The Official "Should/Will Metaknight be banned?" Thread (LISTEN TO THE SBR PODCAST!)

[Frogsterking]

well, do you find low tier characters in tourneys? in the last one i went to, the lowest tier was zelda. it doesnt take a tremendous amount of skill to beat a MK; its just one character. he has WEAKNESSES :O you have to learn to take advantage of them.

and yes i have an MK avater cause hes my main genius right. and i picked him even before the game came out, cause hes awesome like that. i didnt know that he would be the best, or that people would whine 28/7 about his "cheapness"

It takes more skill than your opponent to beat MK, making fights with him an uphill battle. And sure he has small weaknesses, but they're almost trivial when compared to the rest of the cast.

 

[salaboB]

The difference between you and me (or whoever it was that made that inane argument, but you apparently support it) is that I would never criticize someone for not being psychic.

If you'd just said "I was writing it while you were posting that", I would've either let it drop ('cause there's nothing else to say) or maybe even said "OK then. Sorry." (<-- rare).

You (or whoever it was who made that inane argument) on the other hand would actually get upset that the opposition wasn't psychic.

Strawmanning = Bad.

Urm...Yuna...

Show of hands, how many people think I did wrong for replying to him before "he had the chance to retract his own statements"? How many people blame for not being psychic?

You are now blaming me for not being psychic. I think you put it best however:

Why should I? Again I ask, what am I, psychicb?! You were non-intelligent enough to actually post it in the first place! Why should I have assumed you'd be intelligent enough to realize what you said was ridiculous and post a retracting?!

What am I, psychic?!

Am I to blame for not waiting a reasonable amount of time before replying to you? How long would constitute "reasonable"? 2 minutes? 5? 10? 20? I mean, when can I stop waiting before replying to a post of yours expecting a possible retracting due to a revelation?!

No, I am not to blame for your mistakes. You made them. When you make mistakes, you can't just go "Don't refute me immediately, I might have realized I was wrong eventually!". You take it like a man/woman/child/transsexual and admit you made a mistake!

You made a mistake. You live with it. Don't blame others for your mistakes.

...take it up with yourself.

 

[Yuna]

I was actually going under the assumption that this AT would be character specifici, because, if a global AT adds depth to Brawl but makes one character overpowered, I think the depth of Brawl would take priority over that one single character, but wouldn't take priority over MULTIPLE characters.

Still, we do not ban ATs just for being "too good", we ban the character. If it's a global AT (and broken in general), then we can ban it. But if it's character specific, then it's just for that one character and a part of that character, thus the entire character has to go or we're doing the equivalent of putting an arbitrary handicap on him.

"Using this, you're too good. So you cannot use it!" - It's pretty much the same as fiddling around with handicaps. We're changing his metagame to make him worse in order to not ban him.

I openly admitted that new tactics and strategies made him better, "otherwise it's just new tactics and strategies that would make him better... but they wouldn't eliminate the neutral matchups. " But I don't think it would push him over the top (Judging from the past metagame progression, but who knows, I could be proven completely wrong in the future)

Yes, because it's possible.

Pretty much agreed here, though, I'm wondering, you might have explained it before, if you have I apologize, but what is the threshold? Where does he become "too good"? In my opinion 60:40 is a reasonable chance, and even to a degree 70:30, Wolf vs MK is 70:30, yet we're told that Wolf still has a reasonable chance against MK. But even by going 60:40, does MK have to 60:40 and beyond the entire cast to go beyond the threshold? Does he have to 70:30 all the cast? 80:20?

In my opinion, 60:40 definitely qualifies for "reasonable". 70:30 is pushing it, especially if that's all the character has (as in, the worst he has is 70:30).

Definitely a possibility, what's your definition of too good?

"No reasonable chance..."

Important parts are bolded, I never said that no one has a reasonable chance.

I never said you did. Unless this isn't directed at me.

Oh, hello. Were we asking for a list of qualifications that would catch MK but nobody else, or were we just trying to make an excuse to try to pick apart a post of mine again?

I've specifically said, in the very same post where I stressed the need for criteria that fit only MK, that twe also have to be able to motivate it with a criteria that pertains to him being "too good", standing no reasonable chance to lose.

If you missed it, it's not my fault.

After all, if we're only asking for reasons that catch MK but no one else, that's not banning him for being too good, that's just banning him because we don't like it. We're just finding things that pertain to only him in order to justify an arbitrary ban.

Prove he's too good. Translate it into qualifications for a ban.

#1 and #2 are both in there because they are severely limited, not nonexistant. This does exactly what you asked for: Lays out criteria to ban Meta Knight that wouldn't ban Marth. None of it was intending to demonstrate "too good".

No, but I layed out earlier that the criteria need to include "too good", too. We cannot randomly ban a character without him actually being too good, thus the criteria must cntain "too good":

Please go re-read my explanation of what its purpose was for before you try to take apart my points again. Oh, and let me know if you think any character other than MK, with the removal of MK, will meet them. That would actually invalidate their purpose, as opposed to what your entire response didn't do.

Please go re-read my post where I explain what we need to do to ban Meta Knight. Unless you, of course, elected to do only a part of what I said and wholly ignore the rest and not tell me, thus making me think you hadn't read it.

Also, of course the criteria must contain "too good". It's one fo the most important reasons for banning a character! In fact, it's the most important reason!

It takes more skill than your opponent to beat MK, making fights with him an uphill battle. And sure he has small weaknesses, but they're almost trivial when compared to the rest of the cast.

What is "more skill"? And does requiring more of it make him "too good" and you not stand a "reasonable chance"?

Urm...Yuna...

You are now blaming me for not being psychic. I think you put it best however:

...take it up with yourself.

O RLY? Quote me where I blame you for not being psychic.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

A hypothetical question (for you too, Yuna):

What if Meta Knight never gets "too good"? What if he always just looms between "very good" and "almost too good", and is moderately able to win a higher percentage of the amount of tournaments he participates in? I'm aware that the meta game will change, but what if Meta Knight changes JUST enough to stay below that "ban now" line, but high enough to continue to beat out most other characters?

I'm not asking this to look for weakness, or provoke anyone, or anything of that nonsensical nature.

I'm just curious.

If conditions proceed as they have been, with (using DJBrowny's fact) MK garnering nearly fifty percent of all victories, the Smash community would get increasinglky upset with MK and the impossibility of finding any of his weaknesses. This is NOT because the Smash community would necesarily be rational in its decision and view it as other fighting games are viewed, but people would simply tire of all the MK. Smashers want their characters to have a disavdantage in at least SOME conditions, and this is best exmeplified by the way this fighter, unlike many others, has stage variations to allow for all the characters to occationally be at a disadvantage. Should he return to Snake level victories, there would be no need for a ban. Should he be found to be at a disadvantage under more general conditions than v. Yoshi on Yoshi's Island (Pipes), there would be no need for a ban.

But once a character overshadows the results of all the other characters combined with no good exploitable disadvantages whatsoever, a ban is necesary. I'm just hoping this is a "high point," because I like MK. If current conditions become the norm, MK will need to be banned.

EDIT: And I could care less if this catches Marth. If Marth becomes as dominant as MK was, and is found to have no situation where he is at a disadvantage, he would need to be banned as well. Heck, ANY character that nears the 50% mark of a cast of 35 - odd characters with no disadvantageous situations needs to be banned, when it comes to what the Smash community needs.

 

[brinboy789]

It takes more skill than your opponent to beat MK, making fights with him an uphill battle. And sure he has small weaknesses, but they're almost trivial when compared to the rest of the cast.

ok...who do you think is easier to use
MK
snake

........SNAKE.
seriously, why do people think MK is hard to use? what, tornado spam all day? MK is just as hard to learn as the rest of the cast, he just has more advantages. i think that snake is WAY easier to learn then MK. snake = ftilt + utilt + mortar slide = win. his other moves make him even better, but those moves are the ones that are most important. seriously, i was on wifi the other day, and i beat everybody with +3 and everybody had -1. ALL i did was mortar slide and ftilt and utilt. sure, they might have been noobs, but still. i dont get how everybody is saying that MK is easy to use when snake exists

 

[salaboB]

O RLY? Quote me where I blame you for not being psychic.

I've got a "told you so":

salaboB:I told you to petition the mods, not to make a new thread. But at least it answered one thing: I was absolutely right in that this talk belongs in this thread.

Now if it's fair of you to demand proof from me for it, let's reverse it: You quote me where I blamed you for not being psychic that yielded those quotes where you were ranting about it, please. My previous quote has a link back to your posts about it so you should be able to find it if it exists. To shoot that attempt down: I never said you should have known, I said making the post was your fault. Who else is at fault for it? I didn't reach over to your mouse and click "Submit Reply" for you.

Quit applying double standards. You consistently say "I never said this" but at the same time you interpret what other people say and then claim they expected things of you that never actually showed up in their posts either.

After all, if we're only asking for reasons that catch MK but no one else, that's not banning him for being too good, that's just banning him because we don't like it. We're just finding things that pertain to only him in order to justify an arbitrary ban.

I'm using all 4 of the criteria for it, and the first two are getting up there as far as "too good" -- when you have only one or two characters you can pick besides a ditto to get an even matchup, and when you can't counterpick him on any stage to help after a loss, it's really approaching broken. You're trying to use other games to say that it must be impossible to win to be "too good", I'm saying the damage to the competitive scene from options 3 and 4 act to lower where the point where "too good" counts as. Labelling it "Popularity" doesn't discard the damage it's doing.

Here's a question for you:
Why is it acceptable to manipulate the game that was created by banning items and stages, but not acceptable to ban a character that's proven to have as many advantages as many of those banned things can provide? For instance, I'm certain that not every banned stage provides insurmountable advantages, so shouldn't they still be available at a mininum as counterpicks? After all, people can still win against others that have chosen them, they'll just have to practice more or go ditto against them to do it.

 

[p0ser]

Ease of use shouldn't really be an issue, although i believe his apparent advantages make him easy to pick up. Snake has noticeable weakness (ex. his recovery) that can be taken advantage of. i see no apparent weaknesses in meta knight. He is even with or better in almost every way compared to other characters (sans a projectile). The question being asked is: do these attributes make him "too good"? i believe so, due to almost ungimpable recovery, extremely large range, great b moves, short, and does well against chain grabs. I don't see anyone with these blatant advantages like meta knight has (especially more than one of these), which i believe will lead to him dominating most of the tournaments in the coming months.

 

[ArcPoint]

Still, we do not ban ATs just for being "too good", we ban the character. If it's a global AT (and broken in general), then we can ban it. But if it's character specific, then it's just for that one character and a part of that character, thus the entire character has to go or we're doing the equivalent of putting an arbitrary handicap on him.

"Using this, you're too good. So you cannot use it!" - It's pretty much the same as fiddling around with handicaps. We're changing his metagame to make him worse in order to not ban him.

I see what you mean here.

In my opinion, 60:40 definitely qualifies for "reasonable". 70:30 is pushing it, especially if that's all the character has (as in, the worst he has is 70:30).

Agreed, but I don't think you answered my question, what is too good? What about if MK 80:20s the cast but has one neutral? Or only one 70:30? What is your threshold? Reasonable would be 60:40 the entire cast, possibly 70:30ing the entire cast.

"No reasonable chance..."

This was more directed towards puffball, that's why I had his quote above my question.

I never said you did. Unless this isn't directed at me.

Actually, I caught that mistake, my sentence now says

Important parts are bolded, I never said that no one has an unreasonable chance.

You were saying:
"Reasonable chance, not a chance." And I'm saying that I never said no one had an unreasonable chance, or, tried to in my original sentence.

 

[choknater]

"Ease of use shouldn't really be an issue." - correct

 

[__V]

Ban the B-button. Problem solved.

 

[Yuna]

I've got a "told you so":
Now if it's fair of you to demand proof from me for it, let's reverse it: You quote me where I blamed you for not being psychic that yielded those quotes where you were ranting about it, please. My previous quote has a link back to your posts about it so you should be able to find it if it exists. To shoot that attempt down: I never said you should have known, I said making the post was your fault.

Who else is at fault for it? I didn't reach over to your mouse and click "Submit Reply" for you.
"What is your own fault is that you were too busy jumping on my post and not giving me credit for being reasonable or able to recognize when I had an incorrect assumption and correct myself for it that you went ahead and did the same thing back to me that you were claiming I had done."

This is clearly blaming me for not knowing (i.e. being psychic) that you'd "be reasonable and be able to recognize you had made an incorrect assumption".

I'm using all 4 of the criteria for it, and the first two are getting up there as far as "too good" -- when you have only one or two characters you can pick besides a ditto to get an even matchup, and when you can't counterpick him on any stage to help after a loss, it's really approaching broken. You're trying to use other games to say that it must be impossible to win to be "too good", I'm saying the damage to the competitive scene from options 3 and 4 act to lower where the point where "too good" counts as. Labelling it "Popularity" doesn't discard the damage it's doing.

None of the criteria, even when spliced together, form "too good, no reasonable chance".

Why is it acceptable to manipulate the game that was created by banning items and stages, but not acceptable to ban a character that's proven to have as many advantages as many of those banned things can provide?

Because:
1) A character ban is always the last option.
2) What that is banned does Meta Knight compare to?

For instance, I'm certain that not every banned stage provides insurmountable advantages, so shouldn't they still be available at a mininum as counterpicks? After all, people can still win against others that have chosen them, they'll just have to practice more or go ditto against them to do it.

No, some are just broken in general.


Me:I told you to petition the mods, not to make a new thread.
*I made an erroneous assumption. I didn't once blame you for anything. I made the assumption you'd read my post and misinterpreted "petition" as "make a new thread"*

You: Actually, what happened was that I had made a new response that went up at the same time as you were responding. What is your own fault is that you were too busy jumping on my post and not giving me credit for being reasonable or able to recognize when I had an incorrect assumption and correct myself for it that you went ahead and did the same thing back to me that you were claiming I had done.
* You blamed me for not automatically assuming a whole bunch of things*

The two are not even comparable. In my case, I made an assumption that wasn't true. In your case, you made a mistake, I responded to it and you blamed me for not "giving you enough time to realize your mistake and fixing it". The two aren't even remotely the same!

And this is how it continued:
Me: What am I, psychic?! You made a mistake.
You: And by jumping on it, you made one too.

You are clearly blaming me for not being psychic since you'd have to be one to know that you'd realize your mistake and correct yourself and also know what window of opportunity to give you.

 

[cutter]

Ban the B-button. Problem solved.

MK's B moves aren't the sole reason why he's the best character in the game.

 

[ArcPoint]

Ban the B-button. Problem solved.

How many times has this been suggested now?

 

[Yuna]

Agreed, but I don't think you answered my question, what is too good? What about if MK 80:20s the cast but has one neutral? Or only one 70:30? What is your threshold? Reasonable would be 60:40 the entire cast, possibly 70:30ing the entire cast.

It depends.

All 70:30s or worse except 4 who are 50:45s - 50:40s? Not too good.
All 70:30s? Too good.
2 50:50s, 3 70:30s, the rest worse? Here it's hard to say...

Actually, I caught that mistake, my sentence now says
You were saying:
"Reasonable chance, not a chance." And I'm saying that I never said no one had an unreasonable chance, or, tried to in my original sentence.

"No one has an unreasonable chance" makes no sense. Do you mean "there is no one who doesn't stand a 'reasonable chance'"? I would disagree to that.

 

[ArcPoint]

Well, the exact opposite of that sentence is "everyone has a chance" Thank you English double negatives >_< Sorry for the lack of clarity there =P

 

[salaboB]

Who else is at fault for it? I didn't reach over to your mouse and click "Submit Reply" for you.
"What is your own fault is that you were too busy jumping on my post and not giving me credit for being reasonable or able to recognize when I had an incorrect assumption and correct myself for it that you went ahead and did the same thing back to me that you were claiming I had done."

This is clearly blaming me for not knowing (i.e. being psychic) that you'd "be reasonable and be able to recognize you had made an incorrect assumption".

No, it's not. It's assuming I'm an idiot -- You made an incorrect assumption. Incorrect assumptions are mistakes. You're just squirming around trying to get out from under your own misinterpretation now.

See, all I said there was you made a bad assumption. I didn't say you should know I would retract it, that's you interpreting my post incorrectly and putting words into my mouth. It's a double standard because you're putting words into my mouth but saying you weren't while saying it's bad of me to do the same.

No, some are just broken in general.

(This is in reference to banned stages) Yes, but what about the ones that aren't. Why is banning them okay, if all they do is provide a surmountable advantage to only a few characters? Why is it somehow okay to ban a stage that only gives the same advantage to certain characters that playing Meta Knight does on any stage, but it's not okay to ban Meta Knight?

 

[Lord Exor]

Yuna is the next Miss Cleo.

 

[Daimonster]

MK should logically place top 3 everytime. The metagame will continue to be mk dittos unless something game-breaking happens. The community as a whole does not like this, therefore the community is changing it.

 

[brinboy789]

Ease of use shouldn't really be an issue, although i believe his apparent advantages make him easy to pick up. Snake has noticeable weakness (ex. his recovery) that can be taken advantage of. i see no apparent weaknesses in meta knight. He is even with or better in almost every way compared to other characters (sans a projectile). The question being asked is: do these attributes make him "too good"? i believe so, due to almost ungimpable recovery, extremely large range, great b moves, short, and does well against chain grabs. I don't see anyone with these blatant advantages like meta knight has (especially more than one of these), which i believe will lead to him dominating most of the tournaments in the coming months.

MK is as hard to pick up as any character. he just has more advantages. snakes recovery is above average. not great, but it has invincibility frames, and he can use his c4 to get a boost. MK weaknesses are that he is light, has no projectile, vulnerable after using all of his b moves, weak attacks in general, slow aerial movement. MK's range matches of marths. his B moves, aside from the tornado that i generally dont use arent THAT good. i spam shuttle loop but thats just me. drill rush sux and dimensional cape can be used for mindgames but not much else

 

[choknater]

Guys, what about 80:20's, or 90:10's? You are seriously missing out on a lot of matchups. Those general estimates don't cover everything.

What about the 51:49's?

 

[ArcPoint]

(This is in reference to banned stages) Yes, but what about the ones that aren't. Why is banning them okay, if all they do is provide a surmountable advantage to only a few characters? Why is it somehow okay to ban a stage that only gives the same advantage to certain characters that playing Meta Knight does on any stage, but it's not okay to ban Meta Knight?

Stages are an ENTIRELY different story, we're supposed to make it so that the stage isn't more dangerous than the opponent. And for the record... we have stages that give advantages to some characters, they're called counterpicks =)

 

[brinboy789]

No, it's not. It's assuming I'm an idiot -- You made an incorrect assumption. Incorrect assumptions are mistakes. You're just squirming around trying to get out from under your own misinterpretation now.

See, all I said there was you made a bad assumption. I didn't say you should know I would retract it, that's you interpreting my post incorrectly and putting words into my mouth. It's a double standard because you're putting words into my mouth but saying you weren't while saying it's bad of me to do the same.

(This is in reference to banned stages) Yes, but what about the ones that aren't. Why is banning them okay, if all they do is provide a surmountable advantage to only a few characters? Why is it somehow okay to ban a stage that only gives the same advantage to certain characters that playing Meta Knight does on any stage, but it's not okay to ban Meta Knight?

ummmm what stage are you talking about? rainbow cruise?

 

[IxxI]

Shouldn't Snake be getting this same treatment?

At least Snake can be easily gimped. He also has some bad match ups. I'm not really against the banning of MK at this point. I feel that we should wait till the game is more developed before we take permanent action towards this situation.

 

[Yuna]

No, it's not. It's assuming I'm an idiot -- You made an incorrect assumption. Incorrect assumptions are mistakes. You're just squirming around trying to get out from under your own misinterpretation now.

Why?! Why, why, why?! Why was I supposed to assume you'd catch yourself?! Do you re-read everything you ever write on Smashboards? Do you scroll back and look for mistakes and correct them if you find any? If so, how was I supposed to know?!

Do you mull your posts over in your head, thus, you often catch yourself when you say stupid things? Do you always realize it when you make a mistake?

How was I to know this?! How?! You made a post in a thread that's going a mile a minute. Whenever I see a post, I reply to it.

You made a mistake, you got a refutation for it, live with it instead of saying "Well, I realized it and you're a bad person for not giving me enough credit!". Well, you made the mistake in the first place, so it's not like the refutation is undeserved.

See, all I said there was you made a bad assumption.

No, you're criticizing me for not making the right assumptions. You can argue semantics all you want, you were upset I had not assumed you would catch your own mistake and correct yourself. You also didn't specify any time window. How long am I supposed to give you before replying to your posts?

And how was I to know that you weren't actually as unintelligent as to say something like that? It's bad to not give you the benefit of a doubt despite knowing nothing about you, right?

I didn't say you should know I would retract it, that's you interpreting my post incorrectly and putting words into my mouth. It's a double standard because you're putting words into my mouth but saying you weren't while saying it's bad of me to do the same..

It's not putting words in your mouth if I accuse you of something and you do not refute it. How am I supposed to know that I'm wrong if you don't tell me I'm wrong. Again, am I supposed to be psychic?

Not to mention that this has nothing to do with you randomly jumping down my throat for hypocrisy when you criticized me for making a wrongful assumption and linked it to our previous bout about something else entirely!

(This is in reference to banned stages) Yes, but what about the ones that aren't. Why is banning them okay, if all they do is provide a surmountable advantage to only a few characters?

Name them. Also, some stages are just broken in general and work against Competitive play. Name the stages that were banned for giving characters a "surmountable" advantage.

Why is it somehow okay to ban a stage that only gives the same advantage to certain characters that playing Meta Knight does on any stage, but it's not okay to ban Meta Knight?

Name these characters and stages.

 

[brinboy789]

At least Snake can be easily gimped. He also has some bad match ups. I'm not really against the banning of MK at this point. I feel that we should wait till the game is more developed before we take permanent action towards this situation.

i dont think snake should be banned. i dont think ANYBODY should be banned in that matter. i just think that snake is MUCH easier to use then MK. and at :
"I feel that we should wait till the game is more developed before we take permanent action towards this situation"

^
^
^
^
too good

 

[Tenki]

This was originall to disprove the argument that mere popularity should be sufficient to ban Meta Knight. This is all it was. Then people randomly blew it out of proportion because they were desperate for something to refute me on or something.

I think that's basically it. Everyone wants to refute Yuna.

Hint: It's easier to refute Yuna on game mechanics than it is to refute Yuna's opinions.

 

[VulgarHandGestures]

What alternate universe Smashboards are you reading? I play Melee Competitively. I would play Brawl Competitively if I had to or if we just had tournaments (we do, and I attend them, but they're small and/or full of newbies since they're only held at anime conventions).

When did I ever say I do not play any Smash game Competitively? I've never admitted to not being any good at a Super Smash Bros. game. Neosaid I wasn't. Neo last saw me play in the summer of 2006, as far as I know. And I never acknowledged what he said is true. So why don't you just hop along and read your imaginary Smashboards and leave the valid debating to us?

neo called you out on being terrible at every smash game and you never tried to correct him.

regardless of your past smashing experience, who are you to comment on the competitive state of brawl if you don't play competitively? many of our top level smashers, based on their collective experience, knowledge, and ability, believe that metaknight is bad for the community and should be banned. who are you to comment if you literally have no idea?

 

[Yuna]

neo called you out on being terrible at every smash game and you never tried to correct him.

Obviously, this is me agreeing on being terrible at Smash. And that's not even the word he used.

Also, "being good at Smash" =/= "Know a lot about how Smash works on a deeper mechanical level".
"Not being good at Smash" =/= "Not knowing much about the game".

regardless of your past smashing experience, who are you to comment on the competitive state of brawl if you don't play competitively?

I do play Competitively?

many of our top level smashers, based on their collective experience, knowledge, and ability, believe that metaknight is bad for the community and should be banned. who are you to comment if you literally have no idea?

Many of our top level smashers also believe he shouldn't be banned. Why do you think I have "no idea"? I know more than you'll be able to know about Smash (both Melee and Brawl) unless you crammed for several weeks straight.

Who are you to make all of these accusations with no basis, which are all based on unfounded assumptions based solely on the misinterpretation of my words?

I think that's basically it. Everyone wants to refute Yuna.

They love to try to find the tiniest mistake to refute.

Hint: It's easier to refute Yuna on game mechanics than it is to refute Yuna's opinions.

Yes, but it's not easy because I don't randomly make assumptions on how the game works, I study it. So it's not like I'm pulling things out of my buttocks.

 

[Tenki]

no u.

[1]snakes recovery is above average. not great, but it has invincibility frames, and he can use his c4 to get a boost.


[2] MK weaknesses are that he is light, has no projectile, vulnerable after using all of his b moves, weak attacks in general, slow aerial movement.

[3] MK's range matches of marths.

I'm not a fan of multi-quote walls, but...

[1] Snake's recovery... DOES NOT HAVE INVINCIBILITY FRAMES. It has 'heavy armor' or 'juggernaut' frames. Apparently, if a move does above a certain threshold of damage, it will knock him out of it.

It's also very exploitable by the opponent. It has a 'limited' trajectory of sorts, and short characters can take advantage of Snake when he's recovering too close to the ledge by grabbing him out of the up-B as his arms are passing the stage. The cypher will hit the grabber and cause a grab-release (a "grounded" pummel release- he drops DOWN instead of doing the usual jump-escape) making it impossible to C4 to get his recovery back. Of course, there's the argument that a good Snake will recover away from the ledge. And sometimes this leads to Snake being edgehogged, or chased/pushed backwards until he has to recover under the stage.

C4 recovery is only useful if the player can tech the stage well (..lol @ epic Snake recovery video) or if Snake is under a certain %. It's very possible to suicide out of a C4 recovery, and equally possible to camp it and knock Snake into the KO wall.

[2] Unfortunately, the weaknesses you list down are very easy to get around.
- Light weight: probably the most legitimate weakness that MK has. But his range, attack speed, and priority make it hard for characters to hit him.
- No projectile: I remember people complaining about how airdodging is overpowered in Brawl. MK's ability to stay in the air/above projectiles, if not just airdodging through them makes projectile camping a bit less... effective.
- Aerially vulnerable after using all his B-moves. Tornado can just weave in to attack and weave out to escape, then reset. Its range/'priority' make it easy to 'restart' after you escape. Grounded up-B has invincibility frames during the rise, and that silly range/priority stuff tacked on to it. Glide-attack can give you lagless landings. Hoorah. Side-B is probably the most vulnerable, but like you said, it's rarely used. It's like bringing up how to punish Ike's F-smash. Down-B is slightly vulnerable, but again, it's rarely used, and if you don't attack, you have less lag out of it.

[3] Marth's range is... good... But MK takes it and attacks faster.

---------
I'd argue that MK's slower aerial speed is a sort of weakness, but as far as I know, considering how difficult it is to break through his attack aura when he's playing accurately, it's sort of trivial.

 

[Yuna]

[1] Snake's recovery... DOES NOT HAVE INVINCIBILITY FRAMES. It has 'heavy armor' or 'juggernaut' frames. Apparently, if a move does above a certain threshold of damage, it will knock him out of it.

7%

- No projectile: I remember people complaining about how airdodging is overpowered in Brawl. MK's ability to stay in the air/above projectiles, if not just airdodging through them makes projectile camping a bit less... effective.

A followup weakness is that Meta Knight has been designed in a weird way. Almost none of his attacks cancel out projectiles. Mach Tornado random fails to cancel out projectiles sometimes.

Tornado can just weave in to attack and weave out to escape, then reset.

I'd like to know this magical way to make Mach Tornado almost not lag in the slightest. It sounds like it when you describe it.

 

[brinboy789]

I'm not a fan of multi-quote walls, but...

[1] Snake's recovery... DOES NOT HAVE INVINCIBILITY FRAMES. It has 'heavy armor' or 'juggernaut' frames. Apparently, if a move does above a certain threshold of damage, it will knock him out of it.

It's also very exploitable by the opponent. It has a 'limited' trajectory of sorts, and short characters can take advantage of Snake when he's recovering too close to the ledge by grabbing him out of the up-B as his arms are passing the stage. The cypher will cause a grab-release (a "grounded" pummel release- he drops DOWN instead of doing the usual jump-escape) making it impossible to C4 to get his recovery back. Of course, there's the argument that a good Snake will recover away from the ledge. And sometimes this leads to Snake being edgehogged, or chased/pushed backwards until he has to recover under the stage.

C4 recovery is only useful if the player can tech the stage well (..lol @ epic Snake recovery video) or if Snake is under a certain %. It's very possible to suicide out of a C4 recovery, and equally possible to camp it and knock Snake into the KO wall.

[2] Unfortunately, the weaknesses you list down are very easy to get around.
- Light weight: probably the most legitimate weakness that MK has. But his range, attack speed, and priority make it hard for characters to hit him.
- No projectile: I remember people complaining about how airdodging is overpowered in Brawl. MK's ability to stay in the air/above projectiles, if not just airdodging through them makes projectile camping a bit less... effective.
- Aerially vulnerable after using all his B-moves. Tornado can just weave in to attack and weave out to escape, then reset. Its range/'priority' make it easy to 'restart' after you escape. Grounded up-B has invincibility frames during the rise, and that silly range/priority stuff tacked on to it. Glide-attack can give you lagless landings. Hoorah. Side-B is probably the most vulnerable, but like you said, it's rarely used. It's like bringing up how to punish Ike's F-smash. Down-B is slightly vulnerable, but again, it's rarely used, and if you don't attack, you have less lag out of it.

[3] Marth's range is... good... But MK takes it and attacks faster.

---------
I'd argue that MK's slower aerial speed is a sort of weakness, but as far as I know, considering how difficult it is to break through his attack aura when he's playing accurately, it's sort of trivial.

1. yes i meant super armor frames X_X and yes its not the best recovery but its above average, with the c4 recovery too. and snake suicides at like..140? 150 %. if your around that percent, your pretty much screwed anyways, so yea

2. yea its easy to get around, but hey, its what you got so make the best of it. no matter how you look at it, light weight a no projectiles IS a disadvantage. i wouldnt know about tornado because i rarely use it anyway, up+b has invincibility frames? well i wouldnt know either because i never use it on the ground. what kinda MK uses shuttle loop on the ground, it sucks like that. aerial shuttle loop ftw. side b sucks. down b sucks except for epic mindgames which rarely work wit hdown b anyways.

3. marths range is...good...i agree. MK is faster, so MK has advantage over marth. but then again, MK has adantage over everybody. marth had advantage/neutral matchups with everybody cept MK

 

[VulgarHandGestures]

Obviously, this is me agreeing on being terrible at Smash. And that's not even the word he used.

Also, "being good at Smash" =/= "Know a lot about how Smash works on a deeper mechanical level".
"Not being good at Smash" =/= "Not knowing much about the game".

if it weren't true then why wouldn't you defend yourself from the accusation?

I do play Competitively?

I would play Brawl Competitively if I had to or if we just had tournaments (we do, and I attend them, but they're small and/or full of newbies since they're only held at anime conventions).

Many of our top level smashers also believe he shouldn't be banned. Why do you think I have "no idea"? I know more than you'll be able to know about Smash (both Melee and Brawl) unless you crammed for several weeks straight.

name a top level smasher that thinks metaknight shouldn't be banned, with reasoning better than "... learn to play, scrubs!" i would also like to point out that most of your supporters in this discussion have been extremely new players, and more than one of them had a handful of posts at most.

i very much doubt you know more than me about smash. regardless, this is the internet. anything either of us is ignorant of can quickly be looked up. i suspect you're making the assertion simply because you have some sort of inferiority complex. not many friends when you were young? not many friends now? who knows... it's not like you're anywhere near any of us... or a decent competitive smash community, for that matter.

 

[Yuna]

if it weren't true then why wouldn't you defend yourself from the accusation?

Because I didn't feel like it. Neo says a lot of things. He also said only 4 people are good with Marth, for one thing. So by "good", he probably means "top level".

name a top level smasher that thinks metaknight shouldn't be banned, with reasoning better than "... learn to play, scrubs!"

Name a top level smasher who thinks he should be banned and has motivated it?

i would also like to point out that most of your supporters in this discussion have been extremely new players, and more than one of them had a handful of posts at most.

I would like to point out that most of your supporters are also new and have relatively few posts. Why? Because the smart people stay out of threads like these. I just go here to clean out the stupidity and try to inject a little intelligence into it.

i very much doubt you know more than me about smash. regardless, this is the internet. anything either of us is ignorant of can quickly be looked up. i suspect you're making the assertion simply because you have some sort of inferiority complex. not many friends when you were young? not many friends now? who knows... it's not like you're anywhere near any of us... or a decent competitive smash community, for that matter.

Wow, the ad hominems just keep spewing out of you, don't they? The desperate measures of a desperate man. Can't refute what someone says? Insult them.

 

[Tenki]

[1] A followup weakness is that Meta Knight has been designed in a weird way. Almost none of his attacks cancel out projectiles. Mach Tornado random fails to cancel out projectiles sometimes.


[2] I'd like to know this magical way to make Mach Tornado almost not lag in the slightest. It sounds like it when you describe it.

[1] There you go, that's actually a much more valid weakness than its 'previous counterpart'. Not actually having projectiles isn't so much a weakness as not being able to counter projectiles. At least, character-specifically speaking.

Airdodging and shielding is given, I guess.

[2] Far from lagless, but having to "go back to neutral" by weaving out of range after getting some hits in isn't that detrimental, considering the difficulty of having to land a followup tornado/attack.

/edited out for a new post lol

 

[Cook]

Strawmanning = Bad.

This^.

This is one of the worst arguments in history and it sees frequent use. "Smash Balls are OK in teams 'cause you risk hitting your teammate as well!". What if the players involved just are so skilled they don't randomly keep hitting their teammates? I manage just fine and I'm not even very good!

Plus this ^ equals lolwut?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I'd like to know this magical way to make Mach Tornado almost not lag in the slightest. It sounds like it when you describe it.

Only press b once, and you can do it repeatedly with relatively little lag without leaving the ground. The less b tapping, the closer to the ground you are. Just weave in and out like Tenki said and you don't need to worry all that much about lag.

 

[Yuna]

[2] Far from lagless, but having to "go back to neutral" by weaving out of range after getting some hits in isn't that detrimental, considering the difficulty of having to land a followup tornado/attack.

You made it sound like could just Mach Tornado into another or into an attack without a reasonable chance of hitting him in between or afterwards.

 

[Lord Exor]

Hypocrisy abound. Ad hominems aplenty.

 

[Tenki]

Wow, the ad hominems just keep spewing out of you, don't they? The desperate measures of a desperate man. Can't refute what someone says? Insult them.

Not many people can distinguish ad hominem from arguments.
You come close to it sometimes, but you tread on the line so carefully - well, let's just say that you're pretty good at spacing, baiting, and punishing -_-;

You made it sound like could just Mach Tornado into another or into an attack without a reasonable chance of hitting him in between or afterwards.

We both make things sound certain ways to people in ways that can be easily misinterpreted

Touché

 

[Cook]

Wow, the ad hominems just keep spewing out of you, don't they? The desperate measures of a desperate man. Can't refute what someone says? Insult them.

This^.

I know more than you'll be able to know about Smash (both Melee and Brawl) unless you crammed for several weeks straight.

Plus this^ equals lolwut?