Who decided that and why?
We did automatically by deciding to play as more than one character as a whole. If we only wanted to play as one character, we'd just choose one and stick with it. Since there is no character that everybody WILL play as, we're pretty much admitting we all have our different characters, thus, the way we play is to have natural variation. I get your point, though, and I mostly concede it.
Depends what you call improving and what you call making worse.
I'd say using the original options in the games(as in selectable ones) to improve our experience is the best way. But fair enough.
Yea see? that's the kind of things I want to hear.
Admitting that the community just wants to make the game more fun, rather than silly data and tournament results and money earned, all of that is a cover up.
Not exactly. All of that is just reasons why they also choose to do it. They added influence, which can't be denied. Some use that as their reason alone. But all of our reasons are subjective, anyway.
The real core reason is that MK makes the game booooring, is that something that is really hard to say?
Get most to admit that, I dare ya. And I completely agree. Although that's not my actual reason, it's the LGL crap that pisses me off. Exceptions is where I personally draw the line, but eh.
The game is unbalanced, if we were truly competitive we would just deal with it, but no want to have fun too so we don't we're trying to balance the game by ourselves.
Using the regular in-game options(or anything we can do without extra codes) is fixing it correctly anyway. Although to be honest, using rules to balance the game so much as finding a way the majority can enjoy is hard to say. I think it does help to balance, respectively.
We chose to play the game competitively yet we don't assume what it implies and make the game evolve to.
Well, for it to be a Competitive Game, it's just simply trying to win under a specific set of rules, nothing more. For many, they don't want randomness to decide their wins and if they can remove it easily, they will.(I won't go into whether No Tripping counts for this or not, since we both know the view on it)
Because we want to balance and control the metagame. For what purpose? Fun, probably.
Exactly.
Yea I know DMG already told me that, and honestly that scares me.
Well, this can apply to any corporation. Take Yu-Gi-Oh. Konami refuses to tell us their reasons for the bans. All we know is that they wanted it banned. I completely agree with that this should be justified without MK, and we should try it without him to make SURE we actually need it. Because I believe it's MK only in the end. If it really is that bad without MK, I'm fine with reinstating it. I just want this rule tested.
When making a rule why not being honest about the true purpose of what that rule is?
Because you find a way to explain it that makes the majority happy. Even if it's a lie. Making the community happy is often greater than honesty. I do agree it's bad practice regardless.
Okay.
and that too even though it's not for the same reason.
Then what's your reason, please?
I very much appreciate it.
Yes he is good on all stages, I find it normal for a top tier character.
Exactly. So why does reducing a stage list to supposedly nerf him(when that won't work) seem like a good idea to people? Much like where I don't think removing RC or Brinstar would help the "MK Problem". Or, well, as I said earlier, that doing all this for one guy(and no other single character) questions if it's all worth it.
Yea but I guess those hundred times nobody asked you but I will:
WHY shouldn't the game be all about Metaknight just because there are 30 more characters?
Because it was never intended to be about him only. It was intended to be full of options for anyone to play how they want. Right now, we're still playing the game exactly as intended. In addition, if players only wanted it to be about him, they would only pick him. So, as I mentioned super early in the reply, the community has made it clear they want it to be about more than Meta Knight by now. So I'd say because the community wants variety.
The other reason is that the game becomes super stale if no other character matters and it won't last long. That, and let's be honest, MK's metagame is severely developed, but no one else's is enough. So, if we want to continue the metagame overall, every character should have the chance to improve theirs. Nah, I get what people said earlier about them improving their game against Meta Knight. This IS true, however, we've done it enough where it's just only about Meta Knight, so the other Match-ups aren't developed. So to me, atleast, I want to see the other match-ups evolve.
Yea but what makes MK too damn good? I mean everything you mentioned, I can only conclude that he's top tier
Before I go to your other points, I'd like to note that every Top Tier is banned unless it's shared with more than one character. We refer to that as God Tier, and Gods(unless it's an actual game where they suck in it, like Thor in MvC3) generally are more powerful than any other character. If MK was still in the Top Tier with other characters, his chances of being banned would be significantly lower.
1) How do you decide that a rule is legitimate? is it because you are convinced that it is? what about people who are not?
Vigorous testing and voting. Both with happen to apply to the current character in question, ironically enough.
2) You state that he is broken without having proven why he is.
It depends how you define broken, respectively. Generally, in my respective case, overdominance, rules catered to them, having their own top tier, more money made than the rest(and more than what the numbers show). I concede this point, however. Broken is subjective, and I agree. I think, in this case, that many found him broken for one of many reasons. Keep in mind I wish there was a specific line. Because yes, you're right, we didn't define it well enough or at all.
3)How do you decide that character "deserve" to be played? Where do you pull that reason from? Especially from a competitive point of view.
If a character exists, they deserve to have the chance to be played and win. No matter how hard or easy it is. I do not think Meta Knight deserves to not allowed to be played under normal rules. It's only under rules that affect him that I find it going too far. But eh.
Yea but explain.
Why is it inherently bad.
Because if we're going to that extreme banning Metaknight IS discriminating against Metaknight.
You cannot discriminate against something fictional, to clarify. Now, I do have a problem with people thinking that only MK users are against the ban, etc. Or that their view is only because they play it. That in itself is discriminating. I'd like to remind you we're still treating him as the most important when banning him, so technically, it's the same as you said, it's alright to treat him differently.
I'll repeat my stance once more; No LGL, Meta Knight unbanned. But since the LGL won't be removed, MK is no longer tolerable because of that. It goes hand in hand. He's either important enough to limit and/or ban, or he's not important enough to do either.
it's the EXACT same thing.
Discrimination only works against gender, sex, age, and any form of status. A character being banned for breaking the rules of the game(which technically is the case, since the LGL is not an actual rules within the scope of the original game, as in Stock, Time, mainly) does not count.
Yea but just because the community made extra rules for him doesn't mean he's more important.
That's exactly what it means. He's given higher priority, as in, more importance. Any stalling techniques are banned. He just happens to be the only one that has one. Any others would be banned too. The difference with the LGL is that it's only important to him. Now, if the LGL was the same(or different) for everyone, then he's given no more priority, as in importance.
It just means they feel like he needs to be limited.
Because the problem is important enough to matter. When you limit something, you're given specific importance to that area. Just like any other rule. Keep in mind that no other rule is of importance to any particular character. Same with courses. They are banned for randomness, for tactics we do not agree upon. Those courses are made importance by that alone.
I understand what you meant now.
Okay.
I'll be replying slow, since I'm busy roleplaying on another forum.
