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

[salaboB]

If you can prove, via tournament data, that MK objectively overcentralizes the game to the point where he warrants a ban, then the pro-ban camp has a valid argument. Up until then, they have yet to come up with any sort of substance to support their side.

This entirely depends on what the ban criteria involves. I find it amusing how hard it is to get people to even recognize that what they consider valid ban criteria is not the only possible option.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I never said it should be based solely on tournament evidence; I said tournament evidence is required, or else it's pure speculation. If you can't demonstrate that what you're saying in theory can actually happen--and has been shown to happen--then your theory is bunk and has no place in a practical tournament setting.

That is, until it's been shown to happen.

And I'm not disagreeing with that.

What I disagree with is the assertion that it's pure speculation, what theoretical modeling does is it takes the technical data of all known moves and techniques and models them based on how a match develops at the top of the metagame.

It's easy to show that the technical data is correct, and all the moves are demonstratable. The only question left is whether the theoretical model is correct, and that's where the discussion comes in, and it's all grounded firmly in fact.


So, while it's not pure speculation, it is necessary, though not sufficent.

Everybody accepts that the roster is not 100% balanced--nobody's arguing that it's not (at least I'm not). In cases where both players are of equal skill and are both playing at the top of the metagame (a thoroughly impossible situation), character choice will decide the match. That's just the way it is.

Because of this, bans are sometimes necessary, but only in extreme circumstances; I.E., overcentralization.

If you can prove, via tournament data, that MK objectively overcentralizes the game to the point where he warrants a ban, then the pro-ban camp has a valid argument. Up until then, they have yet to come up with any sort of substance to support their side.

Theory is not everything; there has to be practical data involved.

Well, understand that using "the top of the metagame" as the standard for match-ups allows players to know the tools they have at that level even if they're not at that level, and select the tools they need to practice in order to win at the top of the metagame.

Regardless, that's why the ratio is so dependant on how much x character beats y characters at the top of the metagame, because that defines who whether the overcentralization threshold is achieved.

Yeah, the essay question was a looongggg time ago; and even before that they made you have an interview with senior debaters over AIM. You had to pick a topic, argue your view, and hope that your interviewer thought you were a good enough debater.

That was really old school

Way before my time I guess, I only came to smashboards a little while before Brawl was the major thing. Oddly enough, it was to ask a question about Sheik's upthrow, I was trying to figure out how to use it and was drawing a blank, I was mad noobish back then. The response I got was "to bait a double jump".

Maybe if you provided some sort of tangible example for this? Which is of course what I've been saying along. If you don't have real evidence, where is the practicality? You can't base a game around theory that hasn't been practiced. Hence, the importance of tournament data.

I.E., don't fix what's not broken.

I disagree, theory often tells us a great deal more and can often predict future trends. The fact is, our theory IS grounded in evidence, frame data and the like IS definately evidence.

The real practicality is that delving deeply into the theory often tells us things that we miss, like for example. As an example, a long time ago when Brawl was a lot younger, I looked at Snake's match-up thread and compared it to MK's and said, "MK is more bannable because MK beats most characters, and Snake beats MK, MK clears the field for Snake". That model is still in place for tournaments, even though MK usually wins, MK is still boosting MK, and I think it's pretty obvious which character is more bannable now right?

Same for saying that Snake didn't have the advantage over MK and neither did DK, I looked at the known technical details and made judgement calls about the characters, and tournament results have ultimately shown that my theory was correct.

Again, over-centralization of skill skews tournament results far too greatly to be a sole indicator, and they definately cannot be the primary indicator for something as precise as match-ups. For bans, they're more useful because the scale of testing is much larger, but they're still not the sole indicator.

 

[Cold Fusion]

What would the pro-ban people that want MK banned because he wins most regionals and national tournament do if all of a sudden, a top tier other than MK starts winning most of the national and regional tournaments?

 

[Shakugan]

If u ban MK what happens when snake just starts winning everything? then u ban him lol
Banning Characters only takes away from the game

Shakugan, maybe im a lion

 

[-Ran]

Snake won't start winning everything. Too many counters, too many even matches up, and too many slight disadvantages for people to take advantage of poor match up knowledge with.

 

[Coney]

I love it when people come into these threads and present the slippery-slope argument like it hasn't been beaten to death.

It's like "WHOA, in three threads and approximately one-thousand pages of discussion, we've never thought of that! Thank you for this unique and insightful contribution!"

Might as well give the disclaimer again that I'm not for either side.

 

[Yuna]

This entirely depends on what the ban criteria involves. I find it amusing how hard it is to get people to even recognize that what they consider valid ban criteria is not the only possible option.

We don't think our criteria are the only possible option. We just think your criteria are bogus. We're open for suggestions. Just because we're not open for the suggestions you've provided insofar doesn't mean we're not open for suggestions.

 

[RDK]

This entirely depends on what the ban criteria involves. I find it amusing how hard it is to get people to even recognize that what they consider valid ban criteria is not the only possible option.

Hey, here's an idea! How about sharing some of your infinite wisdom with us and provide us with an example of valid ban criteria that hasn't already been repeated ad infinitum.

 

[arwildcats09]

Ban.
Tournies have too many metaknights.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Huh? I... I don't know that... Auuuuuuuugh!

*crosses the bridge*

Sorry, no, we don't do that anymore, you missed your chance. That's what got me admitted, I think... maybe it was the trial period in the debate hall itself, and the essay was before, or maybe the essay was after.

Anyway, sorry, you gotta go through it like everyone else.

fuuuu
Going through the whole thing seems rather time consuming.

 

[P. O. F.]

Ban.
Tournies have too many metaknights.

Although an incredibly poor and and weak arguement I found this funny. I lol'd

 

[MidnightAsaph]

If u ban MK what happens when snake just starts winning everything? then u ban him lol
Banning Characters only takes away from the game

Shakugan, maybe im a lion

I couldn't tell if this was sarcasm or not, but...

Yeah, because clearly Snake has no counter-picks.

 

[salaboB]

Hey, here's an idea! How about sharing some of your infinite wisdom with us and provide us with an example of valid ban criteria that hasn't already been repeated ad infinitum.

I already have. It included an acknowledgment that since it didn't focus around MK being unbeatable people would never accept it. Kinda pointless to reiterate it yet again just to have people yet again not accept it.

My point mostly is the unexamined source for where the criteria in "MK doesn't meet the criteria for a ban" comes from. It's just kinda one of those things that everyone knows and nobody's spelled out.

 

[thrillagorilla]

I already have. It included an acknowledgment that since it didn't focus around MK being unbeatable people would never accept it. Kinda pointless to reiterate it yet again just to have people yet again not accept it.

My point mostly is the unexamined source for where the criteria in "MK doesn't meet the criteria for a ban" comes from. It's just kinda one of those things that everyone knows and nobody's spelled out.

Mind putting up a link? I don't think I've seen it yet.

 

[salaboB]

Mind putting up a link? I don't think I've seen it yet.

You've seen it, you said you already knew that and had made an argument based on it in the past.

And I'm pretty sure links don't work, this thread is broken horribly. It's somewhere 5-10ish pages back >.>

 

[thrillagorilla]

You've seen it, you said you already knew that and had made an argument based on it in the past.

And I'm pretty sure links don't work, this thread is broken horribly. It's somewhere 5-10ish pages back >.>

Oh, that one? Sorry, I thought you might be talking about something else. I didn't get anything conclusive out of it if I remember correctly. I'll take a look back a few pages and see if I can dig it up. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[SuSa]

Ban.
Tournies have too many metaknights.

This is the reason why Pro-Ban is being generalized.

Tourneys have to many Falcons. There shouldn't be any at all. >:O BAN HIM.

Ohwait.



(extreme sarcasm for those bad at picking it up)

 

[Kamikaze*]

Ban.
Tournies have too many metaknights.

Way to not read ANY of the thread.

a million people beat you to that argument

 

[salaboB]

This is the reason why Pro-Ban is being generalized.

And people going "If you ban MK everyone will want to ban Snake and it will NEVER END!!!!11" are then the reason anti-ban is being generalized?

The unsupported arguments on both sides should just be ignored.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Originally posted by salaboB:
I have said it comes down to opinion, I stand by that, and yours obviously is that it's not enough. And that's that.

So, is your ban criteria personal opinion?

 

[salaboB]

So, is your ban criteria personal opinion?

Yes.

As is everyone else's, given there's no standard ruling board for competitive Brawl that's laid out guidelines to use for these things.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Over 6000 replies. Over 200,000 Views

Why not just sticky this thread? It pretty much acts like one. xD

 

[thrillagorilla]

Yes.

As is everyone else's, given there's no standard ruling board for competitive Brawl that's laid out guidelines to use for these things.

That's a relativist argument. It holds no validity and does nothing to further discussion. There is validity to voicing your opinions though, and I have no problem with you doing so.

I remember trying to start a dialogue with you about your ban criteria and you basically saying (very politely) that you didn't want to discuss it. I relented because I figured that you were going to quit partaking in the discussion, but to then you continued to do so. Why? You've already stated your opinion, so why continue to try and argue with nothing but your own personal opinion behind you? I don't understand, at all.

In an attempt to keep this on topic... Sirlin has been brought up as the universal ban criteria for competitive gaming, so why doesn't it qualify? To simply say that Smash is "different" holds no weight because if that were the case Sirlin would have to write a book for every game that came out, because they are all different in some form or another.

As for your comment about the board, wouldn't that be the BR? As far as I know they are using Sirlin's criteria, so wouldn't that indicate that what you have claimed isn't even true?

 

[salaboB]

That's a relativist argument. It holds no validity and does nothing to further discussion. There is validity to voicing your opinions though, and I have no problem with you doing so.

Pardon?

Just because it's all opinion doesn't mean they're not valid opinions. The issue is whether you can get enough people to agree with your opinion so that TOs decide to follow that opinion you agree with or not. But it's still opinion.

Part of what has lead me to this conclusion was what happened during the second ban MK thread, when people tried to determine what would be sufficient to ban a character in Brawl. Nobody managed to put together a set of ban criteria that was accepted by more than a couple other people -- notably, something detailing where the line was where MK would cross over from being not ban-worthy to being ban-worthy. If accepted guidelines existed, I'd expect there should be some way to get a general consensus on that.

I remember trying to start a dialogue with you about your ban criteria and you basically saying (very politely) that you didn't want to discuss it. I relented because I figured that you were going to quit partaking in the discussion, but to then you continued to do so. Why? You've already stated your opinion, so why continue to try and argue with nothing but your own personal opinion behind you? I don't understand, at all.

I was interested in seeing how pushy/rude you'd end up being. I had just finished two conversations at the same time with a couple rather difficult to talk to people who were repeatedly misreading my posts and attacking me based on that, and wasn't interested at all in getting into that again. You seemed both polite and actually interested, so I took the time to write up an outline of it for you.

In an attempt to keep this on topic... Sirlin has been brought up as the universal ban criteria for competitive gaming, so why doesn't it qualify? To simply say that Smash is "different" holds no weight because if that were the case Sirlin would have to write a book for every game that came out, because they are all different in some form or another.

So what exactly does Sirlin say is the banning criteria? And what official group for Smash supports his definition? And if it's so cut and dry, why do we have such a huge debate when we can simply apply his guidelines, decide the matter, and be done? I don't believe Sirlin is as accepted for the Brawl community as you're indicating.

As for your comment about the board, wouldn't that be the BR? As far as I know they are using Sirlin's criteria, so wouldn't that indicate that what you have claimed isn't even true?

The BR is not a governing board that sets rules, they simply set out guidelines -- and they have not released a guideline for when a character should be banned. So even if they did qualify for that role, they have not set forth the qualifications for people to use to base their decision on, leaving everyone with their own opinion as the current way this is decided. As I initially said, opinions do hold weight for this matter, so I'm not simply saying it's meaningless -- but it is almost entirely opinion that is determining where the line is and what the reasons are for whether MK is or is not ban worthy.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Which is what this whole discussion is about.

The whole point of the thread is to simply set forth a GUIDELINE to tournament organizers as a RECOMMENDATION to Ban MK or not.

SBR makes the general guidelines, our input really doesn't change anything they would possibly come up with, but it does give them something to base there decisions on. And certainly 3 boards and the popluar opinion is still evenly split, more people in favor of keeping MK unbanned by a few percent. Also, any arguments made here have not been entirely conclusive to ban MK without a shadow of a doubt. So in the end, since no opinions or arguments weight heavily enough, MK can still not be something the SBR can possibly call Ban material.

BUT, they might issue a recommendation that the banning of MK is a possiblity for tourney organizers. Just like certain stages fit into 2 categories. Ultimately, I think that will be the final result that they make that recommendation. Although, I am not sure how much they might follow that through. If they even recommend that rule being 50/50 for a tourney, most poeple will in the end come to ban MK most often and make his way into the permantly banned cateogory.

 

[Brinzy]

Just wondering: if people were to host a significant amount of MK-banned tournaments on their own (like... 30%), would they count in the tournament rankings we have now? Aside from research, would they count for anything?

 

[ANTi_]

Acutally i want to see how this turnouts now..

 

[Red Arremer]

I've played good Bowsers (ninjalinks for one) and hes still a horrible character.

Yes he is.

Tornado eats him alive. It's really that simple. Avoid neu b and tornado and he gets *****.

No.

He's not a horrible character just because MK has a great matchup against him.

Yes he is and no Meta Knight has not a "great" matchup vs. Bowser.

MK-Bowser is at least a 55-45 in MK's favor look it up on either bowser or MK's matchup thread, i have no idea where you're getting your data from other than personal opinion. Also every other character in your hypothetical ban list has at least 1 40:60 matchup.

Bowser vs. Meta Knight is most likely 60:40 in Bowser's advance. Infinites and stuff, y'know. As Yuna said, an Infinite has been discovered only a few days ago.
Also, I was speaking of HARD COUNTERS with that character list.

And people going "If you ban MK everyone will want to ban Snake and it will NEVER END!!!!11" are then the reason anti-ban is being generalized?

The unsupported arguments on both sides should just be ignored.

In my case, I've drawn several scenarios. People whine because Meta Knight has no hard counters, so I say: If that is the ban-criteria, we have to ban [insert character list], because they also have no hard counters or, with these characters banned, the hard counters of these characters have been banned, thus leading into the scenario of them having no more hard counters - since they have been banned.

It's not a "slippery slope", I just am trying to make the Pro-Ban-People saying "No Hard counters" is an argument realize that it's not, because there are 4 characters having no hard counters (Meta Knight, Snake, Wario and Kirby), and at least 6 other characters who would lose their hard counters due to the fact of these non-hard counter characters being banned. That would lead to a list of at least 10 characters with no hard counters, thus them needing to be banned.

I hope you understand what I wanted to say with these postings I made about it. I'm not saying everyone will switch to Snake, or it would happen, but, by the logic of "Meta Knight has no hard counters, so ban him!", it would need more character bans.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Pardon?

Just because it's all opinion doesn't mean they're not valid opinions. The issue is whether you can get enough people to agree with your opinion so that TOs decide to follow that opinion you agree with or not. But it's still opinion.

But what are the opinions based off of and why are they valid? That is the big determining factor. If it wasn't, then popularity would rule the day. To say that opinion should be the deciding factor is like saying there is no truth to the matter, in which case what is the point of arguing who is right? What may be true for me might not be true for you, etc. This is the basis of a relativist argument, and when dealing with absolutes, such as a ban, they hold no meaning. Its like having a popularity contest to see if we should go to war. If people are of the opinion that we should simply because they feel like it, it doesn't mean that their opinion is correct, even if they feel that they are. I am not accusing you of not thinking things through, seeing as you do have your reasons for wanting a ban and have stated them plainly, but you have yet to say why it is warranted. Because that is what people want? Because it isn't fair? Why do these things matter in the competitive gaming environment? The logic has to follow, otherwise the opinion is based off of a fallacy. That is why I approached you with the questions that I did at the start of our conversation.

Part of what has lead me to this conclusion was what happened during the second ban MK thread, when people tried to determine what would be sufficient to ban a character in Brawl. Nobody managed to put together a set of ban criteria that was accepted by more than a couple other people -- notably, something detailing where the line was where MK would cross over from being not ban-worthy to being ban-worthy. If accepted guidelines existed, I'd expect there should be some way to get a general consensus on that.

I was never a part of that discussion, but I'm tempted to look it up and have a go at it for some history. IDK because I wasn't there, but the way you are wording it would lead me to believe that a lot of it had to do with the criteria itself being based around Metaknight rather than underlying truths. If this was the case, personal agenda was bound to cause issues with the criteria and nothing would have come of the discussions. Was this the case?

I was interested in seeing how pushy/rude you'd end up being. I had just finished two conversations at the same time with a couple rather difficult to talk to people who were repeatedly misreading my posts and attacking me based on that, and wasn't interested at all in getting into that again. You seemed both polite and actually interested, so I took the time to write up an outline of it for you.

I'm very thankful for your time and efforts. I don't mind holding discussions as long as something can come of them. I apologize if I am coming off as pushy or rude, but I really just want to get to the heart of the issue. That's all.

So what exactly does Sirlin say is the banning criteria? And what official group for Smash supports his definition? And if it's so cut and dry, why do we have such a huge debate when we can simply apply his guidelines, decide the matter, and be done? I don't believe Sirlin is as accepted for the Brawl community as you're indicating.

You evaded my question as to why it doesn't apply. I don't want to miss-quote, but if I am not mistaken the basic premise is one option making all other options non-viable. There are more intricacies to be sure, and I don't have the book directly in front of me to confirm, but that seems to be the basic premise. I have yet to see this criteria to be debunked. If it is, I will be happy to change my stance. Also, if it isn't debunked, then saying that it doesn't apply or that it doesn't need to be used is nothing more than willful ignorance. If you don't agree with it, you have to say why.

The BR is not a governing board that sets rules, they simply set out guidelines -- and they have not released a guideline for when a character should be banned. So even if they did qualify for that role, they have not set forth the qualifications for people to use to base their decision on, leaving everyone with their own opinion as the current way this is decided. As I initially said, opinions do hold weight for this matter, so I'm not simply saying it's meaningless -- but it is almost entirely opinion that is determining where the line is and what the reasons are for whether MK is or is not ban worthy.

I am in total agreement that the BR should take an official stance on ban criteria. Its one of the reasons I supported Eyada's efforts. If nothing comes out of this other than a repeat of the last decision (I was here for that part at least, and it makes no sense at all to say that the recommendation is to not ban, but to ban if you want to) then I will simply stop paying attention to anything that comes out of there and these types of threads. I have never been a fan of taking the easy way out, and to do so twice in a row shows lack of leadership ability.

Thank you again for your time and thoughts, they are much appreciated. I hope something can come of the discussion.

 

[Curaga]

So you believe that one match, in a game where the MK user was doing unsatisfactory, is valid proof? Rather than looking at a trend?

He's beatable. He shouldn't be banned.

Its not the first time an MK was beaten either.

Q.Q more.

 

[Kinzer]

The player playing MK might be beatable.

MK the character/himself being capable of being defeated is something else in its own league.

 

[Tarmogoyf]

Well, that leaves us with 2 options.

1. They belong there.

2. We need a better paper, what are the flaws with the current one.


I've been trying to address the flaws with the current theoretical model, but if I'm wrong, other people need to step up to.

It's much more productive then whining about "theorycraft".

It's near impossible though because real paper has to know the skill of the given player beforehand. We either have to generalize, or make some sort of graphical method of player skill covering all areas of a players strengths and faults in order to get true matchup numbers and the like.

A snake or a Diddy might win Genesis.

Either way, I think the whole community is beset on not letting a MK win.

Which is funny considering that like half of the community wants him banned, and the better he does, the better their case.

 

[Kinzer]

Because if MK doesn't end up getting banned, people want some kind of solution that isn't quitting the game and/or maining him.

Provided the Anti-Ban also want to try to keep MK beatable as to keep him in, so really both sides benefit from this.

 

[Curaga]

Because if MK doesn't end up getting banned, people want some kind of solution that isn't quitting the game and/or maining him.

Is Sonic your main? It seem that way.

Why aren't you out there beating MKs!?

Get to it.

 

[Syde7]

A lot of people seem to think that APEX has somehow totally debunked the pro-ban side. Some people say "M2K was playing sub-par"- among other things. Someone else said that APEX presents a "blip" in the graph, and that we need to seek out the substance behind this blip.

Has anyone stopped to think, that this just evidences the "accuracy" (to some degree) of matchup ratios?

Let us presume the 45:55 ratio between Snake/MK, in MK's favor exists. When it comes to transposing those, extrapolating them to actual gameplay- we basically get "Out of 100 games, MK will win 55 of them, and Snake 45", or MK will win 5.5 games and Snake 4.5. Yes, I know having "half-games" is impossible, but for the sake of illustration, bear with me.

But I digress, assuming the ratio is accurate, or close to it- couldn't it be said that the matchup simply unfolded as the ratio indicated? In no matchup discussion is there any inkling of an "order" or "frequency" with which these wins will come- only that (in theory) they will.

Think of it in terms of flipping a coin. You may get 4 heads in a row, but eventually the coin flips will even out to 50/50, or a close approximation.

To draw parallels between the two, couldn't Apex have been the equivalent of Snake flipping heads enough times to win before MK could flip enough tails?

I think the match with Lain is more illustrative of this dynamic at work. M2K lost, and then came back and beat him 3-0 (if I remember correctly). While Lain played exceptionally well, can we totally disregard the CHANCE that it was "his time", speaking in terms of probabilities?

Again, the same with Snake. I wish I had handy the game scores of when Ally and M2K faced eachother- just to see how the theoretical ratio played out in actuality. That is to say, let us assume that M2K's MK had an overall game lead by a margin far exceeding the theoretical matchup ratio, and that the APEX performance brought that ratio into "harmony", as it were.

Simply put: Even though it seems somewhat far fetched to have "all the stars align", couldn't the APEX result be a "harmonizing" of the theoretical ratio?


Just some food for thought.

 

[Kinzer]

Oh C'mon now, best not pull out that card on me and be a hypocrite if you truly are a Sonic main yourself. I can ask/tell you to do the same thing.

You should know how hard it is. :/

But hey yeah your right, I'm trying! :D

 

[Curaga]

You should know how hard it is. :/

But hey yeah your right, I'm trying! :D

Its not impossible, it just takes a lot of practice to know what to look out for.
MK being light weight helps get that K.O at lower %. The less work required the better.

Meta Knight is too fun to play against to ban.

A competitive win versus a MK main feels more rewarding after reading through all this crap. So in some weird way, this whole debate has helped the game be more fun for everyone. Haha

 

[swordgard]

No, it wasn't the generalization that I was taking issue with, it's actually the lack thereof.

Debators are held to a higher standard then the average smashboards member to achieve acess, and while I can't speak for the ones that were grandfathered in, as long as I've been a member, we've always had strong admission processes to cull out people who cannot debate.

So, on average, a smash debator SHOULD be a better debator then your average smashboards user, so yes generalize, the right way.




I'm sorry, that's incorrect because you can do it on reaction, you don't need to know when you'll break out because you've got plenty of time to react to the break-out itself.

You see, the 10 frame window is the difference between the time it takes Bowser to recover from an opponent breaking out of his grab, and an opponent breaking out of his grab to recover from the breakout (most of them anyway, DK is wierd, as is squirtle, lucas, and ness), for ground breaks of course.


However, Bowser still has 20 frames before he can move after the grab break, that's a good 7 more then the human average and 10 frames more then what seems to be the brawl average and 13 frames more then the aproximate top of the metagame. After that, it's all muscle memory.





...

Then crush them, people often do that when they think their opponent won't be able to respond to it. Crush them when they do that and they should respond with better points. Basically, it's being lazy, but it's understandable because the general quality of tactical discussion is rather low.




I know, lol.

More for the benefit of everyone else then you personally, I do want to establish that debators are a cut above in general.




Oh crap, I totally forgot about purging.

Also probably should've bolded that you were good, but whatever.

Sorry you misunderstood what i said. That other guy(the first with bowser saying the chaingrab is garanteed) said that basically its infinite and MK wont air release. Im arguing the fact that its far from infinite due to air release and you cannot stop him with a headbut like he said it was possible if you were listening to the controller. I say its impossible because you need inhuman math and knowledge you dont know. You can still use air release, but the grab just becomes so much worst, its not longer garanteed/insecapable because you will end up at the end of the stage, and he said grab release wont happen so platforms wont matter, which is false.

 

[Mew2King]

Guys even though I lost the first set to lain and won the next set, the difference between the matches were VERY small

it was just enough for me to lose first time then just enough for me to win 2nd time by the hardest camping I've ever had to do before

everything was last stock, and two games were last hit

and Ally just played better than me this time I wasn't sandbagging he just was playing better this time no johns. I'm very insulted that people would say I'd sandbag in a situation like that.

 

[Curaga]

I'm very insulted that people would say I'd sandbag in a situation like that.

People are out of their mind, is the situation.

Conspiracy theories that players on the top of their MK game would purposely lose a major tournament; out of some crazed fan-obsessed love for their fighting game character.

As a player, I'd just take it with a grain of salt.

Just as in an arcade, where people watching you play tend to throw out comments when a match goes a certain direction: "Oh, Cure is going easy on him" "That was a fluke" Its a game and when you're on a competitive level, you do your best to win.

By the way, those were some of the most entertaining matches I've seen. Grats on your great placement at the tourney.