Official BBR Tier List v7

[Espy Rose]

Why don't people just play MK-banned, SV-only tournaments?
It's apparently what everyone wants, and TOs allowing more stuff looks even hypocrite.

A majority voted for the bat to be canned. It's not what everyone wants, just the minority.

 

[ぱみゅ]

A majority voted for the bat to be canned. It's not what everyone wants, just the minority.

When people make an argument (solid or not) for stages to be legal, they are crazy, talking nonsense, and the majority would not want it, so the stages remain banned no matter what.
When people make an argument (solid or not) for Meta Knight to be legal, they are crazy, talking nonsense, and the majority would not want it, but they unban him so the small group of people complaining stops doing so.

TOs.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

That's not really fair, the Meta Knight minority is more important than the stage minority.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

That's not really fair, the Meta Knight minority is more important than the stage minority.

Despite the poor choice of wording here, this is actually correct, in a way.

People main Metaknight. They choose to use him every match.

Nobody mains Pictochat, or Brinstar. It would be ridiculous to play every match on those stages, thus nobody does it.

Removing metaknight ruins the game, for certain players. Removing stages ruins, like, a match or two.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Wait, did I not say that? o_O

 

[#HBC | Joker]

The way you said it kind of came off as sarcastic.

 

[Jimmy?]

What about removing items? Those changed every match on every stage--removing them ruins the game for some people.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

What about removing items? Those changed every match on every stage--removing them ruins the game for some people.

^Beam sword main here

 

[ぱみゅ]

Allowing metaknight ruins the game, for certain players. Allowing stages ruins, like, a match or two.

Kinda fix'd. (remember my original point was about hypocrisy).

Also, people don't "main" stages, but most of them are banned for lack of knowledge from TO's/players part.
When people lose to Ganon because they don't know how to play against him, they don't ban Ganon, they learn how to play on against Ganon.

Meh, I'm just achieving myself to be considered an idiot.
Maybe I am just an idiot who was accepted into the BBR, not because of my application, but for being mexican and because somehow the SWF High Ranks got the idea I'd serve as a link for the mexican community; I have news, they hate me too. And pretty much all of Latin America.
So I'm pretty sure I'm just occupying a spot someone else deserved even more, I'm just a silly stage debater.

 

[Jimmy?]

^Beam sword main here

Oh, so since no one mains items, they're okay to ban? Even though the basis behind the argument that people main MK is that people use him in all of their games.

Alright, I can make bad arguments, too.

No one mains M2K. Let's just get him out of tournaments. Ban M2K train starts here, choo choo mother****ers.

Like, seriously, it's so completely arbitrary to use "maining characters" as a basis for keeping one if you're not going to have that mean "using that character every match." If the argument isn't "People use this every match, unlike stages," but a synonym of that that you're trying to say is different just based on terminology, then you're a big ol' dummy head.

also, for the record--I don't care whether or not MK is legal. Saying 'People use him' is just ****ing ********.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

Now you're just being silly.

Removing a stage, or items, affects everyone equally.

Removing Metaknight only affects metaknight mains, and it's unfair to them.

 

[DMG]

Who the **** said you can't main stages?

Brinstar 4 lyfe

 

[Jimmy?]

Now you're just being wrong.

If we remove Final Destination, that would make MK stronger and ICs weaker.

That's not an equal effect. It's unfair to characters that like Final Destination.

I mean, if you wanna argue semantics, it's unfair to everyone in the sense that some get unfairly strong and some unfairly lose counterplay, but that's not what you meant, so whatever.

And that's what removing stages does: it removes counterplay. Which does effect characters in disparate ways, which is why people always (and correctly) make the argument that character viability in tournaments is dependent on that tournament's stage list.

Even if they don't play on every stage, the option of stages existing changes tournament results, it changes character viability. And whether or not a character is banned or not, if they're completely unviable? That ruins the game for people who main that character.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Removing Metaknight only affects metaknight mains, and it's unfair to them.

On the other side, allowing MK affects everyone equally.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

On the other side, allowing MK affects everyone equally.

No it doesn't.

 

[Jimmy?]

Also, just in general, attempting to quantify how effected specific groups of people get is really futile and insubstantial.

Maybe there's a group of people out there who really like Pictochat. And I mean really like Pictochat. They just have a club admiring it and only play the game on that stage and don't even bother maining characters because they have so much fun playing on Pictochat that the rest of the game doesn't matter and the characters they're playing are just there for flavor.

That wouldn't be an argument to reinstate Pictochat as a competitive stage....

Just because they really like Metaknight isn't a reason to say "Most of our completely self-serving community that exists only to serve the players dislikes Metaknight--but all those Metaknight players are so nice, we can't be mean to them."

That argument just really bothers me. D:

 

[#HBC | Joker]

This is why TOs just do what they want to do. If your region wants MK banned, then fuggin do it. If you want certain stages gone, or added, then do it. That's the beauty of it. I don't know why we're even discussing it. People want what they want. Nobody is ever gonna agree.

 

[Jimmy?]

The beauty of me not actually arguing a claim on the game and just *****ing about poor argumentation means that, at the end of the day when people get frustrated and quit saying things, I can be smug about it.

I live for this.

 

[Naridax]

Why don't people just play MK-banned, SV-only tournaments?
It's apparently what everyone wants, and TOs allowing more stuff looks even hypocrite.

I would go to those tournaments.

also, for the record--I don't care whether or not MK is legal. Saying 'People use him' is just ****ing ********.

That argument was not well-formulated, but consider this argument:

People main Meta Knight, which implies that these people may have put in a considerable amount of time and effort into improving their Meta Knight. Banning Meta Knight, then, would - quite reasonably - cause some of these people to become frustrated and complain. More importantly, these people might ignore the ban or quit completely. If we assume that dividing the community and decreasing the size of the community are bad, then banning Meta Knight would be bad.

Does Meta Knight divide the community and cause players to quit because he is legal? It is quite evident that he does.

It seems like the side that wins is the side that cries more when they do not get what they want.

The beauty of me not actually arguing a claim on the game and just *****ing about poor argumentation means that, at the end of the day when people get frustrated and quit saying things, I can be smug about it.

I live for this.

That is a pretty sad existence.

On the other side, allowing MK affects everyone equally.

What? No. Meta Knight does not affect the entire cast equally.

 

[Jimmy?]

That's also poor reasoning because having Metaknight legal does the same thing in the opposite direction. People put time and effort into characters that are completely invalidated by Metaknight, 'cause people to qq.

I don't really understand why you asked me to consider that line of reasoning when your argument was "People will qq until the rest just give in." I'm not saying that's wrong (in fact, I think that's right), but I don't think it really goes in opposition to what I was saying before, since I was just saying "That argument is wrong because people can qq in the other direction to the same extent."

Also, my existence is totally boss, don't judge. D:

 

[Naridax]

I said that. "Does Meta Knight divide the community and cause players to quit. It is quite evident that he does."

But what if we argue that Meta Knight illegal does more harm than when Meta Knight is legal?

I do not feel like anyone could come up with a convincing argument for that though, so I did not bother.

Characters that are "completely invalidated" by Meta Knight are most likely characters that do not perform well against any of the other top tier characters anyway. The people that put time and effort into those characters would QQ because of characters same way they do because of Meta Knight.

 

[Jimmy?]

I edited in a response since I figured I wasn't responding in full/correctly. D:

My point in pointing out why the earlier argument (not yours) was bad was that people can qq all they want and, at the end of the day, it's just qq-ing.

I wasn't disagreeing with your conclusion, but I still said I was because A) I made a boo boo and B) I did disagree with where I assumed your argument was going based on your first sentence.

 

[Naridax]

Oh, no, I agree that the earlier argument was bad. And even my argument isn't very good. But it's 2:41AM. And I didn't want to deal with the last 10 pages of this paper I have to write. I just made that post spontaneously out of boredom.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

Guess what? The MK ban is a polarizing issue, and different people like different sized stage lists. This is not news.

 

[Z'zgashi]

Who even are you people

 

[da K.I.D.]

No one mains M2K. Let's just get him out of tournaments. Ban M2K train starts here, choo choo mother****ers.

This would be the best possible thing to happen if the smash community wants to grow. And I am 100% not joking or sarcastic about this in any way, shape or form.

Now you're just being silly.

Removing a stage, or items, affects everyone equally.

Removing Metaknight only affects metaknight mains, and it's unfair to them.

Removing MK affects me more than them, because Im the one that gets to not place in the money because of him. Ive had physical money taken away by him in situations where I would have had money if he werent around. imo, that means it affects me more than them.

Who the **** said you can't main stages?

Brinstar 4 lyfe

Pictochat, all dai errdai

Now you're just being wrong.

If we remove Final Destination, that would make MK stronger and ICs weaker.

That's not an equal effect. It's unfair to characters that like Final Destination.

I mean, if you wanna argue semantics, it's unfair to everyone in the sense that some get unfairly strong and some unfairly lose counterplay, but that's not what you meant, so whatever.

And that's what removing stages does: it removes counterplay. Which does effect characters in disparate ways, which is why people always (and correctly) make the argument that character viability in tournaments is dependent on that tournament's stage list.

Even if they don't play on every stage, the option of stages existing changes tournament results, it changes character viability. And whether or not a character is banned or not, if they're completely unviable? That ruins the game for people who main that character.

Jimmy is killin this right now.

Also, just in general, attempting to quantify how effected specific groups of people get is really futile and insubstantial.

Maybe there's a group of people out there who really like Pictochat. And I mean really like Pictochat. They just have a club admiring it and only play the game on that stage and don't even bother maining characters because they have so much fun playing on Pictochat that the rest of the game doesn't matter and the characters they're playing are just there for flavor.

That wouldn't be an argument to reinstate Pictochat as a competitive stage....

Just because they really like Metaknight isn't a reason to say "Most of our completely self-serving community that exists only to serve the players dislikes Metaknight--but all those Metaknight players are so nice, we can't be mean to them."

That argument just really bothers me. D:

the first half of this post is pretty much me. I do love pictochat that much.
the second half is how I see TOs react to m2k in a nutshell. everytime.

The beauty of me not actually arguing a claim on the game and just *****ing about poor argumentation means that, at the end of the day when people get frustrated and quit saying things, I can be smug about it.

I live for this.

Its the best.

But what if we argue that Meta Knight illegal does more harm than when Meta Knight is legal?

I do not feel like anyone could come up with a convincing argument for that though, so I did not bother.

MAYBE IF EVERYONE GAVE THE BAN A REAL LEGIT SHOT FOR 3 MONTHS OR SO LIKE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO, WE WOULD HAVE SOME CONCRETE DATA ON THAT.

 

[Naridax]

At least, we can argue pointlessly about those issues intellectually. Unfortunately, that is news.

 

[Shaya]

Who the **** said you can't main stages?

Brinstar 4 lyfe

Brinstar 4 ****ing life.
Also Pokemon Stadium 2.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

I think if a majority of people actually wanted MK banned, he'd be banned. Having MK legal improves tourney attendance in a lot of regions though. In some regions, it's the opposite, so he's banned there.

Not really sure why there are so many people who think the ruleset should be universal nationwide.

 

[Naridax]

Removing MK affects me more than them, because Im the one that gets to not place in the money because of him. Ive had physical money taken away by him in situations where I would have had money if he werent around. imo, that means it affects me more than them.

What? But if Meta Knight were illegal, then the former Meta Knight players may not get to place in the money. Then, they would have physical money taken away from them
(because Meta Knight was illegal) in situations where they would have had money if Meta Knight was legal.

MAYBE IF EVERYONE GAVE THE BAN A REAL LEGIT SHOT FOR 3 MONTHS OR SO LIKE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO, WE WOULD HAVE SOME CONCRETE DATA ON THAT.

Three months would not be enough. I don't think a year would even be enough.

I think if a majority of people actually wanted MK banned, he'd be banned. Having MK legal improves tourney attendance in a lot of regions though. In some regions, it's the opposite, so he's banned there.

Not really sure why there are so many people who think the ruleset should be universal nationwide.

Because people think unity in the community is good. And they think that a universal rule set would promote unity in the community.

They might also think that a universal rule set would be convenient, because players would not have to prepare for different rule sets for different tournaments.

 

[Shaya]

Because people think unity in the community is good. And they think that a universal rule set would promote unity in the community.

They might also think that a universal rule set would be convenient, because players would not have to prepare for different rule sets for different tournaments.

That isn't going to happen.

 

[Tesh]

I feel like the MK ban is pretty worn out. Lets just face it. The pro-bans that haven't already quit, are willing to stick around even though he is legal. Many of the anti-bans around will stop attending MK-banned, and banning MK won't bring back people who have moved on. Many have already been lost due to MK's legality, and many more would be lost in banning him now.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Three months would not be enough. I don't think a year would even be enough.

What exactly people look for when comparing MK-legal and MK-banned data?
Money earned? That's a silly american mentallity where money means everything.... When in this case it would actually prove nothing.
As I see it there is no way to compare, both are different metagames, and none can objectively be proven as beter.

Spoiler

Probably a poll of "which one you liked the most?" could make a difference?

Because people think unity in the community is good. And they think that a universal rule set would promote unity in the community.

They might also think that a universal rule set would be convenient, because players would not have to prepare for different rule sets for different tournaments.

Why can't every region have different rulesets, be happy on their own, and challenge players visiting said regions.... just like in 2009?

 

[[FBC] Papa Mink]

I like Norfair as well Zz

 

[Jimmy?]

Who even are you people

Hi I'm Jimmy.

 

[Luco]

I'm more of surprised a Zero suit main doesn't think Snake is a nightmare of a character.
Zero Suit Samus...

I don't see Snake as a nightmare character and i'm in a region dominated by snakes.

Actually it's also dominated by Marths, so the many snakes and falcos all mesh in to this kind of 'well this feels so nice after versing that crazy with a sword.'

Oh... Sorry Shaya. Umm, you understand what i mean though, right? I mean remember that match where you commentated with "Well I think he's getting better... it's hard to tell because i'm a marth main."?

 

[[FBC] Papa Mink]

Snake is fun to play against as zss.

 

[Sinister Slush]

I never said it wasn't fun. Just the fact while you're having a relatively hard time trying to kill him, he's giving you abortions with his leg around 90%

 

[Luco]

I never said it wasn't fun. Just the fact while you're having a relatively hard time trying to kill him, he's giving you abortions with his leg around 90%

That's almost siggable.

Aside from that I find you just have to be wary of items and play rather carefully. Still, I know it's a pretty bad MU, that's why I never really minded it being -3 for my main rather than a -2 which is what i've always thought when playing it.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I don't think I've lost in that match-up for a year

Haha Australia