Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It would be more preoccupying if it was something like:
Yes, we can deal with it. But my point is not that it's awful. I'm saying that it is NOT helpful to the competitive spirit of this game to have a character whose worst matchup is himself. How is a game competitive if at every turn, players are forced to deal at a disadvantage just because they did NOT choose one character? Yes, everyone COULD switch to metaknight. But lets face it, people who haven't already switched didn't make the change because they don't want to. Yes, you could blame that on them and continue on, but you could also ban said character, and then the OTHER 35 (yes I know that's an exagguration, but many more) characters are suddenly much more viable. Viability of 1 char vs viability of many.
When Italy actually decides to have a Brawl tournament, let us know.
Disregard this thread's title. This is now a "Should MK be banned or not" thread.
) but yeah MK getting banned is silly its not like we banned fox/marth in melee because he was hard to beat/made char. unplayable >.> so i say BOO to italy though i am intrested in how this devlops.
he told me personally in a thread i made that he really doesnt care whether he gets banned or not, because he truly believes that if MK does get banned, he will continue to win just as much as he does now with either D3 or snake because he is just better than everyone else out there
o mi effing god, stop saying this!!
I'll prove you wrong about responses (Whether my answer is correct is an entirely different matter), because my reply is different: "It doesn't matter how many habits you learn about MK since he has no exploitable weak points that anyone in the cast can capitalize on if MK is played properly."
) says it's not certain that he would win. It's exactly like street fighter, Gill is banned because he's extremely overpowered and does to much stun, combos with him would kill you immediately. There are no combos in brawl, different from every fighting game you named XIF, therefore, even though MK is extremely powerful, none of his attacks are certain and insta kill like Akuma in turbo, ivy in SCIV, Gill in SF3, etc.
Wow please have logic babies with me.
Taking longer to get to the same place is still reaching the same place.This arguement is repeating itself and i feel it's kind of pointless. Mk is obviously superior, but as Tuna (
This is what I was trying to say, but much more eloquently put. Thank you, sir. Although I do not think that it will end up being mindless MK dittos in tournaments because lots of people just don't want to play MK no matter how good he is.
Apart from the fact I believe MK has weaknesses other characters (at least high tier ones) could exploit, there still are the players' flaws. The "If MK is played properly" IMO doesn't make a point, since playing him properly would involve the MK player to be good, therefore to win using skills and not the character's strenghts. So does the "if you're capable of learning all the bad habits of each MK, then you're a better player than them and so of course you'll win" part, since if MK was to be overplayed, figuring out ways to beat him would be 10 times easier.
The "If MK is played properly" is a very important point, because it's part of exactly why MK has no bad matchups. If you learn a bad habit that most MK players have and effectively punish them for it, any decently skilled MK player (ie, played properly) will notice what you're doing and simply stop falling for it. MK has a huge variety of options he can use -- if he didn't, certain characters would be able to break through his attempts at approaching and could gain an advantaged matchup against him that way -- and so will simply be able to adjust to any counters you may learn. And he already is overplayed, yet nobody has managed to figure out a better than 5:5 strategy against him with any character in the game.
Part of the reason MK is so good is because he is the lowest risk character with the highest reward. Even factoring in player flaws, a mistake with snake means 10 times more than a mistake with metaknight. Of course we are factoring human limitation, but there is also the limitation of the snake player, or the falco player. Humans can only expected to do so much, so even though there are certainly ways in which to beat metaknight, it is simply not fair and not a fair representation of skill to ask players to conquer such feats.
I understood what you said, and I am saying that while you're thinking it's not the same thing in practice it ends up being so.
shhhhhhhh......
if you play smart you can actually counter a MK but all of you are too busy trying to get him banned. and yes snake is slow but his slow moves suck. he has lots of fast moves. his fast moves are broken. so...yea...
And if MK plays smart he'll counter you trying to counter him.
same with snake. sure he has bad moves then dont use them. his tilts are godly. + amazing b moves and mindgamez usmash...yup
