Official Metaknight Discussion

[Overswarm]

It is quite literally impossible to show anything that will change the remaining anti-ban's minds. We're done here.

I'm pretty sure this is the case.



Reasons to still be anti-ban with current data:

-Selfish reasons. You want MK around for selfish reasons (I main MK, M2K is my friend and he makes money this way, etc., etc.)

-Ignorance and/or stupidity. You want MK around because you don't think he's that good, has bad matchups, Diddy/Snake/Yoshi/whoever counters MK, and other false statements. You don't understand how to read basic charts and graphs.

- Pipe dreams. You believe that if people just practice their balls off, they'll get to the level of ADHD and Ally and be able to compete with the top MKs and, despite the fact that most people haven't and have found MK to be more appealing overall, you believe that they won't pick up MK instead. (aka the "get better" approach)

-Fear of change. You'd rather want MK around than have a game with more viable characters because you don't like the idea of chaingrabs being more common or the like. You believe the tournament scene will die out if MK disappears. So on and so forth.

-You believe that a character cannot be banned unless they literally cannot see a defeat screen (most extreme approach possible)

-You are okay with one character being the only logical choice, regardless of his dominance.

-You believe weakening MK with rules like"no IDC", "no planking", "no scrooging", "time out = you lose", "no double MK on teams", "no CPs with MK", "no tornado", is a perfectly acceptable alternative, and believe the problems it brings to other characters negligible.





I can't think of anything else. Any ideas?

 

[HeroMystic]

The first part is the difference in being broken and being extremely effective...

I'm just legitimately showing how the logic is arbitrary.

And that's honestly the problem with relying on ratios that aren't mathematically installed and for the most part, subjective. For all we know, MK could actually 70:30 the entire cast (In same cases he does, if he CPs favorable stages and there's no planking rules).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Budget Player Cadet: Incongruent. Disjointed. Broken. Verbose.
yes, thats a good thing

I'm just going to take this as a compliment now.

EDIT: @OS: Yeah, that's about it...

 

[Overswarm]

all I know is that mk robbed me of my $$ in 7 tournies out of 11 i've been to. mk has put me in my spot for awhile now. and alot of these mk mains don't even deserve their placing cause they aren't **** without him, seriously now. I'd put 1grand on the spot saying that kel/Judge couldn't beat me without using mk. 1 grand straigth up hit me up on aim... Renegadetx2001 i'm ready for you to accept that bet... Anyone else? lol straight up, bring that **** on, I guarantee you... Btw I would mention Bowyer but he quit =/

.....What about me?

Could I have $1k? ;D

 

[Raziek]

I'm pretty sure this is the case.



Reasons to still be anti-ban with current data:

-Selfish reasons. You want MK around for selfish reasons (I main MK, M2K is my friend and he makes money this way, etc., etc.)

-Ignorance and/or stupidity. You want MK around because you don't think he's that good, has bad matchups, Diddy/Snake/Yoshi/whoever counters MK, and other false statements. You don't understand how to read basic charts and graphs.

- Pipe dreams. You believe that if people just practice their balls off, they'll get to the level of ADHD and Ally and be able to compete with the top MKs and, despite the fact that most people haven't and have found MK to be more appealing overall, you believe that they won't pick up MK instead. (aka the "get better" approach)

-Fear of change. You'd rather want MK around than have a game with more viable characters because you don't like the idea of chaingrabs being more common or the like. You believe the tournament scene will die out if MK disappears. So on and so forth.

-You believe that a character cannot be banned unless they literally cannot see a defeat screen (most extreme approach possible)

-You are okay with one character being the only logical choice, regardless of his dominance.

-You believe weakening MK with rules like"no IDC", "no planking", "no scrooging", "time out = you lose", "no double MK on teams", "no CPs with MK", "no tornado", is a perfectly acceptable alternative, and believe the problems it brings to other characters negligible.





I can't think of anything else. Any ideas?

One you might want to add:

- You play melee, and not Brawl.

Quite honestly, I'm pretty sure Omni is bluffing in asking for it be compiled, but I'd be quite curious to see exactly how he would attempt to chew through the mountain of statistics and evidence without resorting to any of the aforementioned cop-outs.

 

[adumbrodeus]

They all went into hiding and Omni is wanting us to turn our individual reports into some giant monstrosity so he can hopefully just hit it all in one pass by saying "so what".

Mew2King is now the anti-ban's strongest supporter, and he is basically our Stephen Colbert.

Much like Stephen Colbert, he's probably a closet pro-ban trying to invalidate anti-ban's arguments by parodying them.

This.

Despite what proban has responded with to refute or debunk, it doesn't seem like any of the anti-bans that are still here and active are going to change their mind.

It's like the data will never be enough for them.

I'm still waiting on a few things to satisfy my personal criteria:

1. Mathmatical MU ratios

2. Empirical tabling of MUs at as high in the metagame as is possible.

(Well, also gotta actually examine Crow!'s data methodology)


But I just find it pointless, because at this point the metagame has organized into two distinct sides detirmined to fight it out till the bitter end (thank you Omni and OS!).


That basically means that there's no chance of getting what I want into play, namely that we create a process that causes a compromise criteria to be put in play.


I'm still anti-ban, but at this point it's pretty pointless to actually convince people otherwise because the evidence LOOKS so ****ing and also because the battle to get what I want is, well for now, hopeless.



So, I'm going to sit right over here and watch the community's likely implosion, anyone wanna join me, I've got melee and SFIV!

I'm pretty sure this is the case.



Reasons to still be anti-ban with current data:

-Selfish reasons. You want MK around for selfish reasons (I main MK, M2K is my friend and he makes money this way, etc., etc.)

-Ignorance and/or stupidity. You want MK around because you don't think he's that good, has bad matchups, Diddy/Snake/Yoshi/whoever counters MK, and other false statements. You don't understand how to read basic charts and graphs.

- Pipe dreams. You believe that if people just practice their balls off, they'll get to the level of ADHD and Ally and be able to compete with the top MKs and, despite the fact that most people haven't and have found MK to be more appealing overall, you believe that they won't pick up MK instead. (aka the "get better" approach)

-Fear of change. You'd rather want MK around than have a game with more viable characters because you don't like the idea of chaingrabs being more common or the like. You believe the tournament scene will die out if MK disappears. So on and so forth.

-You believe that a character cannot be banned unless they literally cannot see a defeat screen (most extreme approach possible)

-You are okay with one character being the only logical choice, regardless of his dominance.

-You believe weakening MK with rules like"no IDC", "no planking", "no scrooging", "time out = you lose", "no double MK on teams", "no CPs with MK", "no tornado", is a perfectly acceptable alternative, and believe the problems it brings to other characters negligible.





I can't think of anything else. Any ideas?

Here's one:

- You want a rigid firm criteria accepted by community consensus before something is banned.




You know the one that a number of people have been pointing out SINCE THE BEGINNING.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Does anyone know why Rogue has perfect control of the powers she steals while the mutant she steals it from doesn't (for instance, Cyclops being forced to wear glasses whereas Rogue doesn't have to)?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Does anyone know why Rogue has perfect control of the powers she steals while the mutant she steals it from doesn't (for instance, Cyclops being forced to wear glasses whereas Rogue doesn't have to)?

Because Cyclops is a *****.

 

[Overswarm]

She can't. She can't even control her personality.

Off topic. >:[

 

[CRASHiC]

Ness is high tier? Ness beats Metaknight? That's just silly.

 

[etecoon]

Ness is high tier? Ness beats Metaknight? That's just silly.

hay guys I heard yoshi beats meta knight welcome back to 2008 *****es

 

[Mortimer]

(Well, also gotta actually examine Crow!'s data methodology)

But I just find it pointless, because at this point the metagame has organized into two distinct sides detirmined to fight it out till the bitter end (thank you Omni and OS!).

An examination of Crow!'s analysis would still be useful. Alternatively, you've said you were working on something similar. Was that anywhere near completion?

Does anyone know why Rogue has perfect control of the powers she steals while the mutant she steals it from doesn't (for instance, Cyclops being forced to wear glasses whereas Rogue doesn't have to)?

Cyclops had a head injury which limited his control of his power, and Rogue simply steals the power and not the head injury.

I don't know why she can control other abilities better than the mutants she steals it from. Probably practice.

 

[rvkevin]

Here's one:

- You want a rigid firm criteria accepted by community consensus before something is banned.

You know the one that a number of people have been pointing out SINCE THE BEGINNING.

Consensus is not going to happen since everyone has a different vision of how the game is meant to be played. But it would be nice to hear what anti-ban thinks is ban worthy so some time down the road if MK becomes more of a problem, we have some criteria to go by, and they can't just move goalposts.

 

[•Col•]

all I know is that mk robbed me of my $$ in 7 tournies out of 11 i've been to. mk has put me in my spot for awhile now. and alot of these mk mains don't even deserve their placing cause they aren't **** without him, seriously now. I'd put 1grand on the spot saying that kel/Judge couldn't beat me without using mk. 1 grand straigth up hit me up on aim... Renegadetx2001 i'm ready for you to accept that bet... Anyone else? lol straight up, bring that **** on, I guarantee you... Btw I would mention Bowyer but he quit =/

Holy crap. $1000 MM? o_O

 

[-dMT-]

Anything anti-ban has provided also aren't reason for him to not be banned.

Mk is currently allowed. This is the status quo. The ban has been brought up many times, and in the end it has been shut down repeatedly.

Pro ban needs to make an effort here, as it is an uphill battle for them. The people who ask for change are the ones that need to do the convincing. As things currently stand MK is not banned, and doesn't look like he will be unless pro-ban can make an extremely valid point and convince the community at large that MK should be banned.

Expecting anti ban to convince you that MK shouldn't be banned is just wrong.

Crow made a very very good post that was probably the best argument for pro-ban. That being said, it simply boils down to presenting how much better MK is than the rest of the cast and how much better MK mains are performing in a much more clear, coherent manner. Again, MK is very easy to pick up and get good with and is also very popular. Crow made it clear his success isn't solely based on his popularity, however the learning curve must be kept in mind.

 

[adumbrodeus]

An examination of Crow!'s analysis would still be useful. Alternatively, you've said you were working on something similar. Was that anywhere near completion?

I'll get to it, but if his analysis is spot-on, I see no reason to even bother finishing, and no it's not near completion.


But who knows, we might end up going with an idea that produces an entirely different dataset and that might be a lot more useful.

Consensus is not going to happen since everyone has a different vision of how the game is meant to be played. But it would be nice to hear what anti-ban thinks is ban worthy so some time down the road if MK becomes more of a problem, we have some criteria to go by, and they can't just move goalposts.

Compromise brings about consensus, as long as the process is agreed upon it workable.


But I've given what I think is banworthy (multiple times in fact), but it's pointless, because if individuals move the goal post it doesn't matter, what matters is if large groups do, which is why I suggested this in the first place, to lock people into a position so they couldn't move the goalposts.

 

[Sosuke]

Pro ban needs to make an effort here, as it is an uphill battle for them.

Dude, what? Compare what Pro-Bans have done in this thread to what Anti-bans have done.

 

[iRJi]

Sorry about being lazy about this RJ. Sleep was required to make me think right.

1.) Getting everyone to go along with it - Honestly this isn't hard if we have enough people doing it, but with other areas may not support this at all and will ignore it. We need enough support to get people to go along with it if we were to do a temp ban. We need support without splitting the community.

2.) The length - If it's too short people will just wait out for the temp to be lifted or if it's too long we might as well ban him.

3.) Quitting - No matter what we do, someone is not going to like a decision we make. Some people are going to leave this community if MK is even temp banned, then if we learned MK isn't banworthy we just ticked off a bunch of people who played him and may not come back. Doing this is only going to shrink the community at first, if we're wrong then we shrank the community when we could have avoided the situation by finding another method to test his banworthyness, like forming solid criteria and figuring out if MK is banworthy.

4.) At the end of the temp ban - Some people may keep the temp ban format just for the fact they enjoy MK banned. Face it, we both know someone is going to pull this, granted TO's can do what they want, but many people who want to playa character others deem legal play will lose out.

5.) Proving validity in the results - What would be a valid result? If previous top MK players went? the number? Some people are going to question some of the results and how useful they are. What would you say would be proof of valid results?

6.) Many MK's will have trouble picking up - For those who MK was a clutch for them to win, they may never recover, for those who didn't need him will stagnate for a while as they try to build up back to their previous placings.



Omni still is quite a poor point to bring up. Maining a low tier doesn't exclude them.



I guess I could say this for some Lucario's even myself.

I can see what your saying in this. It would be nice to see if this pans out well.



I'm not talking about food on low, I'm talking about the actual format for a legalized item play as an alternative format.

Unfortunately many people this think that item play is casual play so. :/



Very hard? It's a 4/6, thats not that bad at all. The two you listed, R.O.B. gets beaten worse than a 4/6, Marth I think is a 4/6 if they can get around the fact how mentally straining the MU is to play correctly against MK.

You are less likely to win from an omnipresent 4/6 existing, but unviable is a silly word to use.

@Crow, you made a lot of people very happy, I give you props for this data.

I will get to this when the talk about Crow comes down a bit. I promise.

 

[Overswarm]

- You want a rigid firm criteria accepted by community consensus before something is banned.

You know the one that a number of people have been pointing out SINCE THE BEGINNING.

This cannot possibly work, as explained countless times.

 

[-dMT-]

Dude, what? Compare what Pro-Bans have done in this thread to what Anti-bans have done.

I didn't say pro-ban wasn't making said effort mind you. I was simply responding to a post stating anti-ban should convince pro ban why not to ban MK...

 

[Espy Rose]

hay guys I heard yoshi beats meta knight welcome back to 2008 *****es

I remember back when Sonic supposedly went 50:50 with Meta Knight.
Good times...good times.

- You want a rigid firm criteria accepted by community consensus before something is banned.

You know the one that a number of people have been pointing out SINCE THE BEGINNING.

Wasn't that something that was supposed to be established way before this debate started up at all?

 

[Overswarm]

Wasn't that something that was supposed to be established before this debate started up?

It did last time. We met it.

I didn't say pro-ban wasn't making said effort mind you. I was simply responding to a post stating anti-ban should convince pro ban why not to ban MK...

Eventually they have to respond, non?

"Hey mom, can I stay out past midnight?"

Mom: "Why should I let you do that?"

*is given list of reasons*

*Mom stares blankly at son*

 

[MarKO X]

Holy crap. $1000 MM? o_O

That's more cash than you could possibly win @ a tourney, isn't it? Big big balls right there.

Does anyone know why Rogue has perfect control of the powers she steals while the mutant she steals it from doesn't (for instance, Cyclops being forced to wear glasses whereas Rogue doesn't have to)?

Because Rogue also takes memory. My theory is that through the memory, she auto-learns from mistakes.

Mk is currently allowed. This is the status quo. The ban has been brought up many times, and in the end it has been shut down repeatedly.

Pro ban needs to make an effort here, as it is an uphill battle for them. The people who ask for change are the ones that need to do the convincing. As things currently stand MK is not banned, and doesn't look like he will be unless pro-ban can make an extremely valid point and convince the community at large that MK should be banned.

Expecting anti ban to convince you that MK shouldn't be banned is just wrong.

Crow made a very very good post that was probably the best argument for pro-ban. That being said, it simply boils down to presenting how much better MK is than the rest of the cast and how much better MK mains are performing in a much more clear, coherent manner. Again, MK is very easy to pick up and get good with and is also very popular. Crow made it clear his success isn't solely based on his popularity, however the learning curve must be kept in mind.

Hard to convince close minded people. That's all I'm saying.

 

[-dMT-]

It did last time. We met it.



Eventually they have to respond, non?

"Hey mom, can I stay out past midnight?"

Mom: "Why should I let you do that?"

*is given list of reasons*

*Mom stares blankly at son*

lol of course they have to respond. Again I am simply saying the procedure is pro ban making an argument to propose change, in the form of an MK ban, and anti ban responding as to why their argument is insufficient or invalid. Not the other way around. That is all...

Hard to convince close minded people. That's all I'm saying.

Nice. Real nice. Let's just call anyone who doesn't agree with us close minded. That always works.

 

[Overswarm]

lol of course they have to respond. Again I am simply saying the procedure is pro ban making an argument to propose change, in the form of an MK ban, and anti ban responding as to why their argument is insufficient or invalid. Not the other way around. That is all...

So far, we've done the following:

-presented subjective arguments
-presented arguments that are not subjective in any way (data and the like)
-answered criteria set forth by anti-ban during the last debate
-re-established the claims of pro-ban criteria during the last debate

There is little more that pro-ban can do. Very literally we've covered almost every aspect, and there's only a few more I'm working on.


How is it not Anti-ban's turn for a response when we've been told "too long, didn't read" so many times?

Nice. Real nice. Let's just call anyone who doesn't agree with us close minded. That always works.

I think he's referring to the actual close minded people.

 

[MarKO X]

Nice. Real nice. Let's just call anyone who doesn't agree with us close minded. That always works.

No it doesn't.

I was only referring to the people who have looked at Crow's post and are making the same exact claims that the post clearly (or maybe unclearly) debunks.

personally, I'm still waiting for the anti-ban reply to this... like, the real one. Not that half-a**ed I don't care s**t.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Renegade I'll 1k Mm You With Ganondorf!

 

[Omni]

-dmt-, this debate has come to an conclusion for the most part. All that's left are people from both sides throwing sly, insulting remarks at each other for whatever reason.

I think someone mentioned this earlier, but I'm not asking OS to retype an entire argument summary. Simply to gather all the info that has presented in this thread, organize it, and then present it as pro-ban's argument. Then I'll respond.

When pro-ban has their complete case that they'd like to be addressed someone can just PM it to me.

 

[-dMT-]

The ball is indeed in anti ban's court. Let them respond. Perhaps there is a large, singular response at work.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Oh yeah, Rogues ACTUALLY does gain knowledge of the mutants memory, when she steals their power. Which is double-edged sword in it's own right.

 

[HeroMystic]

Essentially what DMT is saying is Anti-Ban is the one calling the shots here. Think of it like a Rebellion against the government. You can't tell the government to do anything because, basically, the Anti-Ban has everything over the rebels.

It's until the rebels gain an overwhelming amount of support that the government can be dethroned. Messed up part is, Smash's "Government" isn't a government at all. Instead is like Sociocracy in which there needs to be an overhwleming consent between all players.

With the extreme split down the middle, and with Omni and OS making factions, there's literally no way this'll get resolved without everything collapsing.

 

[Uzima (Uzi)]

The ball is indeed in anti ban's court. Let them respond. Perhaps there is a large, singular response at work.

*invisions the top MK mains sitting at around a smokey room hudled over a table discusing there "argument" against pro-ban*




also, the pro-ban side has done everything physical possible for their case.

If people havnt changed their minds yet, they in all likely hood never will, and the correct backed up side to this debate will be pushed aside by those in power unwilling to change.
: /

 

[Zankoku]

Has this just been people posting nonsense while waiting for response from anti-ban?

In conclusion you're all dumb and when one of you is ready to bring something new up leave me a PM.

 

[salaboB]

So I had a thought that may or may not be accurate -- I don't know enough about other game's community decisions and preferred characters to say one way or the other. So, I'll lay out what I'm thinking and maybe someone that does know better than me can say whether it actually explains things or not. Also, my apologies for the length of this post, I think it's a bit rambly but I'm not sure how to put it shorter and explain what I'm going for.

Basically, I've long thought that MK's globally good MUs was a big problem. Now I'm wondering if my reasoning for that was wrong (I still believe it's a problem.) The logic went, "Since MK has no bad MUs or stages then he's the best pick for resisting counterpicks or for using as a secondary so everyone will use him." But that doesn't happen so much in other games even when they have a character that also has a set of only even at worse MUs, and with Crow's chart showing how much better MK is at winning tournaments (Note in case this was missed: It did not say MK was X times better than any other character, it showed he is X times better at winning tournaments. A relatively minor but key issue that I missed on my first go around with the data.) These games also have a full roster of lower tiered characters that occasionally have good MUs with higher characters. So what's different?

I think the issue is a combination of two things: One is that the Smash community on the whole falls in love with their characters, and tournaments reflect that. The second is that all the characters below MK are fairly close in ability to each other as far as winning tournaments go (Within a fairly wide band of characters.) The combination means that the real problem isn't that MK is unbeatably dominant (Snake can go pretty even with him, as could (currently) Diddy, and it's likely others can come close enough that skill will win out over character) but that with everyone playing their favorite, the chances for a non-MK to not run into one of their CPs while trying to win the tournament plummet.

So, do other fighting games have a more focused community that's willing to primarily play the "best" and the characters that have good MUs with that best? (For a Smash example, it would mean a majority of players would be MK, Snake, and Diddy -- maybe one other character that can stand up well against MK. This isn't what's currently happening.) Or do they stick hard to their favorites and try to make them work regardless, mowing down all the characters below the best and making it a struggle to get to the top of the heap for the finals match against that top character? I believe that's what's going on, and I also believe the Smash community is unlikely to ever change -- leaving MK three times (Minimum) better at winning tournaments and overcentralizing him.

Any thoughts? Is this accurate, and/or does it help explain the phenomenon of why a not too dominant character can become overly dominant?

tl;dr: MK is overly dominant not because he's unbeatable but because the Smash community plays a wide range of characters that tend to provide bad MUs against and eliminate many of the Snakes/Diddy's/etc. who could otherwise have a shot at winning against MK throughout tournaments.

 

[smasher01]

I herd some secret stuff about mk is it true? lol

 

[HeroMystic]

SI think the issue is a combination of two things: One is that the Smash community on the whole falls in love with their characters, and tournaments reflect that. The second is that all the characters below MK are fairly close in ability to each other as far as winning tournaments go (Within a fairly wide band of characters.) The combination means that the real problem isn't that MK is unbeatably dominant (Snake can go pretty even with him, as could (currently) Diddy, and it's likely others can come close enough that skill will win out over character) but that with everyone playing their favorite, the chances for a non-MK to not run into one of their CPs while trying to win the tournament plummet.

Pretty much took my exact thoughts and I couldn't have said it any better. Metaknight literally dictates the tournament scene as the S/A tier filters out all the lower tiers, the Metaknight practically filters everyone else. Like I said, at this point, it's a matter of philosophy towards how we want to play the game.

So, do other fighting games have a more focused community that's willing to primarily play the "best" and the characters that have good MUs with that best? (For a Smash example, it would mean a majority of players would be MK, Snake, and Diddy -- maybe one other character that can stand up well against MK. This isn't what's currently happening.) Or do they stick hard to their favorites and try to make them work regardless, mowing down all the characters below the best and making it a struggle to get to the top of the heap for the finals match against that top character? I believe that's what's going on, and I also believe the Smash community is unlikely to ever change -- leaving MK three times (Minimum) better at winning tournaments and overcentralizing him.

There's more to it than "Falling in Love" with their favorites.

-Some actually play their favorite to advance the character's metagame in an effort to make them tournament viable (Diddy and Wario came a long way)
-Some play lower tiers for the pure challenge of it.
-Some play lower tiers as a matter of player pride and not "selling out" to any top tier character.

I personally fall into choice 1, and going by what I've seen in SF4, BlazBlue, and Tekken, many players do this for the same reason as well. But at the same time, those games are more straightforward, "competitively balanced" games. With the exception of MK, Brawl as a whole is a CP game where every character gets CP'd by at least one character.

The laughable thing is, other characters from other games having hard counter match-ups does not equal an auto-win compared to what we experience in Brawl. It just means the losing character has to work harder to win due to being at a mathematically disadvantaged match-up. This is why no one from other communities complain about their hard-counter match-ups.

Maybe every single ratio on this board is absolutely wrong because we go by player vs player and tournament experience too deeply, and perhaps Metaknight actually does hard-counter the entire cast, just that many players are skilled enough to go toe-to-toe with other players. Before we can accurately move on with this, we have to take a different approach to how we look at match-ups.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Well it is exactly as Adumbrodeus pointed out earlier. In many other competitive game communities, TvC, MvC2, SF4 and GG, the matchups are thought more theoretically rather than in terms of what has been done thus far.

it is why I do believe Metaknight hits harder than what many people believe, primarily because everyone is so caught up in how well player's do against each other, they failt o realize the following.

Top players are small in number.
Top players, as a result, tend to play each other much more often, and so they play upon each other's weaknesses and thus do better than typically.

The experience that each player has against each other, has a great effect, and so it becomes less of playing character against character, as it more becomes player vs player.

Which is why its foolish to go, OMG ADHD WON POUND4, MK ISNT JESUS.
When really, it can just be a thing in which he was more skilled than his opponent.

 

[Tien2500]

tl;dr: MK is overly dominant not because he's unbeatable but because the Smash community plays a wide range of characters that tend to provide bad MUs against and eliminate many of the Snakes/Diddy's/etc. who could otherwise have a shot at winning against MK throughout tournaments.

I read the whole post but didn't respond to it all. But no I don't think that's the case.

Its hard to tell because my our best methods are the matchup ratios but I think MK actually benefits Diddy and Snake and to a lesser extent Falco.

For example Dedede is a tough matchup for Snake, however he gets beaten badly by MK. Because of the abundance of MK's there will be less Dedede's for Snake to worry about.

Diddy doesn't seem to have any outrageously bad matchups but several characters such as Luigi, Peach, and Marth can give him issues. But Marth and Peach get countered by MK so there are less of them.

Falco has the ICs which are a true hard counter, but they too are eliminated by MK.

Also if MK was gone and Snake and Diddy become immensely popular we'll have a lot more experience on these matchups and I think a few more soft counters pop up.

So tl:dr I don't think that MK is doing so well because Snake and Diddy are being eliminated by their counters. MK is doing well because he is better than those two characters. Aside from ADHD and Ally we haven't seen any Snakes or Diddys have much success against MK.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

The laughable thing is, other characters from other games having hard counter match-ups does not equal an auto-win compared to what we experience in Brawl. It just means the losing character has to work harder to win due to being at a mathematically disadvantaged match-up. This is why no one from other communities complain about their hard-counter match-ups.

The do complain, but the smash community seems to think a 4:6 is impossible and the person with the 6 should always win.

Which is rather silly.

 

[Zwarm]

I read the whole post but didn't respond to it all. But no I don't think that's the case.

Its hard to tell because my our best methods are the matchup ratios but I think MK actually benefits Diddy and Snake and to a lesser extent Falco.

For example Dedede is a tough matchup for Snake, however he gets beaten badly by MK. Because of the abundance of MK's there will be less Dedede's for Snake to worry about.

Diddy doesn't seem to have any outrageously bad matchups but several characters such as Luigi, Peach, and Marth can give him issues. But Marth and Peach get countered by MK so there are less of them.

Falco has the ICs which are a true hard counter, but they too are eliminated by MK.

Also if MK was gone and Snake and Diddy become immensely popular we'll have a lot more experience on these matchups and I think a few more soft counters pop up.

So tl:dr I don't think that MK is doing so well because Snake and Diddy are being eliminated by their counters. MK is doing well because he is better than those two characters. Aside from ADHD and Ally we haven't seen any Snakes or Diddys have much success against MK.

On top of that, ROB is also a pretty good choice against Diddy and IC's, but he is wreaked by MK, and there are a lot less of him because of it.

Just adding to what you said, lol.