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.
Just because I didn't reply when
you brought it up doesn't mean I haven't replied to it about a jillion times already.
Some of these people "hurting" are hurting from simple 45:55s and 40:60s. Hoe! How horrible! Obviously this means MK must be banned while no one else must be! No, it doesn't. Barely having a disadvantage in one or two match-ups =/= You are hurting/you are unviable/you must use MK.
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.
If you actually take a look at the names of the MKs winning tournaments, you'll see that it's the same MKs. It's a select few really good players who just happen to main MK. That's your "in practice" evidence.
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.
So we should ban things that should not be banned because the quasi-casuals will be upset and leave if we don't? Good logic!
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.
And this matters how? Changing slightly =/= Changing dramatically.
And SF metagames are quite stagnant after a while. People just keep on playing them without *****ing and moaning about banning stuff (except Akuma).
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.
That's a pretty random connection you're trying to draw there. I don't even have the energy to get into that. And nobody cares why this came up. We only care if it's
warranted.
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.
You cannot be an intelligent scrubs. Or Competitive for that matter. Scrubs are by nature anti-Competitive and/or ignorant.
If you're new/bad at the game, you're a newbie/n00b.
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
Yah.
Yuna Chun lis dominance is worst because the game has been out MUCH longer.
I don't see why this would matter in the least when it comes to whether or not to ban things. If a character is overpowered, it is overpowered and needs to go. If Chun isn't, why is Meta? Also, the game has been out for such a long time, yet Chun continues to dominate... year after year after year. And nobody's banning her. Hmmm.............
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.
I have no idea what the situation is like in Japan because the Japanese communities generally keep to themselves... speaking Japanese among themselves... in Japan.
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.
In what alternate universe does Chun-Li have bad match-ups?! Chun-Li has one
one one one disadvantageous match-up (40-60), the one against Yun. I don't think she even has any even match-ups! It's just that 40-60 against Yun and from there it's anywhere from 60-40 to ****!
So how come in 3S, Chun-Li, who has one disadvantageous match-up agains the guy who has none, can dominate the meta game? Because the 3S players don't whine about Yun all day instead of trying to learn how to handle him and then just go out and **** the scene using Chun.
His sword doesnt clash with any projectile cept pikmin.
And I addressed projectiles when? I
specifically said that I was talking about normal moves.
