Why we can't wait to ban Metaknight

[adumbrodeus]

Every time somebody posts after reading just the OP, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens.



No, seriously folks, he's got a good OP argument, but there have been equally good and better responses.

 

[-Axis-]

I don't think anyone could argue that banning Meta Knight wouldn't make the metagame more diverse and (at least in my opinion) enjoyable.

On the other hand, almost every "viable" character has the tools necessary to win this matchup. I highly doubt we'd be seeing use of any characters that are already quite rare, just MORE of what people already use. The mindset of picking the best character to have the best chance of winning would not die with Meta Knight.

I think we need to have more MK banned tournaments for the sake of experimentation. Until then, a decision will never be reached.

*anti-ban*

 

[Ripple]

Guess what supermodel from paris, the metagame doesn't care for anyone but those winning. Scrubs don't matter to the BBR.

there is something seriously wrong If the BBR cares nothing for those people at the lower end of the playing field.

the lower levvel is just as important as the top level.

if the SBR disagrees, I'm leaving smashboards

 

[TP]

I don't understand why people continuously refer to other games (including Melee) during this debate. Yes, other games have best characters and ban criteria and all that stuff. Who gives a ****? This is our game. We can do whatever the hell we want with it. As soon as we went from time matches to stock matches, we proved that. We are a community of a couple thousand people who all play the same game competitively. Our "ban criteria" should be "if banning X overall benefits the community more than it hurts, then ban X." I don't see why it has to be more complicated than that.

 

[Overswarm]

On the other hand, almost every "viable" character has the tools necessary to win this matchup. I highly doubt we'd be seeing use of any characters that are already quite rare, just MORE of what people already use. The mindset of picking the best character to have the best chance of winning would not die with Meta Knight.

I think some close analyzation of the data will show that "viable" can be determined by "how well do you do vs. Metaknight".

 

[RDK]

The problem with saying "We have no ban criteria" is that no character has been damaging enough to the game (ie, one of the Smash games) to ever need a ban before. So we have to work at it from the other side:

When a character is too damaging to the game to be left unbanned, their attributes become the basis for ban criteria.

That could be the basis for a new criteria, but who decides when a character is too damaging to be left unbanned? What is the criteria for deciding that?

Is it "Because MK is gay and I'm too lazy to do whatever it takes to win?"

This has always been my problem with the current MU ratios.

A 55:45 MU ratio doesn't ever sound like (in practice) winning 55% or so of the time -- or even "slightly" easier victory. It sounds like that applies to every encounter during the match, and over the course of the match (Since Brawl matches are made up of so many little encounters that you often disengage fully between) the actual results tip farther and farther towards the advantaged side.

Maybe it's just me...

A matchup ratio of 55:45 most certainly does not mean that the advantaged party will win 55% of the time.

I think some close analyzation of the data will show that "viable" can be determined by "how well do you do vs. Metaknight".

Be thankful that it's not simply "Play MK or lose".

 

[_Keno_]

The mindset of picking the best character to have the best chance of winning would not die with Meta Knight.

The mindset won't die, but since there is no clear best character, many top characters, and counters for those top characters, and counters for those counters will be player more often (probably). lol

 

[Kuraudo]

If mk is broken then why does he go 6-4 with almost half the cast?

Meta Knight goes 60-40 with most of the cast because they're factoring in Meta Knight's potential when he's playing aggro (or any style that doesn't factor in what I'm about to mention) and if the options of not playing gay, scrooging, timing out, aren't involved. Basically fighting prowess vs. fighting prowess. Options vs. Options.

Meta Knight wins hands down. Factor in everything he can do to prolong a fight and scrooge, plank, stall, call it what you will?

Many of those match-ups would be 70-30 if not worse.

[EDIT]

In my opinion, if Meta Knight didn't have those pseudo game-breaking qualities in the gay options that are too difficult to monitor and truly ban everything? He'd be a legit character. A frustratingly good character, but legit.

 

[J4pu]

] Yes, other games have best characters and ban criteria and all that stuff. Who gives a ****? This is our game. We can do whatever the hell we want with it. Our "ban criteria" should be "if banning X overall benefits the community more than it hurts, then ban X." I don't see why it has to be more complicated than that.

QFFT
and no, the 2nd F was not a typo

the only reason I think there needs to be strict limitations on what you can ban are because otherwise you end up banning practically everything which causes the game to be worse than it could be, see OS's constructivist evaluation (which we've already freakin done, stages, items, etc.)
but I think MK has given us stronger than necessary evidence that he should be banned.

 

[swordgard]

there is something seriously wrong If the BBR cares nothing for those people at the lower end of the playing field.

the lower levvel is just as important as the top level.

if the SBR disagrees, I'm leaving smashboards

Its not, and you are wrong on so many levels. This is a competitive smash boards forum, competition is about seeing who is the best. I couldnt care less if MK took placings from 70th to 20th if top 20 were non MKs. The lower level of competition really do not matter, otherwise id be making an argument as to why marth utterly ***** the lower end of the competition, 20 times more so than MK.

 

[salaboB]

That could be the basis for a new criteria, but who decides when a character is too damaging to be left unbanned? What is the criteria for deciding that?

Is it "Because MK is gay and I'm too lazy to do whatever it takes to win?"

The criteria for deciding that is what all these discussions are about -- I'm simply saying, "We have no ban criteria so you can't ban MK" is terrible reasoning. We'll never have ban criteria for a character until we ban one and get a baseline.

A matchup ratio of 55:45 most certainly does not mean that the advantaged party will win 55% of the time.

Right, but it also doesn't seem like it's simply "neutral" (Which some people say 55:45 can still be considered) - a MU judged to be 55:45 in Brawl seems to end up with the advantaged character winning more often than a ratio considered so even would indicate.

 

[RDK]

The criteria for deciding that is what all these discussions are about -- I'm simply saying, "We have no ban criteria so you can't ban MK" is terrible reasoning. We'll never have ban criteria for a character until we ban one and get a baseline.

We do have current ban criteria, and I've posted it numerous times. I have no problem with people saying we need new ban criteria, which may be the case, but we most certainly did have criteria.

Overswarm just likes to say we never did to strengthen his point. He should know better.

Right, but it also doesn't seem like it's simply "neutral" (Which some people say 55:45 can still be considered) - a MU judged to be 55:45 in Brawl seems to end up with the advantaged character winning more often than a ratio considered so even would indicate.

Agreed.

 

[Kewkky]

Be thankful that it's not simply "Play MK or lose".

But, theoretically, that IS what the game is. If MK has advantaged matchups everywhere (and only extremely few even), and other characters who do well vs MK don't have advantaged MUs everywhere the way MK does, in a game where a 5-point difference in MUs mean a lot due to the magnification of a match's difficulty with the horrible physics Brawl has, it would be an extremely clear indication that the game revolves around "Play MK, or the characters that might have a chance at winning (might being the key word)"... So, why play the other character when MK has it better all-around, includign against said character? Might as well just pick up MK because he does that well against everyone, and the MU on himself is 50:50, am I right?

 

[Matador]

there is something seriously wrong If the BBR cares nothing for those people at the lower end of the playing field.

the lower levvel is just as important as the top level.

if the SBR disagrees, I'm leaving smashboards

Why should BBR cater toward players who still have things to learn about the game? Why should they ban a character for the sake of the players who, if they simply practiced and improved, wouldn't NEED the ban?

Constructivist.

I think some close analyzation of the data will show that "viable" can be determined by "how well do you do vs. Metaknight".

How can we have a play to win mentality and at the same time get flustered when we get a rush of MKs in tourney results? If people are playing to win, of course there are going to be a ton of MKs, and of course you'll need a character who can deal with him to win tourneys.

Having cake + Eating it too = you can't do it.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Its not, and you are wrong on so many levels. This is a competitive smash boards forum, competition is about seeing who is the best. I couldnt care less if MK took placings from 70th to 20th if top 20 were non MKs. The lower level of competition really do not matter, otherwise id be making an argument as to why marth utterly ***** the lower end of the competition, 20 times more so than MK.

if you continue this line of thought you lose attendance, and it kills the community.

Why should BBR cater toward players who still have things to learn about the game? Why should they ban a character for the sake of the players who, if they simply practiced and improved, wouldn't NEED the ban?

Constructivist.

For banning, their opinion means less if they understand less, you still have to care for them to some degree or your tournament is going to lose attendance.

 

[Kuraudo]

Its not, and you are wrong on so many levels. This is a competitive smash boards forum, competition is about seeing who is the best. I couldnt care less if MK took placings from 70th to 20th if top 20 were non MKs. The lower level of competition really do not matter, otherwise id be making an argument as to why marth utterly ***** the lower end of the competition, 20 times more so than MK.

Have fun making less money if the less skilled players didn't go then.

You're making the SBR out to be nothing but a bunch of pricks with that elitist attitude, no offense. We're all human just like you guys, and should be allowed a say in matters just as much as you guys do. Everyone's opinions are going to differ, but it's remarks like this that make you guys out to be the bad guys and not approve of not knowing what's going on behind closed doors.

You're amongst the elites of this game, that we look to as a community to get better, in a competitive Smash league (it's why you amongst others earned the right to be in the SBR). Keep it that way. Don't be elitist.

There's a difference between the two.

 

[DtJ XeroXen]

I now have good reason to not care about anything the SBR says, if what Swordgard says is true.

 

[-Axis-]

I think some close analyzation of the data will show that "viable" can be determined by "how well do you do vs. Metaknight".

What characters do YOU think would experience a major change in the tier list without MK present?

The way I see it, matchups round-a-boutly reflect how effective a character's core gameplay is (in most cases).

But your claim does have factual evidence.
Let's take a look at the top 10 characters:
Meta Knight
Snake
Wario
Falco
Diddy Kong
King Dedede
Marth
Mr. Game & Watch
Pikachu
Olimar

The top 5 ALL have even-ish matchups with MK. The other 5 are left in the dust with the rest of the roster. Now, if MK is removed, we see a sudden influx of these 5 characters. Boom, an instantly *more* balanced metagame.

And there's definitely more. But until Meta Knight becomes indisputably game breaking, *still anti-ban*

 

[theunabletable]

But, theoretically, that IS what the game is.

Theoretically ICs have 100-0 matchups against the entire cast because with perfect shield SDI you could shield grab the entire cast.

Practically you can win with characters other than MK.

I now have good reason to not care about anything the SBR says, if what Swordgard says is true.

Why should we change the game because worse are, just that, worse? Get better.

 

[Inui]

Inui's post is the greatest I've seen in this thread.

It's Inui, he doesn't need to make dramatic long-drawn posts to be impressive.

Suck his **** moar, pl0x.

but iunno, inui gets drunk, punches lions and posts fenix right stuff wenever hes supr creal posting

I said most, not all... w/e

Nah, pretty much every best character in anything has no bad match-ups at all.

You're right about sf4, but Sagat only has to **** 1/3 the characters mk does.

Why does this matter? ****** 30/50 is the same as ****** 3/5.

Don't troll me, you know the differences between fox and MK. Fox is very beatable, since melee relies more on skill rather than character choice (much moreso than brawl). Foxes weren't even top 5 at genesis or P4 (from what I recall). Melee match-ups are outdated too.

Mew2King was top 5 at both and he uses Fox a lot. Jman was top 5 at Pound 4 and he uses Fox.

Anyways, the difference is tech skill. Fox can get ***** if he messes up. MK sorta can't. If you play Fox without errors, he's better than MK, but that's humanly not possible.

joke all you want, he's absolutely correct.
in other games, the top tier characters have few, if any, bad matchups.
Sagat in SF4 and ST (O.Sagat in ST, obviously).
Kage in nearly every Virtua Fighter.
Fox in Melee.
Pikachu in Smash64
Yun or Chun in 3s (debatable about who's the best, but overall win against everyone)
Mag-f*cking-Neto, Sentinel, Storm, and Cable in MvC2
GWM in MvC1
Wolverine in any other vs. series game
etc.

but there's a difference between those game and this game. And no, it's not the difference between being a standard fighting game and a different fighting game.

The difference is the Brawl community is younger and full of sissies. The same can't be said of the other communities.

there is something seriously wrong If the BBR cares nothing for those people at the lower end of the playing field.

the lower levvel is just as important as the top level.

if the SBR disagrees, I'm leaving smashboards

What Swordgard means to say is that lower level play and arguments don't matter to the BBR, and most of the posts in the public areas are made by...lower level players that don't understand the higher levels of skill. It's just a fact of competitive gaming. Swordgard just blows at being nice and blows at English. <3 Swordgard von Karma.

 

[HeroMystic]

Skill vs Character choice isn't totally irrelevant, especially not as irrelevant as comparing brawl to a non-smash game. All other fighting games lack elements that the smash series has (of course they also have elements that smash doesn't). Like every fighting game is based on either KO-ing through damage or ring-ing out opponents (soul-cal style ring outs). Melee and brawl are purely ring outs (a quite different type of ring out). Edge-guarding, recovery, gimping (some of the main reasons metaknight ***** ) aren't in other games, and therefore can not be compared to brawl.

You're not exactly getting the point, though you're in that direction.

Basically, you compared Melee's level of skill to Brawl's level of skill. Therefore you concluded that Melee Fox, even though he's the best character, is beatable because of his learning curve, therefore he's not bannable. But you switched this around for Metaknight saying he's bannable because he's the best character in the game while being easy to learn.

I won't say you lost "a ton of credibility", but the judgement is rather misguided. Metaknight has bannable offenses but not because there's a lack of skill level for him, which may or may not be true anyway.

 

[Kewkky]

What Swordgard is saying is NOT that the lower end of the competitive spectrum is useless and can be disregarded as such; what he's trying to say is that, in a forum for competitive brawl, in a group full of the best players, the best players in the group are going to try and shape the game in a way where the skill of a "best player" can earn you the rewards you should be getting.

If we cater to the lower end of the spectrum rather than the higher, then the skill level between a "pro" and a "scrub" slowly disappears. We'd be removing obstacles that differentiate between what a skilled and smart player can accomplish, and what a mediocre and oblivious player can do.

 

[RDK]

But, theoretically, that IS what the game is. If MK has advantaged matchups everywhere (and only extremely few even), and other characters who do well vs MK don't have advantaged MUs everywhere the way MK does, in a game where a 5-point difference in MUs mean a lot due to the magnification of a match's difficulty with the horrible physics Brawl has, it would be an extremely clear indication that the game revolves around "Play MK, or the characters that might have a chance at winning (might being the key word)"

I don't think "might" is a precise enough word to use as a reason for banning an entire character. The MK player "might" also lose.

"Will" lose is another thing entirely IMO.

... So, why play the other character when MK has it better all-around, includign against said character? Might as well just pick up MK because he does that well against everyone, and the MU on himself is 50:50, am I right?

You are right, and I'm not sure why more players don't do this. Masochism maybe?

IMO if they were playing solely to win they would most likely pick up MK, and pro-ban's case might be strengthened. However that is not the case.

 

[salaboB]

We do have current ban criteria, and I've posted it numerous times. I have no problem with people saying we need new ban criteria, which may be the case, but we most certainly did have criteria.

Overswarm just likes to say we never did to strengthen his point. He should know better.

You have a point on this one.

However, it's still untried for any Smash game due to not having a character ever need banning and as such we have no real comparisons to use for judging if a character may have crossed the line on one or more of the criteria (Just how much centralization is too much? Etc.)

 

[Matador]

For banning, their opinion means less if they understand less, you still have to care for them to some degree or your tournament is going to lose attendance.

I'm not for changing rules to make people happy, even if it causes attendance to dip. I'd make the rules that'd be best for competition, period.

But hey, I'm not a TO.

 

[adumbrodeus]

there is something seriously wrong If the BBR cares nothing for those people at the lower end of the playing field.

the lower levvel is just as important as the top level.

if the SBR disagrees, I'm leaving smashboards

I now have good reason to not care about anything the SBR says, if what Swordgard says is true.

Swordgard is being more blunt then is true, what he means is that it's really impossible to draw conclusions about the metagame from the play of people who are not high in the metagame. Heck, it's practically impossible, even from top-level players.

 

[DZLE]

Good post.
Data is impressive. With all this work everyone has done into trying to get him banned, I hope it doesnt go unnoticed.
And like others have mentioned, a lot of MK's only play MK to get rid of other MK's.
Which I think is ********.
Pro-ban.

 

[Eddie G]

Be thankful that it's not simply "Play MK or lose".

People default to this too much imo. Aside from the 2-4 people at the tip-top of their character's metagame (or should I say...ADHD and Ally, respectively), who else out of the abundance of players (even at high levels of play) has shown any notable example of anything other than "play MK or lose"? Even if you only focus on the top level of play, which a good number of you choose to do so, the odds are stacked; be it due to the number of MK players as opposed to the number of other character mains, the skill of the MK mains as opposed to the other character mains, individual matchup knowledge when players play each other, or whatever the reason may be. Simply put, the odds are stacked at any level of play at this point.

The question is: are they stacked at a reasonable level? I personally believe they aren't. Some believe they are. I just wanted to get my little point across whether it's correct or incorrect. I personally suck at debating (even though I wish I were better at it). xD

 

[theunabletable]

@Inui: Your posts are so much cooler when you post Phoenix Wright gifs XD

If the lower end of the game matters so much, why don't we have a tier list for lower level players? You guys don't ***** about the tier list only applying to the highest level, among other things.

If you're too bad to compete in this game, THAT SUCKS FOR YOU.

 

[-Axis-]

I suppose your position on this is dependent on your mindset.

"I want our ruleset to be based as much as possible on facts, the opinion of the community doesn't matter as long as tournaments continue to exist. If Meta Knight wins every tournament, so be it, as long as player skill continues to play a factor."

Anti-ban.

"I want to improve the current Brawl metagame because I am not content with where it's headed. I want tournaments to be as enjoyable as possible. Anything that discourages progress should be either changed so it becomes suitable for a thriving metagame or removed in its entirety."

Pro-ban.

 

[swordgard]

if you continue this line of thought you lose attendance, and it kills the community.



For banning, their opinion means less if they understand less, you still have to care for them to some degree or your tournament is going to lose attendance.

I won't be giving any rules just to help the noobs out there, that would be anti competitive. This ain't Mario Kart wii. I don't care if this mentality was what ends up killing the game, i'd rather not play a game than just make concessions for people who aren't as good just to make them feel better.

This is why rules like banning d3s infinite make me sick and other rules. And yes, I am not "nice", I am 100% douche. This is a competitive forum about a game played in tournaments, play to win. Inui is right, I suck at being nice(even people irl know I act cold), and I also suck at English.


Now you can either suck it up and get better, or continue on saying that noobs matter, go whine about w/e character is beating you and continue on being terrible at the game.

 

[RDK]

You have a point on this one.

However, it's still untried for any Smash game due to not having a character ever need banning and as such we have no real comparisons to use for judging if a character may have crossed the line on one or more of the criteria (Just how much centralization is too much? Etc.)

I suppose it is actually fair to say that we had criteria but we didn't have an MK-like character. The benchmark for overcentralization was a majority of the cast, or around 2/3rds. We just never had to even bring it up because Melee's top had much much more balance than Brawl's does.

People default to this too much imo. Aside from the 2-4 people at the tip-top of their character's metagame (or should I say...ADHD and Ally, respectively), who else out of the abundance of players (even at high levels of play) has shown any notable example of anything other than "play MK or lose"? Even if you only focus on the top level of play, which a good number of you choose to do so, the odds are stacked; be it due to the number of MK players as opposed to the number of other character mains, the skill of the MK mains as opposed to the other character mains, individual matchup knowledge when players play each other, or whatever the reason may be. Simply put, the odds are stacked at any level of play at this point.

The question is: are they stacked at a reasonable level? I personally believe they aren't. Some believe they are. I just wanted to get my little point across whether it's correct or incorrect. I personally suck at debating (even though I wish I were better at it). xD

The top levels of play (when looking at people like M2K, Ally, ADHD, etc.) can be deceiving because literally 1 little mistake could mean the end of a match, whether Metaknight is being used or not. It just so happens that MK's attributes lend to him less of a chance of screwing up and more of an ability to punish other character's screw-ups.

It could be argued that ADHD beating top-level MK's could simply mean that they weren't playing their best, but IMO it's solid proof that beating him at tournament-level play is not impossible.

 

[Omni]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=263145

pretty much my argument towards OS among other things.

no preparation or appeal to emotion by posting pretty pictures. just content.

if im not feeling so lazy, i might just make a prepared statement on why MK shouldn't be banned just as OS did

but gee i dont think that would be fair

 

[theunabletable]

"I want our ruleset to be based as much as possible on facts, the opinion of the community doesn't matter as long as tournaments continue to exist. If Meta Knight wins every tournament, so be it, as long as player skill continues to play a factor."

Anti-ban.

No if MK does begin to win every tournament and you have to main MK or lose, then I'd say he is DEFINITELY bannable.

"MK is gay and broken and I don't like him johnsjohnsjohnsjohns"

Pro-ban.

fix'd

 

[Eddie G]

The top levels of play (when looking at people like M2K, Ally, ADHD, etc.) can be deceiving because literally 1 little mistake could mean the end of a match, whether Metaknight is being used or not. It just so happens that MK's attributes lend to him less of a chance of screwing up and more of an ability to punish other character's screw-ups.

True, can't really argue with that.

It could be argued that ADHD beating top-level MK's could simply mean that they weren't playing their best, but IMO it's solid proof that beating him at tournament-level play is not impossible.

I sure hope that holds true.

 

[Browny]

I won't be giving any rules just to help the noobs out there, that would be anti competitive. This ain't Mario Kart wii. I don't care if this mentality was what ends up killing the game, i'd rather not play a game than just make concessions for people who aren't as good just to make them feel better.

This is why rules like banning d3s infinite make me sick and other rules. And yes, I am not "nice", I am 100% douche. This is a competitive forum about a game played in tournaments, play to win. Inui is right, I suck at being nice(even people irl know I act cold), and I also suck at English.


Now you can either suck it up and get better, or continue on saying that noobs matter, go whine about w/e character is beating you and continue on being terrible at the game.

I love it when this mentality is applied to brawl.

were playing a party game where you beat up pikachu with jigglypuff, and the serious side of it is a complete joke to every other fighting community

 

[Kuraudo]

You know why OS posted pictures and statistics?

Because that's what the Anti-Ban side was ****ing ASKING for!

That burns me up... =_=

 

[Eddie G]

No if MK does begin to win every tournament and you have to main MK or lose, then I'd say he is DEFINITELY bannable. fix'd

I'm a little disgusted at the way you choose to represent your stance. Grow up.

 

[-Axis-]

Arguing does no good when it doesn't contribute to the topic at hand.

Just throwing it out there.

 

[Karcist]

You know why OS posted pictures and statistics?

Because that's what the Anti-Ban side was ****ing ASKING for!

That burns me up... =_=

this x1000