Brawl and Tekken4: A Small Read

[RATED]

How about all the people who mained MK since the very beginning and have made names for themselves using the character? We can't just tell them "get a secondary, *****".

how about telling the other mainers to change their character bcuz MK is broken enough to shut them down just by planking and thats stuff?.

 

[Limeee]

Instead of referencing Pound4 or other major tournaments, can pro-ban pull other tourney results from mid-attendance tourneys such as regionals and use them to find trends in the past?

I'm hearing the same arguments from a year and a half ago; just replace Pound4 with Genesis, or Apex, or WHOBO, or CoT4, and it's essentially the same. People only focus on the major tournaments and say, "MK is dominating the top spots, the metagame is centered around him," but don't reference the multiple other regionals or fairly large tournaments where the metagame is.

The only trends you'll be finding with national tournaments is that top players place in the top. Occasionally, some players get notably better or stop playing as much and get a little worse, but you'll consistently find top players in the top spots.

I don't have much of an opinion since I've been gone for half a year and don't know what tournament placings and attendance was like from August-January. However, I still see faulty arguments and the same argument pro-ban had since 2008, saying that Meta Knight will eventually dominate the metagame despite the lack of change I've seen in tournament placings since then. I'm not going to debate if it ends up in me copy-pasting myself.

Honest question: can pro-ban look at regionals and other decent sized tournaments (50-100+) and point out trends from the past that show that Brawl has shifted more towards MKs favor over time rather than vague descriptions and wordy, loose arguments? Thanks.

I'm not gonna hide my arguments behind multiple paragrapghs, but...

The reason we talk about big tournaments is because they matter more, more money on the line. So they play gay to ensure their win of the money.

Mid sized tournaments are USUALLY more about fun then winning a huge prize. Thats why mk isn't as big of a deal. But alot of the time, they still play gay just because there is no downside.

Just look at Canada EC power rankings, its all metaknights D:
So why look at Mid sized tourneys?

 

[WindMajor]

I looked in Ankoku's thread in his most recent Tournament Reference list yesterday. I noticed that in at least 75%+ of the tournaments I saw, there was an MK in the top 3. It doesn't mention how many people go, however. 75% isn't a confirmed amount, it's an estimate, but there were certainly a LOT of MKs, that's for sure.

 

[Boxob.]

I hope the brawl community continues to use metaknight as gay as possible.

then I'll be like, yo, there's melee. And everyone will be happy.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

Most of the people who voted pro ban were quitting the game anyways.
Myself and Jem are examples.

OK. From my recent lurking, it seems that many people here seem to be forgetting a few things.

MetaKnight is not the problem or the players. It's the game itself.

Let me try to word this properly. Bear with me if it sounds odd.

The game itself is the problem becuase the game rewards the things that make the game unfun at times.
It gives you too many options in defense and escaping to the extreme that things associated with these such as camping and stalling is the best COA for most of the roster.
On the other hand, Brawl doesn't give you sufficient options when it comes to offense and speed to make them as viable the excessive defensive ones.

Banning MK won't magically solve all these problems that many of you are alluding to.

I see "Playing to Win" as the ultimate test of balance, and clearly this game got an F.

This topic makes me appreciate Melee even more.

 

[Big-Cat]

MetaKnight is not the problem or the players. It's the game itself.

Thank God someone else sees this. There's a thread in the GBD and it seems most of the people in that thread are delusional and not even bringing this up.

I see "Playing to Win" as the ultimate test of balance, and clearly this game got an F.

Are you talking about roster balance or the balance of offensive vs. defensive? Either way, it gets an F.

I am really enjoying my time reading this thread. I'm now starting to see an issue that is dividing the competitive community moreso than ever. Maybe this might serve as a wakeup call that this game has more than its share of flaws as Eternal Yoshi said(more or less).

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

Thanks for your support.

Someone said it already, I think in another Thread, he is not broken enough to break the game, but he is broken enough to break the community, what he already did :/

The game did a great job of that on it's own.

 

[Big-Cat]

If only there was a way we could let the whole community just how messed up this game is in general. This game didn't captivate me as long as its predecessors, and when I found out about some of the technical data, I found out why.

I guess for now, I'll get to refining my ideas for a sequel.

 

[Kasht]

The other point to consider is... Was the Smash series meant to be a fighting game series at all? Was that the intention of the designer and developers? Or is it the community who loves the game who has tried to make it something it isn't? Note that this applies for the Smash series in general, not Brawl only.

Think about it...

 

[Sosuke]

The other point to consider is... Was the Smash series meant to be a fighting game series at all? Was that the intention of the designer and developers? Or is it the community who loves the game who has tried to make it something it isn't? Note that this applies for the Smash series in general, not Brawl only.

Smash was not meant to be competitive and that the community made it into a competitive series.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

The problem is that the devs didn't support the community like Capcom does, and Sakurai inderectly worked AGAINST us.

Basically,

Most of us expected the Devs to support the competitive community. Instead, they essentially rick rollled us.

Did I type the same thing twice?

 

[Turbo Ether]

The problem is that the devs didn't support the community like Capcom does, and Sakurai inderectly worked AGAINST us.

Basically,

Most of us expected the Devs to support the competitive community. Instead, they essentially rick rollled us.

Did I type the same thing twice?

Capcom is amazing. They put the development of HD remix in the hands of competitive players. With SSFIV, they're taking input from the community into heavy consideration.

 

[link2702]

smash bros in general was NEVER meant to be a competitive fighting game that is obvious, people turned it into one, hell, in the original smash for 64, you had to UNLOCK the option to turn items on/off.

 

[Kasht]

Same as Namco and Tekken. After the Tekken 4 dissaster, Namco put a lot of effort into Tekken 5, and when all the brokeness was found (aka Steve Fox's infinite, etc...), Namco released T5: Dark Resurrection, which has been one of the best Tekkens of all time!

Then Tekken 6 came out, and it was the community who dissected the game and figured out that every character had 100% life combos with bounce + wall, so Namco released T6: Bloodline Rebellion, which is the version that is now out in consoles today, and happens to be the most played game in Japan for over a year now! It is the most balanced fighting game in the competitive scene right now!

It took a Tekken 4 to happen to make Namco realize what they had done. Brawl is in the same path as Tekken 4. Unless the community does something about it, we know how this story will end. Just wait and see...

Kasht

 

[AvaricePanda]

I'm not gonna hide my arguments behind multiple paragrapghs, but...

The reason we talk about big tournaments is because they matter more, more money on the line. So they play gay to ensure their win of the money.

Mid sized tournaments are USUALLY more about fun then winning a huge prize. Thats why mk isn't as big of a deal. But alot of the time, they still play gay just because there is no downside.

Just look at Canada EC power rankings, its all metaknights D:
So why look at Mid sized tourneys?

The point is that nationals have nearly all the nation's top players. While you can't be certain who's going to win, you can easily guess the top 8 or 16 and be pretty close. All you see from national tournaments is that top players take the top spots. And a lot of top players main Meta Knight. You're getting nothing new from looking at nationals.

Mid-sized tournaments, like 50-100 people, are still a really big deal. When money's on the line people don't slack off; I've seen an MK time out a Ganondorf at a 30 person tournament once. If you take the results from mid-sized tournaments or focus on specific regions from a year ago and keep looking at results until now, you can better see if it's just individual players being good with their mains, or more people really are switching to MK and taking top spots.

Most of the people who voted pro ban were quitting the game anyways.
Myself and Jem are examples.

OK. From my recent lurking, it seems that many people here seem to be forgetting a few things.

MetaKnight is not the problem or the players. It's the game itself.

Let me try to word this properly. Bear with me if it sounds odd.

The game itself is the problem becuase the game rewards the things that make the game unfun at times.
It gives you too many options in defense and escaping to the extreme that things associated with these such as camping and stalling is the best COA for most of the roster.
On the other hand, Brawl doesn't give you sufficient options when it comes to offense and speed to make them as viable the excessive defensive ones.

Banning MK won't magically solve all these problems that many of you are alluding to.

I see "Playing to Win" as the ultimate test of balance, and clearly this game got an F.

This topic makes me appreciate Melee even more.

thisthisthisthisthisthisthisthisthisthisthis.

 

[Big-Cat]

The other point to consider is... Was the Smash series meant to be a fighting game series at all? Was that the intention of the designer and developers? Or is it the community who loves the game who has tried to make it something it isn't? Note that this applies for the Smash series in general, not Brawl only.

Think about it...

I've read the interviews with Sakurai, and it's incredibly vague, if not contradictory. Here are some quotes from Iwata Asks

Of course, I think there was a possibility of taking Smash Bros. in a more casual-gaming direction. For example, we could make the art style simpler or make it possible to use Miis. However, with the various titles that the Wii was to offer, I felt that people were looking for something different. That’s the reason I decided in very early stages of development that the Wii pointer and motion movements would not be a primary feature of the game.

Despite what he says, a lot of people would say Brawl was a watered down Melee made to appeal to the masses (and we know how that usually goes) which, in a sense, brought the series to a more casual direction.

Though not everyone who picks up a controller for the very first time because of games like Wii Sports or Wii Fit will play Smash Bros. Brawl, there will most certainly be those that do. And among them, I’m sure there will be those who will find Smash Bros. interesting too. Games like Wii Sports or Wii Fit will draw people in through their appeal to the senses, and this, in turn, will develop their interest in games like Smash Bros. Brawl. I think that is the true meaning of expanding the gaming population. Of course, I’m not trying to say that Smash Bros. isn’t meant for beginners and, in fact, development of the original Smash Bros. began with the idea of making a game that people unfamiliar to gaming could come to enjoy it just as much as everyone else within the first ten minutes of play.

Some might interpret this as bridging the gap between casual and core gamers which is not always a good thing. Half the fun of becoming a pro is getting better at the game.

The game I worked on, Smash Bros., is a fighting game, but keeping in mind such reasoning, I set out to make sure the game did not over-emphasize the notions of victory and defeat. I won't go into too much detail, but the game was built so that if a player is strong in combat, just doing the same thing over and over again won't guarantee they'll always win over their opponents. There is a mechanism of accidents occurring, balanced so that the game's progress and results falter easily. Whether you win or lose, you enjoy a hearty laugh, and move on to the next round. I think this makes quite a good game.

http://www.n-sider.com/contentview.php?contentid=443

 

[Praxis]

Hmph, very interesting read. It is very true that MK is NOT broken.... if he were to be banned it would be solely because the majority decides that they don't like the way he forces the game to be played (and the resulting more concrete ramifications that would arise from that, such as the game dying out).

I've been mulling over this the past few days though.... If you aggressively approach MK you get *****. End of discussion. So what do you do? Camp. Play "hella gay". Diddy, Falco, and Snake can do this very well, and do the best against MK as a result. It's really difficult/dangerous to approach these characters at their campiest, even for MK. So what's MK do? Get a percent lead and threaten a time out in an attempt to move them out of their advantageous position. Now in this case it would make sense to stop camping your *** off and approach right? But remember that this is MK... if you approach you gon get *****. You're probably better off camping even harder and hoping you catch MK off guard with a banana -> followup, grenade, or just a series of lasers/phantasm. It's really like a cycle of positive feedback.

I mean, naturally you'd think that having such an overwhelmingly offensively competent character like MK in the game would make the game less campy. Could he actually be having the opposite effect?

/end supa rambl'n theory bros. jr.

Could we...fix this?


If MK didn't win in the event of a time out, thus MK was forced to approach despite having a percent lead...he suddenly becomes beatable, does he not?

Just a random thought.

 

[xMPDx]

Could we...fix this?


If MK didn't win in the event of a time out, thus MK was forced to approach despite having a percent lead...he suddenly becomes beatable, does he not?

Just a random thought.

No. he'll just wipe you out faster by doing nado on you.

Guys There is no posible rule that can be put, that it will make Meta Knight less broken or make him beatable.

 

[theunabletable]

I doubt that MK could take out 3 Wario stocks if the Wario is INTENT on not attacking or being attacked and could just run away regardless of taking more damage or losing more stocks.

It'd be really stupid for MK to outplay someone in a campy match, but auto-lose because of timeout.

Guys There is no posible rule that can be put, that it will make Meta Knight less broken or make him beatable.

You're implying that he is unbeatable... lol

 

[Praxis]

No. he'll just wipe you out faster by doing nado on you.

Guys There is no posible rule that can be put, that it will make Meta Knight less broken or make him beatable.

People still lose to Nado spam? LOL

It's a good move, but it's not that good.

I doubt that MK could take out 3 Wario stocks if the Wario is INTENT on not attacking or being attacked and could just run away regardless of taking more damage or losing more stocks.

Even in a 10 minute match?

 

[Chuee]

Nobody gets wrecked by nado spam except heavies.

 

[theunabletable]

People still lose to Nado spam? LOL

*cough*M2KvsCable*cough*Ksizzlevslotsofpeople*coughcoughcough*

Even in a 10 minute match?

Maybe, idk. It'd need to be tested by someone who is smart with air dodging as Wario.

Can an MK get a smart Wario who is doing NOTHING but running away and not bothering to attack to kill percentage, land the kill in 3 minutes and 20 seconds and do it 3 times?

 

[Praxis]

Can an MK get a smart Wario who is doing NOTHING but running away and not bothering to attack to kill percentage, land the kill in 3 minutes and 20 seconds and do it 3 times?

Someone call DMG.

 

[hotgarbage]

Could we...fix this?


If MK didn't win in the event of a time out, thus MK was forced to approach despite having a percent lead...he suddenly becomes beatable, does he not?

Just a random thought.

If there were a rule that stated "If a match runs to time and one player's character is metaknight, that player loses the match" in tournament, then yes, MK becomes more beatable (note the "more"; he's beatable as it is) and can no longer pull stall shenanigans.

I don't think that's an ideal rule at all though. For one it would change some core aspects of the game. For many characters that can't deal with MK otherwise the optimal strategy suddenly becomes running the timer.... not in the sense that we see now, but in a true cat-and-mouse sense. It wouldn't even be Brawl anymore, it would just be a silly minigame. CAN MK BEAT _____ IN __ AMOUNT OF TIME????? I think the rule is just too intrusive and "artificial"; really no different from the other MK-limiting rule ideas (such as mk can only cp neutrals). Despite this props for the idea ; throwing one out there can never hurt. When I first read it I was like "hey that's pretty goo-OHHH.... wait "

 

[etecoon]

^ that. "MK loses in event of a time out no matter if he has the lead or not" is bad because it changes the game too much, some characters would probably have an advantage on MK in that situation but really if he's that bad then we just need to ban him, halfway rules like that and "MK can only cp neutrals" are stupid. idc if he gets banned or not on the whole, but anything inbetween just seems silly to me

 

[Jack Kieser]

Not to mention that if we really need to make a rules change THAT drastic just to keep MK in check, we should just ban him.

 

[N.A.G.A.C.E]

The problem is that the devs didn't support the community like Capcom does, and Sakurai inderectly worked AGAINST us.

Basically,

Most of us expected the Devs to support the competitive community. Instead, they essentially rick rollled us.

Did I type the same thing twice?

i wont go on about if i think MK should be banned or not (my sig covers that) i want to say how much i agree with the statement about how the devs don't support the game like capcom. This was something that was shown to us early on when Nintendo said there will be no dLC, this showed us that no matter what problems the game had there would be no fixes but lucky for us this game turns out to be easy to mod. So i say if people are not happy with brawl then they should get into brawl+ or bbrawl or maybe even project:M when it comes out (maybe even brawl-) I don't understand why all of these arguments about banning MK or ddds inf or ect keep happening when people have already come up with a solution to all of this. i like brawl i think it is a fun game that without MK would be pretty well balanced but if the whole MK ban is destroying the community then why not just switch to a modded version of brawl were if someone or something is to good or broken we can fix it. This game has given us the players a rare opportunity to make the game however we want and i think we should take advantage of this. Also i think Nintendo should support brawl+ make it easyer to get since brawl is still needed for it so it does not hurt their revenue and it would keep most if not all the tourney players happy.

this is not a paragraph that is anti brawl just one that points out we can change things if we want to.

 

[Big-Cat]

I have to earnestly agree with this. I think the mods going on are going to play a vital role in the future of Super Smash Bros., but these mods and their supporters have to be as vocal as possible in order to affect the official releases. I might be going on an extreme here, but Brawl+ and the like need to be in more tournaments, at least along side vBrawl. Maybe the raised awareness will raise attention the design flaws in vBrawl.

Hopefully, R+D will catch wind on all of this and in our favor. Unfortunately, we can't tell for certain if they'd be so willing to be supportive like Capcom. At the very least, we can try pushing for financial reasons to Nintendo to further support our community. We're the ones that keeps the games alive. Street Fighter, Tekken, and the like are prime examples of this.

I'm saying all this as someone who is heavily concerned about the series. I don't want this to become the next Mortal Kombat, especially since it's a series with a lot of potential that has yet to be tapped.

 

[salaboB]

MK might very well end up killing Brawl. We should ban him when that begins to happen, obviously. What gets me though is all the statements I continue to read over again about how it's happening now
(snip)
Once that evidence ceases to be true - the conditions are removed, MK wins everything, the scene suffers - we can begin to consider banishment.

Just a note about people - once they quit something, it becomes much harder to get them back. Thus why so many stores have such lax customer service policies on returns and such - they want to keep the customers in the first place.

If it gets to the point where competitive Brawl is actually dying due to MK, it's going to very likely be far too late for banning him to save it.

That is why I supported banning him now, in fact (I think the damage is being done and it will eventually reach the point where even banning him later won't reverse it enough)

 

[Jack Kieser]

Just a note about people - once they quit something, it becomes much harder to get them back. Thus why so many stores have such lax customer service policies on returns and such - they want to keep the customers in the first place.

If it gets to the point where competitive Brawl is actually dying due to MK, it's going to very likely be far too late for banning him to save it.

That is why I supported banning him now, in fact (I think the damage is being done and it will eventually reach the point where even banning him later won't reverse it enough)

YES, YES, a thousand times YES.

 

[Allied]

but brawl tournament attendance has done nothing but increase and mk is still here

?

mad?

 

[salaboB]

but brawl tournament attendance has done nothing but increase and mk is still here

?

mad?

I hope it continues to grow.

I'm just afraid it won't.

 

[Pierce7d]

but brawl tournament attendance has done nothing but increase and mk is still here

?

mad?

I wish people would stop saying this.

YES IT'S TRUE THAT THE NATURE OF BRAWL IS VERY GOOD AT BRINGING IN NEW PLAYERS.

Brawl is a quirky game, that IS DEEP, has GOOD COMPETATIVE ASPECTS, and continues to bring in NEW PLAYERS.

HOWEVER!!!!!!!

I bet ALL of you can name at least FIVE people you know that QUIT BRAWL. Just because the game is good and young, and can recruit people that don't know of it's problems, DOES NOT MEAN that it doesn't have problems, and isn't dying slowing.

Basically, everytime someone says, "UH, BUT GUYZES, TOURNEY SIZES AREN'T DROPPING." It's like slapping all the people who quit because of MK in the face and saying, "We don't need you, because we can replace you scrubs with NEW scrubs." And then you both stick your tounges at each other, and they say, "Good riddance, I'm glad I quit this stupid game now."

We have one party too stubborn to see what's right in front of them, and other too ignored to keep in the struggle.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Pierce7D, please post that in ADHD's thread. I'd do it, but I don't want to steal your words.

 

[Pierce7d]

You could just quote it, but since you asked me to . . .

 

[Allied]

I wish people would stop saying this.

YES IT'S TRUE THAT THE NATURE OF BRAWL IS VERY GOOD AT BRINGING IN NEW PLAYERS.

Brawl is a quirky game, that IS DEEP, has GOOD COMPETATIVE ASPECTS, and continues to bring in NEW PLAYERS.

HOWEVER!!!!!!!

I bet ALL of you can name at least FIVE people you know that QUIT BRAWL. Just because the game is good and young, and can recruit people that don't know of it's problems, DOES NOT MEAN that it doesn't have problems, and isn't dying slowing.

Basically, everytime someone says, "UH, BUT GUYZES, TOURNEY SIZES AREN'T DROPPING." It's like slapping all the people who quit because of MK in the face and saying, "We don't need you, because we can replace you scrubs with NEW scrubs." And then you both stick your tounges at each other, and they say, "Good riddance, I'm glad I quit this stupid game now."

We have one party too stubborn to see what's right in front of them, and other too ignored to keep in the struggle.

I can name more than 5 in fact how about half the melee community that tried brawl then a week later went right back to melee or quit all together but then again brawl is at an all time high for pound4

then again where are the actually statistics of brawl tournaments and how many people quit do you know? Like where is the proof the game is dying slowly i see some possibilties everyone right now is butthurt over pound4 "omg so much MK" well you guys obviously haven't seen some SF tournaments then or some tekken where high tier is mostly supreme thats one problem alot people in brawl have is they aren't using tournament effienent characters and pick zelda who has a 20-80 MU against MK and wonder why they can't place high thats why i knew if i was going to advance in the tournament scene i made some research and got a smart counterpick character of snake.



As far as beating MK the only problem i see it for is the mediocore wifi players or whatever first tournament attenders that really have trouble with that matchup but its not even that matchup how much you wanna bet you put them against some advance falcos and Warios the same outcome might come its a very matchup intensive game by what i feel and i'm sure players are going to get frusterated (i sure as hell did you prolly even have seen me walk outside get something to drink to cool off whatever) but thats me learning right there i'm not going to blood cross it and give up on it (inb4 bloodcross<3) but people gotta put in that dedication to reach that top status and also thats in part where we as a community definitally let him know yeah well we can help you out and show you to a good time at the tournament venue and help that person overall have a better time at the tournament environment which is why i try to be very social (or going to try to be especially more) to new people and definitally let em know that yeah you know we all were there frusterated and learning but theres way around it.

when i went to my first couple of tournaments yo i got trashed talked in fact thats how i met dmbrandon he walked up to me and challenged me to a 10 dollar mm straight up and you know people on the forums at the time especially when i was new to this forum and especially real tournaments i didn't get proper guidance and i still notice that on the forums for some of the newer players andddddddd


Mk is beatable
and the tournament attendance so far is pretty **** good unless you can prove me otherwise wrong with real data i just go by tournament results i see every week i may be like 4-5 months behind but so far we started the new year straight ma doo

its only been 2 years so far we still got some time to see something happen

 

[Pierce7d]

lol, well I kinda pulled outta this discussion, because I'm waiting for more serious discussion to come underway, but I LOL everytime someone says "It's only X years"

First off, two years is a long *** time. Most games don't even last half a year, let alone two whole years. Secondly, when it was 10 months, "This game hasn't even been out a year." Then, "This game has only been out a year." "This game has only been out a year and a half."

Hell, please let me know what YOU think an appropriate amount of time is before we turn on our brains, so I can come back to you then, and not waste my time with such a dumb arbitrary statement like, "It's only been two years."

LOL

 

[Allied]

lol, well I kinda pulled outta this discussion, because I'm waiting for more serious discussion to come underway, but I LOL everytime someone says "It's only X years"

First off, two years is a long *** time. Most games don't even last half a year, let alone two whole years. Secondly, when it was 10 months, "This game hasn't even been out a year." Then, "This game has only been out a year." "This game has only been out a year and a half."

Hell, please let me know what YOU think an appropriate amount of time is before we turn on our brains, so I can come back to you then, and not waste my time with such a dumb arbitrary statement like, "It's only been two years."

LOL

Uh not at all i can understanding you backing out but this is a real discussion right now lets have it, you brought up some poorly organized little arguement and now your backing out because you dont like one of my MANY lists of answers of its only been 2 years.

Yo bro Melee's been out way more than many competitive fighters and its STILL changing now we can enjoy all the fun of puff dittos in the grand finals but i'd love to see your stand point 2 years in melee

"Shiek is the best , bla bla bla never gonna change, never gonna change"

yeah.

We have proven Snake can beat MK, Diddy and we still got room for more but obviously your not even down for the effort because you can have a more serious conversation with the wifi players reciting the same arguement over and over again why dont you do this sh*t in the backroom lol?

Pierce7d your kinda disappointing now

so you can go ahead and lurk "brawl and tekken: small read" thread and please enjoy your serious conversations bro, have a blast ;]

 

[Karcist]

but brawl tournament attendance has done nothing but increase and mk is still here

?

mad?

Just because the sizes are increasing doesn't mean they are increasing at the fullest possible potential.

 

[Kewkky]

Allied, you're taking Pierce7d's post and condensing into a huge flame. Just let the "LOL's" slip by and read in a calm manner, and you'll understand what he means.

Melee's been out for 6+ years and still new things are happening right? Can you argue that Brawl is the same as Melee? Is Brawl as deep as Melee? Does Brawl have the 'ability' to become the 2nd Melee? Can Brawl ever achieve the competitive success Melee has achieved? Other fighting communities look down at the Smash community because of us forcing a 'brawler' game to become a 'fighter' game, yet they still agree Brawl is the worst installation out of them all... Comparing Brawl's lifespan to Melee's is really quite dumb, considering all of the above statements.

Pierce's post is also quite strong, with the point he's trying to make... He's got it right, with the whole "It's only been 2 years" thing. It's not a good argument if we have to keep waiting until we reach the next limiter then everyone comes back and says "It's only been 3 years, Melee has been out 7+ years and it's still changing). And he's also right in the way Brawl keeps bringing in new players, it being the newest game and right now being more popular to the casual-turning-into-competitive audience. Lots of people left (and are leaving) because of how MK deters from the game's enjoyment, but at the same time new people are joining the community refilling those empty spots left behind (not all of them, mind you). Eventually the balance will drop, we'll be recruiting less players than what we're losing, and then it'd be too late to stop what we could've stopped back when everyone was too busy saying "It's only been 2 years".


What other arguments do people have for "not banning MK"? I really want a coherent and complete list of arguments so I can answer them in my own way. Sicne you and AvaricePanda are the only ones in this thread arguing against the point I'm trying to make, it'd only be fair if one of you both were the ones who would bring up the main arguments.