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!
Of course it won't reach a conclusion, because the people in this thread are not the ones who will make the final decision. it will be a vote in the SBR. The point of this discussion is exactly that. TO DISCUSS. It's a place for the public to weigh their opinions for everyone to see.
Good good, now you are learning. =].
So leave, and let the rest of us who care discuss?
It actually does have use. We're writing up our arguments and weighting them against each other, like Raziek said. And it's OUR job as the community to persuade the ones who will come to the actual conclusion into seeing the problem through our eyes, and make sure that the majority is on our side.
That would be true, except there's a way to de-centralize Ganon by folks picking up the 36 chars that counter him. His best matchup (according to the Ganon boards) is 40:60. MK doesn't have any 40:60 MUs. He doesn't even have any 45:55, or (depending on who you talk to) any even MUs for that matter. There's your difference. Everyone has a counter. If a character is overcentralizing and there's a way to stop it by banning ATs, stages, or by other players picking up new chars and CPing, then that's fine. This is not the case for MK. I'm not sure if he should be banned, but that Ganon example doesn't make any sense in the parameters of this discussion.
That's what we're doing.
Doesn't change the fact that MKs are taking all the top slots in tourneys, but not the #1 itself, thats what I meant with that expression.
Because it's a DEBATE. That's the whole **** POINT. If we had separate threads everyone would just be agreeing with each other, even when opinions are flawed, because everyone would be on the same side!
I'm probably getting myself ninja'd, but I agree that character viabiltiy alone is not a good reason to ban (but pretty good to justify the worsening of some characters due to a ban). Damaging to the health of the community however, is a pretty good reason.
You're viewing bans with the "only tourney placings matter" mindset. Try viewing ALL of the facts together, like difference in skill levels, variety of players, variety of characters, variety of stage counterpicks, variety of tactics, and constant fluctuating tourney attendance, and you'll see that your argument holds no water.
No, it was not well done, because his argument is a Strawman. ganon is a ****ty character, and the only reason he would actually fill those slots is because of the sheer number of people playing him. Metaknight fills those slots because he WINS, not because there's 9001 of him.
Except we don't do surgical bans for a reason. Its scrubby. Same reason we shouldn't ban a char as it makes viable 3 other chars. Your argument is completely flawed, you need more than just an overall increase in viability, you need to show that the character produces over centralization.
Au contraire, most of what OS claims is based on tourney placings AND every other point has been addressed. Have you not heard about the "outlier players", the research done on all MK mains compared to Snake and Diddy mains, the dominance MK has, the fact that he dictates who is viable and who isn't while having little-to-no even matchups making the "viable" characters extremely few, and who knows what else he has in there.
How many? Pound 4 had a snake, diddy, lucario and olimar IIRC. Everyone else used MK or at least had him as a secondary.
I don't get this. So if MK hogged every spot in top 13 except 1, he still wouldn't be a problem? I know it's not that bad, but it's getting pretty close.
No, I mean he just outplayed me. Quite poorly on my part.
In that case, you wouldn't avoid a surgical ban just because you think it's scrubby. Why would we ban a whole character to fix one tactic? The problem with metaknight is he has too many tactics to surgically ban them all. Not to mention, surgical bans on planking, scrooging, and stalling are quite difficult to manage, due to the subjective, interpretive nature of the tactic. Deathgrabs are clear cut.
If you would pit a Ganon in that scenario against any player of the same skill level who mained a different character, the Ganon would lose. If you would pit any player of the same skill level who mained ANY character (including MK) against an MK in our real-time scenario, the non-MK player will most probably lose (unless he used MK, the MK WINS!).
Yeah, against other Ganons. Wouldn't win any against the other non-Ganons. Your hypothetical is flawed.
Don't use the word scrubby in an actual debate. The term scrub is based on one specific mindset and view of what should be important in a fighting game. By Sirlin's POV anyone who doesn't use MK is a scrub because they are refusing to use the most proven method of winning.
Overcentralizing would be use this tactic or lose.
Please see my above response regarding this topic. His hypothetical is flawed due to WHY the data occurs.
This isn't actually true. A "scrub" as defined by Sirlin is someone who whines about something they think is unfair or broken or "cheap" instead of adapting and using that tactic to their advantage. If you choose to use a lesser character, that doesn't automatically make you a scrub so long as you accept that you are taking a performance hit.
...
Because surgical bans tend to cause more problems then they fix due to the fact that their overall influence on MUs is unpredictable, generally they're a last ditch resort when your only other option is to ban a character because a tactic is so overpowering.In that case, you wouldn't avoid a surgical ban just because you think it's scrubby. Why would we ban a whole character to fix one tactic? The problem with metaknight is he has too many tactics to surgically ban them all. Not to mention, surgical bans on planking, scrooging, and stalling are quite difficult to manage, due to the subjective, interpretive nature of the tactic. Deathgrabs are clear cut.
From what I recall, he claimed ADHD and Ally are outliers.
Not many, but they were there, as you just stated.
According to the logic I was just told, yes. A character isn't dominant unless he beats out everything, seeing as nothing matters until you're holding #1 around the board.
The flaw is non-existant for one reason and one reason only.
Influencing the readers is the only thing thats happening, I've stated that before.
You telling them "get better" is more of a demeaning statement than an argument. They spend lots of time trying to get as good as Ally/ADHD, yet they can't no matter how much they try, how they try, nor how many people they play against and win against. Why?
I disagree with you here. I think that clearly shows the point of overcentralization if a character had 12/13 top places at a national tourney. I don't think the character has to win to be a problem
This is ridiculous, we just finished talking about outlier players, and yet you still think he has to grab #1 to over-centralize? Like I said before, this issue spans for more than the top level. If MK holds every spot except first, people will stop coming to tournaments until it just becomes a bunch of Meta-Knights stroking each other, eventually losing first to Ally or ADHD. Tournaments cannot sustain themselves on meta-Knight alone.
