Meta Knight Officially Banned!

[NinjaFoxX]

The shorter the time limit, the more effective stalling/running/camping is. That's not what the game is about, it's designed and centered around taking all the opponents stock. Even without intentional stalling, some matches wouldn't be allowed to finish with a short time limit. Someone who's been involved in ruleset crafting please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression we wouldn't even have time limits if it weren't for the fact that we need to move the tourneys along so that they can be completed in the allotted time.

Before anyone compares this to other fighting games, remember that Smash is not two characters depleting each others' health in a relatively small box specifically designed to have a timer going. In smash a timer just lets people win without necessarily seeing the match through to the conclusion it ideally would be allowed to reach.

On a different topic, all these anti-MK rules that people are suggesting are further confirming how much he dominates the metagame. Whether you're pro-ban, or anti-ban but with a bunch of rules to limit MK, you're admitting that MK is a major problem. Making rules that will screw with the rest of the metagame just to keep MK down makes a mess, while banning him stops the problem at the source, removing all of MK's direct repression of the metagame (through being way overpowered/broken) as well as the indirect problems (like the side effects of a bunch of anti-MK rules). I feel like all our tournaments are being set on fire, and some people want flame retardant Wiis and for buckets of water to be part of the venue fee, when we could really just arrest the one guy with the flamethrower who's torching everything.

for the new people to read^^

 

[meta ike]

meta knight was my best character...


RAGE@#!@#@#@@##@

 

[Yikarur]

That response was amazing.


@yika, what the hell are you talking about?
Fox is the flashiest most entertaining character in the game, because no matchup of his in the entire game should ever take more than 4 minutes.

no.. just no..

 

[Ripple]

no.. just no..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU_OeqS8HNM&feature=channel_video_title

 

[ElDominio]

Top Sonics take games off MK all the time. Sonic/MK must be even.

QFT

plzreplyJebuskthxbye

 

[Doc King]

Not really. You said MK has a lot of options in the MU and Fox has a few. I'm saying that the few options he has on MK is all he needs to make the MU even (although I'm pretty sure he has more than just lasers and U-smash)

Why not? It's not like we are playing a completely different game. You can't really base a match up on theory because everything in theory is that. Just theory

Fox has those few advantages, but if mk sends Fox off of the stage, then Fox is completely screwed. And mk has a brilliant edge guarding game. MK has one thing he needs to win this matchup along with his other matchups and that is planking.

Are you serious about theory? Theory is one of the best way to show how character matchups go. Playstyles are also another thing. It's a good way to show a big part of the metagame.

Why does the fact it's from Japan make a difference? It's not as if the characters are any different....

Japan's playstyle is different from our playstyle. Their metagame is also different.

 

[Chuee]

Fox has those few advantages, but if mk sends Fox off of the stage, then Fox is completely screwed. And mk has a brilliant edge guarding game. MK has one thing he needs to win this matchup along with his other matchups and that is planking.

lol @ Fox is screwed offstage.
completely wrong

Japan's playstyle is different from our playstyle. Their metagame is also different.

and?
The game is the same no matter who's playing it.

 

[da K.I.D.]

lol @ Fox is screwed offstage.
completely wrong

Im sorry... do you play fox?

Because I do, and whenever I play MK, i start the match with some crazy 80% combo, and then I get sent offstage at 20, and I think to myself, 'i really hope the mk messes up so that I dont take 80%/drop a stock right now.'

hes not link offstage, but comparitively its by far the worst position to be him.

 

[Doc King]

lol @ Fox is screwed offstage.
completely wrong



and?
The game is the same no matter who's playing it.

Dude, everybody in the freaking game is screwed offstage or badly in position when against mk.

The game is similar, but the metagame is different.

Im sorry... do you play fox?

Because I do, and whenever I play MK, i start the match with some crazy 80% combo, and then I get sent offstage at 20, and I think to myself, 'i really hope the mk messes up so that I dont take 80%/drop a stock right now.'

hes not link offstage, but comparitively its by far the worst position to be him.

Link offstage is garbage.

Fox has a not bad recovery, but stuff like mk's down air can badly hurt Fox in the matchup.

 

[Doc King]

lol @ Fox is screwed offstage.
completely wrong



and?
The game is the same no matter who's playing it.

Dude, everybody in the freaking game is screwed offstage or badly in position when against mk.

The game is similar, but the metagame is different.

Im sorry... do you play fox?

Because I do, and whenever I play MK, i start the match with some crazy 80% combo, and then I get sent offstage at 20, and I think to myself, 'i really hope the mk messes up so that I dont take 80%/drop a stock right now.'

hes not link offstage, but comparitively its by far the worst position to be him.

Link offstage is garbage.

Fox has a not bad recovery, but stuff like mk's down air can badly hurt Fox in the matchup.

Chuee plays Lucas (lol crappy character).

Another site mess up which made me accidentally double post.

 

[Eddie G]

My point is mind your own business. What do you care about what we do with our time?

Oh my, did I strike a nerve there bud?

You're more than welcome to go back to making points that nobody around you seems to ever agree with, please by all means continue. It seems futility (and thus...a waste of time) can attract some people after all.

 

[AlphaZealot]

The shorter the time limit, the more effective stalling/running/camping is. That's not what the game is about, it's designed and centered around taking all the opponents stock. Even without intentional stalling, some matches wouldn't be allowed to finish with a short time limit. Someone who's been involved in ruleset crafting please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression we wouldn't even have time limits if it weren't for the fact that we need to move the tourneys along so that they can be completed in the allotted time.

You are wrong (and I don't mean this to sound harsh because your post is well constructed and you make some otherwise good points). The absence of a time limit and a delineated "winning" and "losing" player would mean at all points in the match up there would be a stalemate situation, where neither opponent would have any reason to approach. While technically this situation exists at the very start of the match, it is typically immediately and quickly removed (largely because over 2/3rds of the cast has zero-risk projectiles). It would also be almost impossible to maintain a zero-percent, full stock tie an entire game without intentionally colluding with the opponent (against the rules).

In other words: the time limit, and the percent based tie-break rule, are integral to the entire concept of the competitive Smash as we know it since it is the only thing that forces approaches. Also, interestingly enough, this must exist as a result of removing items (items in themselves would break stalemates for various reasons).

The best analogy I can make is to the shot-clock in the NBA. Pre-shot clock era, teams who had a lead figured out that their objective was no longer to score, but instead play keep away with the ball. The shot clock was added in order to force offense.

 

[Thino]

The game is similar, but the metagame is different.

I still don't understand how you guys determine the matchup then..

What is it exactly except North American results? Is it how good X top player does against Y top player using the character?

How many times?

How does playstyle influence this decision?

You are wrong (and I don't mean this to sound harsh because your post is well constructed and you make some otherwise good points). The absence of a time limit and a delineated "winning" and "losing" player would mean at all points in the match up there would be a stalemate situation, where neither opponent would have any reason to approach. While technically this situation exists at the very start of the match, it is typically immediately and quickly removed (largely because over 2/3rds of the cast has zero-risk projectiles). It would also be almost impossible to maintain a zero-percent, full stock tie an entire game without intentionally colluding with the opponent (against the rules).

In other words: the time limit, and the percent based tie-break rule, are integral to the entire concept of the competitive Smash as we know it since it is the only thing that forces approaches. Also, interestingly enough, this must exist as a result of removing items (items in themselves would break stalemates for various reasons).

The best analogy I can make is to the shot-clock in the NBA. Pre-shot clock era, teams who had a lead figured out that their objective was no longer to score, but instead play keep away with the ball. The shot clock was added in order to force offense.

the bolded part can easily be a double-edged sword, which is prolly the reason why people tend to consider that reducing the time limit would actually promote stalling techniques rather than get players to approach.

I mean, in my opinion, it's much less risky to see your % being under the opponent's and plank because there's XX seconds left rather than being like "oh there's not much time left, let's attack and risk having my % go over my opponent's and lose the match!"

 

[Judo777]

Nope Falcon actually has the best MU with MK. He (and by he I mean Ally) has the strongest record against MK's of any character. Ally has PROVEN that he can take games and sets off of top MK's so CF is clearly an even MU with MK.

 

[AlphaZealot]

the bolded part can easily be a double-edged sword, which is prolly the reason why people tend to consider that reducing the time limit would actually promote stalling techniques rather than get players to approach.

The time limit creates a situation where one player must approach. I did not say "both players now must approach because of the time limit". Only the 'losing' player must approach, the alternative in absence of any time limit and a 'winning' and 'losing' player being that neither player would ever need to approach.

I mean, in my opinion, it's much less risky to see your % being under the opponent's and plank because there's XX seconds left rather than being like "oh there's not much time left, let's attack and risk having my % go over my opponent's and lose the match!"

Regardless of the time on the clock, in Brawl and in most situations, if you have the percent lead, you should not approach. If there are 10 minutes or 1 minute left, most characters defense and reactionary response have better risk-reward than their offensive options (personally speaking I view Diddy's offensive options in many MU's to be better, but he is an exception and I digress). Extending the clock could end in less timeouts, but why? More often then not timeouts exist because the losing player does not properly handle the clock. If you are losing by anything over a hit or two, every moment you spend waiting around not approaching or attempting to change your situation is simply playing into the winning players hands. This happens far, far to often and every time I see it I laugh to myself at the persons time-mismanagement, which even at the highest levels of play occurs all to frequently.

 

[Deleted member]

Nope Falcon actually has the best MU with MK. He (and by he I mean Ally) has the strongest record against MK's of any character. Ally has PROVEN that he can take games and sets off of top MK's so CF is clearly an even MU with MK.

I love you Judo. Setting people straight!

 

[Cassio]

You are wrong (and I don't mean this to sound harsh because your post is well constructed and you make some otherwise good points). The absence of a time limit and a delineated "winning" and "losing" player would mean at all points in the match up there would be a stalemate situation, where neither opponent would have any reason to approach. While technically this situation exists at the very start of the match, it is typically immediately and quickly removed (largely because over 2/3rds of the cast has zero-risk projectiles). It would also be almost impossible to maintain a zero-percent, full stock tie an entire game without intentionally colluding with the opponent (against the rules).

In other words: the time limit, and the percent based tie-break rule, are integral to the entire concept of the competitive Smash as we know it since it is the only thing that forces approaches. Also, interestingly enough, this must exist as a result of removing items (items in themselves would break stalemates for various reasons).

The best analogy I can make is to the shot-clock in the NBA. Pre-shot clock era, teams who had a lead figured out that their objective was no longer to score, but instead play keep away with the ball. The shot clock was added in order to force offense.

I love this response, lol. Especially the part about items. Twinkie where you at .

The time limit creates a situation where one player must approach. I did not say "both players now must approach because of the time limit". Only the 'losing' player must approach, the alternative in absence of any time limit and a 'winning' and 'losing' player being that neither player would ever need to approach.

Ok, but keep in mind that the game in no way shape or form defines percentage as a measurement for winning or losing. Im assuming thats why you had it in quotes, but its worth emphasizing that theyre terms we created and probably the rashest change we've made to the ruleset. I cant think of any others except maybe the lgl.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Correct. The use of the percentage tie breaker is an artificial influence the competitive community has placed on the game. It is a necessary one, again, because of the removal of items. The stock-advantage tie breaker (which the game does default with) can work, just not as well for obvious reason (two people on their last stock, or, just on tied stocks).

Even so, at the core, even the developers realized there is an issue of stalemate, which is why they included bombombs in their sudden death mode, to absolutely make sure to the best of their abilities that the game would end (and yet even then it could go on through planking).

Interestingly enough, using the default tie-break options with stock/time limits wouldn't necessarily be much worse than the current standard of percent tie breakers, since players would naturally learn how to actually play sudden death, and players who deems themselves better than the opponent would be the aggressor, wanting to minimize any chance the game goes to sudden death (since when even played to the best of abilities could be seen as barely better than a coin flip).

 

[Cassio]

Half of me is curious to see how the game wouldve been that way, but I wouldve been just as curious to see how the game wouldve been this way had we gone down that path.

On a different topic, all these anti-MK rules that people are suggesting are further confirming how much he dominates the metagame. Whether you're pro-ban, or anti-ban but with a bunch of rules to limit MK, you're admitting that MK is a major problem. Making rules that will screw with the rest of the metagame just to keep MK down makes a mess, while banning him stops the problem at the source, removing all of MK's direct repression of the metagame (through being way overpowered/broken) as well as the indirect problems (like the side effects of a bunch of anti-MK rules). I feel like all our tournaments are being set on fire, and some people want flame retardant Wiis and for buckets of water to be part of the venue fee, when we could really just arrest the one guy with the flamethrower who's torching everything.

Except that youre identifying the wrong source. Everything stems from item removal, and whehter MK is or isnt banned these issues and many of the rules will still exist.

-Camping
-Stalling
-Planking
-Scrooging
-Many issues with stages that end up banned

If you honestly cared about fixing the problem at the "source" you would be an advocate for ISP play, not the metaknight ban.

Anti-ban acknowledges the issues removing items creates and advocates targeted solutions. Banning metaknight doesnt solve any of these issues, it just reduces their severity but the problems still exist, which is why many on both sides still advocate these targeted solutions regardless of whether MK is banned or not.

Honestly as long as percent based win on timeouts exist, pro-ban has no room to complain about targeted solutions in our ruleset since the most blatant one will always exist with their approval.

 

[Chuee]

Dude, everybody in the freaking game is screwed offstage or badly in position when against mk.

not everyone lol.......
he can put characters in bad positions but they aren't screwed offstage.

The game is similar, but the metagame is different.

so?
If Yui does so much better in the MU than our Fox's then what he's doing is probably a better approach to the MU than our Fox's. Trying to discredit it because they play differently is stupid.

Chuee plays Lucas (lol crappy character).

Thanks for taking the time to tell me that my main is bad. I mean, it's not like I'm you and think my main is the most underrated character in the game.

Nope Falcon actually has the best MU with MK. He (and by he I mean Ally) has the strongest record against MK's of any character. Ally has PROVEN that he can take games and sets off of top MK's so CF is clearly an even MU with MK.

has ally even beaten any top MKs with Falcon? I remember him using falcon against Ally a really long time ago and losing, but other than that I don't remember him beating top MKs with Falcon.

 

[John12346]

If memory serves, someone on the boards here told me Japan has an air time based tie-breaker(someone please, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong on this), which muffs MK's planking, scrooging, and air camping all in one, plus Frigate, Delfino, Brinstar, and RC are ALL not legal stages(again, correct me if I'm wrong).

Of ****ing course MK isn't going to dominate in Japan. Shouldn't it be pretty obvious?

 

[tekkie]

i miss the days when we all just talked about how awesome it is that mk is banned

 

[SaveMeJebus]

QFT

plzreplyJebuskthxbye

That match up may be even. It seems pretty even at top level play

 

[Judo777]

not everyone lol.......
he can put characters in bad positions but they aren't screwed offstage.


so?
If Yui does so much better in the MU than our Fox's then what he's doing is probably a better approach to the MU than our Fox's. Trying to discredit it because they play differently is stupid.




Thanks for taking the time to tell me that my main is bad. I mean, it's not like I'm you and think my main is the most underrated character in the game.


has ally even beaten any top MKs with Falcon? I remember him using falcon against Ally a really long time ago and losing, but other than that I don't remember him beating top MKs with Falcon.

If I remember correctly Ally has on several occaisions at least taken games off of M2K and I think he beat Judges MK with Falcon at a tourney I went to. But more importantly at a TOP level very few times has Falcon lost games to MK.

Here is another example (LOL jebus post)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwTURaxeF5w&feature=related

and both these players are good friends and play all the time. So this PROVES that they know the MU. So as I myself have just PROVEN this MU is even at top levels.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

If I remember correctly Ally has on several occaisions at least taken games off of M2K and I think he beat Judges MK with Falcon at a tourney I went to. But more importantly at a TOP level very few times has Falcon lost games to MK.

Here is another example (LOL jebus post)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwTURaxeF5w&feature=related

and both these players are good friends and play all the time. So this PROVES that they know the MU. So as I myself have just PROVEN this MU is even at top levels.

You don't have any proof of sets being won though

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Alright lets summarize the matchup. Fox has a good up smash on mk, a good projectile which forces mk to approach, a decent up tilt, and some shine locks which are hard to perform if mk is always in the air. MK however can gimp Fox mad easy, mach tornado can combo Fox a lot, can up air combo Fox, can plank against him really good, and has a really nice shuttle loop against Fox.

Overall, this leads to the fact that mk vs. Fox is -1 for Fox.

This is a gross oversimplification of the match-up.

PROS FOR FOX:
-One of the few match-ups where MK always has to approach.
-Is KO'd early from mistakes because of Fox's running Up Smash.
-Fast tilts and walk-speed allowing him to combat MK's amazing ground game somewhat. Meta Knight's mix-ups with Ftilt/Dtilt/ISL/Dsmash are still superior overall due to their speed, range and power.
-1 Frame invincible move that stalls in the air to mess with Meta Knight's juggling game. This is basically inconsequential for an MK who knows the match-up. Shine has ending lag, so the MK can hover and bait it out with a whiffed uair.
-Falls fast, making him faster overall and giving MK less time to setup his "space coverage".

CONS FOR FOX:
-Still gets juggled...
-Still gets gimped with relative ease...
-Is out-ranged on the ground by MK's ftilt...
-Is light...

People have been saturized by MK being amazing for so long that when they think "Oh, this character can counter MK's x, y and z, its an even match-up.

NO.

NO, NO, NO.

MK still has all of his amazing tools that everyone takes for granted due to familiarity.

As long as MK plays the MU conservatively, he is fine.

Not really. You said MK has a lot of options in the MU and Fox has a few. I'm saying that the few options he has on MK is all he needs to make the MU even (although I'm pretty sure he has more than just lasers and U-smash)

Why not? It's not like we are playing a completely different game. You can't really base a match up on theory because everything in theory is that. Just theory

Theory has its place in match-up discussion.

meta knight was my best character...

RAGE@#!@#@#@@##@

If you don't go to tournaments, this rule won't affect you, obviously.

Im sorry... do you play fox?

Because I do, and whenever I play MK, i start the match with some crazy 80% combo, and then I get sent offstage at 20, and I think to myself, 'i really hope the mk messes up so that I dont take 80%/drop a stock right now.'

hes not link offstage, but comparitively its by far the worst position to be him.

The only people who think Fox is good off-stage against MK are people who have no idea that MK can counter rising fair if he isn't a ******, lol.

Except that youre identifying the wrong source. Everything stems from item removal, and whehter MK is or isnt banned these issues and many of the rules will still exist.

-Camping
-Stalling
-Planking
-Scrooging
-Many issues with stages that end up banned

If you honestly cared about fixing the problem at the "source" you would be an advocate for ISP play, not the metaknight ban.

Anti-ban acknowledges the issues removing items creates and advocates targeted solutions. Banning metaknight doesnt solve any of these issues, it just reduces their severity but the problems still exist, which is why many on both sides still advocate these targeted solutions regardless of whether MK is banned or not.

Honestly as long as percent based win on timeouts exist, pro-ban has no room to complain about targeted solutions in our ruleset since the most blatant one will always exist with their approval.

Having items legal is bad, having Meta Knight's broken stalling is bad, why do we have to choose to support only one of them?

 

[Ripple]

You don't have any proof of sets being won though

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an3xN3RpaHs

 

[SaveMeJebus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an3xN3RpaHs

one match is not a set.

 

[Cassio]

If memory serves, someone on the boards here told me Japan has an air time based tie-breaker(someone please, PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong on this), which muffs MK's planking, scrooging, and air camping all in one, plus Frigate, Delfino, Brinstar, and RC are ALL not legal stages(again, correct me if I'm wrong).

Of ****ing course MK isn't going to dominate in Japan. Shouldn't it be pretty obvious?

If they consider planking, scrooging, etc etc. to be systemic issues is this such a bad thing?

Considering they are powerful tactics is there a particular reason we should not?

 

[John12346]

If they consider planking, scrooging, etc etc. to be systemic issues is this such a bad thing?

Whether or not instating such rules(air time limit+limited stages) was a good or bad thing doesn't really matter at the moment.

What's important is that we now have some good rationale behind saying that Japan's MKs don't play quite up to the same speed that NA MKs do; namely, that their ruleset gimps MK extremely hard, because he suddenly just lost his timeout abilities and almost all of his counterpicking options(he can choose between... Yoshi's and Lylat, I guess?).

And of course... if we know that Japan's MKs aren't capable of playing the way that NA MKs are, then we also have our reasoning for MK being so dominant in NA, but not Japan.

 

[C.J.]

one match is not a set.

That was game 2... on Brinstar... I'm PRETTY SURE Ally didn't CP MK to Brinstar w/ falcon...

 

[Cassio]

Whether or not instating such rules(air time limit+limited stages) was a good or bad thing doesn't really matter at the moment.

What's important is that we now have some good rationale behind saying that Japan's MKs don't play quite up to the same speed that NA MKs do; namely, that their ruleset gimps MK extremely hard, because he suddenly just lost his timeout abilities and almost all of his counterpicking options(he can choose between... Yoshi's and Lylat, I guess?).

And of course... if we know that Japan's MKs aren't capable of playing the way that NA MKs are, then we also have our reasoning for MK being so dominant in NA, but not Japan.

I agree and assume this to be a point that most would generally agree to as well. I bring it up since I think the next issue would be whether such changes are correct.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

That was game 2... on Brinstar... I'm PRETTY SURE Ally didn't CP MK to Brinstar w/ falcon...

It was grand finals. He lost against his ICs and then switched

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Two separate issues.

1) For all the conjecture of MKs planking being broken, MK's planking was never proven or fully acknowledged to be literally broken. However it was at least acknowledged by everyone to be bad for the game.

This is true, however, in my experience with planking and the game's mechanics in general, I believe it is broken and will continue to believe this until I am proven wrong.

2) Stating items are bad is subjective. Items are bad because the community deems them to be bad (Ankoku made a similar statement in the URC thread). Im not saying this is bad, Im just saying its kind of silly to remove items then harp about other arbitrary ruleset changes. This only becomes reasonable if items can be shown to be bad objectively or through trial, which was never done for brawl. Considering the enormous amount of issues item removal causes its a fairly difficult case to make.

Of course it is subjective, all of our rules are subjective. We can't ban all randomness or allow all randomness, both would make the game unplayable so we have to go somewhere in-between. I draw the line before items, which makes them "bad" in respect to my philosophy about rulesets. You may not draw the line there, thats fine.

The only point I am trying to make is that it is not necessarily hypocritical to want MK AND items banned.

 

[Ghostbone]

MK's planking has been proved broken through frame data.
The "anti-planking method" will just get you gimped 99% of the time.

Also turning items off is as arbitrary as keeping them off, not a hard concept...

 

[John12346]

I agree and assume this to be a point that most would generally agree to as well. I bring it up since I think the next issue would be whether such changes are correct.

Well, I just put it out because the arguments pro-ban was making were "Japan plays differently," and "Japan has a different metagame," when the real argument was supposed to be "Japan has a completely different ruleset that just flat out gimps Meta Knight(not directly, obviously)." Kinda sucks that it took me until just now to figure it out though XD

Anyway, as far as whether the changes are right or not, I'll leave that to other people.

I suppose the point of contention would be to determine which option is better: banning Meta Knight or creating an air time limit + limited stagelist, so I'll leave you guys to it.

 

[Cassio]

Well, I just put it out because the arguments pro-ban was making were "Japan plays differently," and "Japan has a different metagame," when the real argument was supposed to be "Japan has a completely different ruleset that just flat out gimps Meta Knight(not directly, obviously)." Kinda sucks that it took me until just now to figure it out though XD

Anyway, as far as whether the changes are right or not, I'll leave that to other people.

I suppose the point of contention would be to determine which option is better: banning Meta Knight or creating an air time limit + limited stagelist, so I'll leave you guys to it.

This is true, however, in my experience with planking and the game's mechanics in general, I believe it is broken and will continue to believe this until I am proven wrong.



Of course it is subjective, all of our rules are subjective. We can't ban all randomness or allow all randomness, both would make the game unplayable so we have to go somewhere in-between. I draw the line before items, which makes them "bad" in respect to my philosophy about rulesets. You may not draw the line there, thats fine.

The only point I am trying to make is that it is not necessarily hypocritical to want MK AND items banned.

Opinions aside Im in full agreement.

Although one thing I would say Grim is that those who strongly adhere to the "developers intent" bandwagon could make a very strong case for an objective ruleset or the closest thing to it, but the viewpoint is so far outside the norm of the smash community its something were unlikely to see.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

The developer's intent was to play the game with 4 players and items on. 4 players is not an option here outside of Doubles. Items can spawn anywhere on the map and screw someone over. Also, the match-ups are meant for Character VS Character. The strengths of the individual character is more important than what items can bring here. Those benefit anyone as is. Likewise, many of the match-ups can be skewed. Also, it's easy to call shenanigans because a Bob-omb hit your face.

Some items are fine. Jack Kauser has a great topic about this. But in here, Items aren't an option due to it making it harder to find skill in using a particular character. Stages can only be partially turned off, and since no character is equal by default on Battlefield, we must have more than one. Thus, we have tons of reasonable stages.

Also, the point John#'s is getting at is that because we do not play the same rules as Japan and the UK does, we cannot use their MK results since our rules aren't the same. Unless they are universal rules in general, the results will be different.

Now, I'm not against trying a ruleset similar to theirs at all. But under this current one, MK is indeed bannable. Under theirs, he is not. That's how simple it is.

 

[Cassio]

I mostly agree.

Quite honestly I've always understood and had sympathy for having MK banned events even when it looked like he wasnt going to be banned. What has been bothersome was when people would try to shove this idea that objectively, MK deserved to be banned when it really came down to a matter of preference. Acknowledging that still creates a different set of problems, but its certainly more reasonable to deal with.

 

[Ghostbone]

I don't think it's possible to objectively say whether MK should be legal or not legal.

Everybody has different 'lines' if you will, for a character to cross before they deserve to be banned, and it's impossible to be objective about our judgements now, since there is no precedent (at least not from any Smash game), nothing to go by when deciding whether a character should be banned.