Results of SRT

[Zankoku]

I dunno, it still seems to take being better by a fairly significant margin in order to win with Meta Knight, in several relevant matchups. That's certainly "undisputed best" material, but it doesn't make him broken by any means.

At which point banning him would be a point on whether it's more fun to play in a field of characters shaped by his presence or not. To which I've heard opinions on both sides for both formats.

 

[MegaRobMan]

I have no reason to go to MK legal tournaments and had stuff to do up here. Why didn't YOU come up HERE, huh?!

Well, I met like 90 billion people while I was at that tournament that I wouldn't have met otherwise, I play smash and meeting people I insult online all the time is one of the most joyous things to do imo. You could have joined in on the fun and maybe came with a sign that said "Ban MK" and not entered and sat there and played megaman.

Having stuff to do, psshhh. Do you have a job and a life or something silly like htat?

 

[etecoon]

The same way they banned akuma? Tell everyone he is broken, run your tournaments with him banned. Seems easy enough.

URC already tried this with the added incentive of not being able to get your tournament stickied/featured if you didn't follow their rules, it failed. you can't ban MK across the board in the same way as akuma because even most pro-ban people will say that it's not a comparable situation, MK is nothing like akuma.

 

[Judo777]

URC already tried this with the added incentive of not being able to get your tournament stickied/featured if you didn't follow their rules, it failed. you can't ban MK across the board in the same way as akuma because even most pro-ban people will say that it's not a comparable situation, MK is nothing like akuma.

Well you cant really make that last statement because people don't really know. See Akuma was up and banned immediately when they game came out so people have really taken no time to learn the MU's extensively. I have a good buddy who says that akuma is pretty comparable to MK but again not a safe statement to make. I mean Akuma has a few close to even MU's at the top (and chun li?) he mostly just completely obliterates characters that already dont matter (lol gief).

He is also banned in HD Remix for reasons that sound awfully close to MK. But you know who banned him? Like one guy when the game came out. He said "hey this guy is no longer broke, but hes still probably to good to where players who didn't deserve the win got it by playing him. Banned"

 

[xDD-Master]

Akuma has like 9-1 MU vs. (almost) everyone in ST, because the game wasnt designed to have Air Fireballs, which is why nearly no character (if any) can deal with them.

Its kinda like if MK had infinite jumps and stays under the stage all the time, no character is designed to beat someone below the stage.

He isnt that broken or broken at all in HDR, but he is still banned there because he always was banned.

You don't have a "broken" character. You have several characters with awesome potential and a lot of aggressive options. Brawl has one character that is above and beyond the rest, and then several that fall behind him simply because they do the best against that character due to their defensive options.

So what? I dont see a problem, as long is he is beatable, which he is.

No one likes it.

I like it.

 

[Blistering Speed]

Overswarm is an enormous scrub.

 

[Overswarm]

URC already tried this with the added incentive of not being able to get your tournament stickied/featured if you didn't follow their rules, it failed. you can't ban MK across the board in the same way as akuma because even most pro-ban people will say that it's not a comparable situation, MK is nothing like akuma.

Actually Akuma was banned long before he had even close to dominating results. I had this discussion with Omni long ago and when we looked at actual tournament results the one that broke the SF community had two Akuma's in the top 8, on opposite ends.

 

[Overswarm]

I dunno, it still seems to take being better by a fairly significant margin in order to win with Meta Knight, in several relevant matchups. That's certainly "undisputed best" material, but it doesn't make him broken by any means.

At which point banning him would be a point on whether it's more fun to play in a field of characters shaped by his presence or not. To which I've heard opinions on both sides for both formats.

The end result is the one that matters. If someone has to put an hour or a month into Meta Knight to win in a certain matchup because it is more difficult than others, it doesn't really change the fact that in the end he wins.

 

[Strong Badam]

I did that. I lived off of Brawl for a decent amount of time; I quit my job because it made me more money and I wanted more time.


But imagine if Fox's up-smash killed at 40%, for an arbitrary example.

Fox wouldn't be unstoppable by any means. People could say things like "just grab him and chain grab him to death" or "he's not broken because you can gimp his recovery". But in reality? He'd have a hefty advantage that would really put a damper on the metagame of Melee. Eventually you'd see Fox as one of the only characters out there; you'd have people who could rise up with others, but Fox was still the bread and butter. Some people would suck with him, some would be good, but you'd always have your results tainted in a slight fashion.

You can say "let's man up and get better" but the "get better" part would be maining Fox, just like right now it's maining MK in Brawl. It doesn't make sense to not do that. There's no "I'll learn to not get upsmashed" just like there's no "I'll learn to play Game & Watch and land judgement hammers" in Melee. It's a fools errand.

You don't have a "broken" character. You have several characters with awesome potential and a lot of aggressive options. Brawl has one character that is above and beyond the rest, and then several that fall behind him simply because they do the best against that character due to their defensive options. No one likes it.

Your argument is horrible. You're making your entire argument with the idea that MK's brokeness is a fact; a 13 year old could make this post. You've proven nothing, really. This is overall a horrendous post on the subject. And like I said, banning MK doesn't solve Brawl's problems. ICs/Olimar are still selectable, etc. read my previous posts.

 

[sneakytako]

Do people really not understand the significance of discussing the MK ban on this thread?

The MK ban was supposed to take affect after Apex 2012, but opinions changed after Apex. Why was that? The entire reasoning for Japan not to ban MK because they felt under their ruleset that MK was not dominant.

Now lets look at the results.

1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8

With a payout system of top 5 of:
1st - 45%
2nd - 25%
3rd - 15%
4th - 10%
5th - 5%
MK wins 45 +15 + 5 = 65%. He would have won almost 2/3 of the prize money. (If we used Whobo's payout format it would have been >66%)

Now I don't know about anyone else, but it seems like these results show how MK's dominance is not affected by the smaller stagelist. But thats just my opinion. Oh wait, no it's not I just proved it with numbers.

But this is just one tournament, this doesn't prove that this phenomenon of MK dominating is occuring everywhere right?

OS's data shows that MK won more than 50% of the money when he was played. That's more than the next 5 characters COMBINED.

But hey, if not MK someone has to dominate right?

Lets look at whobo.

1: Esam==/
2: Ally==////
3: Gnes==/
4: Atomsk==/
5: Ryo==
5: Will==
7: Shaky==
7: NickRiddle==

I'm not even going to bother to calculate payouts, because almost no characters even overlap, with the exception of Ally showing he's better with every character ever apparently.

Again, lets see this over a long period

Snake wins 16% of the prize money when played. That's less than a third of the percentage that MK would have won. That's only 1.5% more than what he used to win in MK legal tournies.

So no, no new character would replace MK in the dominate spot.

So, what were the other arguements? We don't feel like it?

 

[Overswarm]

Your argument is horrible. You're making your entire argument with the idea that MK's brokeness is a fact; a 13 year old could make this post. You've proven nothing, really. This is overall a horrendous post on the subject. And like I said, banning MK doesn't solve Brawl's problems. ICs/Olimar are still selectable, etc. read my previous posts.

It is fact. It's been proven on multiple occasions in a myriad of ways. We've collected data over several years showing the rise of MK and have even used predictive analytics to correctly anticipate character trends.

ICs and Olimar have never really been an issue. At one point everyone thought Olimar was the coolest thing ever and then, just like always, people figured out a way around it and now they're just another character losing to Meta Knight.

Meta Knight is literally the only problem with Brawl. This doesn't mean everyone would like the game, but for the people that do? The game only improves with MK gone. Competition improves, variety improves, the stage list expands allowing for counterpicks that don't devolve into only Meta Knight. It's a much better game.

 

[Strong Badam]

I'm not going to keep discussing this with you if you think that MK's brokenness is fact. You're simply an idiot if you truly believe that, and it's a waste of my time to respond to any of your posts, Overswarm. I hope you're not as big of an idiot as those who think that the last one to post about a subject is the winner, either, because that'll probably be you. Because you're a waste of my time.

And you're also an idiot if you think that Meta Knight is the only problem with Brawl. You are, and that is a fact.

 

[Zankoku]

So, what were the other arguements? We don't feel like it?

Well, isn't that how it's always been? By now a lot of people have seen the statistics, and many have experienced tournament play with and without Meta Knight - whether or not there's logic to the decision, majority rule still ends up being the biggest factor, except in smaller sections than the entire country. The community of a given tournament scene's preference to (not) ban Meta Knight is largely what ends up deciding his legality. You can see this as the case where several states have him banned and several states do not, and there aren't really complaints from any states about their own tournaments.

So, what're the arguments supposed to do? Convince tournaments that don't ban Meta Knight that they're working against results and/or logic and that they should ban him? Convince tournaments that do ban Meta Knight that they're scrubby, or bad, or whatever else and that they should learn to beat him? There hasn't been too much change in the arguments since official decision first came up - people want him banned, or they don't.

 

[sneakytako]

It's kinda like slavery. It took almost 100 years and a civil war for people to see it but eventually people acknowledged that slavery is bad.

People say that brawl is bad, brawl is dead, but are un-willing to change it. You just gotta keep chugging and convincing people that MK is a real issue. There has been progress, whobo was a big deal, I'm sure everyone enjoyed themselves watching ike wreck face in singles (and doubles). Some people just need more convincing, but you gotta keep at it in the hope that people will one day accept the truth.

 

[Overswarm]

I'm not going to keep discussing this with you if you think that MK's brokenness is fact. You're simply an idiot if you truly believe that, and it's a waste of my time to respond to any of your posts, Overswarm. I hope you're not as big of an idiot as those who think that the last one to post about a subject is the winner, either, because that'll probably be you. Because you're a waste of my time.

And you're also an idiot if you think that Meta Knight is the only problem with Brawl. You are, and that is a fact.

I didn't come to the conclusion on a whim. It took a lot of research and a lot of time, but it isn't really up for debate anymore. These aren't debates, this is just an educational experience.

 

[Flayl]

I'm not going to keep discussing this with you if you think that MK's brokenness is fact. You're simply an idiot if you truly believe that, and it's a waste of my time to respond to any of your posts, Overswarm. I hope you're not as big of an idiot as those who think that the last one to post about a subject is the winner, either, because that'll probably be you. Because you're a waste of my time.

And you're also an idiot if you think that Meta Knight is the only problem with Brawl. You are, and that is a fact.

The best debater

(no seriously why even start **** up if this is how you're going to end it haha)

 

[Overswarm]

Well, I met like 90 billion people while I was at that tournament that I wouldn't have met otherwise, I play smash and meeting people I insult online all the time is one of the most joyous things to do imo. You could have joined in on the fun and maybe came with a sign that said "Ban MK" and not entered and sat there and played megaman.

Having stuff to do, psshhh. Do you have a job and a life or something silly like htat?

Not big enough space for that.

What YOU should have done was say "eff Brawl MEGARMANS" and just come up and played megaman challenges

 

[Baskerville]

Jesus Christ this thread... -_-

 

[theunabletable]

It is fact. It's been proven on multiple occasions in a myriad of ways. We've collected data over several years showing the rise of MK and have even used predictive analytics to correctly anticipate character trends.

MK being the best has been proven, yeah, and by a large margin. You could say that that means broken, but if that's what broken means, the line between broken and bannable is correspondingly more vague.

Although even "bannable" is a vague idea, and comes down to preference.

Tell me, what do you find broken to mean, and what's your intention with using it in this context?

Meta Knight is literally the only problem with Brawl. This doesn't mean everyone would like the game, but for the people that do? The game only improves with MK gone. Competition improves, variety improves, the stage list expands allowing for counterpicks that don't devolve into only Meta Knight. It's a much better game.

"Improves", "better", they're all completely subjective, and clearly so, as there are many people who would disagree with the game being better, or more fun without MK.

You're being arrogant; not everyone shares the same opinion as you, and your arguments for banning MK hinge on preference.


Although I guess I can't expect you to respond, considering your cherrypicking spree in this thread, and my last post being completely ignored :C

 

[Nicholas1024]

For me the question is not "Is MK broken?" MK is undeniably the best and the dominant force in the metagame, but he is also undeniably beatable. The answer to that question therefore depends on what you consider "broken". Rather, the question I'm more interested in is "Would banning MK improve the metagame as a whole?" After Apex the answer leaned more towards "No", as Japan was clearly on par with the US or better, and did not consider MK ban-worthy.

Although it's risky to draw conclusions off of just a couple tournaments, SRT shows that MK still places extremely high in Japan, and Whobo 4 opens up the possibility of a LOT more character diversity in MK banned tourneys. Although I wouldn't commit to a universal MK ban (not that you could enforce it anyway), I'm definitely interested in seeing more MK banned nationals and whether this trend will continue.

Really though, if you want to convince people in favor of the ban, the solution is pretty simple. Hold (preferably large) MK-banned tournaments and watch what happens. If MK legal tournaments were to routinely end with 5MK's, 2 IC's and an Olimar in top 8 while you get amazing character diversity in MK-banned, I think people would realize the best course of action soon enough.

As a side note, banning MK would also impact the stage list. With MK legal, RC and Brinstar more or less have to be banned, since RC/Brinstar are great MK stages, but bad for most of the other top tiers, giving him an even larger advantage than normal. On the other hand, with MK banned, RC and Brinstar would likely help character diversity, giving many characters better counterpicks against IC's, Olimar, Diddy Kong, Falco, and Snake.

 

[Eddie G]

I'm not going to keep discussing this with you if you think that MK's brokenness is fact. You're simply an idiot if you truly believe that, and it's a waste of my time to respond to any of your posts, Overswarm. I hope you're not as big of an idiot as those who think that the last one to post about a subject is the winner, either, because that'll probably be you. Because you're a waste of my time.

And you're also an idiot if you think that Meta Knight is the only problem with Brawl. You are, and that is a fact.

Impressive play at words, sir. I have learned a lot by reading this.

 

[Overswarm]

With MK legal, RC and Brinstar more or less have to be banned, since RC/Brinstar are great MK stages, but bad for most of the other top tiers, giving him an even larger advantage than normal.

His win% was actually higher on starters but whatever perpetuate that myth =P

 

[Strong Badam]

As a side note, banning MK would also impact the stage list. With MK legal, RC and Brinstar more or less have to be banned, since RC/Brinstar are great MK stages, but bad for most of the other top tiers, giving him an even larger advantage than normal. On the other hand, with MK banned, RC and Brinstar would likely help character diversity, giving many characters better counterpicks against IC's, Olimar, Diddy Kong, Falco, and Snake.

This is a bad ideology for stage legality. You ban stages because they introduce too much variance on results, or over-centralizing strategies such as circle-camping on Hyrule Temple, not because it makes bad characters better. The job of balancing the game is not that of the community in making a ruleset. It was Sakurai and his team, over 4 years ago. MK's legality should not have an effect on the stage list. Any stage that's bannable with him legal should be banned without him legal (which is a bad decision for reasons mentioned in 499903910940143 threads on Smashboards).

If, say, Sonic was better than the rest of the cast on Hyrule Temple, would that make the stage legitimate for competitive play, if only for that reason? No, it certainly wouldn't. ICs are better with a more conservative stage list? Wario's not so good without Brinstar? So be it. Stop catering your stagelists to the characters that you prefer, and make a stagelist with actual criteria and without double standards.

 

[Overswarm]

This is a bad ideology for stage legality. You ban stages because they introduce too much variance on results, or over-centralizing strategies such as circle-camping on Hyrule Temple, not because it makes bad characters better. The job of balancing the game is not that of the community in making a ruleset. It was Sakurai and his team, over 4 years ago. MK's legality should not have an effect on the stage list. Any stage that's bannable with him legal should be banned without him legal (which is a bad decision for reasons mentioned in 499903910940143 threads on Smashboards).

If, say, Sonic was better than the rest of the cast on Hyrule Temple, would that make the stage legitimate for competitive play, if only for that reason? No, it certainly wouldn't. ICs are better with a more conservative stage list? Wario's not so good without Brinstar? So be it. Stop catering your stagelists to the characters that you prefer, and make a stagelist with actual criteria and without double standards.

We did.

Larger stagelists don't have more variance and results are entirely predictable. More stages = better. Always has been and we got the data to prove it. Hell, we even ran MLG with more stages and the variance people were so concerned about never appeared. It never existed. It's just pseudo intellectualism from people that can't comprehend stages that aren't flat/plat.

Shorter stagelists are also predictable and lack variance but they do so with the negative of allowing a much smaller list of playable characters.

There's no reason to have a shorter stage list except for people saying "I don't like it" or "I can't learn the other stages".

Whenever East Coast comes to midwest we still body them on all these so-called "random" stages. Consistently.

 

[Deleted member]

Dear Overswarm,

I miss fighting endlessly with you. Good luck with Strong Bad.

-Max

 

[Kel]

Having the Japanese stage list was supposed to even out MK according to many people. I've often heard that MK isn't so bad if he has to play against others on flat + plat stages. This tournament FORCED MK to play ICs on FD, and he still took half of the top 8.

Also, if you look at character usage, you will notice that every single character in the top 8 has a favorable MU against Olimar. This is quite contrary to the "if we ban MK, the game will be nothing but ICs and Olimars" mindset. MK is probably Olimar's best MU out of that top 8, and he still couldn't break into that top 8 barrier due to the other high tier/ top tier characters beating Olimar on flat + plat stages.

Look, I used to be one of the biggest advocates against banning MK. I thought it was way too early, and I too had that whole "well, he loses tournaments to good players, so he can't be TOO good" mentality. My hope was that, after time, we would develop the game more and that different characters would emerge to even out the metagame. This has not happened. Under every rule set, no matter how many special rules we make specifically to nerf him, MK prevails. MK is not a win button as people would like him to be in order to ban him. He is overcentralizing though. People quickly ban stages when they're too strong and the metagame changes to revolve around it, but for some reason a character is out of the question. Everything about Brawl's metagame revolves around MK: the stages we use, the rules we use (seriously, you lose for grabbing the edge too many times), the characters that are good- it's all based around MK! A character's viability is completely decided by its MK MU. Everyone in our top/ high tier has at least an OK MK MU.

After acknowledging that our entire rule set and tier list is centered around MK, is it really just ok to keep seeing MKs dominate the top placements? Sure, there are Vinnies and Esams that can sometimes pull out a win, but MK is consistently overall the best by far. MK has no losing match ups, and no losing stages (even ICs vs MK on FD apparently), so there is no reason not to pick MK. More and more people have done it over time and MKs will continue to dominate as they have since 2008. Here are a couple top players that ditched their character for MK: M2K, Ally, Lee Martin, Seibrik, just off the top of my head! They know their chances of winning are much better if they are better with MK than any other high tier. There is no reason not to pick MK and he overcentralizes the game. For proof, look at results.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Is the OP gonna be updated with full character usage over most of the top?

 

[Eddie G]

Good post, Kel. The WHOBO 4 results also show a lack of "domination" by ICs and Olimar with the absense of MK. I honestly don't remember the last time I've seen such an absurdly large amount of diversity in the top spots.

Also, let's not forget about Peach (or most other barely viable/not-viable characters) people. She blatantly gets filtered out of true viability by MK and MK alone (Falco and Marth are difficult but certainly doable, and Snake is most definitely doable). She stomps Wario, goes even with or barely loses to Diddy, beats Pikachu, does very well against ICs AND Olimar compared to a majority of the cast, goes even with DDD, ZSS, Toon Link, and Lucario (in my opinion), goes even with or barely loses to her fellow mid-high tiers (Fox and Wolf), goes even with or beats the majority of mid tier, destroys low tier (as expected of any viable character to do). It's actually quite hilarious how much of an effect one single character can have on a character's metagame/presence or the entire metagame in general. Disgusting, even.

As quoted from randomthug123 in Batman: Arkham City upon being provoked - "It's the freakin' bat!"

 

[Froggy]

This is a bad ideology for stage legality. You ban stages because they introduce too much variance on results, or over-centralizing strategies such as circle-camping on Hyrule Temple, not because it makes bad characters better. The job of balancing the game is not that of the community in making a ruleset. It was Sakurai and his team, over 4 years ago. MK's legality should not have an effect on the stage list. Any stage that's bannable with him legal should be banned without him legal (which is a bad decision for reasons mentioned in 499903910940143 threads on Smashboards).

If, say, Sonic was better than the rest of the cast on Hyrule Temple, would that make the stage legitimate for competitive play, if only for that reason? No, it certainly wouldn't. ICs are better with a more conservative stage list? Wario's not so good without Brinstar? So be it. Stop catering your stagelists to the characters that you prefer, and make a stagelist with actual criteria and without double standards.

People ignore this guy.

He doesn't play Brawl and he's an awful hypocrite. He is one of the main advocates for banning stages in melee because Fox is too powerful on them. Don't take him seriously.

 

[Kel]

It's hard to tell the difference between him and typical anti-ban people




ZING!

 

[Overswarm]

Dear Overswarm,

I miss fighting endlessly with you. Good luck with Strong Bad.

-Max

Miss you too buddy.

 

[Vinnie]

Do people really not understand the significance of discussing the MK ban on this thread?

The MK ban was supposed to take affect after Apex 2012, but opinions changed after Apex. Why was that? The entire reasoning for Japan not to ban MK because they felt under their ruleset that MK was not dominant.

Now lets look at the results.

1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8

With a payout system of top 5 of:
1st - 45%
2nd - 25%
3rd - 15%
4th - 10%
5th - 5%
MK wins 45 +15 + 5 = 65%. He would have won almost 2/3 of the prize money. (If we used Whobo's payout format it would have been >66%)

Now I don't know about anyone else, but it seems like these results show how MK's dominance is not affected by the smaller stagelist. But thats just my opinion. Oh wait, no it's not I just proved it with numbers.

But this is just one tournament, this doesn't prove that this phenomenon of MK dominating is occuring everywhere right?

OS's data shows that MK won more than 50% of the money when he was played. That's more than the next 5 characters COMBINED.

But hey, if not MK someone has to dominate right?

Lets look at whobo.

1: Esam==/
2: Ally==////
3: Gnes==/
4: Atomsk==/
5: Ryo==
5: Will==
7: Shaky==
7: NickRiddle==

I'm not even going to bother to calculate payouts, because almost no characters even overlap, with the exception of Ally showing he's better with every character ever apparently.

Again, lets see this over a long period

Snake wins 16% of the prize money when played. That's less than a third of the percentage that MK would have won. That's only 1.5% more than what he used to win in MK legal tournies.

So no, no new character would replace MK in the dominate spot.

So, what were the other arguements? We don't feel like it?

Just so you know, you're comparing an international tournament to a regional. Also, the SRT payout was top 3, not top 6.

 

[Alphicans]

The actual payout doesn't matter cause it's arbitrary. In an argument you should take results and pretend the payout is identical. Also WHOBO wasn't a regional.

 

[Overswarm]

Just so you know, you're comparing an international tournament to a regional. Also, the SRT payout was top 3, not top 6.

lololololololololol

Japan + small handful of americans

or

continental US


rolleyes.jpg

 

[Kel]

WHOBO was an international because Ally went....

 

[Overswarm]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Eddie G]

Even IF WHOBO were a regional, its results would have gone against the trend of ICs/Olimar dominating smaller scale MK banned events anyway. The ICs/Olimar icons you see at the top of those results aren't a result of their dominance, it's just Ally (using a bit of Olimar for some reason...?) and ESAM doing what they do best (at any type of event). After those two spots, it's like I'm looking at half of the game's roster in the rest of the top spots lol.

 

[Zankoku]

It's kinda like slavery. It took almost 100 years and a civil war for people to see it but eventually people acknowledged that slavery is bad.

People say that brawl is bad, brawl is dead, but are un-willing to change it. You just gotta keep chugging and convincing people that MK is a real issue. There has been progress, whobo was a big deal, I'm sure everyone enjoyed themselves watching ike wreck face in singles (and doubles). Some people just need more convincing, but you gotta keep at it in the hope that people will one day accept the truth.

Well, I admittedly no longer live near your area, but Brawl is far from the "bad, dead, unchanging" game over here that you claim people are calling it. Also, unless there was a significant portion of slaves who enjoyed slavery and preferred it to freedom, your analogy is really only useful for attempting to paint the side opposing you in a completely negative light.

I have nothing against people who feel the game is more fun without Meta Knight, and nothing against people who prefer playing as or against Meta Knight. There's not really much of a national standard since opinion around here is fractured on just about everything except stuff like "don't crash the game". If Brawl is, objectively, more fun played in a certain way, I'm certain it would catch on quickly enough, anyway. If it is only found to be more fun for some section of the playerbase, then all you can do is hope your way eventually becomes a big enough majority; but denouncing the other way as strictly worse isn't exactly helpful.

 

[Hylian]

For me, it's as simple as looking at the players rather than the characters. The people who win big tournaments and are considered top players are there because they are amazing at the game, not because they play mk. There hasn't been ANYONE, ANYONE who has switched off their main and turned from a medicore player into a national threat. ANYONE. There is undeniable proof of the top mk mains being able to beat other top players with other characters and proving themselves to be the best not just from a character.

Mk is a hard character to pick up and just start doing well in tournament with. You don't see people pick up mk and start placing better than they used to generally. You see amazing players like Vinnie try to play mk and do much worse than his other characters despite the obvious time he's put in to learn the characters mechanics. You see top players occasionally switch off of mk to win a set, such as lee martin losing with mk against rain, and then beating him with lucario, or dojo 2-0ing mike haze with diddy, anti winning a recent mk banned tournament, tyrant switching to falco against m2k, there are plenty of examples of top players showing why they are top players: Skill, not character selection.

The fact that the same players are going to be the ones winning regardless of if mk is legal or not really says something. I can't believe someone would use this as a GOOD thing for banning mk, when all it is is not letting certain top players use their mains just because you don't like mk. Seriously, all you have to do is PLAY against these players and you know how good they are isn't because of mk.

The reality of it is mk is just a really fun and straightforward character to play. You don't have random players picking mk and doing well in tournaments they shouldn't, this doesn't happen anywhere. You yourself switched to mk OS to prove he's broken and have done absolutely nothing notable with him in the slightest. You show me that random player who has switched to metaknight and became a national threat when they weren't before. It just doesn't happen.

 

[Overswarm]

Half the characters weren't even top tiers that were used.

MAN it makes me excited just looking at it.

But then Meta Knight.