone notice that after the initial influx of banners, the difference between the two has stayed the same?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

If you are talking about the argument itself, then yeah sure.

If you're talking about the poll itself, banning is winning by a roughly 3-2 margin.

 

[XienZo]

Its about the poll. Earlier, it was closer to 2-1.

 

[Deoxys]

So if MK is unbanned, you get more playtime vs. him but less development of ATs for other characters.
If MK is banned, you get less playtime vs. him but more development of ATs for other characters.

Show me why it's so much less likely to be located if he's banned, logically.

It's not about ATs and combo strings, and that's not what I think will be found to save MK, it's about learning the matchup. Many people think the tools to beat MK are already known to us, but that no one is good enough with one of those characters to demonstrate how to play the matchup properly.

Genome Squirrel: it's not about having a reasonable chance. Virtually every character in the game has a reasonable chance to beat MK in a match. The problem is that the chance of beating an equally skilled MK with another character hasn't been demonstrated to be better than 1 in 2 with any character.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Going deeper, we can also look at player counts of the victories.

October (So far):

Meta Knight: 384
Meta Knight with others: 136
Non-Meta Knight: 634
Total players: 1154

Meta Knight alone comes out on top of 33% of the population. He was involved in beating 45% of the population. Non-Meta Knights accounted for 55%. When compared to the count of tourneys won, the non-Meta Knight count seems about the same, but Meta Knight alone was used more than other picks, implying that people seem to stick with Meta Knight in large tourneys rather than change up their character picks.

September:

Meta Knight: 316
Meta Knight with others: 235
Non-Meta Knight: 770
Total players: 1321

In September, Meta Knight beat 24% of the population as a solo pick, and had involvement in victories over 42% of the players. 58% of the population was conquered without using MK. These ratios are quite a bit higher than the September tourney victory numbers, which could mean that MK is a safer choice for players in large tournaments. Or it could just mean that the best players use MK, and they tend to go to and win large tournies.

This interpretation makes it look as though people have begun dropping their secondaries when they use Meta Knight, which is interesting.

Good post; that is a very interesting take on things. It makes it look very different from the data I was using that didn't factor in tournament size, especially the part about dropping secondaries (more tournaments were won with Meta Knight + others in October than September, but evidently the larger tournaments of those were in September).

About Meta Knight, he DOES have one very exploitable factor. His jump break is completely horrible, and it gives Bowser and Yoshi those chaingrabs on him. He's also very short so a lot of characters can force him to jump break. If they voluntarily don't attack him while he's breaking out of the grab, the following characters can force Meta Knight to jump break from grabs and probably have a forced follow up if not a regrab on flat ground:

Peach, Bowser, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, Wario, Zelda, Sheik, Zero Suit Samus, Captain Falcon, Ivysaur, Marth, Ike, Snake

If I were looking for combos that work specifically on Meta Knight, I'd start there. I'm not really technical enough to try it myself, but it's completely plausible that something like Captain Falcon chaining across the stage to get low % kills with dair or knee sweetspot forced is possible (used as an example because he's Captain Falcon). For a better character, I bet grab release -> mortar slide is a combo for Snake. Just be sure you aren't grab attacking when he breaks out or he will ground break!

 

[Iwan]

Really...anyone arguing that metaknight shouldn't be banned, look at the numbers. Just look. They're ridiculous. And don't even TRY to compare it to marth's tournament placings in melee, they aren't even CLOSE for the amount of time brawl has been out. There were more diverse tournament winners in melee as far as character selection than there is in brawl. Yes, metaknight is beatable, but that DOES NOT mean he doesn't warrant a ban. I was against the ban early on, because i thought maybe we just didn't know the match up, or that we'd find exploits to counter metaknight.

The only way to counter metaknight (arguably), is by stage. That's it. He has no bad match ups, no nuetral matchups even. Hell, I'd love to hear how this game wouldn't be more balanced and better competitively in EVERY way without metaknight.

Someone. Tell me, I promise I'll listen and respond logically (not with bias like half of the "pro" meta smashers spouting off the word scrub when none of us have ever heard of them).

I'm listening......*listens*.....

 

[Deoxys]

We don't know Brawl as well as you seem to think we do! We don't even know the numbers for most of MK's worst matchups! You can't say none of them are neutral, because you don't know!!!

Edit: SCRUBSCRUBSCRUBSCRUBSCRUBADUBDUBINTHATUB!

 

[WakerofWinds]

What I hear right now are two good thought out arguments to this situation.

Side 1: With MK banned, there will be less playtime against MK, and less time you'll spend trying to counter MK.

Side 2: With MK Banned, there will be more skilled players, and more players in general, looking for improvements to the metagame of their character.



Now, in response to side 1: MK won't be banned in friendlies. There are chances that if MK does improve much quicker with MK banned, we won't need a specific counter, as one will rise by itself.


In response to side 2: People will forget how to fight MK, sure, there will be friendlies, but really folks, so far we've seen that MK passes all basic logic of fighting against other characters. Metagame improvement might not happen without MK there to throw it out on.


Yes, both arguments AND responses have faults. Which side is more important to you. Which response seems more credible?

 

[Iwan]

Edit: SCRUBSCRUBSCRUBSCRUBSCRUBADUBDUBINTHATUB!

LOL



I don't think there's anything proving that brawl's metagame is going to leap forward anymore....we talked about the possibility of this months ago, but nothing significant has happened since then. That time has passed; this is, for the most part, the game we'll be playing for the next few years (if you play brawl, of course). Of course it's a possibility that we find something, but the chances are slim. We do know this game very well.

imo