It's more like
"Hey, remember when everyone played a different character and they were associated with their character? Good times. What happened to that?"
The same people that were associated with their characters are still associated with their characters. If you were Tier whoring back then you were using Snake, now you are using MK.
Doesn't seem like too much has changed to me.
"Every character in the game has bad matchups. MK doesn't, making him the p,erfect secondary to use for your bad matchups! It also seems to be that MK isn't just going even, he's doing BETTER against almost all the cast! The only reason you'd play a character other than MK is for an extremely one-sided matchup (like picking Olimar against Ike or D3 against Samus).... or for preference alone."
Even if he did have bad matchups he'd still be the best choice as your secondary as he is the best character in the game. Marth and MKs matchups are nearly identical save against each other, Marth v DDD and v Snake. If MKs matchups are that bad against the cast then so is Marth.
If you are playing to win the only reason you'd play a character other than the top tier is preference. I agree, what's the problem with this?
The response originally to this was
"Okay, so he's top tier. No big deal, we had that in Melee."
The new response from the ban-MK side is
"HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
but the anti-ban side can't hear us over all the tornados.
If you guys are happy and we're happy, why are we arguing over a ban?
(:
Seriously though, I'm still waiting for someone on the Pro-ban to show me this 'truth' Xyro speaks of. I even tried watching your videos since I assume thats the only reason why you main MK , but they really hurt the pro-ban more than anything.
But how do you know that by limiting people's options in one aspect, more options won't become available elsewhere?
Because the same options will still be available.
MK doesn't make any character unviable that isn't already through other characters.
I thought atleast Marth v MK at high level was unwinnable, but I've been proven wrong.
Limiting options to get more options doesn't even make any sense taking this into aspect.
It's like say if you have an a-d multiple choice question and you take away a will more letter appear.
So, then why don't we prevent whatever action human nature does to limit diversity? Like choosing Metaknight?
Why should we be dictators of the select screen?
Why don't we do that to ICS? and Olimar? and G&W? and DDD?
The effect they have on characters viability is worse than MKs in plenty of cases and would be a better idea if we're going for diversity (not all but maybe one or two)
A lot of times it seems like anti-ban is saying "Too amny people play MK, and I don't like fighting him even if he is beatable and not my characters worst matchup so we should ban him."
Yeah, thats pretty true. But why are we being so masochistic about it? I mean, if we do ban him, what do we lose? Our "honor" for being "scrubs" by banning anything that simply doesn't please the majority of the community? I never quite understood what would go wrong if we DID ban him.
What would we lose from banning Olimar /DDD/ICs ?
Nothing would go wrong, the same goes for other characters. People would be pissed, but get over it. But what do we gain from banning him or any other character that the metagame is dependent upon?
And as far as I understand, the majority of the community is in favor of the MK ban. It's only the percentage of pro-ban that are presenting debatable reasons that is small (over centralization, breaks the counter pick system, ect.).