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!
Please enlighten me. I thought that that was the point, that banning MK would make much more characters viable...Why else would we ban him?
1. I want character diversity.
1. What is "too good?" What makes him "too good?" Why is being "too good" a bad thing? What warrants "too good" as criteria for a ban?
If you don't value character diversity, then having a character that shuts down the entire cast is not a problem, being "too good" would not be a bad thing, and over centralization would not be a bad thing...having one viable character isn't necessarily a bad thing, that is, as long as you don't care about character diversity.
its about having a answer.
Really? We give up one character and get (potentially) five or six different newly-viable ones? This is why we want a temp ban-so we can see if we're right.
At what point does a character over centralize?
Banning MK won't create moar character diversity. It's like committing genocide on bees will create less allergic reactions. He is over central toward the metagame, but it will have a minute effect. Furthermore, it will have a vacuum-like effect, something will immediately stand in for him.
Marth, ROB, Peach, Luigi, DDD, most of B and C tier basically. Do you have any evidence to back up your statements that banning metaknight, a character where if you have a matchup worse than 60/40 against him, you just aren't viable at all, a character with no bad matchups, a character who is between 3 and 27 times better in tournaments at any given level then the other top characters, a character who has almost twice the tournament placings as the next-best character and more than the next 3 best put together, will not lead to a more diverse metagame? Because just looking at facts, matchup ratios, and the like, it seems like you'd have to be stupid to shove this all away as "just coincidence". Why do you think we're vouching for a temp ban so much? So we can test our (already heavily backed up) theories!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-No. Read the thread. This has been said incredibly often and the most obvious counter is, "The MK mains will get better too". Imagine if you have a racecar, and your opponent has a racecar that goes about 10MPH faster at any given gear. Now you practice hard and improve as a racer, come back, race against him, and find that you're still getting your *** handed to you. Why? Well, maybe you aren't the only one who actually practices. He got better too, and it's still the same situation-his car is better, he wins. It's like taking someone like UTDZac, having him train super hard for a while, and then he comes back with more skill than M2K used to have, and still gets his *** kicked because M2K also got better. We have to work far harder than the MK mains do to keep up; get better is barely a valid argument at this point. Why don't you learn a different character? Would be about the same amount of work as we put into breaking the ****ing MK matchup.
We have 40+ very strong arguments and are waiting for anti-ban to respond. Nobody has answered anything we haven't been able to refute other than "that isn't overcentralization yet".
yes
still not viable
still not viable
still not viable
still "***** half the cast but also has obvious limitations and bad matchups"
Ultimately a factor is an increase in character diversity, however you're downplaying on the reasonable factors of which pro-ban wants. In fact, I can do what you do and say:
All of this is correct, especially 5. That's why criteria is needed for a ban as practically all the arguments here are subjective.
All pro-ban can do is scream and wave their arms and say "OMG MK IS SO DOMINANT." Past that it's a matter of opinion as far as whether or not two things are concluded from such data:
They need good people to play their characters. Luigi's viability is already high enough do to him doing well against Diddy. Falco is not that bad for him. Iono about Wario and D3, but of course he has weaknesses.
We showed you that metaknight is, at any given level, about 2-3 times better than snake (and it only gets worse). We showed you that he has no disadvantaged matchups or legal stages. We showed you that he has about 2x as many points as snake, and more than snake, diddy, and marth put together. We showed you that he already has game-breaking tactics that require a blanket ban that harms other characters like G&W and Pit. We showed you that Metaknight has a built-in technique which makes the game completely unplayable. We showed you complete dominance at every level of play. We showed you that, very probably, if Metaknight is banned, the metagame will be more diverse and less centralized. WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE? Now we can't have a 6-month temp ban to check our theories. That's like a massive war being waged about if god exists or not, and then someone finds a good way of proving if god exists or not, and the church says, "No, you can't do that."
you seem to confuse good players with good characters. seen ally destroy silverdoc's MK with captain falcon? what a great, viable character there.
You've never seen Excel_Zero or King Beef play have you? Im pretty sure she'd be viable with meta out of the picture.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm peach in dubs is hot stuff <333
Your not doing a very good job of trolling there my son
ZSS really isn't enough of a factor in competitive play to make ROB unviable. Besides just get a secondary in case you run into ZSS and you're golden.
or instead you could play marth, wario, snake, diddy, or ice climbers, and not need a secondary at all. all your time into one character that has no bad matchups or divide your time among 2-3 lesser characters, this is the same thing that empowers meta knight and the advantage of maining a single character won't be diminished that badly with him gone.
Do you have the full results?
There's a difference. SilverDoc didn't know the matchup at all. Plus Ally just played smart.
essentially this. play to win/play the best character whores will immediately jump on snake, people who liked the playstyle of a swordsman may go to marth...that's peach's next worst matchups, she may improve by not getting slaughtered by meta knight anymore, but I absolutely would be shocked if she ever won a national
incoming **** storm...
Except those characters all have bad matchups and most have bad stages too. Choosing one top tier will be somewhat more advantageous than trying to use two high or mid tiers, but not nearly as advantageous as using MK is.
lol@churchcomparison
Pro-ban's job. Not ours. We don't feel the need to ban a character, thus we have no need to establish criteria.
Outliers winning tournies w/ low tiers does not count.
but they do count if they play peach mirite
Ahem. Although I don't put too much faith in the MU chart, it still doesn't agree with this post. Snake has two unfavorable matchups and one even one (according to the Snake boards). Diddy's boards, who apparently don't have too much faith in the MUs, claim there are quite a few bad ones. Marth doesn't have bad matchups with him gone? DDD begs to differ. ICs have a few too.
