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!
Because character viability is a part of a healthy meta.
But it still wouldn't be fair to those who don't want him banned if the results showed he wasn't banworthy. People want to be able to use fair tactics if they aren't banworthy, if the results show he wasn't then we just pissed off a bunch of mains that were right about the subject.
Exactly why forced testing is a bad idea.
*looks at nj pr to remind himself of the players*
It can never be proven, it's all just views a lot of people have. Some are basing it off on data, others on their surroundings... We can never prove if banning MK will keep Brawl living longer than it should, unless we create a copy of our current metagame (so we have 2 metagames exactly the same with the same problems and whatnot), ban MK in one of the metagames, then let them both continue until one of them ends and Brawl dies there.
Would it be fair for those who want him banned if he never gets tested, but if testing actually merits him banworthy? This argument goes both ways. It's a risk worth taking, that's how research is supposed to be done... And the risk isn't even as big as it sounds like.
We can prove to a degree what the problem is and OS was kind enough to go in the right direction to prove it with his graphs. The problem lies in the fact he didn't prove the results were caused directly from MK and not something like the recession, seasonal, etc.
People can test it, I don't agree with a forced test people want the SBR to do.
Well might as well be pro ban...oh wait.
You can add TL to the list as well.
Friendlies and Money Matches.
Well no one is forcing anything. If a TO doesn't want to run their tourney with MK banned the SBR isn't going to come into the tourney and start shooting people. If you wanted to you could run a tournament with smashballs on high and only Hanebow legal.
You can main DK and secondary Falco and Dedede is no longer a problem.
If MK was temp banned using him during the trial period wasn't actually legit.
People are claiming that a forced test is what is needed to be accurate, I'm claiming this isn't entirely true.
Luigi has a lot of good MU's with the higher ups, Diddy and Olimar fear him.
Well what they want is an SBR supported ban which isn't quite the same thing.
Luigi is not viable even with D3 gone. He has other bad matchups which I believe include MK and Marth.
I was just pointing out that the characters he hard counters has little to do with what makes him ban worthy. What makes him ban worthy is his lack of disadvantageous (or even in the opinion of some) matchups.
OS gathered data, then interpreted it in his own way. Data has no real interpretation other than the one the researcher gives it. The data OS collected could be viewed as MK being too dominant, or MK being averagely dominant, it all depends on what the person wants to see when he sees the data.
You could start out your own research if you truly believe you're right, and that the reason why the majority of people leave the game isn't because of MK. I'm very confident that the majority DID leave because of MK and how hard it is to beat him at their levels of play, and I'm basing my opinion around the reason people dropped Brawl, which I re-state am very confident in.
If it's not a forced test, people like MK mainers can just ignore it and we won't get accurate results. What good is MK-Banned tourneys, if the previous MK mains AND anti-bans don't show where their skills will take them WITHOUT MK to modify their tourney placings? It's a very important piece of the data we want to gather that we can't ignore... A forced test forces them to react however they WOULD react if MK would be banned, be it change mains or quit altogether (which would fall under "not participate until the temp ban lifts")... That's the data we all want!
Prize money they won't win as easily as before without MK. Why participate in tourneys when they have other MK-Allowed tourneys around them where they can keep using MK? That skews the data we want to gather... What we want is to get a look at the metagame, how it would look when MK is gone. People NOT going to those tourneys won't give us the data we want, thus make it so that the temp ban was a fruitless approach to concluding the MK situation once and for all.
Fixed. :3
I don't know about ZSS... She doesn't have a particularly hard time with MK. Whether her viability goes up or down depends on which characters fill the void that MK leaves.
They can, but as was pointed out by Kewkky if it's just one tournament people will be more likely to simply try it out/not bother going/whatever than they would actually adapt to how they'd play if MK were actually banned.
Coordination.
Well, most large-scale tourney-making TOs are in the SBR. If the SBR comes up with a decision, the majority of tourneys will be reflected by their updated ruleset, thus the MK players/anti-ban members will be forced to participate in those tourneys if they want to keep playing Brawl. A few MK-Allowed tourneys won't really matter if the large-scale tourneys have MK banned, since nation-wide is better than region-wide in terms of data gathering.
Perhaps not, but there are still the other...9 or so who are just on the edge of viability with only one freakish obstacle standing in the way. xD
Most of the midwest TOs would be willing to do so.
Yo refer to my Blazblue example again. A weight dragging down a few compared to a weight dragging down the whole puts more weight on those already struggling.
Same with Lucario. MK isn't much of an issue for it. In fact, removing MK might actually hurt him a bit if Snake and D3 rise in usage.
Agreed. But what is the one thing you can do against those characters that you cannot do against MK?
Except there may be more Falco's in the first place and IC's/Pika aren't really that popular. Part of that non-popularity is a result of MK but there weren't many ICs even when people were claiming that to be an even matchup. I personally find MK easier than Diddy and slightly more difficult than Snake but that's just me.
Deploy a workable strategy that can actually hinder the opposing character.
Bonus points for you, Sir. That was unexpected. :3
Sounds like paranoia is getting the best of you. I haven't read a single post that belittles your opinions because you main Lucario.
Awesome, something that rhymes with my name. :D
Luigi vs MK is even more of a lopsided matchup than Luigi vs DDD. Yes, even with the infinite.
