Should Metaknight be Banned? ***Take 3***

[CRASHiC]

Doesn't Snake, Diddy, and Pikachu have a 65:35 disadvantaged matchup against DDD, Luigi, and Marth respectively? I do beleive you understand this, but my current argument is not how MK is advantaged over the cast, but how the rest of the cast destroys each other and MK managing to slip by into the money spots due to not having to worry about a deadly threat to him etting into the money and how this will inevitably move more people to main MK much, much more than the rest of the cast.

DDD has many horrible matchups, especially with top teir.
Co and Fogo go no secondary and do amazing at tournaments.
Lee has Ice Climbers, but not for match up reasons, but because he plays who he loves.

 

[DMG]

Diddy doesn't lose 65:35 to Luigi lol, Jiggly Puff does better against Diddy than Luigi and she goes 60:40.

 

[salaboB]

Banning meta is unethical as feck considering people have worked their fecking azzes off sinch march freaking 9th which is far before a tier list even came out.

Would you rather have an ethical community with MK allowed or a dirty one with MK bant?

It's not unethical either way.

 

[Kamikaze*]

Doesn't Snake, Diddy, and Pikachu have a 65:35 disadvantaged matchup against DDD, Luigi, and Marth respectively? I do beleive you understand this, but my current argument is not how MK is advantaged over the cast, but how the rest of the cast destroys each other and MK managing to slip by into the money spots due to not having to worry about a deadly threat to him etting into the money and how this will inevitably move more people to main MK much, much more than the rest of the cast.

I see no problem in all MK tournies. everything will just be more fair. since everything is 50:50 kthxbaiii

 

[Kamikaze*]

It's not unethical either way.

Yes it is. By banning MK you're catering to the people that don't know how to fight him, while bull****ting the MK mains by banning their char.

 

[Kamikaze*]

Diddy doesn't lose 65:35 to Luigi lol, Jiggly Puff does better against Diddy than Luigi and she goes 60:40.

Time to main jiggs.

I feckin hate diddy

 

[Deathcarter]

Banning meta is unethical as feck considering people have worked their fecking azzes off sinch march freaking 9th which is far before a tier list even came out.

Would you rather have an ethical community with MK allowed or a dirty one with MK bant?

The general mindset of the community, minus a select group of people, in the distant future depending on no ban or a ban would either be mostly everyone (more than 50% imo) taking the very, very safe (aka easy) path to victory or an community taking an equally easy, but more anti-competitive/diverse path to victory.

I don't think the good arguments for either side have anything to do with how easy it is to win.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Doesn't Snake, Diddy, and Pikachu have a 65:35 disadvantaged matchup against DDD, Luigi, and Marth respectively? I do beleive you understand this, but my current argument is not how MK is advantaged over the cast, but how the rest of the cast destroys each other and MK managing to slip by into the money spots due to not having to worry about a deadly threat to him etting into the money and how this will inevitably move more people to main MK much, much more than the rest of the cast.

Snake vs DDD is basically even, and Pikachu and Diddy lose nothing worse than 40/60.

 

[FB Dj_Iskascribble]

SSF2T and SF3TS weren't worth playing?

there was no character banned in that game. And akuma in the other game was WAY worse then mk could ever hope to be

 

[Turbo Ether]

there was no character banned in that game. And akuma in that game was WAY worse then mk could ever hope to be

Gill was banned.

 

[Deathcarter]

DDD has many horrible matchups, especially with top teir.
Co and Fogo go no secondary and do amazing at tournaments.
Lee has Ice Climbers, but not for match up reasons, but because he plays who he loves.

So you beleive that in due time, that the players of other viable characters will develop enough to deal with their hard matchups to the point that they themselves could consider the matchup even and not be afraid to take a more high-risk, high-reward choice to tournaments? Or in the case that this is already happening, will this happen on an even broader scale?

At dr. marioguy: Does Diddy Kong go at a slight disadvantage against Falco and Marth? I still beleive Wario is the only other character with no major disadvantages and everyone in this thread knows he is heavily unpopular. I even read someone in the SBR Wario discussion thread say he was mindgame intensive. If true, MK would be a more viable choice for someone who is not close to M2K in strategy.

At Turbo_Ether: Really? Either the uneven matchups are becoming more even like I wondered earlier, or the matchups in general need to be reworked.

 

[Kamikaze*]

The general mindset of the community, minus a select group of people, in the distant future depending on no ban or a ban would either be mostly everyone (more than 50% imo) taking the very, very safe (aka easy) path to victory or an community taking an equally easy, but more anti-competitive/diverse path to victory.

I don't think the good arguments for either side have anything to do with how easy it is to win.

Still they shouldnt ban him. I'd rather have it be all MK before they ban him

Banning MK when he's not even broken is just wrong.

And there is a 99.9% chance he won't be banned. Majority of the community voted yes in all 3 polls and guess what?

HE IS STILL FECKIN HERE

I also like how the SBR ALWAYS votes no. Maybe the SBR thinks you all don't know what the feck you people are talking about . No. They all KNOW you all don't know what the feck you're talking about

 

[adumbrodeus]

Banning meta is unethical as feck considering people have worked their fecking azzes off sinch march freaking 9th which is far before a tier list even came out.

Would you rather have an ethical community with MK allowed or a dirty one with MK bant?

There's nothing unethical about banning something that's toxic to the community. Plenty of people work hard at learning how to assassinate, does that mean that it should be legal?

Sometimes people get screwed by changes in the rules that are overall far superior but hurts them. It happens, but we can't screw everyone over just to protect a few people.


Not pro-ban, but it's just a stupid argument.

 

[Deathcarter]

Still they shouldnt ban him. I'd rather have it be all MK before they ban him

Banning MK when he's not even broken is just wrong.

And there is a 99.9% chance he won't be banned. Majority of the community voted yes in all 3 polls and guess what?

HE IS STILL FECKIN HERE

I also like how the SBR ALWAYS votes no. Maybe the SBR thinks you all don't know what the feck you people are talking about . No. They all KNOW you all don't know what the feck you're talking about

To be fair, I think we all know that there is not any concrete evidence that MK is over-centralizing the game even now so it is not surprising that the SBR voted no back then. Heck, my current argument is relying on future premonitions. I have admitted that he can't be banned at present time in my earlier posts.

 

[Kamikaze*]

There's nothing unethical about banning something that's toxic to the community. Plenty of people work hard at learning how to assassinate, does that mean that it should be legal?

Sometimes people get screwed by changes in the rules that are overall far superior but hurts them. It happens, but we can't screw everyone over just to protect a few people.


Not pro-ban, but it's just a stupid argument.

And banning a character is just a stupid move.

 

[One_With_Sumthing]

And banning a character is just a stupid move.

Incorrect.
Think.

 

[Kewkky]

And banning a character is just a stupid move.

As stupid as your reasoning? Because I'm sure that, if i were pro-ban and haven't voted yet, by reading your unstructured posts with flawed logic and lack of points to back up my own views on the matter, it would certainly seal the deal.

And I am Anti-Ban, MK isn't some god, like people make him out to be.

 

[adumbrodeus]

And banning a character is just a stupid move.

No, it depends on the character and the game.


In most cases making sweeping statements results in you being wrong and looking stupid.

 

[Kamikaze*]

Think.

I did. He is not broken yet.

When you ban him you'll make people loose all their progress with MK.

 

[CRASHiC]

So you beleive that in due time, that the players of other viable characters will develop enough to deal with their hard matchups to the point that they themselves could consider the matchup even and not be afraid to take a more high-risk, high-reward choice to tournaments? Or in the case that this is already happening, will this happen on an even broader scale?

I'm of the belief, because of Reflex Wonder and Gimpy Fish, that every character has the potential for such behavior, but only in the hands of the select few.

I dislike it when people say things like, Great low tier players should main top tier, then they would be beastly. Simply, their is something right about that particular player with that particular character.
Some people can play tanks.
Some people play tricksters.
Some have immense speed control.
Some play a great counter game.

Just because Reflex Wonder has an amazing PT doesn't mean his DDD is also top notch.

 

[Kamikaze*]

No, it depends on the character and the game.

Ok lets look. MK = beatable

Banning MK = forcing MK's to throw all of their practice in the trash

I fail to see why it is ethical to ban him.

 

[Kamikaze*]

As stupid as your reasoning? Because I'm sure that, if i were pro-ban and haven't voted yet, by reading your unstructured posts with flawed logic and lack of points to back up my own views on the matter, it would certainly seal the deal.

And I am Anti-Ban, MK isn't some god, like people make him out to be.

How is my logic flawed? I'm telling the truth. A character who has even matchups is not broken.

 

[One_With_Sumthing]

Ok lets look. MK = beatable

Banning MK = forcing MK's to throw all of their practice in the trash

I fail to see why it is ethical to ban him.

Read your post.

 

[Kamikaze*]

To be fair, I think we all know that there is not any concrete evidence that MK is over-centralizing the game even now so it is not surprising that the SBR voted no back then. Heck, my current argument is relying on future premonitions. I have admitted that he can't be banned at present time in my earlier posts.

Well right now there is none period even as "gay" as people think MK is. Unless MK gets some CG that makes all MU's 90:10 let him stay

 

[CRASHiC]

Ok lets look. MK = beatable

Banning MK = forcing MK's to throw all of their practice in the trash

I fail to see why it is ethical to ban him.

Deoxys-E= Beatable

Banning Deoxys-E- Making teams that revolve around him, and players who love him void

Final juridic, banned.

 

[Kamikaze*]

Read your post.

Already did. I bet you're pro ban.

 

[One_With_Sumthing]

Already did. I bet you're pro ban.

Incorrect, I'm anti-ban. Read your post again.
Think harder.

 

[tekkie]

I see this argument boiling down to "They use MK as a main therefore they are less good with their secondary, so they don't have to prove that MK is a crutch."

Or, can anyone prove that MK isn't basically hitting a "win" button (with the appropriate skill level)?

I fail to see why it is ethical to ban him.

When you play Brawl, you're not playing Brawl; you're playing "I main the obnoxiously better character and here's why."

 

[Kewkky]

Banning MK = forcing MK's to throw all of their practice in the trash

If you're using that example, by viewing it from different perspectives, you end up looking pro-ban.

Why pro-ban? Well let's see... We can safely say that there are moe MK mains in the community, than any other character mains. HOWEVER! These aren't even close to 50% of the community, more or less, probably, 20% or lower. So:

1) By not banning MK and learning the MK matchup, we'll all end up having to change OUR mains to stand a chance against MK (if our mains don't let us have a chance), being over 80% of the community... And I'm not counting any people who would quit the game if they don't ban MK... Because I'm sure some would.

2) By banning MK, the only % of the community changing mains are the below 20%, the MK mains. And I'm not counting the quitters OR the people who would come back to Brawl when they see MK is gone.

So, clarify for me: Which is the smartest choice... Forcing less than 20% of the community to change (MK mains changing their character choices), or more than 80% of the community to change (changing mains, quitting the game, learning MOSTLY the MK matchup, etc.)?


I don't think you wanted to bring that argument up... Makes you look pro-ban.

 

[Kamikaze*]

Think harder.

No.

 

[Kamikaze*]

If you're using that example, by viewing it from different perspectives, you end up looking pro-ban.

Why pro-ban? Well let's see... We can safely say that there are moe MK mains in the community, than any other character mains. HOWEVER! These aren't even close to 50% of the community, more or less, probably, 20% or lower. So:

1) By not banning MK and learning the MK matchup, we'll all end up having to change OUR mains to stand a chance against MK (if our mains don't let us have a chance), being over 80% of the community... And I'm not counting any people who would quit the game if they don't ban MK... Because I'm sure some would.

2) By banning MK, the only % of the community changing mains are the below 20%, the MK mains. And I'm not counting the quitters OR the people who would come back to Brawl when they see MK is gone.

So, clarify for me: Which is the smartest choice... Forcing less than 20% of the community to change (MK mains changing their character choices), or more than 80% of the community to change (changing mains, quitting the game, learning MOSTLY the MK matchup, etc.)?


I don't think you wanted to bring that argument up... Makes you look pro-ban.

You got me there

He still shouldn't be banned. He is not broken yet

 

[Kamikaze*]

I still like how these polls aren't going to do anything

 

[Kamikaze*]

When you play Brawl, you're not playing Brawl; you're playing "I main the obnoxiously better character and here's why."

When you post you show that you have an IQ of -2

 

[Master Raven]

So, that's a yes? Or do you have anything intelligent to say?

Don't dodge our responses and resort to ad hominem.

Edit: I apologize to everyone for my misuse of a previous latin phrase (ad hoc).

 

[Nic64]

1) By not banning MK and learning the MK matchup, we'll all end up having to change OUR mains to stand a chance against MK (if our mains don't let us have a chance), being over 80% of the community... And I'm not counting any people who would quit the game if they don't ban MK... Because I'm sure some would.

MK is perfectly beatable for most viable characters, this argument is totally irrational

OS was supposed to quit if MK wasn't banned months ago and he's still playing, can't think of anyone else who has threatened to quit over it. And it goes both ways, a lot of MK mains are just as likely to quit the game if he is banned.

 

[ShadowLink84]

No you used it correctly Master Raven.

 

[Master Raven]

Nah I was using ad hoc, but that was a brain fart and I was thinking of Ad Hominen lol

 

[Falconv1.0]

Kamikaze was that quadruple post really necessary.

 

[Kamikaze*]

Kamikaze was that quadruple post really necessary.

How are you going to say I'm unnecessary when this post is completely irrelevant to the topic?

 

[Masmasher@]

Kamikaze i think you are scared. If not that you posts have destroyed all the great posts of others and yuna who was doing a pretty good job on the antiban side until you showed up.


Also learn to mutiquote