Official BBR Tier List v7

[B0NK]

Batteries not included.

Miss this and I'm now on Amazon ordering AAA batteries....

YOU TRICKED ME!!!

 

[Jabejazz]

Miss this and I'm now on Amazon ordering AAA batteries

AAA batteries

 

[Cassio]

Heard Keitaro say on stream that Frigate and Delfino are likely going away because of MK.

It isn't a red herring.

One individual doesnt represent an entire community's opinions. Im not saying MK isnt a reason, but quite honestly the proof is already there as we already saw that banning MK didn't magically make other stages more popular. In regards to Frigate and Delfino specifically, theres been plenty of frequently used rulesets without them already.

I just want to point out that if the game becomes more CP based character wise, I would think that means we have a better balance at top level. It's not our job to make this happen, but it's something to note.

It would cause balance in a luck based way. What is more interesting, a game balanced based on counter picking or a game where distinct characters fight each other on even ground? Subjective answer, but my preference is the latter.

Regarding the rest of your post, its really just difficult to get anyone to agree on how to make judgements.

I'd just like to say that even in the MK-legal environment, the metagame still leans towards being reliant on bracket luck for everyone except the MK mains. Falcos have to worry about their ICs/Pikas, ICs/Olimar need to worry about meeting characters that will abuse their bad stages/the characters they have bad MUs with, and this applies to about everyone but MK. MK players are the only ones who don't really need to worry about bracket luck, unless they have specific player vs. player issues that they'd like to avoid.

I agree that bracket luck cannot be eliminated completely, but MK reduces it a significant amount by virtue of the fact that youre more likely to run into MK than another oddball MU.

Some may have said that. But it wasn't the main evidence for him being over-centralized, and Pro-Ban argument was over-centralization is a criteria to ban a character.

I understand and I know this wasnt your argument, I was only arguing against the statement i frequently saw that MK led to such a restricted stagelist. Dont even need to look further than our predecessors (melee,64) to see that isnt the case...If someones intention is to increase stage diversity their primary goal is to convince a community who's reflex reaction is to ban things that such stages are alright in the first place.

As to the rest of your post, I know its frustrating to pull evidence to support your opinions only to be rejected, but thats the fickle nature of subjective arguments. Fact is some people dont care about money or how much hes used when they decide whether or not they want him. Thats just the way the dice rolls.
Generally those who wish MK to be around:

1)Are ok with fighting MK and his presence in the metagame
2)Are ok with adjusting the ruleset subjectively
3)Feel the ability to compete with MK given enough dedication and effort

Its just as easy to support these opinions as it is to argue against them (as pro-ban has). People cater and formulate opinions based on top level players when crafting rulesets for the most important tournaments because hardly anyone cares about mid-level play for such important events, not even the mid-level players, since the argument 'get better' can apply in any other instance.

Also the MK ban poll on SWF was bad. No one should reference that.
http://smashboards.com/threads/urc-analysis-voluntary-response-polling-and-the-75-myth.317228/

I do sympathize with regions that want MK banned or to at least have events now and again without him, I get all that, but the argument for a blanket national ban simply is too weak, and without that the game stands where it is now.

 

[pidgezero_one]

funny i remember making a thread just like that on the competitive forum and mods closed it

thats cos ur a weiner

 

[Delta-cod]

You ****ing dingus what the **** are you doing with your life tier :
Fishes.

;_;

I agree that bracket luck cannot be eliminated completely, but MK reduces it a significant amount by virtue of the fact that youre more likely to run into MK than another oddball MU.

My problem with this is that it eliminates luck only for those playing MK, while everyone else has an increased reliance on getting the lucky bracket that isn't full of MK. You can always secondary your way around the oddball MU, but you can't secondary your way around MK (unless you play MK).

 

[Ishiey]

Cassio, by your logic it sorta sounds like we should all just be playing MK dittos then.

Which kinda maybe makes sense, but isn't the metagame I (or probably the other 2/3rds of the Smash community that doesn't play MK) want to be part of tbh.

This is why I've always wanted to hold MK-only tournaments alongside MK-banned tournaments. If only I weren't a lazy bum.

 

[da K.I.D.]

One individual doesnt represent an entire community's opinions. Im not saying MK isnt a reason, but quite honestly the proof is already there as we already saw that banning MK didn't magically make other stages more popular. In regards to Frigate and Delfino specifically, theres been plenty of frequently used rulesets without them already.

Youre telling me that theres mk banned tournaments that have delfino and frigate banned?
Im gonna need some verification on that. Because I run MK banned tournaments and delfino and frigate arent even close to bannable without mk. I even legalize brinstar and Rainbow cruise with a full list stage strike process and all of my events have played out fantastically. ive even had people strike to game one on rainbow cruise and frigate in tournament. thats how fair those stages are without mk.

It would cause balance in a luck based way. What is more interesting, a game balanced based on counter picking or a game where every match is a battle of how long you can survive against the meta knight army? Subjective answer, but my preference is the latter.

fixed that for you. and personally, I, and what I can safely say based on the numbers is MOST other people, prefer the former.

I agree that bracket luck cannot be eliminated completely, but MK reduces it a significant amount by virtue of the fact that youre more likely to run into MK than another oddball MU.

brackets for the most part are or should be randomized.
if you run into some kind of character/stage combination that your skills and knowledge cant overcome, than point blank, you didnt deserve to win that day. thats all it is and i dont understand why people have such a problem with this.

Also, this statement heavily implies a terrible line of logic. That in a game like Brawl, somehow any stage and character combination that affords any person even the slightest of advantages over the other is going to result in an automatic win for the person in the advantage every single game. This is terrible logic for Smash because the complete opposite of this statement is the reason ANYBODY is currently beating metaknights to begin with.

I do sympathize with regions that want MK banned or to at least have events now and again without him, I get all that, but the argument for a blanket national ban simply is too weak, and without that the game stands where it is now.

you say this, and in a way I agree with you that arguements to ban mk are weak. but if thats the case, the arguements to keep him legal are softer than baby food.

 

[ぱみゅ]

How can this thread still be so bad for so long?

We all can see the MK-legal metagame and how it develops.
Some people are ok with it don't mind facing a bunch of MKs.
A majority of people doesn't like it but still attends.
They complain... and they just keep complaining.

If you really have a problem, why don't you make one MK-banned tournament and see how it goes?

 

[GOofyGV]

because People are to lazy to put in afford to host+ finding an good venue can be pretty hard I guess.

 

[Delta-cod]

How can this thread still be so bad for so long?

We all can see the MK-legal metagame and how it develops.
Some people are ok with it don't mind facing a bunch of MKs.
A majority of people doesn't like it but still attends.
They complain... and they just keep complaining.

If you really have a problem, why don't you make one MK-banned tournament and see how it goes?

This thread was bad since page 1. Very little productive discussion ever occurs here. You only say it's bad right now because you disapprove of the current topic.

I also feel like you underestimate the work necessary to host an event, let alone a successful one. Perhaps many that complain simply don't have the time/resources to find a good venue, pay for it, and host an event. This is disregarding the fact that many people doing this would probably be first timer tournament hosts, who would most likely be competing against established hosts and tournament series that are MK legal. While I agree that the answer is to go host MK banned events, it's not that simple.

 

[B0NK]

If you really have a problem, why don't you make one MK-banned tournament and see how it goes?

People have in my region (NJ/NY), it goes fine and on par with MK-legal events. I'm simply stating that majority opinion is a good basis for business and that majority opinion is being ignored due to personal bias towards top MK players. Not everyone has the time or financial means to secure a venue, properly advertise and event, and run the tourney. Securing a venue in a good location is already hard enough to find, and the TOs from 08 who have secured them aren't always willing to share them. It's just an unfortunate truth that many TOs from 08 (in NJ/NY at least) are Anti-Ban or have a top MK friend.

I'm suggesting that TOs today provide their own personal poll for attendees to see for themselves what the favored ruleset is in their region. I know in NJ/NY the favored ruleset is MK-Banned and Apex Ruleset for Long Island, NY tournaments. These tournaments stop purely on the basis of TOs personal bias, and the lack of choices forces those who want to play, whether they favor MK-Banned or not, to only play in MK-Legal tourneys.

I feel people who give this suggestions don't know how much time, money, and effort it takes to secure a good venue and hold a successful tourney. I'm suggesting that the current TOs can discuss with their own regions what would be the more popular ruleset. Top player opinion drives the ruleset TOs use, top players are the minority in this community, the majority is often ignored from region to region.

I'll address your post later, Truth. I'm busy studying for an exam now and your post requires a more well thought out response past my initial thoughts.

 

[Cassio]

No problem Bonk

My problem with this is that it eliminates luck only for those playing MK, while everyone else has an increased reliance on getting the lucky bracket that isn't full of MK. You can always secondary your way around the oddball MU, but you can't secondary your way around MK (unless you play MK).

Actually I dont agree, anyone that can compete with MK would likely be happy to have an MK vs a character that CP's theirs.

Cassio, by your logic it sorta sounds like we should all just be playing MK dittos then.

I'm not sure if my reply to delta-cod answered this. All characters that can compete with MK wouldnt need to ditto MK. The most unfair thing about MK is that hes the only fair character and doesnt have to suffer counterpicks.

Youre telling me that theres mk banned tournaments that have delfino and frigate banned?
Im gonna need some verification on that. Because I run MK banned tournaments and delfino and frigate arent even close to bannable without mk. I even legalize brinstar and Rainbow cruise with a full list stage strike process and all of my events have played out fantastically. ive even had people strike to game one on rainbow cruise and frigate in tournament. thats how fair those stages are without mk.

I would say its not a stretch top assume many regions simply enjoy playing on a limited stagelist. Ill admit Halberd and Delfino are the shakiest in this regard, but other stages like Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise were simply widely unpopular and require a shift in community opinion.

fixed that for you. and personally, I, and what I can safely say based on the numbers is MOST other people, prefer the former.

Well I wasnt trying to reference brawl specifically. Think of this in more general terms. Which type of game do you prefer:

one with multiple distinct characters that all fight evenly with each other (maybe something like starcraft)?
or one with multiple distinct characters with half their MU's being at a strong advantage and another half being strong CPs?

Both could be considered balanced, both could be entertaining, but as far as what id rather compete in I prefer the first option.

brackets for the most part are or should be randomized.
if you run into some kind of character/stage combination that your skills and knowledge cant overcome, than point blank, you didnt deserve to win that day. thats all it is and i dont understand why people have such a problem with this.

Also, this statement heavily implies a terrible line of logic. That in a game like Brawl, somehow any stage and character combination that affords any person even the slightest of advantages over the other is going to result in an automatic win for the person in the advantage every single game. This is terrible logic for Smash because the complete opposite of this statement is the reason ANYBODY is currently beating metaknights to begin with.

I dont disagree, I can see the entertainment value its just preference really.

you say this, and in a way I agree with you that arguements to ban mk are weak. but if thats the case, the arguements to keep him legal are softer than baby food.

I agree, but at the same time Pro-ban needed a stronger argument since they were hoping for a national ban while anti-ban was not.

 

[Delta-cod]

Actually I dont agree, anyone that can compete with MK would likely be happy to have an MK vs a character that CP's theirs.

I'm not sure if my reply to delta-cod answered this. All characters that can compete with MK wouldnt need to ditto MK. The most unfair thing about MK is that hes the only fair character and doesnt have to suffer counterpicks.

I can't necessarily argue against the first part, except by maybe throwing out the fact that it also means that these character don't get to play any of their advantages. But I see your point, and definitely agree with "the most unfair thing about MK" statement.

I feel like both types of brackets have different kinds of luck, and that the amount of luck needed for MK legal/banned changes based on your character. I guess I just personally prefer the ones without MK because Yoshi.

 

[da K.I.D.]

No problem Bonk

Actually I dont agree, anyone that can compete with MK would likely be happy to have an MK vs a character that CP's theirs.

I'm not sure if my reply to delta-cod answered this. All characters that can compete with MK wouldnt need to ditto MK. The most unfair thing about MK is that hes the only fair character and doesnt have to suffer counterpicks.

I would say its not a stretch top assume many regions simply enjoy playing on a limited stagelist. Ill admit Halberd and Delfino are the shakiest in this regard, but other stages like Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise were simply widely unpopular and require a shift in community opinion.

I dont disagree, I can see the entertainment value its just preference really.

I agree, but at the same time Pro-ban needed a stronger argument since they were hoping for a national ban while anti-ban was not.

The majority of your post implies a fundamental different in opinion you seem to have. It sounds like you believe that there are multiple characters that go even with MK on multiple stages. To the point where characters other than mk can go completely even with mk for an entire set. Personally I dont believe this, I feel like any given character is going to most likely be fighting uphill game one, MAYBE counterpick to an even or near even matchup game two and then be fighting up hill again game 3. Now, its smash, so its very possible for characters to win disadvantaged matchups but that doesnt mean any character can go even with mk for an entire set.

Well I wasnt trying to reference brawl specifically. Think of this in more general terms. Which type of game do you prefer:

one with multiple distinct characters that all fight evenly with each other (maybe something like starcraft)?
or one with multiple distinct characters with half their MU's being at a strong advantage and another half being strong CPs?

Both could be considered balanced, both could be entertaining, but as far as what id rather compete in I prefer the first option.

neither of those options really describes brawl.
theres still a ton of good and bad matchups with mk (all his being in the 'good' column) in the game and taking mk out of the game doesnt suddenly turn every matchup into ddd vs dk.

 

[Cassio]

Yeah I think -1's/+1's are very competitive.

And I was just demonstrating two extremes an individual game can have, I know most games (brawl included) will fit somewhere in the middle.

 

[infiniteV115]

Actually I dont agree, anyone that can compete with MK would likely be happy to have an MK vs a character that CP's theirs.

There are a lot of chars whose worst MU is arguably MK
Diddy, ICs, Marth, Lucario, DDD, TL, Peach, Ike, Pit, maybe also ROB Kirby and Sonic?

 

[pidgezero_one]

How can this thread still be so bad for so long?

is that an invitation?

Birky

Nah dude, most Birky mains would take Meat Knight over Ike Climbers any day of the week

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

There are a lot of chars whose worst MU is arguably MK
Diddy, ICs, Marth, Lucario, DDD, TL, Peach, Ike, Pit, maybe also ROB Kirby and Sonic?

I would rather play against an MK than a ZSS as ROB.

MK doesn't have an infinite on me

 

[GOofyGV]

But MK has Nado

 

[Dekillsage]

looooooool @ rather fighting mk as rob

Done.

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

But MK has Nado

But MK doesn't have an infinite.

 

[pidgezero_one]

This is all a moot point in the first place since SM has Jigglypuff for the MK matchup

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

This is all a moot point in the first place since SM has Jigglypuff for the MK matchup

yeah, that's true.

 

[GOofyGV]

yeah And Jigglypuff it the perfect character to fight MK.

 

[infiniteV115]

I would rather play against an MK than a ZSS as ROB.

MK doesn't have an infinite on me

MK is a flying ball of 0-death anyway

yeah And Jigglypuff it the perfect character to fight MK.

Thanks for clearing that up

 

[RaptorTEC]

Woah there's like 10 people viewing this thread. Hi

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

10 people?

Who's 10th on the tier list?

*checks first page*

ZSS

yay let's talk about ZSS some more!

 

[ぱみゅ]

I only get 5 people

@B0NK: I am/was a TO myself, I've hosted tournaments, asked for cheap venues (if not free, I've got connections ;D), asked for borrowed Wii's, Brawl Copies and other different equipment, I've made several invitations to Tournaments nobody attended. I know how difficult is hosting a Tournament, I have been on the worst side of it, losing TONS of money for lacking attendance, but I also know that if you do nothing nothing will change.

Knowing people for example can make things easier for you to host a tournament.
Do you have a friend that shares that idea of making a MK-banned event but has way more free time than you do? Tell him to go look for a venue. heck, even a close friend that knows nothing about Brawl can do if you know he can go look for it in your place.
Do you have a friend that owns a nice place to run a tournament of like, 15 people (because let's face it, you won't start with a APEX-sized tournament right away)? Ask them if you can use their room.
I really think a lot of people are just lazy.


@Dcod: I disaprove this topic right now because people have this discussion all the time and it has never, EVER get anywhere. it's been proven to be pointless over and over.
It's not like when DP came and said "I'll improve Peach's Metagame" or when people say if Zelda or Ganondorf or Jigglypuff is worst, those at least are on-topic.
This? It's getting us nowhere.

 

[Delta-cod]

Please call me Delta if you're going to shorten my name.

As I said before, NONE of the discussion in here ever goes anywhere. A lot of it is pointless repetition of topics that came up 50 pages ago, and nothing gets done. Nobody ever changes their views on whether or not Zelda/Ganon/Puff is the worst. The ZSS discussion was one of the most painful things I've read in a long time. This thread is entertaining to come to for some discussion, and I've read every post of it within the past maybe 150 pages on 40ppp, but that doesn't mean the discussion is productive. We just happen to be on a "new" rehash of an old topic.

 

[Shiny Mewtwo aka Jigglysir]

Please call me Delta if you're going to shorten my name.

Nope, you're Dcod now.

 

[infiniteV115]

How about #BasedCod

 

[ぱみゅ]

Is Δ-cod any better? (:

 

[Delta-cod]

Nope, you're Dcod now.

Dcold?

How about #BasedCod

That works.

Is Δ-cod any better? (:

Hah, nice.

 

[Dcold]

You grabbed?

...

:[

 

[BSP]

There are a lot of chars whose worst MU is arguably MK
Diddy, ICs, Marth, Lucario, DDD, TL, Peach, Ike, Pit, maybe also ROB Kirby and Sonic?

I would say he's the hardest MU for the Mario Bros., but D3 might hold that spot for Mario.

 

[bubbaking]

da K.I.D., can I have an automatic co-sign yet? I mean, you gave one to Browny.

Dude, even I've gotten a couple co-signs; you're trying way too hard.

the same things that made permanent walls and walk offs ghey in Melee is the same stuff that made permanent walls and walkoffs ghey in Brawl. That part didn't change between the two games. Brawl just made it easier and more widespread.

Last time I checked, there are NO CGs, or otherwise chained strings, in Melee that suddenly become extended into infinites in Melee due to walls other than Fox's waveshine infinite (which was thankfully removed in P:M). In fact, walls give you the ability to tech and mess up the CG or chained string (I can't even think of any 'chained strings' other than waveshines, tbh). However, in Brawl, you have DDD with his non-tumble inducing dthrow which is what REALLY causes the infinites (and other infinites that are extended with walls). In other words, walls are faaar less detrimental to Melee than they are to Brawl. The worst they do is induce camping, but that problem is magnified in Brawl, so they're not really similar there either.

As for walk-offs, the same deal actually applies. Most CGs either don't really move you forwards, or anywhere for that matter (Ganon's CGs, etc), don't really move you very far forwards (Sheik's CGs, etc), or can be DI'd to either side of the player doing the throwing (Peach's, Marth's, and Fox's CGs, etc). In addition, pretty much all of the CGs that force you to go forwards do not last NEARLY long enough to actually allow one to CG another all the way across the stage into a walk-off. If you were close enough that you were able to be CG'd through, then you can just assume that you would have been combo'd through the walk-off anyway. Again, the REAL problem is being waveshined through the walk-off by Fox.

Tl;dr - No, "the same things that made permanent walls and walk offs ghey in Melee" are NOT "the same stuff that made permanent walls and walkoffs ghey in Brawl," because walls and walk-offs honestly aren't even that "ghey" in Melee to begin with. A DD/platform camping Fox is the real reason 80% of Melee's stages became stupidly stupid.

 

[infiniteV115]

I would say he's the hardest MU for the Mario Bros., but D3 might hold that spot for Mario.

I was trying to bring up relevant/semi-relevant characters, I guess.

 

[B0NK]

@B0NK: I am/was a TO myself

Good to know I'm talking to a TO, though I don't completely believe you'll understand why it's not reasonable to always expect people to host on their own.

Knowing people for example can make things easier for you to host a tournament.

Knowing the right people, sure. But even the right people that helped you out may not be willing to go through the venture to help host a tourney for Smashers again. The more you host, the less venues become available in a good location, unless you are lucky enough to find a venue that could be used for years to come.

Do you have a friend that shares that idea of making a MK-banned event but has way more free time than you do? Tell him to go look for a venue. heck, even a close friend that knows nothing about Brawl can do if you know he can go look for it in your place.

I have plenty of friends who share my idea, I don't have ones that have the financial means and time to host a tourney. Many people do not. And people shouldn't be expected to have friends that have this luxury. Most people with friends with the financial means to host a tourney have jobs, and are not willing to use their free time to secure a venue. The shouldn't be expected to, hosting Smash tourneys should never be on the top of people's list of life priorities.

Do you have a friend that owns a nice place to run a tournament of like, 15 people (because let's face it, you won't start with a APEX-sized tournament right away)? Ask them if you can use their room.

In NJ/NY most of people's houses are apartments and peoples houses/apartments are never spacious enough even for 15 people. Also most parents are not fond of the idea of their home being used for a tournament. Even in other regions, a mass majority of smashers are not wealthy, old enough, or even well off enough to own their own place with enough space to host tournaments. The mass majority of smashers don't even own cars to get to tourneys, let alone have a place to hold tournies.

I really think a lot of people are just lazy.

People are not lazy, people are just not willing to do charity work for the community's sake. Especially since in general, this is a community that wants everything to be cheap and also perfect in every way but doesn't always show the maturity and willingness to help and deliver. Hosting a proper and successful tourney takes a lot of time and energy, often for little to no gain. TOs should not be expected to work for the community for nothing, especially when it hurts the TOs ability to find time to practice the game and in turn usually lose interest in the game or hosting when they no longer can even practice the game. Very few TOs place in the money to guarantee a return from the tourney. People simply don't find TOing fun enough to do it for free. Many of the TOs that are still around do have a venue(s) that they can use and make some sort of return. Whether financially or simply just having fun from successful events. Not all TOs or prospective TOs are as fortunate as you. Not everyone can even afford to take a huge hit financially nor truly have the time to host. (With jobs, school, and family obligations).

In general, good venues do not become regular venues or are lost for 3 reasons:

1. The venue that was already expensive owner see that you are making some money, or even if you are not, that money is being handled. The venue owner uses this as reason to charge you more for the venue the second time around which you can no longer afford. (You may have already been breaking even just to host this tourney).

2. The venue owners do not want you back because of the immaturity of a few smashers. One of the more extreme cases I've seen is a venue that never wanted anymore smash tournaments again was because two smashers thought it would be a good idea to wrestle in the venue, breaking furniture in the process. It can not be the TOs responsibility to account for such things, and you can't blame the venue owners for not wanting smashers back. (The furniture was paid for by the two smashers who broke the sofa). The demographic of some smasher is immature, and can not be the responsibility of the TOs to change this.

3. The venue is usually a lan center or Mom and Pop game store that is already having trouble with business, and goes out of business do to the financial decline in the lan center, arcade, and game store business. Lan centers and similar are not the only place for venues, but they are usually the most open to video game tournaments and are disappearing.

There simply are very little venues that are available for tourneys, and the ones that are, only the current TOs in a region have access to. Even then, some venues are so out of the way that it's not a good financial decision or takes an entire day of time just to get to it and make a deal. In NY, do you really expect people to find it reasonable to spend $32 to get to a venue with public transportation just to reserve it (possibly spending money to reserve it), then spend another $32 just to get back to it for a tourney, then expect people to attend the tourney and do the same? Especially when they are likely going to have to spend $20 to compete? It just is not financially reasonable to expect people to want to do this with no return, and many that would be willing to don't have the money to blow on the community. Those TOs fortunate enough to find a venue that circumvents these cost though should should use more business sense, and host for more people, not just for themselves and friends.

To repeat myself again, I am simply suggesting that existing TOs use polls and discussions with the potential attendees to decide rulesets, and not the current system of ignoring the local/regional/national community's interest in rulesets and hosting a ruleset that is solely in their own interest, that of a few friends, or that of a few top players. A system like this will give current TOs a larger return in attendance, financial returns for the TOs and venue owners, and also make a lot more attendees happier. Indirectly this may lead to more MK-banned events and a precedent for TOs well into Smash 4. I understand a TO cannot sacrifice everything for the community, but they can easily use rulesets that more attendees will want without sacrificing anything.


Responding to your post now, Truth.

 

[bubbaking]

It would cause balance in a luck based way. What is more interesting, a game balanced based on counter picking or a game where distinct characters fight each other on even ground? Subjective answer, but my preference is the latter.

........No, it wouldn't. (-_-) Just learn how to play your bad MUs, lolz! There are no unwinnable MUs unless you're a Low Tier character and the +/-3's just prompt everyone to have a secondary. This is actually a trait of any FG that contains a lot of characters. You're practically 'required' to learn a secondary in most FGs, like SF, Marvel, etc. Even the Top Tiers have bad MUs in those games. Melee and Brawl circumvented this with the spacees and MK, which really destroyed the health of both games. Normally, a player should have to learn how to deal with bad MUs or should learn another character to deal with them FOR him in order to be successful. Now one can just go MK and not have to worry about the "bad MU" part.

I guess what I'm saying is that a "game balanced based on counter picking" is WAY more "interesting" than a "game where distinct characters fight each other on even ground [which is dictated by the one character who is better than all of them, even on said even ground]."

I agree that bracket luck cannot be eliminated completely, but MK reduces it a significant amount by virtue of the fact that youre more likely to run into MK than another oddball MU.

Wth? So you 'reduce bracket luck' by replacing those uncertain MUs with guaranteed losing ones? I'd much rather run into an "oddball MU" that either I win, I can CP, or no one really knows about then be forced into a MU where the only choice that evens the playing field is to choose the same character.

Generally those who wish MK to be around:

1)Are ok with fighting MK and his presence in the metagame
2)Are ok with adjusting the ruleset subjectively
3)Feel the ability to compete with MK given enough dedication and effort

All of this can potentially fit under the huge sub-option of A)Uses MK.

There are those of us who main chars who auto-lose to MK and because MK is so prevalent and can't really be CP'd (which is why he's so prevalent), we're forced into choosing a rather small pool of chars as secondaries if we don't want to play as MK ourselves (which is actually the best option). This is disgusting, not creative, unhealthy for a competitive metagame, and completely repelling for players who want a little freedom over who they play. For instance, I personally am a huge fan of the DDD/G&W core. It covers (as in, doesn't lose worse than -1 to) every MU in the game other than MK and the ICs, and I'm sure the ICs could be taken care of with a more liberal stagelist. MK invalidates this duo, however, so I am forced away from the combo of characters I like that would be totally viable otherwise. Many top DDDs like the DDD/Wario core, but that suffers the same problem. Unfortunately, if you don't want to play MK, the optimal duo (even for someone who still wants to play chars with grab shenanigans) is probably DDD/Marth. This duo actually has perfect coverage (if you consider a -1 to MK as a good MU against MK) and is very flexible regarding changing stagelists (otherwise, the ICs would probably make a better partner). DDD and Marth cover each others weaknesses (including the Marth ditto) perfectly, but what if you don't want to play Marth? Well, your tournament life just became really hard guaranteed for no good reason. Primary/secondary cores is a thing I actually love discussing, but I find that it's usually a waste of time because most of the good cores fall to MK or are inferior to a MK secondary anyway.

 

[B0NK]

I understand and I know this wasnt your argument, I was only arguing against the statement i frequently saw that MK led to such a restricted stagelist. Dont even need to look further than our predecessors (melee,64) to see that isnt the case...If someones intention is to increase stage diversity their primary goal is to convince a community who's reflex reaction is to ban things that such stages are alright in the first place.

I agree that MK is not the sole reason that restricted stagelist are being favored, but MK is indeed a major factor in select influential TO's decision in their stagelist in major regions. (Namely, NJ/NY, home of the Apex Series, but has also been a factor in other Atlantic North regions). I understand the regions, such as SoCal, have always had a conservative stagelist and ruleset since Melee and have little to do with MK.

As to the rest of your post, I know its frustrating to pull evidence to support your opinions only to be rejected, but thats the fickle nature of subjective arguments. Fact is some people dont care about money or how much hes used when they decide whether or not they want him. Thats just the way the dice rolls.
Generally those who wish MK to be around:

1)Are ok with fighting MK and his presence in the metagame
2)Are ok with adjusting the ruleset subjectively
3)Feel the ability to compete with MK given enough dedication and effort

There are also Pro-Ban players that feel the same way about MK, except for that they are not okay with his presence in the metagame. There are Pro-Ban players that can fight MK, want the ruleset to be changed subjectively, and feel that they can compete with MK. Although, most of these players believe that the only reason they can compete is because MK players have not yet learned the match-up they are playing, or feel they must use MK themselves.

Most Pro-Ban that is still competing are using MK themselves, or find the enjoyment of competing and getting better is worth going to tournaments they don't believe in, since their are no other choices in tournaments.

I am simply stating that the majority opinion is that MK is ban-worthy. This does not mean that I believe that all region's majority opinion is that he is. Which brings me to your next point:

Its just as easy to support these opinions as it is to argue against them (as pro-ban has). People cater and formulate opinions based on top level players when crafting rulesets for the most important tournaments because hardly anyone cares about mid-level play for such important events, not even the mid-level players, since the argument 'get better' can apply in any other instance.

Also the MK ban poll on SWF was bad. No one should reference that.
http://smashboards.com/threads/urc-analysis-voluntary-response-polling-and-the-75-myth.317228/

I do sympathize with regions that want MK banned or to at least have events now and again without him, I get all that, but the argument for a blanket national ban simply is too weak, and without that the game stands where it is now.

While I would support a national ban on MK, I have never expected to happen. Never, even during every single debate thread's lifespan. I just know at the end of all the discussion it was the majority opinion that he was ban-worthy, and the only reason he wasn't banned on a larger scale in most regions is because of TOs personal bias in rulesets towards themselves, their anti-ban MK maining friends. So I am with agreement with you here that a blanket national ban should have never been coerced through means of not stickying threads or any other sort of means. But do I believe that a national standard of MK-legal should not be encouraged when the majority opinion shows they want otherwise.

The MK-Ban poll was not bad. It showed that those who felt strongly enough about the MK-Ban discussion to vote, favor MK-Banned rulesets. You are right it does not show what those who did not vote's opinion on the matter, so I understand that a large part of your community in SoCal likely did not vote because the majority of that region does not participate on SWF.

But it is simply true that those who participated in the poll made up a large part of the competitive community, and the poll shows that the majority of that large part believes that MK should be banned. 905 SWF members felt strongly enough about the decision and voted in the poll. 687 of these votes were in favor of an MK-Banned ruleset. Are you saying that their are more than 687 players in the competitive community that didn't vote and that favor an MK-Legal event? Is it even possible to find more than 469 members of the competitive community that believe he should be legal that haven't voted already?

I believe that you will never find this many people, and that the poll did a relatively good job at showing the competitive community's opinion. I believe that the majority of the community believes that the number is significantly large enough that they can come to the conclusion that the majority of the community wants him banned.

But as I said, I agree with you overall and believe this is the best statement you made in the thread you linked:

I think census data from tournament attendees can be useful especially for a region or popular tournament series opinion.

I completely agree with this statement and believe that's why TOs should be encouraged to hold polls and discussions with their potential attendees and their region. This may indirectly result in more MK-banned events, and more data on an MK-banned metagame.

This would also allow your community in SoCal to be happy with their MK-Legal and conservative stagelist they prefer.

Either way polls and discussions given by TOs to the attendees to decide on ruleset would make more attendees happier with the tournament format and I would like to see TOs start to set a precedence for such a process over the current precedence of TOs catering to the minority group of top players. Especially when the majority opinion is against the current standard of rulesets being used in some regions and even on a national scale.






Side Note: I also wanna say that I DO NOT co-sign any of Bubbaking's post. So to the people reading the arguments in this thread, please don't lump his Pro-Ban arguments as my own or even Pro-Ban's core argument. (Also, do not even consider my arguments as Pro-Ban's core argument without researching, just that this is my own stance on the argument and my suggestions for a solution. If people agree with me, that's cool too. I hope people consider my suggestions and make the decision on MK's legality for themselves.)