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

[Dark.Pch]

Whats wrong with a character having a lttle advantage? you probably feel better when you win ^_^

Idk, lets ask the 100 + meta players this question.

 

[salaboB]

Whats wrong with a character having a lttle advantage? you probably feel better when you win ^_^

It's that no other character in the game has the "little advantage" without also having at least a "little disadvantage" somewhere.

That's anti-competitive.

 

[|RK|]

Hey, salaboB? I have a small question for you, could you answer it, please?

EDIT: It isn't rude or anything...

 

[AvaricePanda]

It's your turn to answer a couple questions:

How does having one clear, undisputed best character to open a match and resist counterpicks with benefit the competitive game?

It does nothing more than keeping a character and all of its players in the game, which is basically what every character in this game does. Of course, as aforementioned, this is often true in a lot of games (Sagat says hi) where one character gets an advantage over the rest because he's the best.

How would removing this fallback harm the competitive game?

You would be removing a huge chunk of the metagame, like Yuna said. You're throwing away all of the MK mainers time out the window, essentially. You're removing a character and the many mains that use him (quite a bit WOULD get frustrated and just not play). You're also killing the chances of other character's evolving metagames, like Diddy, Snake, Wario, etc., to evolve and possibly overcome this matchup in time.

Also, as Yuna said, just because a character doesn't benefit the metagame doesn't mean he's banworthy. By that logic, you might as well ban Falcon, because "all of his matchups are bad and all he's doing by staying in the game is having people play a coompletely unviable character when they could be furthering the metagames of more viable characters."

By that logic.

 

[yummynbeefy]

Because we'd be removed a huge part of the metagame for a ridiculous reason.

and there lies the problem 1 character shouldnt be a huge part of the metagame

You would be removing a huge chunk of the metagame, like Yuna said. You're throwing away all of the MK mainers time out the window, essentially. You're removing a character and the many mains that use him (quite a bit WOULD get frustrated and just not play). You're also killing the chances of other character's evolving metagames, like Diddy, Snake, Wario, etc., to evolve and possibly overcome this matchup in time.

that also proves my point you just listed the characters that do well agenst mk it would not slow their metagame growth that much but if the tiers are dependant on beating a single character theres something wrong with that dont you agree?

 

[Yuna]

It's that no other character in the game has the "little advantage" without also having at least a "little disadvantage" somewhere.

That's anti-competitive.

But as I've already established, simply being anti-Competitive to some degree is not reasons enough for a ban (especially not for an entire character).

and there lies the problem 1 character shouldnt be a huge part of the metagame

Every single character in the game (besides the really unviable ones) are a huge part of the metagame. And even if MK is a really, really huge part of the metagame at the moment, that's not reasons enough to ban him.

And only people who have only played Smash Competitively would say something such as this with a straight face and use it as a pro-ban argument. Have you played any other Competitive fighting game? Barring super-balanced games (into infinity) such as various incarnations of GGXX, there is almost always one or two characters who are just as huge a part of the metagame, or even moreso, as Meta Knight.

And those scenes didn't collapse. People didn't whine. People went on their merry little Competitive lives and played the games and went on to make them some of the most popular and Competitive fighting games of all time (such as 3S and Soul Calibur II).

But of course, since it is Smash, every character has to be viable. We have to be all "diverse".

 

[salaboB]

Also, as Yuna said, just because a character doesn't benefit the metagame doesn't mean he's banworthy. By that logic, you might as well ban Falcon, because "all of his matchups are bad and all he's doing by staying in the game is having people play a coompletely unviable character when they could be furthering the metagames of more viable characters."

By that logic.

Untrue, even by that logic. Yuna's arguments often have the flaw of being so specialized they fall apart if you just approach them from a different angle, and this is true of this one. I would point out that me asking that question was not with intent to say that was enough to ban MK. It was simply to see if you had any justification to keep him around in the face of the negatives he brings to the competitive scene. Twisting it to say it would be better off to ban Falcon is putting words in my mouth - my question did not have the implication that if he simply had no specific benefits he should be banned.

The thing is that Falcon not being banned does not actively harm the metagame. There is no inherent advantage to the metagame from Falcon being unbanned, but at the same time there are effectively no negatives from him being unbanned (A skilled player choosing to play him is not a negative, because a skilled player could also choose to play without using their B button -- would you recommend banning that?). There are negatives from MK being unbanned.

Which is better, that players of other characters keep sinking all their time into learning to beat one character who simply has the edge against them, or that they spend their time learning how to play against a wider range of opponents? Which do you think will really expand their metagames most effectively, and have the best chance of discovering the tactics or maneuvers that might turn the tables on that best character?

RK Joker - I always try to answer questions when they're actually relevant to the discussion. My main contribution right now in the thread though is bashing down the poor logic that I see continually being brought up and used as justification for saying everything is fine, so if the question is related to whether I want MK banned or not or the level of experience I have playing against him it's probably not something really relevant.

 

[Yuna]

Untrue, even by that logic. Yuna's arguments often have the flaw of being so specialized they fall apart if you just approach them from a different angle, and this is true of this one.

Big (fat lie) words from someone who has almost never been able to refute me. Or who just categorically refuses.

I have to assume you've put me on ignore by this point.

I would point out that me asking that question was not with intent to say that was enough to ban MK. It was simply to see if you had any justification to keep him around in the face of the negatives he brings to the competitive scene. Twisting it to say it would be better off to ban Falcon is putting words in my mouth - my question did not have the implication that if he simply had no specific benefits he should be banned.

Just because you didn't specify exactly what you meant doesn't mean you can fault someone for not making huge leaps and assuming the hell out of things to get at what you really meant.

You simply asked why we're keeping MK around despite him not benefitting the metagame (subjective opinion). We had to assume you meant that not benefitting the metagame was grounds enough for a ban.

Just because your argument fell apart because we approach it from a different angle doesn't mean you can blame us for you not being specific enough in your original reply. In fact, we didn't put words in your mouth! We took your words at face value. It's your own fault for not being specific enough.

This is why my posts are often long and thorough. Just because you're too lazy to follow my example doesn't mean you have the right to act all righteous when we refute your arguments due to your own laziness.

The thing is that Falcon not being banned does not actively harm the metagame. There is no inherent advantage to the metagame from Falcon being unbanned, but at the same time there are effectively no negatives from him being unbanned (A skilled player choosing to play him is not a negative, because a skilled player could also choose to play without using their B button -- would you recommend banning that?). There are negatives from MK being unbanned.

Why is MK so much more negative for the metagame he has to be banned and Snake does not using this ridiculous criteria?

Which is better, that players of other characters keep sinking all their time into learning to beat one character who simply has the edge against them, or that they spend their time learning how to play against a wider range of opponents? Which do you think will really expand their metagames most effectively, and have the best chance of discovering the tactics or maneuvers that might turn the tables on that best character?

People still have to learn how to beat a wider range of opponents. Heck, people should be glad there are so many MKs around. This means it'll be easier and faster to learn the match-up. And this is what Competitive gaming is all about, primarily learning how to beat the best characters in the game first.

RK Joker - I always try to answer questions when they're actually relevant to the discussion. My main contribution right now in the thread though is bashing down the poor logic that I see continually being brought up and used as justification for saying everything is fine, so if the question is related to whether I want MK banned or not or the level of experience I have playing against him it's probably not something really relevant.

Your own logic is pretty poor.

 

[Deathcarter]

My point still stands on how MKs matchup dominance isn't really different than those other character's matchup dominance, yet everyone's going berserk over MK. Why is this?

As to both of your questions:

1. In my opinion, it is not about how MK does not have a disadvantage, but how everyone else except Snake and Wario debatebly have a 65:35 matchup. The good characters might have the tools to overcome them, but MK simply does not have to worry about that awful counterpick. Note that this is something of a problem when you have at least 15 viable characters (potentially 19 if you ban MK) out of 36 outside of MK but all except two of them have a crap matchup as opposed to everyone except Wario, Snake, and MK hypothetically being pure crap. At least all of the characters down to Wolf are only disadvantaged by only one character so having secondaries would be an more viable option for most of the cast without the MK crutch.

2. For number two:

-Fox from Melee: If you were to ban him, you would make the game LESS diverse as you would still have Marth, Shiek, and Falco dominating. Ban those three and you would have Peach, Falcon, Jigglypuff, and Ice Climbers dominating. At least in Brawl, you have 7-8 other top tiers to for players to distribute to who don't beat out the characters in the tier below them by a huge margin.

-Sagat in SF4: The game has only been out for slightly more than two months. Assuming the game is deeper than Brawl, wouldn't they need more time to find out about strategies, movesets, and strategies before they could conceive banning a character, despite them having a more experienced competitive community? Obviously, the issue to ban MK didn't even a huge issue until sometime around August and that was probably solely based on the fact that the community was MUCH more cynical about Brawl at the time.

 

[pure_awesome]

Norfair and Corneria are a matter of taste. Corneria is ultra-campy and has one of the lowest ceilings in the game, making it an excellent gimp-stage for those who kill easily. Which happens to make it an excellent counterpick for, say, Snake and Meta Knight. Not to mention the random lasers, who can inflict quite a lot of damage. But it's a borderlkine-ish stage, yah. Which is why it's C/B.

Norfair is a stage where a lot of the time you end up fighting the stage more than each other. Or simply get punished for being hit by the opponent at the wrong time. Oh, you got smashed. No biggie, you survived it, but WTF is that lava wave doing coming at you from the left?!

Not to mention the ridiculousness of having to fighting for a spot in the safe-house when the giant lava cascade decides to show it itself or try to spotdodge/roll it (or jump over it). It's like the game just went "Now here's 30 seconds during which you most probably won't be fighting each other, run with it!". But it's not totally broken, which is why it is C/B.

C/Bs are there for those who wish to go that extra mile and be extra hard on banning according to the criterias of anti-competitiveness.

Hey, great.

It's still an example of people banning things when it isn't necessary.


Irrelevant, but for the record, nobody goes in the safehouse. Lrn2Norfair.

Luigi's Mansion is banned for ridiculously obvious reasons.

The community didn't explode on itself for the year it wasn't banned. It's pretty safe to stay that it wasn't necessary. Everyone just wanted it banned.

1) We do not unnecessarily ban all items. We unnecessarily ban, uhm, 4 items. There, crusade for them to be allowed!

I really don't want to.

Though that is a pretty good example of us unnecessarily banning something. 4 things, actually. (Which I could easily, easily argue to be more.)

2) And we should care what the Japanese do because...? The Japanese aren't even contemplating banning MK.

Because it's a good example of someone banning something unnecessarily?

Which is what we were discussing? Remember, the key word here is necessary. As in essential, indispensible, requisite.

 

[MaNg0]

Guess whos back


ahhhh ****

 

[Yuna]

Old stuff.

I'm too lazy to actually reply to this as I've already talked this argument to death already. Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring it (which I actually am, but at least I'm giving you a reason why)

2. For number two:

-Fox from Melee: If you were to ban him, you would make the game LESS diverse as you would still have Marth, Shiek, and Falco dominating. Ban those three and you would have Peach, Falcon, Jigglypuff, and Ice Climbers dominating. At least in Brawl, you have 7-8 other top tiers to for players to distribute to who don't beat out the characters in the tier below them by a huge margin.

Fox is a faulty argument. Now defend Xianghua from SCII and Yun and Chun-Li from 3S being allowed instead! Or Eddie in various GGXXs.

-Sagat in SF4: The game has only been out for slightly more than two months.

It's been in the arcades, for, like, a year. Just because you didn't play it in the arcades doesn't meant the community didn't.

Assuming the game is deeper than Brawl, wouldn't they need more time to find out about strategies, movesets, and strategies before they could conceive banning a character, despite them having a more experienced competitive community?

Unless Sagat's match-ups change drastically, he won't be banned. Because no other major Competitive gaming community is as ban-happy or at least fast to discuss bans as ours.

Obviously, the issue to ban MK didn't even a huge issue until sometime around August and that was probably solely based on the fact that the community was MUCH more cynical about Brawl at the time.

I'm pretty sure the 1st "Ban MK"-thread (which itself reached hundreds of pages) was started around April last year or something.

 

[Eddie G]

Every time I see Yuna's name, I hear Kimahri's voice in my head shouting "YUUUNA!" in that deep voice of his. Then I picture what he looks like behind the anonymity of the internet and the first image I get is one of a chubby blond guy with a plate of Swedish meatballs, lol.

But really, you're cool Yuna. XD

Now on topic: To be honest, everything that would possibly have any merit at this point has already been said numerous times. Let's just wait until Genesis/Apex results come in (which has also been said more than once).

 

[pure_awesome]

For the record, there are still SF4 pros who want to ban Gouken.

Who is mid tier.

So no, the Smash community that matters isn't that ban-happy. Maybe more so than most, but not as extravangantly as everyone claims.

 

[MaNg0]

wtf someone argue with me

 

[Steel]

mango his sword goes right through everything. he has REAL priority.

your turn

 

[MaNg0]

It doesnt go through falcos lasers

ur turn

 

[Steel]

so

ur tu rn

 

[MaNg0]

Looks like i win


Mango - 1

Brawl people - 0

whos next

 

[pure_awesome]

Actually, MK's sword does go through Falco's Lasers.

It's just that Falco's Lasers also go though his sword.

So technically, you're wrong and still dumb. Nothing much has changed, I guess.

 

[Yuna]

It's still an example of people banning things when it isn't necessary.

Then crusade for those two stages to be taken off the C/B list. I personally think stages which promote camping and fighting the stage more than the opponent should be banned (or at least C/B), even if this is Smash.

Irrelevant, but for the record, nobody goes in the safehouse. Lrn2Norfair.

Yes, but that still leaves you having to survive the flood and/or trying to kill your opponent by making him unable to survive it at the same time. It's more about fighting the stage than each other.

The community didn't explode on itself for the year it wasn't banned. It's pretty safe to stay that it wasn't necessary. Everyone just wanted it banned.

Luigi's Mansion promotes camping, planking, running away, etc., etc. Unlike character match-ups, stages are more limited. You do not need an entire year to realize a stage is broken. It takes much less time to discover such things, especially when broken stages are often rendered broken by single characters (i.e., character-specific).

So unless people have ways to combat that single characters' strategy, it is a broken stage. Luigi's Mansion was kinda OK-ish 'til someone accidentally stumbled upon ridiculous ways of abusing it. People looked into it and came to the conclusion that, why yes, the stage is broken.

I really don't want to.

Though that is a pretty good example of us unnecessarily banning something. 4 things, actually. (Which I could easily, easily argue to be more.)

Yes, argue for those 4 items I could, if I'm being incredibly generous, tolerate being allowed. They'd still be entirely random upon spawning, which is anti-Competitive to the highest degree, next only after over-centralization.

Because it's a good example of someone banning something unnecessarily?

Yes, and? They are not us. Just because some community bans something unnecessarily doesn't mean we do it or that we should do it. This is a ridiculous argument.

If this is your argument, "mirror other communities", MK will never be banned. Thanks for destroying your own side of the debate. Thank you, come again.

Which is what we were discussing? Remember, the key word here is necessary. As in essential, indispensible, requisite.

The key word here is:
It's the Japanese. They also have 14 as the age of consent, routine subway gropings of school girls and highly xenophobic and homophobic, all the while also embracing yaoi. There are also some otaku who are trying to change the law so it'll be legal to marry anime characters.

What the Japanese do doesn't really affect us nor should it matter to us. The Japanese do a lot of random things.

 

[pure_awesome]

You live in Sweden. If what the Japanese think doesn't affect me, I don't see why what you think should affect me either.

Loldoublestandard.

 

[Yuna]

Every time I see Yuna's name, I hear Kimahri's voice in my head shouting "YUUUNA!" in that deep voice of his. Then I picture what he looks like behind the anonymity of the internet and the first image I get is one of a chubby blond guy with a plate of Swedish meatballs, lol.

But really, you're cool Yuna. XD

Take that back!

I'm not actually ethnically Swedish. Here I am in my manly splendor:

(No make-up, didn't pluck eyebrows, I'm a bit ashamed of that picture, really)

For the record, there are still SF4 pros who want to ban Gouken.

Who is mid tier.

So no, the Smash community that matters isn't that ban-happy. Maybe more so than most, but not as extravangantly as everyone claims.

"Pros"? What is a pro, really? Do you mean "some of the best players in the world"? Or simply "a non-Scrub"? Name these pros.

Also, a select few =/= the entire community. If I get 20 high level Smashers to support a ban on Jigglypuff, would that mean that we could say "The Smash community suports banning Jigglypuff" without lying?

You live in Sweden. If what the Japanese think doesn't affect me, I don't see why what you think should affect me either.

Loldoublestandard.

The European and American Smash community have always been as one, pretty much, using the same ruleset. The Japanese have always had their own thing. Just because you're uneducated about your own community doesn't make it a double standard.

 

[Masmasher@]

Mango You cant be serious..... (answering my own question)

Thats just it. for third strike its yun AND chunli. you cant compare them to metaknight by matchups. but by tourney dominance yes. Chunli only places as high as she does cause of her SA 2 Yun only places that high cause of his SA 3 not saying hed be trash if he didnt have it but he wouldnt be as good as he is and ken would destroy him.

I thought X was god tier in SCIII (which was incredibly broken)


All these games design are deeper then brawl. Hence why they arent having as much of a problem as you guys.

GG I cant really go into cause i dont know that much about it. (would like to though)

Anyone that thinks gouken is bannable is a idiot.

Apex and genisis are gonna have simular results.

Pure awesome on 999 posts. Cool


Edit: Metaknights sword is a laser hence why it doesnt clash with anything.
Sigh... Thats bad.

Also luigis mansion (simular to temple in melee) was banned for cave of life.

 

[MaNg0]

IM SERIOUS!!!

Grrr

 

[pure_awesome]

And?

They use different rules. So what? So does Guilty Gear, SC, SF, etc. and you seem to like quoting them pretty liberally.

Oh, but some Japanese people want to marry anime characters, so they must all be craaaazy.

 

[MaNg0]

im with this guy

 

[Shao-tan]

Why does this matter in the least? Do most of those games have a counterpick element where people often switch characters to engage based on who their opponent is using? Do their stages significantly impact the effectiveness of the character you're using, so that after the first round against the same enemy it might be smarter to switch characters? Both are important in Brawl. Melee certainly does, but Fox has better and worse stages that could drive his matchups past even against him, so just blindly picking Fox was not always ideal. MK's worst stages are all debatably worse for him - nobody can say with any certainty that it's an actual disadvantaged matchup, is how close it is. The rest don't have a similar basic situation to even compare to Brawl.

Clarifying a few things. They do counterpick characters and it is very important. Most games doesn't have Stage CP, but it's present in SC, ring out characters(like SCII Talim) can be a real force in small stages and she's screwed in "no ring out stages".

 

[salaboB]

Clarifying a few things. They do counterpick characters and it is very important. Most games doesn't have Stage CP, but it's present in SC, ring out characters(like SCII Talim) can be a real force in small stages and she's screwed in "no ring out stages".

Is there one best character with no disadvantaged matchups on any stage in any of them that do have stage selection matter?

 

[CRASHiC]

my avatar = this thread

 

[Eddie G]

Haha, you got me there Yuna. Songstress dressphere for the win.

 

[Yuna]

Thats just it. for third strike its yun AND chunli. you cant compare them to metaknight by matchups. but by tourney dominance yes. Chunli only places as high as she does cause of her SA 2 Yun only places that high cause of his SA 3 not saying hed be trash if he didnt have it but he wouldnt be as good as he is and ken would destroy him.

Yun was the theoretical MK of 3S, but Chun was the practical MK. As in Yun had zero disadvantageous match-ups, with all match-ups being 60-40 or better except against one, against whom he had an arguable 50-50.

Chun had a single match-up which was disadvantageous, 60-40 against Yun. But since her match-ups are better than Yun in general she wins and makes the majority of Top 8 at every single major tournament. So, Yun is only the theoretical MK. Chun is out there actually doing it. But neither is banned.

Also, Chun-Li has a lot of things. One of the best (if not the best) Kara throws in the game, IIRC, Back Fierce which builds energy bar pretty fast, is super-fast, has one of the highest priorities in the game, lots of range and which combos into her SA2.

In fact, pretty much everything she has combos into SA2, from Universal Overhead (MK+P), crouching MK (which is a, like, 2-frame low, one of the fastest moves in the game), that *****-slap move, Roundhouse. Her SA2 is good. It's just that everything else she has is also really, really, really good and combos into her SA2.

I thought X was god tier in SCIII (which was incredibly broken)

X was Top Tier, but very close to the others.

All these games design are deeper then brawl. Hence why they arent having as much of a problem as you guys.

That's BS logic.

Chun is dominating worse than MK. Why isn't she banned? Because 3S is deeper? Then how come people aren't beating her?

Edit: Metaknights sword is a laser hence why it doesnt clash with anything.
Sigh... Thats bad.

Meta Knight's sword doesn't clash with anything? I could've sworn I've clashed with it one bajillion times.

And?

They use different rules. So what? So does Guilty Gear, SC, SF, etc. and you seem to like quoting them pretty liberally.

Oh, but some Japanese people want to marry anime characters, so they must all be craaaazy.

The Japanese are using only 2 stages because they've taken "Maximize skill requirement" to its logical pinnacle, in other words, by banning all but the two most neutral stages in the game.

The game is now all about the characters and not the stages. It's their choice. And we disagree with that choice, obviously. Now, that is one community.

Congratulations, you've found one community, a single country, which bans things which we view as unnecessary. Oh noes, how horrible. This obviously means that we should all start banning things which aren't necessary, right?

No. You finding one single community banning things which are unnecessary to ban =/= it matters. I'm quoting things which are norms, in wide practice. You're quoting freak deviations.

Is there one best character with no disadvantaged matchups on any stage in any of them that do have stage selection matter?

Xianghua is not the world's best RO:er, but she doesn't fear RO stages because her game works just as well on RO stages as on any normal stages. So, yeah.

 

[pure_awesome]

The Japanese are using only 2 stages because they've taken "Maximize skill requirement" to its logical pinnacle, in other words, by banning all but the two most neutral stages in the game.

The game is now all about the characters and not the stages. It's their choice. And we disagree with that choice, obviously. Now, that is one community.

Congratulations, you've found one community, a single country, which bans things which we view as unnecessary. Oh noes, how horrible. This obviously means that we should all start banning things which aren't necessary, right?

No. You finding one single community banning things which are unnecessary to ban =/= it matters. I'm quoting things which are norms, in wide practice. You're quoting freak deviations.

Thank you for admitting I was right, and I accept your thinly veiled apology.


As for norms, I already quoted items. There's no reason to ban Smoke Balls or Hammers, since they're both high-risk/low-reward items. The majority of the time, you're penalizing yourself for picking them up.

Does it make sense to ban them? Sure. Having just Smoke Balls on would be silly. But it's not necessary.

Also, I believe you mistakenly quoted Corneria as being C/B and Luigi's as being Banned. It's the other way around, and I think (hope) that even you can agree that Corneria of all stages is not a necessary thing to ban.


People ban stuff even when it's not necessary. It has to be enjoyable, after all.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Yuna, tell me you're joking, aside from his glide attack his sword goes through stuff like lasers.

 

[pure_awesome]

Yuna has a special version of Brawl where magical things like Metaknight's sword clanking and Peach tripping while in the air happen. He's cool like that.

 

[Yuna]

Yuna, tell me you're joking, aside from his glide attack his sword goes through stuff like lasers.

Tell me, since when did the word "anything" start being limited to only "stuff like lasers"? "Anything" includes, you know, anything, including normal A-moves.

Marth's sword goes through lasers, too. You'll notice how almost every single disjointed hitbox in the game does that.

Thank you for admitting I was right, and I accept your thinly veiled apology.

Only a dyslectic with reading comprehension problems would take that as an apology.

As for norms, I already quoted items. There's no reason to ban Smoke Balls or Hammers, since they're both high-risk/low-reward items. The majority of the time, you're penalizing yourself for picking them up.

Smoke Balls is one of the very few items I can tolerate.

Hammers? Not so much. They are high risk/low reward, yes. But the risk/reward is entirely up to chance. To not only do they spawn randomly, their effect is also random!

Does it make sense to ban them? Sure. Having just Smoke Balls on would be silly. But it's not necessary.

They still spawn randomly. And they still give characters which do not naturally possess projectiles projectiles.

Also, I believe you mistakenly quoted Corneria as being C/B and Luigi's as being Banned. It's the other way around, and I think (hope) that even you can agree that Corneria of all stages is not a necessary thing to ban.

Corneria is strictly B now? I haven't really kept up with the stage discussion regarding Brawl. I cannot speak with absolutely certainty on the subject if Corneria went to B.

People ban stuff even when it's not necessary. It has to be enjoyable, after all.

Very rarely. The norm, the rule of thumb is, to only ban things when it is necessary, especially when it comes to characters. So far you've given us items and stages.

 

[pure_awesome]

Tell me, since when did the word "anything" start being limited to only "stuff like lasers"? "Anything" includes, you know, anything, including normal A-moves.

Marth's sword goes through lasers, too. You'll notice how almost every single disjointed hitbox in the game does that.

Everything goes through lasers.

Or, more accurately, Lasers go through everything.

Metaknight's sword has laser properties. Meaning it goes through everything. Including other Lasers. And Marth's sword. And... well, everything.

Very rarely. The norm, the rule of thumb is, to only ban things when it is necessary, especially when it comes to characters. So far you've given us items and stages.

The entire game is built around characters, stages, items, and how they interact with each other.
Why are we pulling up short on the last one left?

 

[Deathcarter]

I'm too lazy to actually reply to this as I've already talked this argument to death already. Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring it (which I actually am, but at least I'm giving you a reason why)

Which argument again? You did say something about the "MK destroying viability" argument but I don't remember you replying to the "mostly everyone is hurt badly in a matchup with someone, regardless of whether or not it was MK or not, except MK" argument, though I do remember others replying to it. Though I won't bring it up if you don't want to discuss it.

Fox is a faulty argument. Now defend Xianghua from SCII and Yun and Chun-Li from 3S being allowed instead! Or Eddie in various GGXXs.

Those characters are top tier primarily because they are the best characters to use to deal with their respective rosters in their entirety.

In the case of MK vs. the Brawl top tiers, MK is almost never the best choice for dealing with the roster, but he is the best choice for winning tournaments. On paper, the other top tiers look like they are close to him in ability, but MK's inability to be screwed in a tournament setting by crap matchups will lead him to being the most used character by an even larger margin than now. The other viable characters will not die out entirely due to being able to compete with MK and most of the roster, but they will always be held back by their crap matchups while MK isn't held by such constraints.

This would not be a problem in any other community, but this could kill Brawl's scene due to the nature of its (mostly) non-competitive fanbase, despite it being competitive in the first place. It would be a mater if the community felt confident that the rest of the top tier/high-high tier could form more even matchups with their disadvantages due to more strategies being made to overcome said disadvantages in certain matchups and be able to do it consistently instead of rare cases, or the characters simply coming up short of being able to overcome their disadvantages holding them down from making it into the money due to the nature of Brawl itself that would determine how this issue is to end. This question was really only answered by CRASHIC and Avarice_Panda to an extent as far as I can recall.

It's been in the arcades, for, like, a year. Just because you didn't play it in the arcades doesn't meant the community didn't.

I may have been incorrect about how long SF4 was out, but it does not change the fact that SF4 is a deeper game than Brawl. If Brawl is still developing after a 15 months of being out, then SF4 will most likely not stagnate until the next decade.

Unless Sagat's match-ups change drastically, he won't be banned. Because no other major Competitive gaming community is as ban-happy or at least fast to discuss bans as ours.

Fair enough, but I do argue that the Brawl community would not have even considered all of this banning talk, especially this early, if Brawl was not percieved as such a huge step down from Melee at the time of its release.

I'm pretty sure the 1st "Ban MK"-thread (which itself reached hundreds of pages) was started around April last year or something.

The Brawl community is filled with a bunch of scrubs, whether or not they are intelligent (like me) or are those random one-shot posters that cynical posters here love to put on the stake. Given that, we jumped the gun on the MK banishment fiasco too early. When more people pick MK due to how much of an asset safety is in Brawl, then we may have a slight argument. However, MK is not banworthy at the present moment

 

[Excellence]

I think that Meta Knight should be banned because if he was gone there would be a larger variety of characters that could be played in tournaments.

 

[Masmasher@]

Yuna Chun lis dominance is worst because the game has been out MUCH longer. Also contrary to the norm the highest peak/dominant metagame is is japan not the us so really it depends on what you are talking about when you say that chun li dominates.

Also deeper=more options for all characters. brawl is peaking in terms of depth. This is why other communites wound have as much of a problem. Also chun li has bad matchups.

His sword doesnt clash with any projectile cept pikmin.