Official Metaknight Discussion

[Espy Rose]

I can't speak for anti-ban, but in my personal opinion I'd rather not have whiny scrubs in the community. People quitting because of a beatable character is like dropping out of school because you can't pass Freshman English.

Now, if he isn't beatable, the above is obviously moot, but without planking he should be, as evidenced by the fact that MK does not take the entirety of the top 8.

Yeah, because who needs those players that are the main reason money pots get to those amounts that give pro players the incentive to participate?

Not a good idea to throw off the majority of the players who support the community with their own money, scrubs or not.

 

[WindMajor]

It doesn't even matter if the reason they quit was because they were "whiny scrubs" or not. The point is that they quit, and according to most of them, it was because of MK. They decided, "This is enough. I don't want to pay $600 to lose to an MK, why bother continuing with this game?" After such heated discussion, our TO decided it's just best to close the forum.

If I were to count the remaining dedicated Brawl members in PR, it would be difficult to fill my fingers.

So, if MK isn't banworthy and an entire region quit over him, yes, they are all scrubs. I don't particularly care how offensive that is.

I've just been slapped in the face by an ignorant troll.

 

[WindMajor]

double post

 

[Zozefup]

I think planking IS fun...

 

[fkacyan]

Yeah, because who needs those players that are the main reason money pots get to those amounts that give pro players the incentive to participate?

Not a good idea to throw off the majority of the players who support the community with their own money, scrubs or not.

So, what we're saying here is:

"Even if MK is not banworthy, if people threaten to quit over it, we'll ban him to appease the populace."

If that's the point this community has gotten to - Where people who arguably have no place in a competitive atmosphere can hold the rest of us essentially at gunpoint just to get what they want - Then we are for certain the worst of the fighting game communities.

It doesn't even matter if the reason they quit was because they were "whiny scrubs" or not. The point is that they quit, and according to most of them, it was because of MK. They decided, "This is enough. I don't want to pay $600 to lose to an MK, why bother continuing with this game?" After such heated discussion, our TO decided it's just best to close the forum.

If the character is beatable, you quitting because you don't want to lose to him is essentially stating that you don't want to put the time and effort into beating him, and would rather he doesn't exist because that would make it easier on you. That is not an attitude conducive to a competitive community.

The fact that we're losing your monetary input is a completely separate issue.

 

[OverLade]

...

Redhalberd, you CAN'T be serious. You say you switch to anti-ban because MK goes even. IN A TOURNAMENT WITH 3 RULES AGAINST MK! That's one of the most ******** things I have heard in this conversation. That MK can only CP neutrals is a HUGE character-specific nerf; what's MK famous for? Going to RC and ****** EVERYONE. Seriously man, THINK! Would MK go even if there weren't dozens of rules in place?

Are dozens of rules enough to limit him so that he isn't bannable?

None of those rules were in effect at the tourney I went to. Its not that I think MK goes even, but I can't say "oh gee he's too good". If I can make him broken I'll go pro-ban but till then not so much.

 

[TLMSheikant]

Im pretty sure they've put the time and effort to beat him. Everyone here does.

 

[ShadowLink84]

ITT: Thio acts like an idiot and says things that should not be said. What are you a Senator of the US?
Common sense dude, use it.
Don't care if you even believe it but some things , you shouldn't say outloud.


Now, while I do understand that the loss of the PR region is extremely disappointing, quitting over a character is not the way to go about things. Take it productively, it isn't as if m2k and all the top MK's are in PR, so of course, they would have issues with MK seeing as how the best ones reside in the US.

So it might just be they dont know the matchup at a high level of play.

 

[etecoon]

So, what we're saying here is:

"Even if MK is not banworthy, if people threaten to quit over it, we'll ban him to appease the populace."

If that's the point this community has gotten to - Where people who arguably have no place in a competitive atmosphere can hold the rest of us essentially at gunpoint just to get what they want - Then we are for certain the worst of the fighting game communities.

if anything it's the other way around, a huge portion of the community mains MK or at least secondaries him. a lot of those people will quit rather than be set back 2 years, we'd be banning him IN SPITE of the attendance drop that would follow, not because he is going to cause that many people to quit.

and the whole "OMG SF WILL THINK BADLY OF US IF WE BAN HIM!" argument is stupid. their game and community is insignificant compared to us, what they think is irrelevant.

 

[fkacyan]

Im pretty sure they've put the time and effort to beat him. Everyone here does.

Wrong. If he is a beatable character, and you quit before you are at the ability level required to beat him complaining specifically about your lack of ability to beat him as a result of the character being broken and NOT your lack of ability itself and by itself, then you have not put in the required time and effort.

Putting in time and effort and putting in the required time and effort are two amazingly different things.

It is also one thing to not have the ability, and completely another to claim it is so because that level of ability does not exist.

ITT: Thio acts like an idiot and says things that should not be said. What are you a Senator of the US?
Common sense dude, use it.
Don't care if you even believe it but somethings , you shouldn't say outloud.

Of course I'm being an idiot. I'm saying things that are amazingly unpopular to say. That being said, I don't mind being unpopular in this regard.

ETA: @ Etecoon, I said nothing about the SF community. I'm saying that caving to the populace in ignorance of the needs of the game itself makes us an awful community comparative to pretty much every other one, ignoring the size, popularity, etc of the others.

 

[Juushichi]

So, what we're saying here is:

"Even if MK is not banworthy, if people threaten to quit over it, we'll ban him to appease the populace."

If that's the point this community has gotten to - Where people who arguably have no place in a competitive atmosphere can hold the rest of us essentially at gunpoint just to get what they want - Then we are for certain the worst of the fighting game communities.



If the character is beatable, you quitting because you don't want to lose to him is essentially stating that you don't want to put the time and effort into beating him, and would rather he doesn't exist because that would make it easier on you. That is not an attitude conducive to a competitive community.

The fact that we're losing your monetary input is a completely separate issue.

It's interesting that you're talking about being held at gunpoint by non-competitive players when the bulk of people arguing for the ban are actual legitimate competitive players themselves. Even top-level players complain about it. You're really generalizing people to justify your own opinion. That is a fallacy.

The fact of the matter is that the community is the reason why this forum exists, from theorycrafters to casuals to hardcore players who bring in pots (and those who don't). If you're going to ignore people who are putting in on the parts that make the car run (metaphorically) then that is would make our fighting game (--and I emphasized game for a reason) community a joke.

I also want you to really look someone from one of those regions who is dying out citing Meta Knight as the source in the eye and tell them that losing their money is something different than what they stated. Call them scrubs to their faces, too. Then imagine the reverse if that is at all possible.

I wonder if you are at all capable of that.

 

[OfTheEarth]

Wrong. If he is a beatable character, and you quit before you are at the ability level required to beat him complaining specifically about your lack of ability to beat him as a result of the character being broken and NOT your lack of ability itself and by itself, then you have not put in the required time and effort.

Putting in time and effort and putting in the required time and effort are two amazingly different things.

It is also one thing to not have the ability, and completely another to claim it is so because that level of ability does not exist.



Of course I'm being an idiot. I'm saying things that are amazingly unpopular to say. That being said, I don't mind being unpopular in this regard.

But what about the people that play with lower tiers? It is obvious that they will be set back so far as to trying to figure out how when they have less to work with. There have been players who have stood 1 character since day one, and play and play, and don't give up and still don't give up, but someone who plays with diddy kong, an overall better character, will have a lead over someone who plays with sheik, just because of the characters ranking and tier and overall strength against MK, thus setting them back in learning the MK match-up curve.

Also take into consideration, yes it's people's choice as to what character they play with, but don't turn this into an argument saying "Well they can pick a better character."
Because I believe that is eliminating a little bit more than half the roster.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Of course I'm being an idiot. I'm saying things that are amazingly unpopular to say. That being said, I don't mind being unpopular in this regard.

Um, no, sorry, don't try to make it to as if you were merely saying something unpopular.
Fact of the matter is, you're doing nothing better than trolling.

"YOU'RE ALL SCRUBS BECAUSE YOU QUIT OVER A CHARACTER THAT I BELIEVE IS BEATABLE!"

All you're doing is knocking people down for not having the same belief as you.
Fine if you disagree with their behavior, but there is no such thing as right or wrong, and there is no way to justify such foolishness either.

 

[WindMajor]

Wrong.

Stopped reading here. I'm assuming you're acquainted with all the Puerto Rican players right? Since I'm almost certain you're gonna say yes (after all, that's such an outrageous claim), may I ask if you know what these guys did to learn the MK matchup?

I actually decided to continue reading on through your post a little, I agree with you on one thing. Putting time and effort isn't the same as putting the required time and effort to do something. Can you answer me this though?

How much of a tremendous effort is enough?
Who is to say that we didn't work insanely hard to reach it?
If the required amount of time and effort isn't much, then how come only a handful of people can consistently beat the best MKs, compared to the hundreds or thousands of other players that play Brawl?

 

[ShadowLink84]

When you are a top player, you will encounter the oter top players much mor often than those who are lesser in skill.

So when m2k plays ADHD, they are acquainted with each other's gameplay.
As opposed to m2k vs joe shmoe, its just an issue on not getting same experience.

 

[cutter]

The fact that we're losing your monetary input is a completely separate issue.

I can bet your opinion would change if people in your region quit in droves ala Puerto Rico.

 

[Espy Rose]

Now, while I do understand that the loss of the PR region is extremely disappointing, quitting over a character is not the way to go about things. Take it productively, it isn't as if m2k and all the top MK's are in PR, so of course, they would have issues with MK seeing as how the best ones reside in the US.

So it might just be they dont know the matchup at a high level of play.

It might.
But it might not.

Some people are just genuinely tired of the entire issue revolving around Meta Knight. They've tried their best, and have failed time and time again. I'm basing this not off of just Flan's recent post, but also UTD Zac's post much, much earlier (which was just recently mentioned again).

That, and no amount of advice you can say will bring that community back. One down, and counting.

 

[ShadowLink84]

True, they already decided on their course of action and I doubt they will listen to any advice that involves MK remaining.

 

[OfTheEarth]

It might.
But it might not.

Some people are just genuinely tired of the entire issue revolving around Meta Knight. They've tried their best, and have failed time and time again. I'm basing this not off of just Flan's recent post, but also UTD Zac's post much, much earlier (which was just recently mentioned again).

That, and no amount of advice you can say will bring that community back. One down, and counting.

you're quitting?

and shadowlink84
what do you mean by they've already decided?
and would you be able to tell us if they did?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

lol @ calling people whiny scrubs...

seriously, if people actually played MK to win and didn't use rules to keep MK players from fully playing to win (LGL and now apparently MKs can only CP neutrals), MK'd be banned by now.

THIS? THISSSSS?

From a money point of view, yes, it is awful that we have lost those players. From a philosophical point of view, it can be argued that a community without those players have an influence on others is better.

From a philosophical point of view, socialism is a perfect system. Theories often suck ***, this is one of them.

So, what we're saying here is:

"Even if MK is not banworthy, if people threaten to quit over it, we'll ban him to appease the populace."

If that's the point this community has gotten to - Where people who arguably have no place in a competitive atmosphere can hold the rest of us essentially at gunpoint just to get what they want - Then we are for certain the worst of the fighting game communities.



If the character is beatable, you quitting because you don't want to lose to him is essentially stating that you don't want to put the time and effort into beating him, and would rather he doesn't exist because that would make it easier on you. That is not an attitude conducive to a competitive community.

The fact that we're losing your monetary input is a completely separate issue.

No, no no no no. No it ISN'T. You're saying "let's ignore them" because they're scrubs. In doing so, you ignore their monetary input. One leads DIRECTLY to the other!

But what about the people that play with lower tiers? It is obvious that they will be set back so far as to trying to figure out how when they have less to work with. There have been players who have stood 1 character since day one, and play and play, and don't give up and still don't give up, but someone who plays with diddy kong, an overall better character, will have a lead over someone who plays with sheik, just because of the characters ranking and tier and overall strength against MK, thus setting them back in learning the MK match-up curve.

Also take into consideration, yes it's people's choice as to what character they play with, but don't turn this into an argument saying "Well they can pick a better character."
Because I believe that is eliminating a little bit more than half the roster.

This.

An interesting point-All MK mains who are pissed off about the "two years of work", I have the following to say:
-You have had the advantage of never NEEDING a secondary. Ever. Never needing to learn another character. Everyone else did/should've (even snake/diddy have counters), or at least spent a ****load of time learning the harder matchups. So if you don't have a char to fall back to, why don't you have anyone else you use? Like most smart people.
-Your character has no specific AT knowledge; all you really learned were smash basics (in a very deep form) like spacing, baiting, playing defensively, etc; all of this can be used in any other char.
-You have forced others to give up "two years" of work on chars so you can keep playing your char (ROB mains, Peach Mains, Luigi mains, etc).

So why is it soo unfair for the poor metaknight mains with their broken character adn wads of cash?

 

[cutter]

and shadowlink84
what do you mean by they've already decided?
and would you be able to tell us if they did?

They is Puerto Rico.

They've already decided to quit Brawl, effectively shutting down their entire community altogether. I forgot who from PR said this in this thread, but he said that PR gets like only ~8-9 people for a tournament if that, and their community site has been shut down due to the massive feuding that went on there.

 

[fkacyan]

It's interesting that you're talking about being held at gunpoint by non-competitive players when the bulk of people arguing for the ban are actual legitimate competitive players themselves. Even top-level players complain about it. You're really generalizing people to justify your own opinion. That is a fallacy.

I'm going to start by defining the term 'scrub' as I am using it.

Scrub - A player who blames his or her lack of ability to win on something other than his or her lack of ability, such as another player, character, etc. that is agreed and/or proven to be beatable.

If the scene ends up defining MK as beatable (i.e. we do not ban him), then by this definition anybody who quits as a result of MK or cites him as the reason they lose falls under the term, unpleasant as that may be.

You may also want to note, I have no actually called anybody here a scrub (And if I did, I poorly worded what I was saying). I've been intentionally using if-then statements, because MK's beatability is up for debate at the moment.

The fact of the matter is that the community is the reason why this forum exists, from theorycrafters to casuals to hardcore players who bring in pots (and those who don't). If you're going to ignore people who are putting in on the parts that make the car run (metaphorically) then that is would make our fighting game (--and I emphasized game for a reason) community a joke.

Once again, I don't care about them from a philosophic PoV if it turns out that their reason for complaint is illegitimate from a competitive standpoint. From a monetary PoV, I do. The two are mutually exclusive.

I also want you to really look someone from one of those regions who is dying out citing Meta Knight as the source in the eye and tell them that losing their money is something different than what they stated. Call them scrubs to their faces, too. Then imagine the reverse if that is at all possible.

I wonder if you are at all capable of that.

If MK isn't banned and the SBR ruleset defines him as a character that is OK for competitive play, and I am ever in the region of a player that has quit because of him, sure. I would have absolutely no issues doing so.

@SL:

"YOU'RE ALL SCRUBS BECAUSE YOU QUIT OVER A CHARACTER THAT I BELIEVE IS BEATABLE!"

I'd advise you to first read the top of my post.

To summarize:

- 'Scrub' is a term with an absolute definition.
- A character being beatable in my personal opinion is not the basis I am using; it is the character's legality, and thus, the community's opinion on whether or not the character is beatable
- I have only used 'if, then' statements when possible in reference to players.

And whether or not we should care about the opinions of such players as a community if they are determined to be such is completely legitimate. As I said, it comes to whether or not you weigh the philosophical element ("The metagame should be pristine and we should ignore the players to keep it that way") or the monetary element ("We are willing to sacrifice elements of the metagame in order to keep up the monetary value of our community").

EDIT: @ cutter: That they are separate issues doesn't mean that one's influence on my actions can't outweigh the other - It doesn't make them one and the same, however.

 

[<π]

But what about the people that play with lower tiers? It is obvious that they will be set back so far as to trying to figure out how when they have less to work with. There have been players who have stood 1 character since day one, and play and play, and don't give up and still don't give up, but someone who plays with diddy kong, an overall better character, will have a lead over someone who plays with sheik, just because of the characters ranking and tier and overall strength against MK, thus setting them back in learning the MK match-up curve.

Also take into consideration, yes it's people's choice as to what character they play with, but don't turn this into an argument saying "Well they can pick a better character."
Because I believe that is eliminating a little bit more than half the roster.

You said sheik

Sheik has a high learning curve, but it's worth it she is a powerful character if you put the effort in. thats true for most character though. Diddy definitely takes a lot of effort to play at high levels. I think the same is true for MK. tornado spam only works against bad characters (falcon gdorf) or bad players who refuse to use their options. to be able to use and understand MKs abilities at high level of play is very important.

 

[OfTheEarth]

I'm going to start by defining the term 'scrub' as I am using it.

Scrub - A player who blames his or her lack of ability to win on something other than his or her lack of ability, such as another player, character, etc. that is agreed and/or proven to be beatable.

Scrub-A tool used to clean something up.

And I wonder if that is the general idea of what a scrub means. I thought it meant just someone that sucked at the game and knew nothing about it, like a noob or something along that line. I don't think, actually i'm probably not the only one that thinks this, that your definition of scrub isn't viewed by the rest of the community as it's correct term.

and <3, I remember you fell asleep at the GameZone tourney once. And I think I played you at WATO 9 not too long ago, you were in the corner by yourself, and I beat you once, but then you analilzed my game after words and destroyed me
several times I might add.

 

[WindMajor]

In fighting games, a scrub is a player who intentionally limits his strategic choices due to a perceived imbalance in some dominant strategies (based on exploiting a particular technique or combo with a particular character).

Got it from Google.

 

[fkacyan]

Scrub-A tool used to clean something up.

And I wonder if that is the general idea of what a scrub means. I thought it meant just someone that sucked at the game and knew nothing about it, like a noob or something along that line. I don't think, actually i'm probably not the only one that thinks this, that your definition of scrub isn't viewed by the rest of the community as it's correct term.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html

As much as I despise using Sirlin as a reference for anything, in the terms of competitive play, this is typically where the definition originates from. The way I stated it is yet another way of phrasing Sirlin's definition.

-You have had the advantage of never NEEDING a secondary. Ever. Never needing to learn another character. Everyone else did/should've (even snake/diddy have counters), or at least spent a ****load of time learning the harder matchups. So if you don't have a char to fall back to, why don't you have anyone else you use? Like most smart people.

I don't need a secondary for Eddie or Testament in GGXX: AC, either. That doesn't mean they're banworthy. The same goes for many other games; lack of a counter is not really indicitive of much.

-Your character has no specific AT knowledge; all you really learned were smash basics (in a very deep form) like spacing, baiting, playing defensively, etc; all of this can be used in any other char.

There are very, very few characters that have specific AT knowledge that is actually required to know to win with them. MK is not unique among high tier characters in this regard.

-You have forced others to give up "two years" of work on chars so you can keep playing your char (ROB mains, Peach Mains, Luigi mains, etc).

The existence of many high tier characters invalidates a lot of the mid and low tiers from ever being able to win. Choosing to play a character that isn't viable does lead to loss.

In fighting games, a scrub is a player who intentionally limits his strategic choices due to a perceived imbalance in some dominant strategies (based on exploiting a particular technique or combo with a particular character).

Got it from Google.

Thus, choosing a character that cannot beat MK and/or not playing MK if he is indeed deemed OK for the game in the ruleset is limiting your strategic options. Quitting because you limit your strategic options is exactly what I am talking about.

Claiming that the character is 'broken' and 'cheap' is essentially the same as the above, and is the attitude my definition addresses.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Bah forget it

 

[ElDominio]

They is Puerto Rico.

They've already decided to quit Brawl, effectively shutting down their entire community altogether. I forgot who from PR said this in this thread, but he said that PR gets like only ~8-9 people for a tournament if that, and their community site has been shut down due to the massive feuding that went on there.

Twas' me... We can literally count the assistance to Brawl tourneys with our fingers... and there really are no MKs here, people just lost the will to play thanks to MK...

In any case just to address one of Thyocyanide's points... Cool, there are high tiers, but there is only ONE S tier for a reason....

 

[fkacyan]

If this is true why are you going by a different definition?
Considering the fact that it was coined by Sirlin.

My definition is, essentially, exactly the same, just worded differently to better fit the context.

I am sorry how does it change the fact that you pretty much relegated an entire region to being a scrub? In the negative connotation rather than the typical one that is used.

And you said you didn't ignore parts of my posts.

I have only used 'if, then' statements. Once again, just in case:
If MK is banned, they are not scrubs for quitting because of MK.
If MK isn't banned, they are.

I have made absolutely no determination one way or the other because that decision has not been made yet. Moreover, it is not my decision.

As for the connotation, the way people read a word differs from person to person. I'm not going to bother appealing to emotion, because that is a fallacy (And before you say "You're using ad hominem there, buddy" I'd like to point out that as the discussion in this case is about the qualifications of said community to have input, it's not a fallacy, any more than somebody denying you a job because of your lack of qualifications).

In aphilosopical point of view, they should have takent he losses as motivation.
Fact is, this isn't philosophy, and individuals are NOT going to act the way they should.

Philosopically,we lost possible talent and we are actually worse off because the less players you have, the less competitiveness, the less actual improvement in skill.

You get a lot more done with 10000 players than you would with 1000 would you not?

Only if the other 9000 players have the right amount of motivation and skill.

So um, can you explain why you bashed on the region again and called them whiny scrubs?
Even more so when you consider the issues in regards to Metaknight and the many, many debates that have come up in regards to his legality?

Because listening to the population of the community is a valid argument, and determining whether or not they are worth listening to is an equally valid argument.

 

[ElDominio]

Also, you should think about other people.... I liked my region, and I understand the MK problem... You should think about the community, since it's what holds this up... Imagine if this keeps happening... Better yet... what if it happens in your region? How would you feel if YOUR tourneys had an average attendance of 8??? Would you enjoy playing in your community??? Would you want to keep improving your character (not being MK)???

You should see WHY MK is bad for the community.
I main Sonic, and well I love playing Brawl, but now I have NO ONE to play with?? And thanks to what?? Because some of my friends lost to MKs abusing a broken tactic in a national... Now any possible chance I had for improving my game has been effectively shut down.

 

[MarKO X]

What's interesting is that

even after MK hasn't won a national in a while now

MK still managed to become S Tier on his own... I wonder why...

 

[WindMajor]

Also, you should think about other people.... I liked my region, and I understand the MK problem... You should think about the community, since it's what holds this up... Imagine if this keeps happening... Better yet... what if it happens in your region? How would you feel if YOUR tourneys had an average attendance of 8??? Would you enjoy playing in your community??? Would you want to keep improving your character (not being MK)???

You should see WHY MK is bad for the community.
I main Sonic, and well I love playing Brawl, but now I have NO ONE to play with?? And thanks to what?? Because some of my friends lost to MKs abusing a broken tactic in a national... Now any possible chance I had for improving my game has been effectively shut down.

It hasn't been shut down!

If you pay $600, you can pay a visit to the best MKs.

 

[<π]

What's interesting is that

even after MK hasn't won a national in a while now

MK still managed to become S Tier on his own... I wonder why...

cuz people are, by definition, scrubs.

 

[Demp]

I'm going to start by defining the term 'scrub' as I am using it.

Scrub - A player who blames his or her lack of ability to win on something other than his or her lack of ability, such as another player, character, etc. that is agreed and/or proven to be beatable.

If the scene ends up defining MK as beatable (i.e. we do not ban him), then by this definition anybody who quits as a result of MK or cites him as the reason they lose falls under the term, unpleasant as that may be.

Let's say Ganon finds a way to one hit KO anybody with ease and people start blaming the losses against him because that AT. Are they still scrubs? There gets to be a point where blaming your shortcomings on something is actually justifiable. I am not arguing if that's the case for MK (or even the automatic win type of thing), but blaming something does not automatically mean you are a scrub.

 

[MarKO X]

cuz people are, by definition, scrubs.

lol wait, wut?
care to elaborate?

 

[Matador]

So the current pro-ban platform is that MK is indeed beatable, but he's lowering attendance and killing the community with his dominance...

Is that right?

 

[WindMajor]

Anyone who limits their own skill based on honor rules are scrubs.

In other words, if you choose not to pick MK because he's cheap, then you're a scrub. He's clearly the best option in a competitive fighting game, but you're limiting yourself to another character to win.

 

[fkacyan]

Let's say Ganon finds a way to one hit KO anybody with ease and people start blaming the losses against him because that AT. Are they still scrubs? There gets to be a point where blaming your shortcomings on something is actually justifiable. I am not arguing if that's the case for MK (or even the automatic win type of thing), but blaming something does not automatically mean you are a scrub.

Hence why I have been using "if, then" statements.

If MK is actually defined as broken, they are not scrubs, as they have not been artificially limiting themselves by blaming something other than themselves for a loss (i.e. calling MK cheap, broken) because they were actually being limited by a broken character.

If and only if MK is deemed OK for competition are people who blame him scrubs.

Also, you should think about other people.... I liked my region, and I understand the MK problem... You should think about the community, since it's what holds this up... Imagine if this keeps happening... Better yet... what if it happens in your region? How would you feel if YOUR tourneys had an average attendance of 8??? Would you enjoy playing in your community??? Would you want to keep improving your character (not being MK)???

From a philosophical point of view, I will always view something that isn't broken as positive for the community. From an attendance standpoint, I haven't really seen my region suffer, but if it did, I would probably want to ban MK as far as that's concerned. Which PoV weighed more heavily in my mind and thus made my decision for me would probably be based on several contributing factors in each PoV.

So the current pro-ban platform is that MK is indeed beatable, but he's lowering attendance and killing the community with his dominance...

Is that right?

No, that is, and always has been, a element of it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think the same is true for MK. tornado spam only works against bad characters (falcon gdorf) or bad players who refuse to use their options. to be able to use and understand MKs abilities at high level of play is very important.

Redhalberd actually ***** that last point...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzH-3EWYQSA

Check that vid out. It shows that Tornado Spam works against everyone. Including the BEST SNAKE. It's merely the degree.

MK is NOT hard to use. He is all bout spacing and figuring out which option brings the most reward (as opposed to which option doesn't get me punished, lol). Look at Ally-never used MK, picks him up randomly, and becomes top 10 in the nation with MK just like that!

So the current pro-ban platform is that MK is indeed beatable, but he's lowering attendance and killing the community with his dominance...

Is that right?

No.

The current pro-ban platform is:
-MK is utterly broken (ivan ooze level broken) without subjective and limiting character-specific rules in place to limit his use of a basic element of the game.
-MK is extremely overdominant and overcentralizing even without that tactic/with those rules
-MK is killing the smash community (example: PR).
-MK is killing character diversity.

I'm probably missing over half of it. All of these points have either been researched in objective cases (Broken via planking data, overdominant through Crow!'s and OS's data, killing character diversity via matchup ratios) or given many examples in subjective cases (Puerto Rico).

 

[UltiMario]

So anti-bans told you pro-bans to get better.

I'm seeing less MKs winning and stuff.

So you must've gotten better. Grats on taking the advice.

Spoiler

BTW I'm not even going to read through the pages but has anyone mentioned how poorly and stupidly Hobo set up its "MK rules" I mean that was rediculous, some of the worst crap I've ever seen. Its not that anti-stalling rules are bad, its just that Hobo did them disgracefully terrible, ESPECIALLY the "MK can only CP Neutrals" part. Wow they really suck.