at the same time, (if you can shed light on this?), Anti-ban keeps bringing up events where Top MKs were beaten by other characters.
For example, when Ninjalink's Diddy Beat M2K, or when Ally beats a top MK
Th problems I see with that are:
1) Why use these examples, when many other times, MK would simply win the tourney, or saturate the top 8-10?
2) Why use these examples when the Nanner-lock was essentially just discovered, and M2K didnt know how to counter?
Or When Ally is using the 2nd best character, to beat the best, of which he has an even (arguably) matchup with? (whoop-dee-doo)
3) Sure, he is beatable, and doesnt have any truly broken, silly matchups (like D3 vs DK), but has the intangable effect of him been considered?
Like how some people get frustrated, and just swtch to MK to win. Doesnt that stale other metagames somewhat, and make the community look bad?
Taking melee for example..having a char with no bad matchups was ok...seeing as the ones who did, had 2 others to figth with (the fox-sheik-marf traingle), keeping the game kinda fresh, with variety, etc.
MK tops that by being the only one with no bad matches, and only himself to be a counter...