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!
Banning MK will also hurt Snake, MK shuts down some of Snake's worst matchups and Snake has only done so well because of how close to even he is with MK.
Lots of things are considered for a ban by less credible and intelligent people. Women's right to vote was "banned" for quite some time, for example. Doesn't make them bannable. Think about that.
But now you're cheating. A lot of people use "MK has no bad match-ups" as an argument for banning him, as if that alone or in conjunction to other arguments is enough for a ban. But it is not. Because if we're going to contextualize Pikachu's situation in SSB64, we also have to contextualize MK's in SSBB.
And with Meta Knight gone, there's no reason to not main Marth since Marth has only two disadvantageous match-ups, both of which suffer several disadvantageous match-ups more than he does, some of them more severe than Marth's against D3 and Snake (Marth's disadvantageous match-ups). And people would flock to Marth. And Marth would start taking one jillion tournaments.
So THAT'S how ostritches look like up close... I guess I learn something new every day.
:flame:Everyone who wants MK banned should.....
Like c'mon that thing looks pretty angry
Snake vs Wario on Brinstar.
Please name the characters which enjoy better match-ups than Marth 8with MK gone). Also, name all of these hidden disadvantageous match-ups of his.
Marth loses to Snake on the majority of stages. He loses to Dedede on a smaller amount of stages than Snake but still a fair list. He CAN lose to Wario on really good Wario counter picks if the Wario plays a hit and run game, examples of this include Jungle Japes and Rainbow Cruise, possibly Frigate, Distant Planet, Castle Siege, Delfino, possibly Halberd, and a few more. Ice Climbers beat him on half of the neutrals, not so sure how they do on a lot of the CP stages.
This and I also think DK beats Marth and some of Marth's 60/40's are probably closer to even.
This. A lot of people could pick up MK and start placing at least slightly better. To do so with Marth requires quite a bit more skill and practice. Marth has like...weaknesses, and stuff.
What part of "Which of his match-ups are disadvantageous" sounded like "Which of his advantageous matchups are closer to even"? I disagree on DK vs. Marth, though.
Didn't I just state specifically that Marth suffers disadvantageous match-ups from Snake and D3?
He "can" lose to Wario? What does that even mean?
They do? This is the first I've heard of this.
Because a lot of people are too lazy to actually try to become good at the game and instead just try to get stuff they don't like banned.
Snake beats mk on all neutrals and Halberd 51-49Diddy beats mk on all neutrals and ps1 55-45That's IMO
That's IMO
Well, it would go like this:
Yes, and what does this have to do with his overall match-up against Marth? If he plays really campy on some really big stages, he can win? Wow. Amazing.
This =/= ICs beat Marth (i.e., ICs have an advantageous match-up against Marth).
Using fallacious logic.
Which brings me back to what I stated earlier, oh, a page or so back:
I agree with both of you.Snake beats mk on all neutrals and Halberd 51-49
None of that was needed considering that you already knew that there was another draft, and you just wasted everyone's time that read your post. Quite the illogical choice, no?
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7290422&postcount=3901
i would need to consider this a lot before responding.
You said Marth only had two bad matchups. Marth can lose to a lot more than just 2 characters depending on the stage.
It really depends. Some Marth players think Marth loses, while some IC's players think IC's lose. It depends a lot on the stage too.
My point is you said he had only 2 bad matchups, so I started naming them off, starting with the most commonly perceived bad matchups he has and then adding on to it.
Just to clarify, which characters are you talking about here? Please list all of them.
Ah yes, Sirlin's criteria. I love Playing to Win as well. I am a big fan of most of the ideas Sirlin has put into writing on his website.
This is another part of the puzzle that leads to the realization of my argument; and again, it is drawn from Sirlin's writing, I assume.
I am loathe to respond to this point, because I fear that the discussion it might spark will distract from the more important questions I asked earlier; however, the answer is brief so I will include it for the sake of completeness.
Turnip Pluck and Judgment are not random according to my criteria, and, as such, do not warrant a ban. Again, I am hesitant to respond to this point because I fear it will distract from the more important questions I asked earlier, but I will leave this response in for the sake of completeness.
Again, I will only ask that you list which characters in Brawl you are claiming would need to be banned under my criteria.
What, was I to assume the 2nd draft was entirely different? Also, you didn't link me to the 2nd draft, so I had nothing to go on. I worked with what I had. Congratulations for sounding antagonistic for absolutely no reason!
WTH, this is almost identical to the 1st draft, at least when it concerns the end part of it, which was the part I was replying to! And when I say almost identical, I mean it's pretty much 95% verbatim. The revision still asserts that we ban things to maximize diversity.
I already have. I've stated them time and again. They are the criteria we currently use for banning.
Combatting stupidity by pre-emptive strikes. If we mock certain arguments openly and repeatedly, eventually, people will be afraid of using them.
Snake is not always the safest character to choose when you don't know who your opponent is, Snake will not need banning even if MK gets banned.
S (obviously), A and large chunks of B. S and A would have to go, hands down. Some Bs are debatable.
It happens to be the ban criteria almost every single Competitive gaming community in existence uses.
"Ban anything which severely limit diversity" -> "Ban anything which will give us greater diversity if banned"
Because if something severely limits diversity, it is over-centralizing the metagame. The metagame is largely revolving around something. And this limitation must be by nature, not by choice.
"Maximize diversity" will never be a true evolution of Sirlin's very moderaete criteria.
Because randomness affects the results of a match through things entirely out of players' control unless they are psychic. They can read their opponents like a book, but still lose if the game just happens to decide to spawn the wrong item at the wrong time.
You can tech on falling blocks, you can be killed by falling blocks (notably bombs), so, yeah, Green Greens is bannable, IMO. Corneria is a harder sell.
You must mean they aren't random enough. Because they are quite random.
This does not matter.
The choice of one player. The other player cannot do anything besides simply not giving them the chance to use the moves in question, though this is nigh impossible.
The items-part of the post was not directed at you, so there's no reason why you should address it as we're in agreement with their banning.
See above. If you want, I could specify which characters in B-tier need to go. But seriously, no one can, with a straight face, argue against the fact that S and A has to go.
So? Are you saying Peach is a bad match-up for Fox in Melee because Brinstar happens to be an excellent anti-Fox counterpick and a pretty good Peach stage, ergo, Peach is a disadvantageous match-up for Fox?
This is not what was being argued. What was being argued is that Snake limits diversity greatly. Thus, banning Snake, a single character, would bring in more diversity (more than 1 character).
