Meta Knight Officially Banned!

[Smooth Criminal]

CROSS-Countered.

Fixed.

Smooth Criminal

 

[John12346]

Thanks a lot, this is what I wanted to hear and I'm satisfied with this reason for the ban : The opinion of 75% of the community mattered because it is impossible to do this any other way.

Therefore there is no need for pro-bans to get bothered or try to argue when we say that MK has been banned because 75% of the community decided that he should be, rather than actually having determined if he's broken or not.

See, see, while this is where I agree, this is also where I disagree!

It all comes back to the idea that all the arguing that we've done thus far; all the data that we've uncovered, every word we've said up to this point... that all of it should have been laid out on the table for an informed poll, unlike the uninformed one the URC held.

If memory serves, the reason the URC didn't do so was due to the fact they wanted their voters to vote by their initial dispositions or something, idk.

The point is, it would definitely be pretty conclusive if pro-ban and anti-ban both put out as much information as humanly possible that attests to the reasoning behind why MK does/does not cross the line of being broken/bannable, and then have everyone decide for themselves whether or not MK crosses the threshold of what they consider broken, for a very informed poll.

 

[DeLux]

See, see, while this is where I agree, this is also where I disagree!

It all comes back to the idea that all the arguing that we've done thus far; all the data that we've uncovered, every word we've said up to this point... that all of it should have been laid out on the table for an informed poll, unlike the uninformed one the URC held.

If memory serves, the reason the URC didn't do so was due to the fact they wanted their voters to remain unbiased as possible or something, idk.

The point is, it would definitely be pretty conclusive if pro-ban and anti-ban both put out as much information as humanly possible that attests to the reasoning behind why MK does/does not cross the line of being broken/bannable, and then have everyone decide for themselves whether or not MK crosses the threshold of what they consider broken, for a very informed poll.

No, they really shouldn't. Framing bias is bad.

 

[John12346]

But what would the overall problem be if both sides of the argument had equal ability to "framely bias" the voters? In that case, the voters would ultimately vote on whether or not the arguments presented by pro-ban and anti-ban causes MK to cross/not cross the bannable line that they currently have set in their head.

Everyone will be biased regardless of whether they receive information(framing bias) or not(preconception bias?), so what's the big problem if both sides want to inform their voters a little better?

 

[DeLux]

But what would the overall problem be if both sides of the argument had equal ability to "framely bias" the voters? In that case, the voters would ultimately vote on whether or not the arguments presented by pro-ban and anti-ban causes MK to cross/not cross the bannable line that they currently have set in their head.

We did give them equal ability in the only way possible, which is to present nothing. Adding anything at all leaves no way to quantify and objectively evaluate equal representation of both sides.

Everyone will be biased regardless of whether they receive information(framing bias) or not(preconception bias?), so what's the big problem if both sides want to inform their voters a little better?

Preconception bias? The point of a poll wouldn't be to artificially create a pool of voters based on the knowledge given to them that may or may not be relevant to the issue at hand and it may or may not be the entirety of relevant information to the information at hand. At what point does preconception end and actual opinion begin? There's no way of determining that.

Further, giving people information doesn't address the issue of "preconception bias". When presented with information, people are more likely to pick information that supports their preconceived opinion and disregard the opposing information, further entrenching opinion. Putting in information would probably add to that form of bias, not lessen it if the heuristic is true.

 

[AlphaZealot]

It would be foolish to ban a character in any game where a huge majority of people were not in support of the ban.

 

[Flayl]

Delux: It's not really "presenting nothing" if you sticky the vote in the same forum that has John & Ripple's project...

 

[DeLux]

That's an unsubstantiated claim if I've ever seen one :\

 

[John12346]

It would be foolish to ban a character in any game where a huge majority of people were not in support of the ban.

Well, just keep in mind that I'm not saying the uninformed poll was a bad approach, because I feel it definitely brought in some good information...

I just felt an informed one might've worked better, is all. >___>;

 

[Flayl]

That's an unsubstantiated claim if I've ever seen one :\

What? I'm confused...

 

[DeLux]

The poll in itself is its own entity. I don't think we acknowledged the thread you mentioned or credited or discredited as a viable source of relevant information. Just because it's the same forum doesn't mean it's cited as relevant info.

IF someone wanted to do independent research to make their own decision, then they would be likely to find the information from that thread relevant to their decision. But to say the two being stickied in the same forum necessitated a relationship seems unsubstantiated as a claim.

The jump is that in order to find that thread, someone would consciously have to click on the other thread to do an independent research venture separate to the thread. So either it was viewed prevoting as a formed preconception or it was viewed post viewing of question as a way to be informed. The poll doesn't draw a distinction between what information one has access to pre,during,post voting. It only asked for opinion as a generality

 

[Cassio]

It would be foolish to ban a character in any game where a huge majority of people were not in support of the ban.

What if, hypothetically, there was a sizable portion of a community that didnt want him banned located in specific areas?

We did give them equal ability in the only way possible, which is to present nothing. Adding anything at all leaves no way to quantify and objectively evaluate equal representation of both sides.



Preconception bias? The point of a poll wouldn't be to artificially create a pool of voters based on the knowledge given to them that may or may not be relevant to the issue at hand and it may or may not be the entirety of relevant information to the information at hand. At what point does preconception end and actual opinion begin? There's no way of determining that.

What youre describing isnt framing bias. Honestly I dont think what john is proposing is worse than a "poll" and could actually be useful, but it appears youve already half agreed with that.

Further, giving people information doesn't address the issue of "preconception bias". When presented with information, people are more likely to pick information that supports their preconceived opinion and disregard the opposing information, further entrenching opinion. Putting in information would probably add to that form of bias, not lessen it if the heuristic is true.

I dont think you understood what he said here. Giving information would definitely address the concern he pointed out.

So either it was viewed prevoting as a formed preconception or it was viewed post viewing of question as a way to be informed. The poll doesn't draw a distinction between what information one has access to pre,during,post voting. It only asked for opinion as a generality

I think that was flays point...not that its something Im conercned with but I dont think you addressed his concern.

 

[Flayl]

DeLux, at this point I'm taking your stance as either naive or intellectually dishonest... That is whether you truly believed creating a poll on MK's legality on the same forum that has people post often "wow MK has like double snake's points when is he going to get banned" could have a neutral approach or that you just want us to think that. I have to admit I'm becoming more and more cynical of the URC.

But it's not like the URC itself set any standards for the ban, so it all came down to the will of TOs anyway...

I'll try really hard not to post here again, unless someone posts something that I find is incredibly wrong, then I can't help it haha.

 

[Doc King]

@Jebus: How about you prove he's not broken using this own game then?

Likewise, the major difference here is that MK is pretty much the same as the Uber Tier, while the top tier of Melee actually is not. Want to know why? Melee's Top Tier does not win enough as is. They are indeed the best characters overall, but they are not the sole winners or win the top percentage. MK does, and he just happens to have his own Tier, regardless of what you call it. Right now, all you're proving is that MK should be banned then.

Let me put it this way: If a character has his own Tier, then something's already wrong by that alone. If MK wasn't good enough to be his own Tier, then we wouldn't even have to worry about banning him, because we'd have no decent reasons to.

Want to know who have their own Tiers? Bosses. As long as they are not severely nerfed for play, they have their own Tier. Nobody but themselves can beat them reasonably. This does not count for any other Tier except Ubers as you pointed out. So far, there's MK, other Bosses, and Uber that fits this criteria.

A Tier in Melee or Brawl does not. Your argument no longer holds any water here. He is not beatable by any margin outside of human error. He is not consistently beaten enough either.(half the time isn't good, as that means that he's as good as a Boss)

Likewise, Cassio has it quite right. Many want MK ban for multiple reasons. We do not know these, which is why we're not speaking for that specifically. In fact, among many boards the most I here is "About time". People want him gone.

Nobody in Melee is broken period. Things have always changed and different characters were able to compete in large events. Even today this occurs like Armada's Young Link. Brawl you had a bunch of mks who won like half the tourney paper and every grand final would be a mk. MK was like everything in that game. MK has like no bad matchups, no evens, best pocket character, the rc and brinstar autowins, planking, etc. MK definitely should be banned because of these reasons and Jebus I think you are too ignorant to Brawl and to Melee. Please stop claiming stupid crap without debating it well.

 

[Cassio]

I think he just misunderstood what you guys were trying to say.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Nobody in Melee is broken period. Things have always changed and different characters were able to compete in large events. Even today this occurs like Armada's Young Link. Brawl you had a bunch of mks who won like half the tourney paper and every grand final would be a mk. MK was like everything in that game. MK has like no bad matchups, no evens, best pocket character, the rc and brinstar autowins, planking, etc. MK definitely should be banned because of these reasons and Jebus I think you are too ignorant to Brawl and to Melee. Please stop claiming stupid crap without debating it well.

And case in point. Nobody's that bad in Melee. Brawl is another story, which is why we just can't compare them correctly. There has to be an actual broken character for it to work.(and it has to be his/her own tier as well)

And that still isn't a good comparison no matter how you look at it. 64's comparison would be good... if there were enough 64 tournaments to really tell. The metagame hasn't evolved because not enough time has passed. There aren't nearly as many tournaments. Since it's the only Smash game where supposedly one character could his own tier outside of Brawl, it's the only one worth comparing. But then, we go back to the other point: Not enough tournaments really have passed to give a good indication if Pikachu is really that unbeatable.

MK... on the other hand, we know he's pretty much the overall best without any doubt. He has no real counters, which we know too. Likewise, another thing people forgot: MK is already banned. We're not the ones defending the ban. The anti-banners on the defenders here. They need to prove that we made a mistake, not the other way around. We all gave reasons, and the problem is: Some of them are easy to refute, sure, but not all of them have been either.

The funny thing about John#'s data is that with the even split, we're making MK look WORSE than he really is. He's actually making more money than what we're giving. That means he may be making atleast an even 50% of all money, if not more. That's overcentralization on the money front if I ever saw it.

Likewise, any character that does godly has almost always been banned(in one on one based games, so get the Marvel VS Capcom stuff out before you even say it). And that's not just bosses. Who almost always should be banned unless they were heavily nerfed to be made playable. Unfortunately, MK was not nerfed. (atleast his stats in some official way) The only way we can nerf him is through hacks or surgical rules.

Let's also keep in mind that even nerfed bosses are often banned anyway.

But then again, people shouldn't be surprised that he was actually banned either. He's been asking for it for a long time. It's not surprising that the best beyond a doubt got banned, really.

 

[Spelt]

I've heard of people talking to a wall but i've never heard of a wall talking to a wall before.

 

[V]

I voted for the ban and I regret having done so. Everbody knows what characters can and can't plausibly beat Meta Knight. If you choose to play a character that can't, don't complain if you lose to him. If you do play a character that can beat him and you still lose, you just need to get better. Its not our fault that this game isn't balanced, but we shouldn't dictate what character(s) people can and can't play just because "X" character wins the majority of the time. Nothing is stopping you from playing said character, and most of the people who advocated the ban aren't even high level players. High level players are good enough to deal with MK regardless of character choice. It's only mid level players who really struggle with him. Even with MK banned will they do any better competitively? Maybe a little, but high level players will still beat them regardless. We should let people play who they want to play and understand that if you choose not to play MK you will struggle a little more than if you did.

 

[Spelt]

man dose old-as-**** arguments that weren't even good when people first started using them (3 years ago).

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Everbody knows what characters can and can't plausibly beat Meta Knight. If you choose to play a character that can't, don't complain if you lose to him.

Which is only Meta Knight. No other character has a plausible chance against him. People think it does, but no other character actually comes close to him. The only reason he loses is due strictly to human error, not because he's a fair character in any possible way.

If you do play a character that can beat him and you still lose, you just need to get better. Its not our fault that this game isn't balanced, but we shouldn't dictate what character(s) people can and can't play just because "X" character wins the majority of the time.

If it was just winning the majority of time, that wouldn't be a problem. Once again, you don't want to lose? You pick Meta Knight. He's the only one that stands a chance against reasonably against Meta Knight. Also, the get better argument does not work. Want to know why? The Meta Knight players get better too. Each time we do, they do right after. The circle has not ended for 4 years. What makes you think it'll magically work now?

Nothing is stopping you from playing said character, and most of the people who advocated the ban aren't even high level players. High level players are good enough to deal with MK regardless of character choice. It's only mid level players who really struggle with him. Even with MK banned will they do any better competitively? Maybe a little, but high level players will still beat them regardless. We should let people play who they want to play and understand that if you choose not to play MK you will struggle a little more than if you did.

The crappy "Scrubs only want him banned" is a really bad argument as well. Nobody gets better if they don't go to the tournaments. And they weren't because of Meta Knight. It's not exactly fun to never win because you don't pick one broken character. It's not a "little struggle" either. It's "play him or you have such a small chance to win, it's ridiculous". Nobody actually goes even with him either. That's based upon MK being nerfed. And he has to be, because otherwise he just wouldn't be fair to fight against. And even with nerfs... he still isn't.

It's really no different from any other game that induces bans. The difference here is that we didn't ban him for being overused, or winning too much. We banned him for multiple reasons. Did you read the Opening Post? If you did, you'd know that. Perhaps you should've read the whole thread too. Likewise, all your points were beyond easy to refute. I could say more, but TokyoGamer7 pointed it out even better to you without refuting anything.

Let me put it another way: Your entire post is pretty much "Pick MK or you will not have even close to a decent chance to win." I don't know about you, but then there should be no reason for the other characters to exist because of him. That's a thing we want to prevent, so we can, you know, have tourneys with more than one character winning.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

There is always going to be human error

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

There is always going to be human error and even if there wasn't http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b060jTeUfc

Match-ups are based upon the best possible without human error. Likewise, that's not our metagame, so your video is completely irrelevant once again. This does not affect Japan, and our Tier list is not based upon it. Try making relevant points next time.

Likewise, there SHOULD be seperate Tier Lists for seperate metagames. It sucks that that hasn't happened, but only the Brawl Back Room can work on that.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Match-ups are based upon the best possible without human error. Likewise, that's not our metagame, so your video is completely irrelevant once again. This does not affect Japan, and our Tier list is not based upon it. Try making relevant points next time.

Likewise, there SHOULD be seperate Tier Lists for seperate metagames. It sucks that that hasn't happened, but only the Brawl Back Room can work on that.

That's dumb. I'm pretty sure nobody takes the SNL infinite into account when discussing the Diddy match up since no one has consistently pulled it off in tournament. Also, if so much of a match up is based off of theory, then match ups should never really change unless the frame data is wrong.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

That's dumb. I'm pretty sure nobody takes the SNL infinite into account when discussing the Diddy match up since no one has consistently pulled it off in tournament. Also, if so much of a match up is based off of theory, then match ups should never really change unless the frame data is wrong.

No, it really isn't. If everybody's at the top of their game, we'll get exact results. Of course it doesn't always happen, but that's why we have tons of matches to determine the best results.

And perfect play means it actually can be done perfectly. If nobody can, you know, do it perfectly, then it's impossible for perfect play. That's why it's not taken into account. Because it can't be done. Everything that's "perfect play" is actually doable by a human. If they can't do it, then of course we don't take it into account. Everybody has the potential to do something when playing their best. If nobody can do it, it just doesn't count.

 

[Cassio]

goddang, cant yall let someone leave their opinion here in peace? You dont have to criticize and deconstruct every single post.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

goddang, cant yall let someone leave their opinion here in peace? You dont have to criticize and deconstruct every single post.

Not when their opinion is clearly misinformed and we know it's not true. It's a point they're making. If we don't inform them why it makes no sense, they won't understand why their point has a problem.

You post anything anywhere at your own caution. If you think it's a good idea to point out something and not expect people to refute it if possible, then you shouldn't be posting in the first place. Likewise, there's no reason not to make sure people understand why what their opinions are happen to not be correctly informed.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

No, it really isn't. If everybody's at the top of their game, we'll get exact results. Of course it doesn't always happen, but that's why we have tons of matches to determine the best results.

And perfect play means it actually can be done perfectly. If nobody can, you know, do it perfectly, then it's impossible for perfect play. That's why it's not taken into account. Because it can't be done. Everything that's "perfect play" is actually doable by a human. If they can't do it, then of course we don't take it into account. Everybody has the potential to do something when playing their best. If nobody can do it, it just doesn't count.

Every person has different reaction time so there is no way to determine when something becomes humanly impossible

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Every person has different reaction time so there is no way to determine when something becomes humanly impossible

That's why there are tons of matches to see what the best possible moves are. Any move has potential.

The idea of "perfect play" is that people are playing as the top of their games. Whether the term is the most accurate or not, the definition stays the same. Match-Ups are based upon that. We don't base it upon low-level play, but the highest top level play. You're nitpicking at two words, and not the definition itself.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

That's why there are tons of matches to see what the best possible moves are. Any move has potential.

The idea of "perfect play" is that people are playing as the top of their games. Whether the term is the most accurate or not, the definition stays the same. Match-Ups are based upon that. We don't base it upon low-level play, but the highest top level play. You're nitpicking at two words, and not the definition itself.

But you've said we don't base it on top level play because of human error

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

But you've said we don't base it on top level play because of human error

That's not what I said at all. Human Error isn't directly accounted for.

You're reading between the lines, but not what's actually there. Human Error isn't always accounted for, but top level play is. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Conviction]

Perfect play you say?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

That's not what I said at all. Human Error isn't directly accounted for.

You're reading between the lines, but not what's actually there. Human Error isn't always accounted for, but top level play is. Don't put words in my mouth.

Which is only Meta Knight. No other character has a plausible chance against him. People think it does, but no other character actually comes close to him. The only reason he loses is due strictly to human error, not because he's a fair character in any possible way.

What about this? What you say makes no sense. MK is beatable since there is no such thing as perfect play

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

What about this? What you say makes no sense. MK is beatable

No, he's only beatable due to nerfs. The problem is, at the best play, he's going to just win. Unless you get a cramp or something. He's the most powerful character beyond a doubt, and the only way to stop that is to either ban him or change our entire ruleset so he's not a problem.

No matter what, the problem becomes MK.

He is not beatable by any reasonable margin. If he was, he'd be still in the A Tier and only take tourneys as often as the other A Tiers. This doesn't happen, however.

No matter how you slice it, MK is the problem. He is not actually beatable when nobody makes any mistake. Do you get that?

You're once again manipulating what I said to benefit you. Stop doing that already.

 

[V]

HyperFalcon you're trying hard. Diddy Kong, Snake, Falco, Olimar, and ICs can beat MK (Marth can too but its very difficult). Have you ever considered that the people who chose to play MK realized they're skilled enough to be very good and chose a character that wouldn't limit them? You claim I'm saying everybody should play MK. Tournament results would be the same in a MK ditto tournament. Look at the players playing him and actually winning with him. 95% of MK players don't even affect the results he produces. Its players like M2K, Ally, Anti, and Tyrant that contribute the most to those figures. Ally won before ever picking up MK. Anti beat Mike in losers finals of a regional with Diddy even though he loses to him with MK. M2K would be a top player even without MK. And Tyrant is amazing with every character he touches. These guys win because they are flat out good, not because of MK. As far as people needing to get better is concerned, how many players are even smart enough to figure out specifically why they lose to him? Do they understand his best options in various situations and make good reads? I think most of the people that lose to MK just because its MK don't know the character well and don't read him well. Tournament results have too many variables to be concrete evidence that MK should be banned. What happens if the same people win without him? There was a MK banned tournament in SoCal a few months ago and the PR players that main him placed just as well without him. Tyrant won maining G&W. I started playing yugioh a few months ago and I realized quickly that I could be very good and if I wanted to win I needed to play the best available to me as not to limit myself. Yugioh has many more variables that involved in it than smash does. Luck is actually a decent sized factor because you draw your cards at random. There's deck design, meaning what cards you play and how much of each card you play to make it as consistent as possible to reduce bad hands. With these factors involved the same player won the last two national tournaments in a row with over a thousand entrants. After the first one he gave out his decklist and MANY people copied it and played it at the second national yet he still won playing against identical decks several times. Without a doubt this is because he is a far better player than his competition. He is only the second person to ever accomplish such a feat. Is it possible that people who win in competitive gaming, whether it be fighting, fps, or a card game, win simply because they are better at it and not because what they use?

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

HyperFalcon you're trying hard. Diddy Kong, Snake, Falco, Olimar, and ICs can beat MK (Marth can too but its very difficult).

If the MK player isn't that good. I can beat boss characters too with better characters. MK's on par with only boss characters with what he has. And yet he was allowed for play. Many Bosses are playable within the game normally, but they're still banned.

Have you ever considered that the people who chose to play MK realized they're skilled enough to be very good and chose a character that wouldn't limit them? You claim I'm saying everybody should play MK.

That's because that's exactly what you said. Nobody actually beats him realistically. If that were ACTUALLY true, he'd be still in the A Tier. People go even with him at best. Nobody actually beats him overall. Do you get the difference here?

Tournament results would be the same in a MK ditto tournament. Look at the players playing him and actually winning with him. 95% of MK players don't even affect the results he produces. Its players like M2K, Ally, Anti, and Tyrant that contribute the most to those figures. Ally won before ever picking up MK. Anti beat Mike in losers finals of a regional with Diddy even though he loses to him with MK. M2K would be a top player even without MK.

I'd believe that about M2K if he actually proved he could win without MK. Which he obviously refuses to do. So that point doesn't really count here. It doesn't matter which players contribute most to the figures. The fact of the matter is, he's the one winning the most by almost 50% of all tournaments. No other character comes even semi-close to him. He already went well beyond the line of tolerable by that alone. We barely tolerate him being playable as is. He's already been as good as a Boss. He also takes them down very easily too.

And Tyrant is amazing with every character he touches. These guys win because they are flat out good, not because of MK. As far as people needing to get better is concerned, how many players are even smart enough to figure out specifically why they lose to him? Do they understand his best options in various situations and make good reads?

Then they don't need MK to win at all. If this is actually true, they'll do fine without a broken character.

I think most of the people that lose to MK just because its MK don't know the character well and don't read him well. Tournament results have too many variables to be concrete evidence that MK should be banned.

Do you know how foolish this sounds? We know him more than well enough. We fight against him almost all the time. We've learned the match-up. And guess what? They learn ours again. MK keeps winning because he is the best beyond a doubt, and that should've changed already. You wonder why it hasn't? You wonder why he's never gone anywhere but up? Because he's too powerful.

What happens if the same people win without him? There was a MK banned tournament in SoCal a few months ago and the PR players that main him placed just as well without him. Tyrant won maining G&W. I started playing yugioh a few months ago and I realized quickly that I could be very good and if I wanted to win I needed to play the best available to me as not to limit myself.

And what would happen if they don't? You're using a baseless theory to prove he's not broken. And when the community would rather him gone(which you admitted voting for in the first place), that means that the community should be listened to as well. They want a better game, and him gone does that.

Yugioh has many more variables that involved in it than smash does. Luck is actually a decent sized factor because you draw your cards at random. There's deck design, meaning what cards you play and how much of each card you play to make it as consistent as possible to reduce bad hands. With these factors involved the same player won the last two national tournaments in a row with over a thousand entrants.

The community does not decide the ban list. The ban list is not just made for purely broken cards. It's also made to change the metagame. This point really isn't all that relevant.

After the first one he gave out his decklist and MANY people copied it and played it at the second national yet he still won playing against identical decks several times.

You do realize that netdeckers are abhored too, right? Once again, there is no point here. God forbid that people copy the ultimate winning combo. The difference is as you said it, pure luck. Even the best deck can lose because of luck. MK has too many options, and is strictly one character, so the luck factor is very small, especially with no items and a specific stage list. Every deck has weaknesses, and if they don't, their cards are banned. Guess what just happened to Meta Knight?

Without a doubt this is because he is a far better player than his competition. He is only the second person to ever accomplish such a feat. Is it possible that people who win in competitive gaming, whether it be fighting, fps, or a card game, win simply because they are better at it and not because what they use?

God forbid it has nothing to do with the broken cards, right? The problem is, you go on that the only reason any character is good is truly because of skill. Well, that's not true whatsoever. Some cards/characters are actually way too powerful regardless of skill. MK just happens to fit that, like every other Boss character. Best frame data(like bosses), best recovery, no weaknesses, but only strengths. He's pretty much what bosses are. All he's missing is the uncanny ability to read button presses.

 

[V]

Honestly you're just trying to nitpick at people's points trying to make theirs look inferior to yours. The "evidence" you're using to say MK is too good is flawed because of human differences.

Do you even play yugioh? You should learn about the game before making points on it. There is a counter to EVERYTHING in that game. There is no completely broken deck that can't be beaten (at least right now) and if there is something too good Konami bans it. Good cards don't make a player good. And the best deck in yugioh also takes the most skill to use. There is nothing autopilot about it. If somebody wins with it it's because they made good judgment calls and used there resources wisely. You should learn a little about the game before making points on it.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Honestly you're just trying to nitpick at people's points trying to make theirs look inferior to yours. The "evidence" you're using to say MK is too good is flawed because of human differences.

So instead of refuting my point, you say something that has no relevance. Try again with an actual point.

Do you even play yugioh? You should learn about the game before making points on it. There is a counter to EVERYTHING in that game. There is no completely broken deck that can't be beaten (at least right now) and if there is something too good Konami bans it. Good cards don't make a player good. And the best deck in yugioh also takes the most skill to use. There is nothing autopilot about it. If somebody wins with it it's because they made good judgment calls and used there resources wisely. You should learn a little about the game before making points on it.

Makyura FTK. If they go first, they win. Not counterable. No Debunk. If you don't have Herald of Orange Light, you lose too.(and that means one deck MIGHT beat the FTK. Key term being might.) Effect Veiler does nothing. Likewise, 1 counter to a broken card just shows that it's still broken. Counters don't make a card broken. Every card that ever hit the list were broken at one time or another Most of them still are.

And if you actually think that every winning deck actually took skill, you don't even know what autopilot is. Cyber-Stein FTK. There is no thought in summoning a 9000 attack beast and winning in one shot. It's not had to play at all. The only skill is really in deck building, and choosing exactly what card to use at what time. Six Sams were autopilot, and they got hit. In fact, every autopilot has atleast one hit if they're actually good. Dark World still is meh, so it won't even get any hits.

Let me put it this way: You've got a chance of beating the Makyura FTK, which has 95% consistency, and a maybe a slight chance of beating MK... if the person screws up. If they don't, you lose.

But let's drop YuGiOh, since it really isn't comparable to it anymore. The only thing that's notable is that broken crap is banned. Why? They were winning almost all the time, is almost unstoppable. MK fits both of this criteria.

 

[V]

This site is entirely comprised of people just arguing back and forth trying to sound smarter than everybody else without ever proving anything.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

This site is entirely comprised of people just arguing back and forth trying to sound smarter than everybody else without ever proving anything.

So once again you dodge all my points to make an irrelevant statement. I'm still waiting for you to prove any of my points wrong.

Likewise, human error? Sorry, but by that logic, we should unban every stage and allow items in pure competitive play. See the problem with that statement?

The reason we have to have enough top level matches is to see what'll happen as if human error didn't exist. And so far, MK proves he's already beyond the next best character, who's still got weaknesses anyway, so he's(the next best) not an actual problem. Snake isn't even the top of A Tier, despite making more money than anyone not named MK. See the thing? Snake is a very good character, but it's hard for him to be broken when atleast three characters match what he can do at his best.

It takes atleast 8 characters to make more money than MK. That says quite a lot about how good he is, and once again, this is based upon an even split. We know MK wins more than what that data shows, which means that he is most likely barely beaten in money by 8 characters. You should read his charts sometime.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Which is only Meta Knight. No other character has a plausible chance against him. People think it does, but no other character actually comes close to him.

And this is why an MK has never won APEX. This is why Gnes won MLG Dallas. This is why top MKs lose to top non-MKs occasionally. Because MK is the only character who has a chance against MK. You're not really that stupid, are you?

The only reason he loses is due strictly to human error, not because he's a fair character in any possible way.

You are that stupid! Look, nobody is claiming that MK is not the best in the game. There is maybe a small handful of players who know what they're talking about who claim that. One of them is Mew2King, and he's saying that from the perspective of the Japanese stagelist and a 10-minute timer. But to claim that he's so broken that no other character has a chance against him flies in the face of reality. Human error? Without human error, MK wouldn't be the problem, ICs would be – SDI->grab all day, every day. But here's the thing: if you ignore human error, any number of things in any number of games might be broken This is why we don't do it–it's a stupid idea. Human error is a reality.

But here's the thing: even if MK is the best in the game... So what? There is always a character that is the best. And the fact that top MKs lose should be evidence enough that the idea that he completely ***** everyone else in the game is ****ing stupid. You need to stop pushing it.